PDA

View Full Version : What's up with ECRs?



tlyttle43
10-29-2007, 11:31 AM
Looking over the 2008 SEDIV schedule, I noticed that the number of ECRs is down substantially from this year - only six races on four weekends, compared to 10 in 9 this year. I also noticed that Atlanta Region has dropped its ECRs, and instead has plain old "enduros" at every event (7 [!] total). Same with CFla, which has no ECRs, but two "CFla enduros". And there are still 4 FES races as well. (And the usual CCPS races, if you want to count them as mini-enduros.)

What's going on? ECR has had a long history and this would seem like a step toward killing it off. I haven't run ECRs for 2 or 3 years, but I ran many in the past and I always thought that it was a good series for the division to support. Are the fields down substantially? I know there have been some concerns in the past about the ECR rules limiting flexibility in race scheduling, but that hasn't held anyone back before now. So, what's the thinking behind these changes?

Are the Atl and CFla enduros still going to be 1.5 hours? Is there going to be a separate series championship for these enduros - particularly Atlanta's, since they now have more races thnan ECR?

Butch (or anyone else who might know) - what's up?


Tom Lyttle

Butch Kummer
10-29-2007, 02:26 PM
I'm not sure where you're seeing the Atlanta Region is hosting seven Enduro's, but that number is not accurate. The 2008 schedule is still tentative, but we're planning on doing the same three races we've always done at Road Atlanta (Feb, July and the ARRC by GRM). We're also talking about doing one at Nashville if we can run under the lights and the extra race at Barber (Labor Day) will likely not happen. We originally planned to race on Monday and thus had extra room in the schedule, but we've since decided to keep Monday as a travel day so it (the Barber weekend) will be a "regular" Double SARRC with no "bonus" races.

The format of our Enduro races will be unchanged, but the "label" is still to be determined. Like CFR, we started looking at what we were getting from the ECR series in return for the $30 per car we were paying. When I expressed our concerns at the Mid-Year meeting in late July I believe we finally attracted the attention of the ECR Chair. In the final analysis I expect the ECR series will continue and we'll still be a part of it, but there will be some adminstrative changes that will be pretty much transparent to the competitors.

Krysd
10-30-2007, 12:53 PM
I believe you will see a new more user friendly ECR series next year, the new format will probably be a lot less expensive for the Regions and would wind up looking more like the SARRC series with a runoff race somewhere. The Series simply became too expensive for Regions to put on, CFR did the math and realized that they were paying big bucks for two or three drivers from CFR, and that was not fair to the rest of the membership, I am sure Atlanta and Florida have come to the same conclusion. The majority of the drivers competing in ECR, did it for the love of endurance racing and were not even signed up for the money so it only makes sense that a new ECR format would include something like $5.00 per car (cost to the Regions) to cover admistrative costs and to help put on a championship race (rotating between tracks???), no sign up (display the decals), best of six or seven finishes and invitations to those that qualify for the championship, with a requirement that, to be named Champion, the driver must compete at the Championship race. Just some ideas, but any of you that have other ideas, chime in, I would like to have your feedback. I would like to see endurance racing continue at the Divisional level, however we must to make it less of a financial burden for the Regions and more fun for the competitors.

Krys Dean, ECR Chief Steward (south)

GKR_17
10-30-2007, 03:25 PM
I'd like to see some administration that follows the rules (both GCR and ECR), timely results and points postings as well. It's time to clean house.

Grafton

Cobrar05
10-30-2007, 10:29 PM
Butch, we would like to be able to run our ITO Mustangs in the non-ARRC enduros. ECR is on the fence thinking we might be too fast and I don't really see that. Since I've been sharing my run group with GT1 cars on slicks, I know what too fast really is and we are maybe a couple seconds a lap faster than most of the current enduro cars.

Consider this an official lobby attempt.

Krysd
10-31-2007, 12:22 AM
Grafton, could you be a little more specific regarding the GCR and ECR rules that are not being followed? If there are rules that are not being adhered to, file a protest, sometimes that is what it takes to get someones attention.

Timely results are an absolute necessity and one that can be handled at the track (thats the way it should be), I also think that the series needs to simplify the pit stop timing, make the pit stop 5:30 and forget about the transit time, we can better moniter pit lane speeds with a radar gun anyway and it would make the timing and posting chores much easier. All that has to be done is find the pit lap and make certain it is slower than your fastest lap plus 5:30, it could be done on a spread sheet.

Points should be up within 48 hours, there is no excuse for not having points kept up to date.

Cobra, I think you are going to lose this one, the concensus is that the ITO cars are to heavy and to fast, hence the reason for running with the big bore cars. Don't give up, but it doesn't look good for now.

Krys

Cobrar05
10-31-2007, 09:52 AM
The ARRC has pulled DOT cars out of the Stock Car/GT1 car package for a reason. They also allow us to race in the enduro.

Look at the lap times from recent RA events. I was there in July. The fast ITO car qualified at 1:41.6. The fast ITS group car qualified at 1:42.8. ITO cars would be front of the pack cars(top 10), but is that what you meant by too fast?

seckerich
10-31-2007, 10:17 AM
The biggest problem you will face is the top speed difference. The closing rate of a viper on a ITC car is not safe regardless of lap times. There was big resistance to allowing ITR for the same reason. The ARRC last year with TCC in with ITS was enough to make me say "never again". Not worth the risk to the car or driver. Get the numbers up where you can have big bore and small bore enduros and you might have a chance. Many things will have to change this year for the ECR or similar to continue. Too good a concept to die, just needs fixing--real bad.

Butch Kummer
10-31-2007, 11:44 AM
When comparing lap times you cannot go by a single event because you don't know who was there to represent each class. The "ultimate" ITO car is probably a Viper or a TCC car, and those cars are capable of 2:04's at VIR and 1:32's (or better) at Road Atlanta. And as Steve says, comparing the fastest ITO cars to the fastest ITS cars is not the issue - it's the comparison of fastest to slowest that you need to consider. Adding ITO to the ECR would signifcantly widen that gap. It's not that much of a problem at Road Atlanta because we have multiple overtaking opportunities per lap (and yes, we still get complaints). Put the same mix on the track at Roebling and you'd have a mess!

When ECR first got started AS (American Sedan) was one of the classes allowed to run but was dropped due to lack of participation. Concentrate on building the ITO numbers in the sprint races before starting a movement to add ITO to all the Enduros.

Oh - and we pulled the ITO (& TCC) cars out of the Big Bore group at the ARRC by GRM because we have the flexibility to do that since it's a Restricted Regional. At regular regionals you'll likely be back in with the Ground-Pounders.

GKR_17
10-31-2007, 03:26 PM
Grafton, could you be a little more specific regarding the GCR and ECR rules that are not being followed? If there are rules that are not being adhered to, file a protest, sometimes that is what it takes to get someones attention.

Timely results are an absolute necessity and one that can be handled at the track (thats the way it should be), I also think that the series needs to simplify the pit stop timing, make the pit stop 5:30 and forget about the transit time, we can better moniter pit lane speeds with a radar gun anyway and it would make the timing and posting chores much easier. All that has to be done is find the pit lap and make certain it is slower than your fastest lap plus 5:30, it could be done on a spread sheet.

Points should be up within 48 hours, there is no excuse for not having points kept up to date.

Cobra, I think you are going to lose this one, the concensus is that the ITO cars are to heavy and to fast, hence the reason for running with the big bore cars. Don't give up, but it doesn't look good for now.
[/b]


Krys,

I think you should be very familiar with the most recent rule debacle. As you're aware, the administrator attempted to change the pit timing requirement after the June Homestead events. That decision was protested, and you upheld the protest. Once the corrected results were posted over two months later it was clear that your ruling was not followed. After admitting fault, the administrator then went to the committee who retroactively rewrote the rule, even though that is strictly prohibited in GCR 3.5.5. It seems they think ECR 3.1 allows them to do anything they want. If you want another example, look at the Sebring event from late last season. Instead of owning up to a mistake (which was also protested), the committee again writes a new rule (ECR 7.7) to justify their own incompetence.

Posting of results improved this season, but that's not saying much. Again, look at Homestead; it took a call to a BoD member to get provisional results posted over two weeks after the event. There was a protest involved so, understandably, more time was required to get the final results out. But over two months after the ruling? That is ridiculous. The newest (as of 10/25) final results for those events are still not posted today.

Then there are the points, no official points were posted for this entire season until early last week. And they still haven't been updated to reflect the dubious ruling from last Thursday.

As for your pit timing suggestion, how is that any better than the current rule (prior to the 10/25 retroactive rewrite)? The only difference is you use 30 seconds for all tracks instead of an arbitrary (but published) number based on the length of pit lane. The rest of the procedure is unchanged.

Historically, the ECR series has required a pit stop of 5 minutes. This rule was changed a few years ago once we starting using transponders and could enforce it with lap times (this was a huge improvement). The pit traverse time at Homestead was not flawed; the 15 second traverse time is roughly half of the actual pit lane traverse time of 29 seconds, since the scoring line is midway down pit lane. The flaw in the current method is it accounts for you taking pit lane twice in the same lap, once at the speed limit (the traverse time) and once at race speed (included in the best lap time). At most tracks, the pit lane section is taken very quickly on the actual racing surface, but this is less true at Homestead due to the slow turn entering that straight. Usually, the pit-in or pit-out lap is sufficiently slower to negate this error, however it is theoretically possible to fall short of the required timing even after stopping for 5 minutes and obeying the pit speed limit. There is no easy fix for this without adding an additional timing line. I would suggest that the already arbitrary traverse requirement be reduced to account for this error, and then back up the speed limit with radar guns if needed (and include that in the rules).

That said, I really don't care what the rule is, just enforce it strictly and evenly. Letting some off after the fact because the rule didn't seem right isn't fair to those that followed the rule in the first place.

Grafton

Cobrar05
10-31-2007, 07:11 PM
The biggest problem you will face is the top speed difference. The closing rate of a viper on a ITC car is not safe regardless of lap times. There was big resistance to allowing ITR for the same reason. The ARRC last year with TCC in with ITS was enough to make me say "never again". Not worth the risk to the car or driver. [/b]

I understand this. I feel this. At VIR last weekend I was running 2:20's in my second race at that track and was sharing the course with GT1 cars running upwards of 1:50. It was enough to make me say "never again". In my situation, though, never again would mean leaving the SCCA if I wanted to race my Mustang.

JeffYoung
10-31-2007, 07:20 PM
Cobra, I saw your last post and it made me think a bit.

Being 20-30 seconds a lap off the pace is sometimes the order of the day in a run group, especially with a newer driver like yourself. When I first started out, I was running 2:35 in an S car and the leaders were at 2:15. It scared me when they went by. But I realized as I got faster that the issue was ME, not the grouping.

Just looking at the rough specs on your car, I would think it is 2:10 capable if not better. You'll get there, it takes time and work and it stinks at first as the fast guys go by, well, fastly.

But I would generally say that an AS or ITO/E or GT car is probably not a good fit with the ECR series where, at VIR, the times for run group cars range from about 2:15 to 2:40. You put a car capable of low 2:00s in there and you are looking at an over 30 second a lap differential, and as Steve E. indicates differences in straightaway speed on the order of magnitude of 50 mph. That's just not safe.

iambhooper
10-31-2007, 10:56 PM
After having a sick ITC car during Saturday's ECR at VIR, I can attest to the danger presented by the speed difference between the front running cars and my car that had carb issues and was 30 seconds a lap slower. I have been in large run groups, been in test days with GT3 Porsche's, but this was dangerous to both myself and the other competitors on the track.

As long as I drive in ITC I don't really need to see any cars faster than an ITS or SRF.

hoop

Cobrar05
10-31-2007, 11:28 PM
Cobra, I saw your last post and it made me think a bit.

Being 20-30 seconds a lap off the pace is sometimes the order of the day in a run group, especially with a newer driver like yourself. When I first started out, I was running 2:35 in an S car and the leaders were at 2:15. It scared me when they went by. But I realized as I got faster that the issue was ME, not the grouping.

Just looking at the rough specs on your car, I would think it is 2:10 capable if not better. You'll get there, it takes time and work and it stinks at first as the fast guys go by, well, fastly.

But I would generally say that an AS or ITO/E or GT car is probably not a good fit with the ECR series where, at VIR, the times for run group cars range from about 2:15 to 2:40. You put a car capable of low 2:00s in there and you are looking at an over 30 second a lap differential, and as Steve E. indicates differences in straightaway speed on the order of magnitude of 50 mph. That's just not safe.
[/b]

Jeff, I appreciate your comments and your thoughts. I think you are giving too much credit to my "R" though. Good T1 Corvettes are running 2:09/2:10. The good AS cars are 2:14/2:16 cars. I ran 20's in my first go round at VIR in May on very used tires and a T1 interior in the car. I expected to see 17's or 18's this weekend with some more experience, the interior out, new BFG's and a new shock package. But only 6 laps on Saturday sort of killed all of that. I had only just started to figure out the new setup and get back to 20 when the checker flew on my race shortened by 30%. I got 13 laps all weekend.

I think maybe if Alex Caffe were still driving my car, it might could do a 10. We will see, but I think mid teens is about the best this car can be expected to do. Its not as fast as a T1 Corvette.

I have a grand am cup driver co-driving with me at the ARRC and so, we will see what a real driver can do with the car.

jjjanos
11-01-2007, 10:23 AM
The biggest problem you will face is the top speed difference. The closing rate of a viper on a ITC car is not safe regardless of lap times.[/b]

Red herring. They put both out for closed-wheel warm ups. There also seems to be no problem at the longer enduros with having extremely fast cars out there with ITC.

2006 13 Hour: ITE cars Pontiac Firebird, Porsche 944, BMW Z3 versus ITC CRX

Speed differentials on fastest lap:
Firebird +18MPH or 33.5 SpL
944 +19MPH or 34.3 SpL
Z3 +17MPH or 31 SpL

That's getting lapped every 4th lap on a 3.27 mile circuit.




After having a sick ITC car during Saturday's ECR at VIR, I can attest to the danger presented by the speed difference between the front running cars and my car that had carb issues and was 30 seconds a lap slower. I have been in large run groups, been in test days with GT3 Porsche's, but this was dangerous to both myself and the other competitors on the track.[/b]

Coward. :) Do it for 12 or 13 Hours. After my stint, I don't know how to drive the track looking out the windshield. My turn in points are based on what I see in my mirrors. :o

seckerich
11-01-2007, 11:18 AM
Red herring. They put both out for closed-wheel warm ups. There also seems to be no problem at the longer enduros with having extremely fast cars out there with ITC.
.
2006 13 Hour: ITE cars Pontiac Firebird, Porsche 944, BMW Z3 versus ITC CRX

Speed differentials on fastest lap:
Firebird +18MPH or 33.5 SpL
944 +19MPH or 34.3 SpL
Z3 +17MPH or 31 SpL

That's getting lapped every 4th lap on a 3.27 mile circuit.
Coward. :) Do it for 12 or 13 Hours. After my stint, I don't know how to drive the track looking out the windshield. My turn in points are based on what I see in my mirrors. :o
[/b]
Put a 165+ Viper out with ITC and it is just plain asking for trouble. 13 hour is not SCCA regional weekend.



I understand this. I feel this. At VIR last weekend I was running 2:20's in my second race at that track and was sharing the course with GT1 cars running upwards of 1:50. It was enough to make me say "never again". In my situation, though, never again would mean leaving the SCCA if I wanted to race my Mustang.
[/b]
I have an ITO Twin Turbo RX7 so I understand what you mean. I knew that when I got the car. We all make decisions on cars. If you buy a car and then look where to race it sometimes happens. Some weekends and tracks are more even than others. Just because you are not up to speed does not mean other ITO cars are not much faster. Look at the GRM challenge times and realize the Archer car would fit ITO. Good luck with the enduro wish--just don't get upset when it is shot down as unrealistic.

jjjanos
11-01-2007, 11:33 AM
Put a 165+ Viper out with ITC and it is just plain asking for trouble. 13 hour is not SCCA regional weekend.[/b]

We're talking about enduros, not an SCCA regional sprint. Now, if what you've got is a sprint with nothing more than an enduro facade, then I might agree, but frankly, it shouldn't be a problem - it's called situational awareness. Such groupings are done to open-wheel on a regular basis - Continentals with Vees - and the consequences of contact are far worse there than in fendered cars.

Would I like it? Nope. Could I live with it? Yep.

JeffYoung
11-01-2007, 11:58 AM
Continentals v. Vees...now that is a red herring....why? Car counts. Those cars rarely encounter each other.

Jjanos, an ECR is BUSY. Last weekend, in the ECR, I was within 10-20 yards of cars front and back at all times. The closing speeds on the straights in my S car were high enough with the slower B and C cars to make corner entry hairy. Add another 20 mph (what an AS or ITO car could do on the straights) and you are asking for a mess.

seckerich
11-01-2007, 03:07 PM
We're talking about enduros, not an SCCA regional sprint. Now, if what you've got is a sprint with nothing more than an enduro facade, then I might agree, but frankly, it shouldn't be a problem - it's called situational awareness. Such groupings are done to open-wheel on a regular basis - Continentals with Vees - and the consequences of contact are far worse there than in fendered cars.

Would I like it? Nope. Could I live with it? Yep.
[/b]
Most of the enduros are running sprint times the whole race. As a driver I could live with the speed differential. As a race chair I will not under any condition. I would love to be able to run my ITO RX7 but realize it would not be safe. Might fly at a track like Kershaw, but never at VIR or Roebling.

Cobrar05
11-01-2007, 03:43 PM
Put a 165+ Viper out with ITC and it is just plain asking for trouble. 13 hour is not SCCA regional weekend.
I have an ITO Twin Turbo RX7 so I understand what you mean. I knew that when I got the car. We all make decisions on cars. If you buy a car and then look where to race it sometimes happens. Some weekends and tracks are more even than others. Just because you are not up to speed does not mean other ITO cars are not much faster. Look at the GRM challenge times and realize the Archer car would fit ITO. Good luck with the enduro wish--just don't get upset when it is shot down as unrealistic.
[/b]

I see all this Viper stuff, but I see no one offering up Vipers and Corvettes for enduros and 13 hour races.
With BP a national SCCA class, maybe the Vipers and Corvettes and World Challenge cars should be classed their anyway.

I just wanted to point out that I don't see an invasion of Vipers coming to a race track near you. I saw Zero at VIR last weekend, Zero at my last NASA race at Roebling, Zero at NASA at Barber, 1 bp Viper at my last SCCA Road Atlanta race.

Street stock Mustangs I see. Vipers I dont.

I will add a photo for visual.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/txpd/boss%20rebuild/race%20track%20photos/barber5.jpg

RX3
11-01-2007, 04:58 PM
I see all this Viper stuff, but I see no one offering up Vipers and Corvettes for enduros and 13 hour races.
With BP a national SCCA class, maybe the Vipers and Corvettes and World Challenge cars should be classed their anyway.

I just wanted to point out that I don't see an invasion of Vipers coming to a race track near you. I saw Zero at VIR last weekend, Zero at my last NASA race at Roebling, Zero at NASA at Barber, 1 bp Viper at my last SCCA Road Atlanta race.

Street stock Mustangs I see. Vipers I dont.

I will add a photo for visual.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/txpd/boss%20rebuild/race%20track%20photos/barber5.jpg
[/b]


Just becouse you have not seen one does not mean that they are not out there.
There is a Daytona prototype Riley down in the south that run club races. And he makes the cut to be a ITO car ,and he wants us to let him run enduros. That should make a ITC take a another look.

jjjanos
11-01-2007, 05:25 PM
Most of the enduros are running sprint times the whole race. As a driver I could live with the speed differential. As a race chair I will not under any condition. I would love to be able to run my ITO RX7 but realize it would not be safe. Might fly at a track like Kershaw, but never at VIR or Roebling.
[/b]

Which, for the most part, is true for even the long enduros. For the past several years, the Point has been mostly hares and few tortoises.

I find it curious that what you find acceptable as a driver, you do not find acceptable as a race chair.

VIR? Plenty of opportunities for an uber car to get past an unter car - Turn 1 to Nascar, Turn 6 to the uphill esses, South bend to Oak Tree, Oak Tree to Roller Coaster, The righthander after Roller Coaster into Hog Pen, Hog Pen to Turn 1... and that's without the untercar being nice and getting off line to allow the ubercar past. I know from firsthand knowledge.

Closing speed isn't an issue on straights. It is a potential issue when present in corners and I'm not certain that the differential between a hotsnot ITS and ITC CRX is all that different than an ITO Mustang and the CRX is all that different in corners.

The bottom line is that ECR doesn't need these ubercars to earn its keep and so there is no reason to add them, even if there were a dozen of them clammering to get in.


RX3There is a Daytona prototype Riley down in the south that run club races. And he makes the cut to be a ITO car[/b]

Tube-frame car, correct? Ran in the GrandAm Rolex Series, correct?

From the SEDIV ITO rules:

"Tube frame race cars are not eligible for ITO"

Competition vehicles from the following Touring type series are allowed to
compete in ITO:
SCCA World Challenge GT
American V-8 Supercar Series
BMWCCA H thru I Stock/Prepared
Corvette Challenge
Ferrari Challenge
GrandAm GS
IMSA Firehawk GrandSport
NASA American Iron
NASA Camaro/Mustang Challenge
PCA A thru F Stock
Touring Corvette Challenge (TCC)
Viper Racing League

Mr. Riley DP fails to qualify for the class on two counts.

RX3
11-01-2007, 05:35 PM
the cars have a monocock frame.

jjjanos
11-01-2007, 06:04 PM
the cars have a monocock frame.
[/b]

From 2003 re: Crawford
"The Crawford DP03 is built with push-rod suspension, an Xtrac gearbox and an aluminum honeycomb chassis surrounding the mandated Daytona Prototype tube frame center section."

Today re: Riley
"Engine bay chassis tubes ceramic coated to reduce heat transfer to cockpit"

Date unknown re:Pontiac-Riley Mk XI Daytona Prototype R&T.com
"Even though the tube-frame Daytona Prototype"

Date: August 2007 re:Rohr DP
"The chassis construction is a steel tube frame combined with aluminum semi-monocoque.."

I believe the cars are tube framed with a skin put on the tubes to approximate a monocoque.

Butch Kummer
11-01-2007, 06:33 PM
In addition, neither Daytona Sports Prototypes nor the Rolex Endurance Series is among those "Touring type series" listed as being eligible for ITO. I can certainly believe Mr. Tuttle wants to run enduros to obtain additional seat time, but I can NOT believe CFR (which refuses to allow Craftsman Series trucks to run in SPO) is seriously considering such a request.

And I again repeat Rob (Cobrar05, not Langlotz), don't base your relative speed argument only on events you've been to. But even if you choose to do so, at VIR there was a decent National T-1 Corvette disguised as a BP car (Russ Snow) running 2:03's. The TCC rules are more liberal than T-1, so the best of those guys will be nearing the magic 2:00 mark. That brings the 2:04 turned by the ITO winner pretty much into line.

What jjjanos said is the best statement so far - "The bottom line is that ECR doesn't need these ubercars to earn its keep and so there is no reason to add them, even if there were a dozen of them clammering to get in." And right now, there aren't a dozen ITO cars even running the sprints. Build that number first.

Cobrar05
11-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Butch, I saw Russ and his vette. Its Bob Maher's 38 car that he bought. Its not the T1 car. Unless you mean Maher's car is a T1.
The blue car below.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b40/txpd/boss%20rebuild/race%20track%20photos/47b7d635b3127cce985486ed373e0000002.jpg

Butch Kummer
11-02-2007, 09:11 AM
Rob,

I was not aware Russ had bought Bob's car (I DID know that Bob had a new one, however), so I stand corrected. It was T-1 National Champion AJ Aquilante that ran a 2:04 in August in a borrowed T-1 car, but then that puts ME in the spot of using one event to make my case. :blink:

I agree that the #38 car is not a T-1 car, but as a former World Challenge GT car it IS eligible to run ITO as well as BP. A decent T-1 car runs 2:08's at VIR, so a more modified TCC car should be faster - maybe not the 2:00 mark, but certainly 2:03-2:04.

How 'bout we continue this discussion off-line at the track next week?

Cobrar05
11-02-2007, 11:34 AM
Roger Doger

RX3
11-02-2007, 04:27 PM
If they can go that fast then why are they are not required the safety equipment of cars with like speed and horse power. An I.T. cage is not sufficient for a car with this much horse power and weight. In my opinion,

Butch Kummer
11-02-2007, 04:53 PM
From the SEDIV ITO Rules (emphasis is mine):

= = = = = =

1. All cars shall meet or exceed current safety standards in the ITCS (9.1.3.D 10).
2. Fuel cells, weld in roll cages, fire systems, and NASCAR style door bars are recommended.
3. All cars shall run on D.O.T. approved tires unless otherwise using a spec tire for their particular Touring type series.
4. Unless listed below, tube frame race cars are not eligible for ITO/ITU.
5. Competition vehicles from the following Touring type series are allowed to compete in ITO:

American V-8 Supercar Series
BMWCCA H thru I Stock/Prepared
Corvette Challenge
Ferrari Challenge
GrandAm GS
IMSA Firehawk GrandSport
NASA American Iron
NASA Camaro/Mustang Challenge
NASA Factory Five Challenge
NASA 911 Cup
NASA 944 Spec Super Cup
PBOC Stock/Improved G thru L
PCA A thru F Stock
Touring Corvette Challenge (TCC)
Viper Racing League (except GT-C and GT-MC)

6. Additional cars from Touring type series will be considered for future inclusion by application to the SEDIV Class Review Board.
7. Cars entering from the above series must have in their possession a copy of the rules from that series and must comply entirely with those rules.
8. No “cherry picking” of preparation rules from multiple series is permitted.
9. All cars shall display ITO as their class designation.
10. Factory manufactured all-wheel-drive cars are eligible.

FUEL TESTING:
ITO shall meet fuel specifications in GCR 9.3.25 for either GT or IT cars.

= = = = = =

ITO gives us a place to allow cars from other Touring series and groups (i.e. - NASA) to run SCCA events without having to modify their cars to the SCCA prep rules (fuel-injected Pony cars being the prime example). A LOT of regions do the same thing and call it ITE. I think CFR called it ITGT.

Bottom line, if you don't want to run ITO in CFR, then put it in your Supps to exclude them.

RX3
11-02-2007, 05:27 PM
Butch
You can not leave them out if you want to run a SARRC race.

Butch Kummer
11-02-2007, 06:03 PM
Sure you can. You do it now with selected SPO cars (the Craftsman Trucks) and that's a SARRC class.

4.7.1 allows you to refuse any entry without giving a reason and that's not appealable. So I wonder if you DO give a reason (you think ITO cars are unsafe), does that fall outside 4.7.1?

You also choose to override the SEDIV (SARRC) rule for tires in SM by putting that in the Supps because you think that's best for your region. Why would this be any different?

Cobrar05
11-02-2007, 07:22 PM
Bottom line, if you don't want to run ITO in CFR, then put it in your Supps to exclude them.
[/b]

and so they have...wanted to run the turkey trot, no ITO.

RX3
11-02-2007, 09:34 PM
Butch
I thought that we may be able to work through some of these things with a phone call but I see that you do not want to talk. And you do not wish to resolve any of the issues that the two regions have.

Krysd
11-03-2007, 12:47 PM
Grafton,.

Sorry for my tardy reply, duty called. I thought you were referencing something I had done during one or more of the races when you were talking about the ECR and GCR rules, I try hard to abide by them, it creates too many problems when you go "off the reservation", but I understand what you are referencing now.

Your points are absolutely valid, the results have to be available at the track, even the next day is unacceptable.

Timing and scoring in the Florida Region is a chronic problem, one that the Region must find an answer to, there was one SARRC race run last fall (2007 race held in 2006) that didn't have results untill June of this year, and those are sprint races, there is NO excuse for that.

I absolutely agree, Points should be posted promptly so teams have the ability to plan ahead. Information is the lifeblood of any series, ECR is no different and points are a major part of the equation.

I don't think I should comment on the Homestead/pit lane situation, I believe it is in the C.O.A. at the present time, I will have to wait to see what happens just like anyone else, I am just a spectater now.

I believe we should do away with pit transit times altogether, advise teams what the average pit lane transit time normally is based on the length of pit lane at the different tracks, but make the total pit stop time 5:30 and maintain pit lane speed with radar guns. It should be the responsibility of the teams to make certain that they stop a sufficient length of time to make it a legal pit stop.

These are all things that can be worked out and the input from drivers such as yourself can help a lot, make suggestions and requests, include anything that you feel will improve the series.

Of even more importance is what we can do to make the ECR series more user frinedly for the Regions, that it is too expensive for the Regions goes without saying, and if we can't get the Regions behind the ECR Series, it is going to die on the vine.

Once again I would like to see the ECR series more closely modeled after the SARRC Series, although SARRC isn't perfect, it is one of the most successful series in club racing.

On another subject, I have to agree with Robin, ITO cars are just going to be too fast/heavy for the ECR Series, and we have to draw the line somewhere, anywhere we draw it , someone is going to be left out and unhappy.

Krys

GKR_17
11-07-2007, 03:36 PM
Krys,

Thanks for your response. You're ruling on the protest quite refreshing given the disrespect for the rules shown by the other parties involved. I don't include you in that group. My accusation of poor conduct is aimed squarely at the Series Administrator (Carol Cone) and the ECR committee (Jim Creighton, Robin Langlotz, and Buddy Matthews).

That said, I realize these folks are volunteers, likely overworked and underappreciated. I will be happy to help if I'm allowed (and I know of two others who may as well).

Grafton

Krysd
11-07-2007, 06:09 PM
Grafton

I don't think anyone did anything wrong, especially the committee, heck we have all spent a lot of time on this thing and I am not certain that the outcome will satisfy everyone when it is finalized.

I haven't seen the results after my ruling, but I am afraid that it is going to have a negative impact on some drivers that weren't penalized before and, I guess now, that I won't find out untill the COA renders it's decision, regardless, If we are going to continue an ECR series, we need to let the committee know how we would like to see it structured. Any new structure has to be user friendly for the Regions, if it costs the Regions $ and there is little or no benefit to the drivers in the Region, then it simply isn't going to fly. Talk to the other drivers, get some feedback flowing and lets help the committee put together a series that will not just survive, but flourish.


Krys

GKR_17
11-07-2007, 08:12 PM
Grafton

I don't think anyone did anything wrong, especially the committee...[/b]

So changing the rules nearly 20 weeks after the event isn't wrong?

I strongly disagree.

seckerich
11-08-2007, 12:04 AM
Grafton

I don't think anyone did anything wrong, especially the committee, heck we have all spent a lot of time on this thing and I am not certain that the outcome will satisfy everyone when it is finalized.

I haven't seen the results after my ruling, but I am afraid that it is going to have a negative impact on some drivers that weren't penalized before and, I guess now, that I won't find out untill the COA renders it's decision, regardless, If we are going to continue an ECR series, we need to let the committee know how we would like to see it structured. Any new structure has to be user friendly for the Regions, if it costs the Regions $ and there is little or no benefit to the drivers in the Region, then it simply isn't going to fly. Talk to the other drivers, get some feedback flowing and lets help the committee put together a series that will not just survive, but flourish.
Krys
[/b]
The future of ECR is one issue. You run a series for money and you have a higher standard to meet. You do not change the rules after the fact when it changes prize money. This is the very reason many RE's are looking at dropping the current series for 08 and starting over. This is a big black eye for all involved.

Krysd
11-08-2007, 11:30 AM
Steve, The Committee believed it had the right to make those changes, it remains to be seen whether the COA will agree, and I am not going to comment on that while it is still in the COA.

"This is the very reason many RE's are looking at dropping the current series for 08 and starting over. This is a big black eye for all involved."

There were a total of 22 drivers registered in 7 of the 9 ECR classes who were running for money in 2007, just over 3 per class and yet the cost to the Regions was still $30.00 per ECR car and $25.00 per non ECR car. We normally had between 30 ond 40 cars (CFR would have slightly larger numbers), but an average would probably be 35 cars, assume 25 were ECR Class cars then the cost to the Region to put on the ECR Enduro was $1,000.00 right off the top, that is $10,000 generated by the SEDIV Racing Regions for 22 drivers, THAT is the reason many Region officials are reconsidering the ECR series. I believe it was Robin Langlotz who commented on this forum earlier this year that CFR had 2 drivers participating as REGISTERED drivers is the ECR and was wondering why CFR should spend the time and money it takes to run an ECR if CFR Regional drivers weren't participating, I have to agree, and if we don't change it there won't be a Divisional Enduro Championship or an ECR.

Sorry to disagree, but talk to Robin Langlotz or Mike Finn or maybe Butch Kummer, I think they will agree that the Series has to be Region friendly and cost effective, and it also needs to include a new, easily understood rules package that is enforceable and ENFORCED.

Krys

seckerich
11-08-2007, 04:47 PM
I agree with your statement that big changes are needed. I will also be looking at the financials at the Jeckyl meeting to see where all that money is. Is this all being paid out or is there a slush fund that it ends up in when drivers do not register for the series. Many questions--few answers. This message board is not the place to answer all my questions but it will be looked into. Many of us brought it up at the midyear meeting as to why we should continue with ECR as it stands today. Expect it to be on the table at Jeckyl. Thanks Krys.

Krysd
11-08-2007, 07:31 PM
No, thank you Steve, I would like to see the series go on, I have enjoyed being the Series Chief Steward for the Southern half of SEDIV, it is fun hanging with you guys, maybe someday I can even join you on track, but I would probably screw up and wind up talking to the SOM :lol:.

The entire fund is paid out each year except for $5.00 per car, which goes in to the ECR administrative fund, that covers all the expenses that are incurred to run the Series and includes some money to cover my on the road expenses when I remember to send them in.

See you at Jekyl

Krys

GKR_17
11-13-2007, 03:45 PM
The last two events this season were at VIR just over two weeks ago. Provisional results were posted at the track as required, but there are no official results yet (big surprise!), even though they should have been mailed over a week ago per GCR 3.7.2. I'll cut them a little slack since the ECR rules allow an additional 10 days for protests of the audited results, but that shouldn't mean there are no deadlines.

HONDA69
11-14-2007, 08:59 PM
Hey Gang, Time I added my $.02 comments on the ECR SERIES. As the 2004, 2005 & 2006 ITC WINNER for the ECR Series, I agree that we have [b]BIG PROBLEMS with the ECR Series at this time. In order i think the problems are:

1. SERIES ENTRANTS ARE DOWN - we used to pay our ECR ENTRANT FEES at the first ECR we participated in at the track - No Mailing Forms to the Administrator with a check etc, etc.
SUGGESTED FIX: Have the Series Chief Stewards collect forms at the track & mail checks & Forms to the administrator after each race weekend.
2. WORKING TRANSPONDERS ARE A MUST AT EACH EVENT!!!
SUGGESTED FIX: If a competitor's transponder is broken - have Loaner self charged uints available on PIT ROAD so when a car w/a broken transponder comes in, a temp can be zip tied to the car. Driver is then charged a rental fee for the rental unit.(NOTE: each region has a transponder tester if in doubt visit tech and have your transponder checked before the race starts)
3. PROVISIONAL RESULTS MUST Be e-mailed/FAXED to the ECR Series administrator no later than TUESDAY Following the race. regions failing to do so will be penalized and not be given any further sanction #'s by SCCA Inc until matter is resolved. BOTH AREA DIRECTORS Will act as arbritrators in any disputes concerning this matter!!
4. Not a single active ECR Driver is currently on the ECR Committee - Suggest one from the Southern end of the Division and one from the Northern half of the division.
5. As for ITO - Raced against the Mustang this last weekend at the ARRC Enduro-wheee- told my car that's how we're going to go after I figure out how to smuggle the TURBO past post race teardown :D Jokes aside, Mustang raced a clean race from my perspective, caught me on the back straight everytime & was watching for points from other drivers. YEAH us "slower Guys" do know how to use our mirrors and will point you by at the first opportunity! HEY If we're not in the middle of a hot duel of our own, we'll probably give you the preferred line thru a corner, provided we don't put ourselves in jeopardy - just remember to wave and smile as you go by!!

Cobrar05
11-15-2007, 12:15 PM
Thanks for the compliments on the way we raced with everyone in our Cobra R. I saw a lot of hands waving and pointing in the rear glass. I got lots of room. I ran the middle stint in the car and we had almost no brakes most of those laps. So, I was fighting the car and appreciated not being crowded in the corners.

Its important to note that in most SCCA competition I race in the stock car, GT1, GTA race group where I am the pylon. So, I appreciate what its like driving looking in the mirror and waving the fast guys by. You should have seen Tony Ave pass me at VIR a couple weeks ago. I ran a 2:20 and he a 1:50 that lap.

Had some interesting laps with David Kim's 27 car Z.

I read this post and the worries about the drop in entries. Keep that issue in mind when you decide not to let us race next season. I realize there are reasons why NOT to let us run. I also saw two 2900lb RX8's running laps in the 1:39/1:40 range with us.

Shave ITO how you like. There are a lot of NASA American Iron and Camaro Mustang Challenge cars from VIR to Roebling Road. Make these cars legal and not the Viper and Corvettes.

You want more entries and we want to race. Its a shame that we can't find a way to make it work out.

jcreig53
12-20-2007, 02:22 AM
OK, this is my first post on the IT forum.

I, along with Robin Langlotz and Buddy Matthews, wrote the ECR rules and have made up the ECR Committee since the Division adopted the series. We have watched the series closely and changed the rules as needed when needed.

Well, Robin and I have spoke several nights ago and we think ECR needs a big fix or it is going to die. This year the payout is only about 1/2 what it was in 2006 and the number of registered entrants is painfully low. As a matter of fact, no driver in ITA bothered to join the series and the more than $1000 that went into ITA is not being paid out to anyone.

I am going to share with you what Robin and I feel should happen to ECR. I haven't heard from Buddy yet and I will share with you what his response is when I receive it. Robin and I feel that ECR needs to become structured like the SARRC series. No longer will drivers be required to sign up to accumulate points, just enter the race. Points will be structured like SARRC and a driver will be able to count his best six finishes. Entries in races will have to declare the driver receiving the points when there are multi drivers. We plan to ask the race regions to make all their enduros that are more than 1 hour ECR's for SEDIv points. Example, FES & CCP races of more than 1 hour would be counted for Divison ECR points.

At the same time, there will no longer be any $$ payouts, only Jackets and plaques similar to SARRC. The region would have to pay $5 per entry into the ECR trophy fund per entry.

We agreed that ECR should remain for the classes as they are now but the regions can include additional classes in their race if they wish as long as they do not displace the ECR classes. We also discussed some simplification for the pit stop procedure but that needs to further discussed internally to see if it can work.

I am sure there are some other details such as the ECR Stewards that will need to be worked out, but I wanted to get this out and hear from some of you. I'm going to be leaving town Dec 27th for the Morosso Double SARRC and then am going to attend the Sebring and Homestead National. I will watch what is posted here. You can also email me direct as you can Robin or Buddy. Our email addresses are located on the ECR website which links from www.sedivracing.org.

IT And ECR mean a lot to me since I had sat in on the original IT rules making meetings and then raced my ITS 240 Z in the first couple of years of ECR. Heck, I even won the Championship. I think it cost me $15,000 to win a $1000, but it was worth every penny.

Jim Creighton

Cobrar05
12-20-2007, 11:38 AM
Jim,

I would ask again that our ITO Mustangs be permitted to join the race. We would be at the race track regular for ECR, if there is a race for us. We have enjoyed our enduro experience so far and would like to do more. Make us welcome and you have entries here ready to race.

I understand some of the discomfort with some ITO legal cars that are far more capable than our street stock IMSA Grand Sport/American Iron legal cars. If that is the case, I recommend picking the ITO legal rules packages that make sense for ECR and disallowing the rest.

GKR_17
12-20-2007, 02:26 PM
1. I agree with the main point, eliminate the cash award. We don't race for money, it costs far more for a championship effort than is ever won back at the end of the season. Copy the SARRC awards and funding structure (I would suggest up to two jackets per class champion though).

2. fix ECR 7.9 - any race which does not run the full scheduled duration should not count for points. The current rule (implemented 2007) allows the race to be stopped at any time and still count for points. GCR 6.7.5.A specifies that the race count for championship points only after half of the scheduled time or distance has been completed. In either case it is highly likely that some, but not all, of the competitors will have completed their required pit stop(s), at which point the remaining cars must be penalized for not taking the required stop(s). This can drastically affect the finishing order (as shown at Sebring 2006) and award high points to competitors who would not have otherwise earned them. This may impact season standing since the final margins are often quite small (as actually occurred in 2006). It is better that these races not count at all.

3. Firm deadlines must be established for posting of audited provisional results, final results, and points after any event. This year's performance was beyond abysmal, need I say more? I will gladly volunteer to help with this, and will understand if any competitor wants to double check the findings.

Before I propose changes to the pit timing regulations, I need to show the flaw: In the current method, the pit lap must total a minimum of 5 minutes, plus traverse time, plus best lap. In this case, the car is assumed to have traveled the pit segment twice, once in the traverse time, and once in the best lap. At most tracks, the pit segment is taken very quickly in the best lap so this time is nearly negligible. At Homestead for example, there is a slow turn entering that straight, which makes this time more significant. It is possible to violate the current rule even after stopping for 5 minutes and obeying the pit speed limit. Here are two possible solutions:

4a. Revise pit timing requirements by reducing the current traverse times by ~40% and rename them "Pit Speed Time Adjustment" or similar (just so it's not confused with the actual traverse time). The rest of the requirements and calculations are unchanged. There is no requirement that the actual stop be 5 minutes, as with the current rule. The intent is to ensure that any car that stops for 5 minutes and obeys the speed limit will be compliant. For tracks where pit stalls are located on either side of the timing line (such as Homestead, Lowes, or Sebring), the shorter of the two segments is to be used for timing requirements. I suggest the actual pit segment lengths be verified at each event, with time requirements updated at the drivers meeting as appropriate. Pit lane speed may be monitored via radar, penalties to be imposed at discretion of Operating Steward.

4b. Eliminate the traverse time. Pit lap must equal 5 minutes (or any arbitrary time) plus best lap. This doesn't enforce the pit speed limit, but honestly the current rule doesn't either. Use radar as stated in the above option. Competitors who know what they're doing will stop less somewhat than five minutes, but no one who stops five minutes will be penalized. This version is very simple. Krys Dean has proposed this same solution (except 5:30 instead of 5:00)

Grafton Robertson

jcreig53
12-20-2007, 03:12 PM
I just moved this discussion to a new thread so it will be easier to follow.