IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?

[shwah]

So we finally brushed the frost off and got our race cars out here in Cen-Div (although snow flakes ARE falling outside right now) over the past weekend.

The Quad-Region double driver school and road race took place at Blackhawk Farms. It was supposed to be 40s and raining, but instead it was sunny and crisp for most of Sunday, which made for great racing. I had quite possibly the most exciting race of my life with Aaron Stehly (congrats on a hard fought win).

But something interesting happened before the racing started on Sunday afternoon. At the end of the driver's meeting all of the IT drivers were asked to stay behind, and the CenDiv director asked us one question. "If the SCCA were to make Improved Touring classes national classes, and include them in the Runoffs, would you participate at a national level?". About half of the drivers said they would. He went on to say that the CRB was taking a closer look at this as possible future move, but that they were wary of doing so without feedback from IT racers, as they caught some flak from SM racers when it went National. I think they are also worried about what such a move would do to regional race attendance.

I discussed the issue with a few other drivers as we walked back to our paddock spaces, and we agreed on a few things.
1. This would probably not make a huge change for those already running at the very front of any class (in a competitive division).
2. It would probably increase the overall number of IT drivers, as folks that like the class, but want to run nationals would join the fray.
3. It would probably reduce the number of regional IT drivers, as some that are here now would decide to run at the nationa level (at least for a while).
4. The casual racers in IT now would probably stay regional, and would probably move up in finishing position as a result.

I'm not sure yet what I think would be best, and I know this group isn't after the debates we have had in the past, but if it happens I would go national, because it would be a lot easier than my current plan of going Prod racing down the road.

What do you guys think?

[Knestis]

Very interesting. There's been mumblings but this seems like the first and most official (or at least most public) consideration of the question.

It's going to be a ball of worms. One suggestion: Be prepared to describe your racing goals - your reasons for participating in IT racing in the first place - as a way to help clarify motives and interests in the category.

K

[JeffYoung]

Simple for me. No national. I like my outlaw regional class. I think we have some of the best drivers, coolest cars and best competition in SCCA racing. I think "going national" would dilute some of that as the original poster mentioned with the faster guys running national events and the more casual racers staying regional.

[Ron Earp]

Ditto Jeff's comments.

Get the CRB to folks concentrated on the many IT proposals in front of them, aka RX8s, Pony Cars in ITR, and get them away from trying to break something that doesn't need fixing.

Topeka sees something that works and wants to use it to fix their ailing Prod classes, FV, and all those other under subscribed classes. Leave IT as it is - it is healthy, fun, and doesn't have the drama of the National Classes.

No thanks.

Ron

[shwah]

Well. With all due respect, if you want to keep racing in regionals, you are free to do so under either arrangement. Why then would you desire to keep those that would like to run nationals from doing so?

The only reason I can think of is being afraid of a shrinking grid.

Of course the real answer is to get rid of the Regional / National 'distinction' alltogether IMO.

[JeffYoung]

No problem, not picking a fight.

You hit on my big concern. You called it shrinking fields, I called it dilution. Same thing. Why spread the same number of IT racers across two "series" of racing?

I would be in favor of ending the national/regional distinction with the top 24 classes going to the runoffs. In that format, the "traditional" regional races would still count towards "national" points and folks would have an incentive to show up.

[Ron Earp]

I would be in favor of ending the national/regional distinction with the top 24 classes going to the runoffs.

:018:

I don't think that is gonna happen. That would eliminate many of National Classes that are darlings of the Old Guard. Put a metric on them and a bunch of the current Runoffs classes would be prevented from participating in lieu of IT classes.

[erlrich]

Put a metric on them and a bunch of the current Runoffs classes would be prevented from participating in lieu of IT classes.
You say that like it's a bad thing :D

[Knestis]

I don't think it's been clearly demonstrated that Nationals being an option for IT cars would decrease Regional grid sizes. It might well be that the attraction of the occasional Nat'l race (particularly in weaker regions like the NW) would be enough to sway someone to an SCCA IT car rather than some of the other options with other sanctioning bodies. Or the option of "moving up" might make IT more attractive for some drivers who currently commit to Production classes.

K

[JeffYoung]

Would respectfully disagree with the concept but agree with your narrow point -- it hasn't been conclusively demonstrated that going National would reduce Regional car counts.

But, I don't see "going National" increasing the pool of IT racers/cars, at least not significantly. I see the same pool being split over a larger schedule of races.

[Ron Earp]

You say that like it's a bad thing :D

No no, quite the contrary....

At the regional level I think these low level subscription groups would die off a lot sooner if run groups were decided via number of entrants. Have five cars in your group? You are last for the day and YOU have to wait around and watch the others race. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and all that jazz......

That Spec Miata class seemed like a pretty cool concept before going National. Now many don't want anything to do with it because it is National.....

[Ron]

At the Jim Stark double regional, 46 spec Miata's. I think that Nat SM has hurt down south

[shwah]

But, I don't see "going National" increasing the pool of IT racers/cars, at least not significantly. I see the same pool being split over a larger schedule of races.

I disagree here. I know a few folks that have told me flat out they would never consider an IT car because it isn't national. These are people that are just getting started in road racing, and are looking elsewhere because they percieve regional only to be 2nd class. Just because we know better, doesn't mean it looks that way to the outside world. I think we would see more new IT drivers in a national class.

[pfcs]

Watching from the hill I see IT fading into twilight of dreams dying.
Go ahead, make it national and and kill it off, it's almost gone anyway.
phil

[JeffYoung]

All conjecture at this point. Like I said, I believe there would be some increase, but not a significant one. IT car counts are already amongst the highest in SCCA. A and S are very strong as is. I don't think they need a "national" tag to attract new cars, and I don't think doing so would increase the numbers....significantly.

On the other hand, it would, in my view, hurt the traditional regional events.

[MMiskoe]

Watching from the hill I see IT fading into twilight of dreams dying.
Go ahead, make it national and and kill it off, it's almost gone anyway.
phil


Out of curiosity, why do you see it this way?

Matt

[IPRESS]

You may disagree, but there is no doubt that going national would raise the price of poker in IT. It would attract more racers but for the most part these racers will be willing to spend more for national points. Going National skyrocketed SM costs. Yeah there were a few high dollar cars before, but some of that was done with knowledge that "national" classing was coming. SM costs at the top of the grid went up and continue to go up. Even the guys running at the back are spending more. It is a fact that if IT becomes a national class, overall the cost will soar. GOOD or BAD?

I myself like the class as it is. There are some spots to gather "national recognition" if that is your goal, but it is not a big enough "plumb" to attract the Runoffs type efforts in mass. Yeah some efforts are strong, but you don't feel you have to spend the kids college tuition to go to ARRC and have a great time. The Triple Crown sounds like a cool deal, but I don't see "HeinRicey" slipping over for a shot at that title. IT is just right like it is.

It just becomes a different mindset and therefore a higher ante when The Runoffs is put in the equation.

We have a great class now I would suggest not screwing it up.:dead_horse:

[tnord]

I'm with Mac, and have the same perspective he does. Which shouldn't be a surprise, as we both used to run SM, and still hang around a core of SM guys.

My position on this is the same as it has been for years. I'm ok with IT going "National" only if the whole Regional/National distinction goes away completely and the top 24 or so make the big show.

[Knestis]

...My position on this is the same as it has been for years. I'm ok with IT going "National" only if the whole Regional/National distinction goes away completely and the top 24 or so make the big show.

I'm with you philosophically on making that artificial distinction disappear - I didn't understand it when I went to my first Club Race in 1979, and I don't understand it now.

On the other hand, if one subscribes to the "National = cost increase" hypothesis, wouldn't that aggravate it more, rather than reduce it? What am I missing?

K

[AjG]

I really don’t think there are enough cars to support a split, at least not where I am. But, if IT did go National I think there should be a separation between national and regional drivers. IT Nat. could grow from an influx of Runoffs / big $ types and IT Reg. could grow in the absence of big $ as a entry level/lower budget/not willing to put that much effort in to it class.
It wouldn’t be fair for Nat. to take away car counts from Reg. and still have “national drivers” be able to act as spoilers in regional races. I don’t know if this has been suggested in SM or why it hasn’t.(?)
A national driver could still run regionals, just not place.
Could be something like ‘If you run more than two nationals a year then you are a national driver’
Or better yet :) we could have a ‘paddock checklist’, if you have 3 or more of the following, you can’t place in regional race: data acquisition, fancy-schmancy stick-on graphics, someone other than yourself that works on your car (other drivers excluded), Hoosier rains, communication system, someone to communicate with on communication system, dedicated pit bike/transportation, enclosed trailer with black and white checkered floor, hmm.. What else???

[shwah]

Our division's 'regional' points series is just that. If you compete in the runoffs in your class, you are not eligible for competition in the regional points series, so a national driver coming to 'test' at a RA regional a week before the June Sprints does not play spoiler to the regional racers in national classes around here.

[jjjanos]

Well. With all due respect, if you want to keep racing in regionals, you are free to do so under either arrangement. Why then would you desire to keep those that would like to run nationals from doing so?

Those who would like to run nationals already are free to do so. They just cannot do it in an a class that was not intended to be subject to the entire cluster fornication that accompanies a non-spec, non-sealed, national class.

Those that would like to run nationals already are free to do so. They just cannot do it in this category; a category that was not intended to be subject to the massive cost inflation associated with being a national category.

Those that have newer cars and would like to run nationals are free to do so. They simply must run their cars as BP and DP.


The only reason I can think of is being afraid of a shrinking grid.

Cost: The relative cost of building, prepping and maintaining an IT category car is going to go up dramatically. The distribution of the cost bell curve will shift to the expensive end - and that's just to maintain your relative position.

Time constraints: DC Region's National typically has 225+ cars over 8 groups. Where are we going to fit the extra cars? Run ITC in small bore with an 11+second/lap difference between ITC and EP and a 9+ second difference between B and EP? That's more than the ITC/ITS gap and we've already realized that it doesn't work for a decently subscribed sprint race group. remember, National track sessions are longer and must be adhered to. No shorting sessions because the day is running long.

Dander: Topeka wants to suckle at the teat of the ARRC and ITFest. Having treated IT like a bastard step-child, unfit to associate with the gentry, I see no reason to recognize Topeka's attempt to invite us in to sit with civilized society since the only reason they are doing it is because they see us as a cash cow. Having completely fubared the Runoffs (tm) by allowing so many National classes to wither and then putting the patient into shock through Startline Steve's ramming Heartland Park down the club's throat, Topeka wants one thing and one thing only - our money. As it now stands, IT has its own "championships" and Topeka has got its panties in a knot because they aren't getting their blood money.

And, yes, moving IT to National will dilute car counts. Budgets are limited. If I've got enough money to run 6 weekends, then increasing my options doesn't add more money to that pot.

[tnord]

I'm with you philosophically on making that artificial distinction disappear - I didn't understand it when I went to my first Club Race in 1979, and I don't understand it now.

On the other hand, if one subscribes to the "National = cost increase" hypothesis, wouldn't that aggravate it more, rather than reduce it? What am I missing?

K

nope, you're not missing anything kirk.

if this scenario were to play out i do believe the cost to maintain your current finishing position. the reason i'm ok with it is because i think it would be for the greater good of the club as a whole.

because i don't feel like being long winded and eloquent.....

too many classes = thin grids for everyone
no national/regional distinction + top 24 go = "market" forces at work and classes live and die out naturally

[shwah]

jjjanos,

Are you saying that the cost of competing at regional events will go up as well? I don't agree with that. I definitely see Production cars run at our regionals that are lower budget efforts than a good IT program. Someone that wants to stay regional would become more competitive without spending a dime.

The only argument I'm buying so far is shrinking grids, and it is relatively legit. I mean we are lucky to have 3 ITS cars around here, and the one that shows up every time is a pretty quick one at the ARRC, so he surely would move up. So would somone fill the void and get some easy wins in an underprepped car, or would ITS fade away for a while at our races?

[shwah]

too many classes = thin grids for everyone
no national/regional distinction + top 24 go = "market" forces at work and classes live and die out naturally

I agree with this, but I also think this is a much larger challenge to implement within the club, than changing the status of one category. It is really a separate issue, that we should start writing some letters about IMO.

[ddewhurst]

jjjaNos has it covered IMHJ.:happy204:

****Dander: Topeka wants to suckle at the teat of the ARRC and ITFest. Having treated IT like a bastard step-child, unfit to associate with the gentry, I see no reason to recognize Topeka's attempt to invite us in to sit with civilized society since the only reason they are doing it is because they see us as a cash cow. Having completely fubared the Runoffs (tm) by allowing so many National classes to wither and then putting the patient into shock through Startline Steve's ramming Heartland Park down the club's throat, Topeka wants one thing and one thing only - our money. As it now stands, IT has its own "championships" and Topeka has got its panties in a knot because they aren't getting their blood money.****

IT cars ARE 70% of ALL entries for Club racing.

As we all know many Divisions could not make it if their Nationals didn't have restricted Regionals assocated with them. Golly ain't Restricted Regional called inviting IT cars.

Car counts have been sliding for a couple years from my eye viewing.

Is the U.S. in a recession or what ever you want to call it.

IT National WIIL raise the cost

IT National WILL lessen the Regional car count. (ala Spec Miata)

[924Guy]

I just don't see anything broke about IT that this would fix.

What's broke that needs fixing about the Club Racing program, well, I think everyone here sees it, though there are differing views about how to address it!

So you gotta ask yourself, why is this coming up now, and is it something you wish to get on board with.

IMO, I think that eliminating the National/Regional distinction is long overdue, and the appropriate plan of action (to address the problem). That said, I agree with the other camp - I just don't believe this is something that is going to improve my racing experience in any way. Every year, as it is, I'm on the fence about re-upping and committing to a "full" season - this might make it even harder to pursue. God knows I'd love to put together a program to get to the National Championship, but last year gave an insight as to how expensive that can be; having to run a whole mess of "away games" to even qualify would only make it worse...

[Dave Gomberg]

IT cars ARE 70% of ALL entries for Club racing.

Some silly statements need correction. In 2007, all IT class entries (including those such as IT Truck which are region-specific classes not recognized in the GCR) totaled 6293. All regional entries were 22540 and all national entries were 9988. Thus, IT entries were 28% of regional entries and were 19% of all Club Racing entries.

Dave

[Ron Earp]

I did not check your numbers but they seem to ring true with what I remember from a SportsCar a few months ago.

IT Entires at 6293 is significant. 63% as large as the ENTIRE National Program and we're only talking about IT. The entire Regional Racing Program dwarfs the National Program.

To get the true picture I think you need to break down the National numbers. If I recall correctly Spec Miata (a former regional program) and SRF make up most of the National entires. Without SM the National program would be hurting worse than it already is.

I see this proposed move the way jjjanos sees it - Topeka wants to grab some of what IT has to offer. One way or another IT won't be the same if this comes to pass.

Ron

[jjjanos]

jjjanos,

Are you saying that the cost of competing at regional events will go up as well? I don't agree with that. I definitely see Production cars run at our regionals that are lower budget efforts than a good IT program. Someone that wants to stay regional would become more competitive without spending a dime.

I respectfully disagree. See Spec Miata. Going national and attracting the fat fingers of Topeka and the attention of drivers with a certain attitude first dramatically increased the cost of a national program and it trickles its way down to Regionals.

Nor does the absence of competitors make a car/driver more competitive.


Some silly statements need correction. In 2007, all IT class entries (including those such as IT Truck which are region-specific classes not recognized in the GCR) totaled 6293. All regional entries were 22540 and all national entries were 9988. Thus, IT entries were 28% of regional entries and were 19% of all Club Racing entries.

Dave

Dave,

Not doubting, I just want the numbers - could you give a link or pm the car counts by class?

Thanks,

Jeff

[gpbmw]

Wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. My concern is that as a national class it may thin out the regional level competitors. Worse case is I'll have a great solo I car.

I suppose that's all moot once gas gets above 7.00/8.00 a gal. At that point I'll go back to playing tennis.

G. Potts

[shwah]

I forgot to mention in my original post, that the first question I asked in this post driver's meeting was:
Has the CRB seen what the IT community has created with the ITTC, and that it may already serve the 'purpose' of being national and runoffs eligible?

To be honest, I am really happy with where IT is today, and the ITTC fills my desire to try and find the best competition, but I would run nationaly if IT went national because that is where I would expect to find that higher level competition.

[Knestis]

It would also be a good individual exercise to dig into your division's National calendar and dummy up a schedule of what we each think we might do, were we to consider a "National" run.

I'm left thinking that there are - broadly speaking - going to be two major ways of looking at this puzzle: From the perspective of current IT entrants and from others. While there are undoubtedly going to be a bazillion smaller ways that current entrants are going to respond (we all have different interests, expectations, and opinions), there MIGHT be some big concepts that we as a community can agree upon.

For example, I can imagine a statement that defines as a position our collective interest in the discussion ONLY if we've been satisfied that the National program has made a good faith effort to get its house in order first: If IT is being used as a solution to problems that current national class/category entrants aren't willing to solve for themselves, or that require decisions that are politically/organizationally too difficult for the committees and board to deal with, then that's a first-order issue that needs to be worked out.

Question Number One in response to opening this discussion needs to be, "What current problem is the possible move to National status intended to solve?"

K

[seckerich]

Here is the link to national car counts this year. http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/2008%20National%20Participation%20MASTER.pdf

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is broken that I see this fixing? My desire to build, maintain and race a car with the ruleset and cars I think are the best fit for me - for a SCCA National Championship. Yes, I can go National racing in Prod, GT, SM, SRF, etc...but those classes don't interest me as much. I like to upgrade - but not to the tune of Prod, so IT is perfect for me.

As far as 'going National' raising the cost of being competitive in IT - that is a misguided sentiment. POPULARITY raises the cost. The more people, the more competition, the more money. If National status raises the popularity of IT (which I think is inevitable), then costs will rise for some areas.

Opinions will vary on the affects - and that is because in some areas nothing will change in terms of money and prep level. Some areas will see an influx of full-prep cars...and the affects of THAT is also debatable.

You could easliy make the arguement that if the 'heavy hitter' in some of the lesser subscribed pockets goes National, it may actually INCREASE regional competition because the perception of that door opening for the 'average racer' could be there as that HH leaves for a different group of fish to fry.

What is best for the class Nationally is a tough call IMHO.

[JoshS]

Time constraints: DC Region's National typically has 225+ cars over 8 groups. Where are we going to fit the extra cars? Run ITC in small bore with an 11+second/lap difference between ITC and EP and a 9+ second difference between B and EP? That's more than the ITC/ITS gap and we've already realized that it doesn't work for a decently subscribed sprint race group. remember, National track sessions are longer and must be adhered to. No shorting sessions because the day is running long.

I understand the concern about fitting extra cars into an existing well-subscribed national. If your track isn't long enough to handle the additional cars in your existing race groups, I can see that you might have a problem. But if there's room on the track, then go for it.

I don't understand the concern about the lap time differences. Yes, the slower cars in a group might get fewer laps than the faster cars (because they get lapped), but guess what? Apparently that's okay, because this routinely happens at the west coast Nationals. We have huge speed differentials, and guess what? The drivers are smart enough to handle it. Even in our REGIONALS, we run *all* of the IT classes together, including ITR. No problem. This isn't spec racing. This isn't the Runoffs. We run multiple classes together. We live with it. We even like it.

So I think this whole speed differential thing is a red herring. It's not a big deal. We do it all the time out here, at both regionals and nationals. And yes, we have very full fields, with 50-60 cars on track together at pretty much every race.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's assume that the National/Regional thing goes away and every GCR-recognized class is eligible for the Runoffs - here is what I would do:

'Reward' the top 10-15 classes in average participation with their own Runoffs run-group. The bottom 'half' still get a chance to run for the gold, but they must do so by sharing a track with someone else. Split starts a must...but until numbers warrant it, you pay the price of getting invited by having to share the track with another class or classs.

This way you can fit the Runoffs into a more compact time frame, which is a common complaint.

[JeffYoung]

+1. I like that idea.

[ITC Racer]

I don't see any reason/benefit to make IT national. If anything, I would perhaps eliminate the National/regional distinction. I like the racing and prep level of IT currently and am happy with the ARRC and newer IT Fest.

[John McFarland]

My opinion is this:

Get rid of National and Regional status.
Run all races as Club Races.
Top 24 make the runoffs.

[jjjanos]

What is broken that I see this fixing? My desire to build, maintain and race a car with the ruleset and cars I think are the best fit for me - for a SCCA National Championship. Yes, I can go National racing in Prod, GT, SM, SRF, etc...but those classes don't interest me as much. I like to upgrade - but not to the tune of Prod, so IT is perfect for me.

And your IT vehicle, with a minimum of 3 minor safety modifications - cell, tabs, system - is capable of contesting an SCCA National Championship - Production and Prepared. It might not be competitive, but that would be consistent with the philosophy of the ruleset and cars that you think are the best for you. "not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car.."

I would like to compete for an SCCA National Championship in a prototype equipped with unlimited boost, full ground effects including skirts and traction control. Yes, I can go National racing in S2, CSR, DSR etc.... but those classes don't to interest me as much. I like to upgrade.


I understand the concern about fitting extra cars into an existing well-subscribed national. If your track isn't long enough to handle the additional cars in your existing race groups, I can see that you might have a problem. But if there's room on the track, then go for it.

There isn't room on the track for that mix of classes.


I don't understand the concern about the lap time differences. Yes, the slower cars in a group might get fewer laps than the faster cars (because they get lapped), but guess what? Apparently that's okay, because this routinely happens at the west coast Nationals. We have huge speed differentials, and guess what? The drivers are smart enough to handle it. Even in our REGIONALS, we run *all* of the IT classes together, including ITR. No problem. This isn't spec racing. This isn't the Runoffs. We run multiple classes together. We live with it. We even like it.

And having perused the results at SFR, it is clear why there is no problem - the slower IT classes effectively do not exist. 2 ITC cars, 2/3 ITB cars. We regularly put more ITC cars on track for a Regional than SFR's combined ITB+ITC count.

In short, the problem doesn't exist because the solution created a new problem. This is the equivalent of people saying 'we' don't have a 'problem' combining all of the Formula classes. Of course it isn't a problem! The Vees just stop showing up and instead of having 12 to 15 of them at a race, you get 3. Shoot, I could put a single ITC in a field of Grand-Am Bash'em DPs and the ITC wouldn't be a problem, but get enough ITC cars out there to have a field and their own race and it does become a problem.


So I think this whole speed differential thing is a red herring. It's not a big deal. We do it all the time out here, at both regionals and nationals. And yes, we have very full fields, with 50-60 cars on track together at pretty much every race.

And GT1 on course with GT5 use to be viewed as safe too.

[JoshS]

And having perused the results at SFR, it is clear why there is no problem - the slower IT classes effectively do not exist. 2 ITC cars, 2/3 ITB cars. We regularly put more ITC cars on track for a Regional than SFR's combined ITB+ITC count.

In short, the problem doesn't exist because the solution created a new problem. This is the equivalent of people saying 'we' don't have a 'problem' combining all of the Formula classes. Of course it isn't a problem! The Vees just stop showing up and instead of having 12 to 15 of them at a race, you get 3. Shoot, I could put a single ITC in a field of Grand-Am Bash'em DPs and the ITC wouldn't be a problem, but get enough ITC cars out there to have a field and their own race and it does become a problem.

I'm not just talking about the region's IT group, I'm talking about lots of different groups at lots of different races, including nationals hosted by different regions with different race groupings. We routinely see lap time differentials of 10+ seconds between the LEADERS of different classes on track together. When I was in SSC doing nationals, we were grouped with T1 at nearly every race. We're talking about 160hp FWD cars on track with 400hp monsters. I just don't see the issue. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And your IT vehicle, with a minimum of 3 minor safety modifications - cell, tabs, system - is capable of contesting an SCCA National Championship - Production and Prepared. It might not be competitive, but that would be consistent with the philosophy of the ruleset and cars that you think are the best for you. "not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car.."

I would like to compete for an SCCA National Championship in a prototype equipped with unlimited boost, full ground effects including skirts and traction control. Yes, I can go National racing in S2, CSR, DSR etc.... but those classes don't to interest me as much. I like to upgrade.



I don't think you understand my position. I like the EXTENT of the IT rules. I like to upgrade (over SS, SM) to the stuff that I think makes IT cool. Shocks, bars, limited engine prep - but some, etc.

Your definition of 'contesting a National Championship' must be different than mine. Having a car that has the potential to WIN is what I want. The IT rules provide me with the best solution for my situation (budget, desire, etc). I can run in DP RIGHT NOW without changing a thing but there is difference in 'no comp adjustments' and 'not a chance in freaking hell'.

Bottom line? I like the IT rules the best of any class. I want that class to be able to run for a Gold Medal.

[Ron Earp]

Get rid of National and Regional status.
Run all races as Club Races.
Top 24 make the runoffs.

Now that makes good logical sense.

Let the most raced classes in the SCCA have a runoffs position. No more "regional vs national".

[shwah]

In Cen-Div we run with ITR, ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, SSB, SSC, T2, T3, SMT in one group.

We don't really have any ITC guys, but have a range of ITB cars, and it seems to work just fine. It does get difficult when you have a race after a school and some of the slow cars are extra slow, but otherwise it works out just fine, wether on 4 miles at Road America or 1.9 at Blackhawk.

Our biggest regional classes are SM and SRF.

I'm with Andy on the why go national. I would like to race for a championship (which is why I like the ITCC - it is closer to a championship than we have been in the past), and really like the IT rule set. However I am willing to build a Prod car if I need to. It will just be a few years down the road, while I would run nationals right now in my IT car.

[fiat124girl]

My opinion is this:

Get rid of National and Regional status.
Run all races as Club Races.
Top 24 make the runoffs.

This makes the most sense. Simply allow everyone to race at the same level and the highly subscribed classes make it to the championship.

The cost argument is not a valid argument. We spend as much on our IT cars as we do on our AS cars. It is a matter of what each individual is willing to spend on their hobby.

The whole point behind this organization is for all of us to have a place to spend our extra income and have a good time with our cars and this just opens up the venues for us to race more if we chose.

[ddewhurst]

***IT cars ARE 70% of ALL entries for Club racing.***
***Per Stan Clayton during year 2007. FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year. ***

Sorry, my mistake folks. Sometimes I get :shrug: when I don't look back at data info. It still makes a VERY large point being tha IT cars are a LARGE part of Regional racing.

For those playing with numbers, here are some to look at. From 2006/2007 ???

SM 2031 SRF 1407 FV 610 ITA 535 EP 384 FF 355 ITS 355 FA 339 FC 303 FM 293 GT1 280 ITB 268 DSR 265 FP 243 FE 241 AS 225 ITE 197 F5 196 CSR 195 GT2 193 SSB 189 VINTAGE 189 T3 178 SSM 177 ----------------- 24th class GT3 172SRX7 172 T2 172 GTL 163 T1 162 SSC 160ITC 155 S2 152 HP 140-ish (est.)SMT 123 GP 122IT7 121 PRO-7 110 SPO 103 SP 77 CF 68 S944 60 ITR 52 SPU 50 GTA 45 CFC 36 FST 32 CFF 25 DP 23 ITX 23 ST 23 FB 21 NCF 21 CC 20 GTP 19 RS 18 BP 15 PCA2 13 PCA1 12 FSR 9 PCA3 9 ASR 6 ITM 6 SPM 5 SRS 4 ITT 3 SF 3 BG 2 CP1 2 HC 2 SG-2 2 ITU 1

[JeffYoung]

A fair position to take. On my side, I wouldn't (personally) sacrifice the large fields and good racing we are seeing right now for a shot at a Gold Medal.

However, I think getting rid of the National/Regional distinction and going with the top 12 classes single run group, others mixed, at the BoreOffs is a great idea. With my limited knowledge of Topeka though, I think the chances of that happening are far less than just IT becoming "national" which on its own I don't support.


I don't think you understand my position. I like the EXTENT of the IT rules. I like to upgrade (over SS, SM) to the stuff that I think makes IT cool. Shocks, bars, limited engine prep - but some, etc.

Your definition of 'contesting a National Championship' must be different than mine. Having a car that has the potential to WIN is what I want. The IT rules provide me with the best solution for my situation (budget, desire, etc). I can run in DP RIGHT NOW without changing a thing but there is difference in 'no comp adjustments' and 'not a chance in freaking hell'.

Bottom line? I like the IT rules the best of any class. I want that class to be able to run for a Gold Medal.

[jjjanos]

This makes the most sense. Simply allow everyone to race at the same level and the highly subscribed classes make it to the championship.

Random observations:
There's going to be a huge amount of push back from long established classes that have withered through their own stupidity or changes in taste. There will be a huge production if/when this were to happen. Everyone's favorite whipping boy - open-wheel - however seems to be in the clear for the most part.

2. I'd be real interested in seeing the specifics for how one would qualify for the Runoffs when every race awards points. Are drivers limited in the number of races they can use? Are they required to run away from their "home" track? DC Region holds 9 races per year at Summit Point. Are the time requirements going away? etc. Devil is in the details.

[Andy Bettencourt]

2. I'd be real interested in seeing the specifics for how one would qualify for the Runoffs when every race awards points. Are drivers limited in the number of races they can use? Are they required to run away from their "home" track? DC Region holds 9 races per year at Summit Point. Are the time requirements going away? etc. Devil is in the details.

EXCELLENT observation. I had a discussion with a CRB member about this exact thing. Here is how we could do it:

1. Don't eliminate National - Regional. If IT were to make National status, the meaning of the words would just change. National races would become 'Runoff Qualifiers' and Regionals would be what they are now.

If you wanted to eliminate National races and start from scratch, you would put the responsibility of each Division to create and manage a qualifying system in which they would send invites to the top X performers in each class to the Runoffs. You could create a way to determine those that get invites in a wide variety of ways...the possiblilities and combinations are almost endless. Weighted Regionally, Division-wide, really anything. The object being - sending your best performers to the Dance.

[JeffYoung]

Dilution though. Will hurt the traditional regional races.

[jjjanos]

For those playing with numbers, here are some to look at. From 2006/2007 ???

GTP 19

Me thinks your data are incomplete. MARRS is the only series that runs GTPinto (GTP) and I can all but guarantee that there were more than 19 cars for GTP in every year of the last 10.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dilution though. Will hurt the traditional regional races.

Your definition of delution is someone elses definition of having a chance to win... :)

If you have 10 regulars in ITS now in a Regional-only scenario, I bet that IT going National would have this effect:

7 National and 8 Regional.

5 go National and now because IT is National, you have 3 of your regulars and add 2 who like the rules better.

7 of your regulars stay and 1 or 2 come because the big-money/uber-talented guys have left.

Less Regional competitors? Yes, but more OVERALL. (Assuming the ruleset is popular). If you combine Regional and National SM counts, I bet you see a net gain over when it was just regional.

Just a hunch.. ;)

[shwah]

If regional / national distinction were dropped, the number of races should drop. We no longer need duplicity of events to serve both groups (which is what some regions already do to make ends meet), and can have more races than current national schedules, with enough competitors to fill them.

For instance, we have 10 regional races in CenDiv, and 1 or 2 nationals are 'restricted regionals' that allow IT cars. We have 5 nationals. A total of 15 races over 11 weekends (8 of the regionals take place over 4 double weekends). In a non-segregated world we could have 10 good nationals, save one weekend of track rental (well probably use that weekend for driver school) and have larger, more competitive fields at every one. Not to mention actual practice, qualify and race sessions, rather than a 2 session race day (I love racing, but hate not having 2 sessions before race time at a double event).

Seems to me the workers would get less burned out, and the events would draw enough racers to reduce entry fees.

The number of classes is another kettle of fish. I also think that part of eliminating the national / regional distinction would be eliminating the classes without national rule sets - either by creating national rule sets, or eliminating the classes, and where it makes sense - making provisions for the affected cars to compete in existing classes: welcome back to ITA/or welcome to ITB - RX7s, weclome to BP or DP - ITE, welcome to FF - CF, welcome to SM - SMT, SSM, etc

[1stGenBoy]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

[jjjanos]

If you have 10 regulars in ITS now in a Regional-only scenario, I bet that IT going National would have this effect:

7 National and 8 Regional.

5 go National and now because IT is National, you have 3 of your regulars and add 2 who like the rules better.

7 of your regulars stay and 1 or 2 come because the big-money/uber-talented guys have left.

Less Regional competitors? Yes, but more OVERALL. (Assuming the ruleset is popular). If you combine Regional and National SM counts, I bet you see a net gain over when it was just regional.

Just a hunch.. ;)

And the 2 "new" competitors you are adding are not new - they are poached from another class, so the net effect is 3 diluted classes - The "new" National IT class, the regional IT run group and whichever class those 2 poached drivers were running.

Your proposal doesn't add entrants. It simply shuffles them into more boxes and that is the definition of dilution.

You want to add more drivers, then look at what those who would race with us but currently do not would like. The pool of people who are sitting out racing because 5-year old cars with limited mods cannot run at Topeka is about as shallow as the gene pool in Appalachia.

The proposal to move IT to National doesn't cure the disease. It treats the symptoms and masks the problem. National racing is suffering because the Runoffs (tm) are in a terrible location for both coasts, because a significant number of national competitors would rather have a colostomy than go to the circuit where the Runoffs (tm) are being held, because the respective rules setting bodies keep jerking drivers around like a detainee at Guantanamo, because the cost of building and prepping a National-level car is more than a B-2 bomber and because the travel expenses/demands to qualify for Runoffs are ridiculous.

Simply moving IT to National does nothing for location, venue, rules, cost or travel. In fact, odds are that once the cat is out of the Regional-only box, the IT rules will be about as stable as Brittney Spiers grasp of reality. So what we got here is no benefits and a likely big negative.

Those who stand fast the hardest about rules creep should be manning the ramparts about this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1st: this has nothing to do with RULES, so the creep issue is moot, no?

2nd: You are just assuming the new drivers are poached. They may be FORMER members who have not renewed, they may be FORMER members who now run with NASA because they like a National Championship, they might be NEW members who were considering NASA for it's National Championship, they could be members who were THINKING about not renewing because they can't deal with the constant turmoil that is Prod and GT...and yes, they could be members who are migrating from other classes...members whom we might have lost should they have not found a home they like.

The possibilities are endless.

We can design a better way to qualify for the Runoffs - especially is the Nat/Reg designation goes away.

We can (and will) have the RO at a better location in another year.

The IT Rules are what they are. That is why the class is popular. To change that would be a sin. I doubt it would. The CRB members thinking about this fully understand why IT is popular and other classes are broken. Figuring out how to fix the other classes is the issue. Too many people who won't let go of their old stuff/ideals/perceptions.

[shwah]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

Bill - I think some of these rules should be changed in the event of a single 'level' system. Why not allow more nationals per track, and while your at it, have the top finishers in the Division series period - no best 6 finishes. Make it so you have to compete in your series to be invited, not just do a few 'formality' events.

Oh and on the cost thing. I agree that you can spend as much as you like on the way to a national title, but my only 1st hand experience proves that a smart, capable team can also take the gold spending 1/2-1/3 of the 'norm'.

[dickita15]

I have no problem with IT becoming a national class but I am very much against losing the national/regional race distinction. The national racers make a big deal about format. Intrinsic to nationals is that they race on more than their home track(s). Nationals require 45 minutes of practice and qualifying and 30 minute races. Regional races use a varied format that does a better job of allowing the regions to cater to what the racers want. The doubles and triples that give us so much racing would go away under a national only format.

[tom_sprecher]

when I spend the day at DynoLab.

I "read" this whole thread and many of you made some excellent observations and suggestions and here is my take and please use a grain of salt or two.

1. It’s all about the Benjamin’s. From what I have been told but have not confirmed is that the national office's biggest revenue generator is the Runoffs which have seen declining entries after Mr. Johnson’s “sea gull” management style moved them to “Holy Topeka!” National has addressed this with emails to Runoffs drivers that did not show for the second race held there asking “why?” and the response basically was “if you move the race to a track that is more appealing and shorten the time required to do my thing only then will I return”. Well now they have a 10# bag and only 5# of entrants. Sounds like time to get us some more entrants.

2. National has seen and heard of the success of the IT*Spectaular and the ARRC and I would imagine they saw dollar signs. Don’t get me wrong, National office runs a tight ship and they should be given credit for that, but at the same time it has to be wearing them thin and relief in the form of more $ for a larger workforce is something they have got to have on their minds.

3. Popularity makes the price of racing go up. In the racing world the larger the demographic the better the odds are there will be more people with more money than you. Look at SM. Of course the demographic can work both ways. I was crew chief for a club FC team that almost spent more money on beer than developing the car and we were the SARRC champs twice. Why? Little or no competition. However, to make it up to ourselves we changed our goal and proceeded to set 2 track records.

4. I’m not convinced either way that IT going National would reduce grid size. In this time of rising fuel costs I could do more races close to home and not spend 1/3 of my weekend budget on diesel. Let the market dictate what the grid size should be. I do know that we as a region make by far more money on our regional races than on national events that have higher entry fees. We have more time to put on more groups due to race time/distance restraints dictated by the GCR but it does not seem to attract any more addition cars just the same guys entering multiple races but it sure makes paying the bills a whole lot easier.

5. Eliminating the regional designation AND reducing the number of races held would help with reduced grids, reduced revenues, reduced worker numbers, etc. We are trying to continue on the wrong side of the supply and demand curve and it can only go on for so long due to the fixed costs of hosting a race.

6. This post has gone on long enough but I’m sure I’ll come up with some more short sighted, base-less comments so stay tuned…

[fiat124girl]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

I still content that the cost argument is not a valid point. How much do you think we spend to get to ARRC or to run for the MiDiv championship? It is just as much as the Runoffs. In order to win in IT, you need to spend the same money that you would spend nationally. This is an expensive hobby, if you don't want to spend the money you cannot expect to be competitive.

The way that we qualify now for the runoff would still work with some minor adjustment. Say you have to start 4 races, one of which needs to be out of division. Finish three and finish in the top 10 in division in points. If you go to the runoffs you may not participate in that car in any of the regional championships.

I am not sure why this is being made to be complicated. If you choose to run on a national level you may with any car that is SCCA compliant. If you choose to run regionally you may with any car that is SCCA compliant.

You could begin to combine classes at the runoffs to utilize the track space so that everyone who wishes to attend may. This may take some creative organization but it is not an impossible feat.

I just want to be able to race any of our cars at the runoffs if we choose, not just the AS car.

[1stGenBoy]

Bill - I think some of these rules should be changed in the event of a single 'level' system. Why not allow more nationals per track, and while your at it, have the top finishers in the Division series period - no best 6 finishes. Make it so you have to compete in your series to be invited, not just do a few 'formality' events.

Oh and on the cost thing. I agree that you can spend as much as you like on the way to a national title, but my only 1st hand experience proves that a smart, capable team can also take the gold spending 1/2-1/3 of the 'norm'.

The problem here in Cen-Div is when and where do you run more than 6 nationals?
Who would develop a Division series? There would have to be a group in charge of something like that I would think.
A lot of rules in the GCR would have to change. There is a minumum amount of practice,qualifiying and race distance to contend with too at a national race.
It used to be that you had to be in the top 10 of your divison to be invited to the Runoffs.
Not saying you can't do well on a limited budget at the Runoffs but.... the odds are against you. I like to have the odds in my favor. I know that a new set of intermiediates, a new set of tire warmers=The national championship for us in 06. That was a quick 3k. Was it worth it? You bet. The other drivers were demorilized on the grid and we had a 35 second lead by lap 6.
Next time you see me at the track ask me about it and I'll tell you the whole story about that.
Just thinking out loud so flame away.

Bob

[jjjanos]

1st: this has nothing to do with RULES, so the creep issue is moot, no?

Wrong. See Section 9, Sporting Regs. The issue of rules creep is ALWAYS there. IT was conceived as a Regional Class. Change something that ingrained in the foundation of the class and you'll be sleeping with camels - or so I have been told by the rules creep jihadists. The same people who think that allowing an allowance for a single car thrown down a class to keep the wheels they already purchased would have us racing full-blown GT cars in IT before next Tuesday.

Given the history of rules creep with virtually every national class, I find that it strains creditability for you to maintain that the rest of the IT philosophy will remain as pure as the driven snow. Those that have already succumbed to Runoffs (tm) Envy will develop a full blown case of Rule Creep Influenza as sure as the sun rises tomorrow.



2nd: You are just assuming the new drivers are poached. They may be FORMER members who have not renewed, they may be FORMER members who now run with NASA because they like a National Championship, they might be NEW members who were considering NASA for it's National Championship, they could be members who were THINKING about not renewing because they can't deal with the constant turmoil that is Prod and GT...and yes, they could be members who are migrating from other classes...members whom we might have lost should they have not found a home they like.

Pot, I would like you to meet the kettle.

You also have assumed that a de jure championship will attract new competitors or preserve old competitors. IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige. In fact, the "outlaw" aspect of the ARRC adds to its mystique, IMO. That meaningless stamp, however, will allow Topeka to take its cut, stick its fumbled fingers into the IT philosophy and generally turn a successful class into another SM cluster or Production/GT/Sports Racer wasteland.

I'll contribute $20 to buy ayou a gold medal if you win the ARRC this year.

Before you go mucking around with something that works very well and makes a LARGE number of SCCA members happy, I would suggest that you do some market research as to whether it will add new competitors to the club and find a way to prevent the poaching of competitors from many succesful Regional racing programs for the benefit of Topeka and the National System it allowed to rot.


We can design a better way to qualify for the Runoffs - especially is the Nat/Reg designation goes away.

Then give the specifics as part of this proposal and make it indivisible because as sure as night follows day, Topeka will cherry pick IT and keep Regionals and Nationals.


We can (and will) have the RO at a better location in another year.

Topeka already has a verifiable record of screwing up the location of the Runoffs both in terms of member input and in making its input-less decision. Should the Runoffs move to a better location, it still addresses only one of the issues I raised. The rest of the rot with the National program remains.


The IT Rules are what they are. That is why the class is popular. To change that would be a sin. I doubt it would. The CRB members thinking about this fully understand why IT is popular and other classes are broken.

You mean the same decision-making body that gave us tube-framed less expensive GT cars? The same decision-making body that created the $10K Spec Miata motor? The same decision-making body that gave us the Shelby Can-Am? The same decision-making body that let in a Neon racecar into Showroom Stock and fixed the problem with Trunk kits? The same decision-making body that added even more open-wheel classes to a diluted open-wheel set of competitors? The same decision-making body that allowed the hard top solistice to compete in violation of the category's rules/philosophy? The same decision-making body that wouldn't allow racing seats into SS for decades?

How could I ever doubt the decision making abilities of that august body when it comes the National racing program and please forgive me my hesitancy for considering what will happen to IT when the same Runoffs attitude and mindset develops.


Figuring out how to fix the other classes is the issue. Too many people who won't let go of their old stuff/ideals/perceptions.

If that is the issue, please explain how adding IT to the Runoffs addresses that issue. Don't "solve" the Runoffs problem on the back of IT. Fix the problems there before asking us to join that cesspool.

[JoshS]

IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige. In fact, the "outlaw" aspect of the ARRC adds to its mystique, IMO.

The people I talk to (people pissed off at poor decision making in SS/T, but like the IT ruleset) say otherwise. They just won't even give the thought of switching to IT the time of day, simply because it's not a National class and there's no official national championship to strive for.

Some people might be drawn to the ARRC "outlaw mystique," but I personally know several people who are clearly more drawn to the Runoffs. Obviously, people in both camps exist and to say, flat out, that national class "officialdom" is meaningless and that it flat-out "won't add to that prestige" are strong statements with no backing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ,

We will agree to disagree on MANY points. Bottom line? It's a hot debate with MANY different angles.

[ddewhurst]

jjjanos & others, the combined Regional/National event entries was posted by CRB member Stan Clayton on June 14, 2007 therefore they were 2006 numbers. It shows which classes would move up the chart with one level of classes with 24 classes making the Runoffs.

[Knestis]

>> IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige ...

As an ARRC-winning owner, I feel differently. That was a great accomplishment but partially because it's the only IT game in town. Even more so, if the racing at an IT National championship were as good as it is likely it COULD be, it would be even sweeter. But OK - you can just PayPal me the $20. :)

And janos - you've got to decide if you want to flip the jihadists crap or thank them for standing in defense of the threats you perceive exist to the category.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that IT might well poach a lot of drivers from current National classes, perhaps hastening their demise. About the only thing the category does NOT have going for it is a championship.

...and arguments about cost? The best way to spend less money is to spend less money. Asking a category to be less competitive than it might so individuals can maintain their current relative competitive positions is a little counterproductive to the big picture, I think. Want to win because there isn't much competition? There are National classes where that's totally possible now.

K

[shwah]

Bill - I would love to hear that story some time.

As far as CenDiv nationals - I will run 4 races at Blackhawk, 4 at Road America, 2 at Milwaukee in CenDiv this year (and Mid-O and the other RA). Why can't we run 4,4,2 at RA, BHF, AB (which has 3 tracks). Get Brainerd back on line - which is close from the info I have, and thats another place to move some racing to. I'm just thinking outside the box.

What is really interesting about the conversation, is that there seems to be almost universal support for eliminating the national/regional distinction. Why don't we write some letters and see if fellow club members share this opinion...

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is the point of getting rid of the Nat/Reg distinction if you (the collective you) don't want IT to go National?

[jjjanos]

>> As an ARRC-winning owner, I feel differently. That was a great accomplishment but partially because it's the only IT game in town. Even more so, if the racing at an IT National championship were as good as it is likely it COULD be, it would be even sweeter. But OK - you can just PayPal me the $20. :)

I said this year. :p


And janos - you've got to decide if you want to flip the jihadists crap or thank them for standing in defense of the threats you perceive exist to the category.

Yeah, it was an easy shot, but as long as some of the guards at the gate are flopping back and forth about the intent of the class philosophy, I'll keep doing it. I just think it is silly to throw down the gauntlet and force people to buy new wheels because of the class philosophy and at the same time throw away what, IMO, has been a major part of the same philosophy in terms of Regional-only.


I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that IT might well poach a lot of drivers from current National classes, perhaps hastening their demise. About the only thing the category does NOT have going for it is a championship.

I repeat with minor changes...

Before anyone goes mucking around with something that works very well and makes a LARGE number of SCCA members happy, I would suggest that they do some market research as to whether it will add new competitors to the club and find a way to prevent the poaching of competitors from many succesful Regional racing programs for the benefit of Topeka and the National System it allowed to rot.

Demonstrate that the club, as a whole, benefits through increased participation. Moving drivers from Prod to IT just squeezes the water balloon. It doesn't make it bigger and it risks popping it.

[JeffYoung]

Maintaining the attractiveness of formerly "regional" events -- and car counts -- to "National" drivers.


What is the point of getting rid of the Nat/Reg distinction if you (the collective you) don't want IT to go National?

[jjjanos]

What is the point of getting rid of the Nat/Reg distinction if you (the collective you) don't want IT to go National?

Reduced travel budget for those who want to go to the Runoffs is one reason. In NEDIV, a driver in a well subscribed class is all but required to go to Summit Point, NHIS, Pocono, Beaver Run, Nelson, WGI. In SEDIV, a driver looking for tow fund money might have to go from Homestead to VIR and everywhere in between.

Regional-Only essentially means cannot qualify for the Runoffs, particularly since many regions run restricted regionals to make ends meet.

Drop the distinction and a driver could do their 6 races at their home track.

Time constraints. 45 minutes of practice required. 45 minutes of racing. Shoot, at most Nationals I've flagged, 90% of the field has paddocked and gone back to the hotel by the half-way mark of the 2nd session. They don't want to use up the car. Get rid of the time requirements and regions can either add more groups (w/o being forced to pay for a second sanction) or save on worker burnout by letting them go home earlier.

Problem is that most plans are going to have certain regionals be designated as paying points for the Runoffs and the entire travel thing goes out the window and we have the same system we have now, but one less name. Runoff drivers aren't going to run in non points races and those drivers who aren't going to the Runoffs will either run or not. Status quo. If you allow every event to post points, then travel budgets will go sky high because you'll have to run everywhere, multiple times.

I doubt this is workable, but

1. Keep the distinction and let every SCCA-wide class go. The classes with the greatest number of Runoff entrants get their own races. Low entrants share track time. Screw participation numbers - its whether you deserve your own race at the Big Show. Don't go, you share.

2. Points - you've got to beat someone to earn points, period. Points are awarded based on the formula X - 1 s.t. X <= 10 or 12 places where X equals the number of cars that turned a wheel on course that weekend. I.e. If you are the only ESR at the track, you don't get points.

3. Track time is the same as in a regional.

[planet6racing]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Don't we just end up in the same place?

Oh, Chris, one slight correction - 1stgenboy is actually Bob. Sure, he's with Team Shanty, a division of Billy-Bob Racing, so I understand the mis-understanding... :D

[IPRESS]

Is IT broken?

If yes, then pushing the "national" designation is the drum you should beat.
If no, then be very careful of what you wish.

I hate to argue with Andy as he usually can best anything I come up with (easily). But I can tell you that once SM went national the rules did change. People went crazy looking for every edge known to man. Don't think that IT won't have some of the same type problems. Along with those problems the $$$ go up due to popularity, development, and all the other RUNOFFS related needs. The $36/gal fuel wars in SM will come right to the IT doorstep. SM is a great place if that is what you like, but it is not anything like it was before going national.
Right now IT is just about right. Serious enough to make you try, but not so serious that you want to do / spend everything to win. It is more fun then other classes.
I can understand the thought that "I want to take my car to the RUNOFFS" is appealing to some. But as often gets used here in explaining why some folks wants don't get approved..... There are plenty of classes (too many in fact) to compete in for a place at the RUNOFFS. IT is not one of those and is a great place to race (maybe because it isn't ) without the RUNOFFS being part of the class.
It would be much easier (& safer for the class) for the guys that are interested in the RUNOFFS to change the class they compete in, then for the whole class to have to change it's basic premise.
The ITTC and the building stature of the bigtime regional races are a much better approach then getting national involvment in what we have now.

Not Broke Don't Fix.

[TAC]

Granted its not the Run-offs....but its a start on a National Championship idea.

Todd


Over the winter an I.T. Advisory Committee made up of drivers from SCCA divisions across the country was formed to explore the idea of having an I.T. National Championship. This idea morphed into the Improved Touring Triple Crown (ITTC). The ITTC is a point series developed to recognize the nation’s best IT drivers. One option to qualify is to combine the best results from your local or divisional series which are listed in the rules and participation in a minimum of two of the following race weekends.

The I.T. West Fest at Thunderhill July 26th-27th

The I.T.SPEC*tacular at Mid Ohio Sports Car Course August 9th-10th

American Road Race of Champions by Grassroots Motorsports November 7th-9th at Road Atlanta

The second option to qualify is to run all three major race weekends.

Points will be awarded for 1st – 18th at each event (Local and Divisional series will be awarded on final season standings) so you don't need to win every segment. Current plans include trophies that will be presented at the ARRC banquet for a podium finish in the ITA, ITB, ITC, ITS, and ITR classes.

A copy of the rules is available on http://www.improvedtouring.com (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/../) in the IT Championship events forum and at http://www.cincyscca.com (http://www.cincyscca.com/). The program has started for the 2008 racing season but you really don’t have to do anything at this time. Entry into the ITTC is free. Since all the events conclude with the ARRC in November and we automatically track your results we only ask that you participate in the events listed above and spread the word.

We're also looking for sponsors to provide contingency prizes so if you're interested in that aspect or know someone who is please let us know.

Best Regards,


Tom Sprecher ITTC Administrator
[email protected]

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I can tell you that once SM went national the rules did change. People went crazy looking for every edge known to man.

When you say the 'rules'...do you mean the ACTUAL rules or 'how the game had to be played in order to win'?

Because if you mean the latter, it's already being played that way in a lot of spots.

If you mean the former, help me remember what rules changed when SM went National...not when SM got picked up officially by the SCCA, but when it went National...

The only thing I see 'broken' with IT is that we can't run for a National Championship...and I would like that chance. Understand that I fully know that nothing would change in my program to do so as I run in an area where you have to be on your A-game, with A-prep and A-equipment to win. Heck, 2 of the last 4 ARRC winning cars in ITA are cars I have raced against week in and week out. Understand that I fully understand it WOULD effect other areas in a much different way.

[shwah]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Don't we just end up in the same place?

Oh, Chris, one slight correction - 1stgenboy is actually Bob. Sure, he's with Team Shanty, a division of Billy-Bob Racing, so I understand the mis-understanding... :D

I think I have done that twice now.:bash_1_:

Sorry Bob. I really don't have anything against that name.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We have had this discussion multiple times...but the difference here is that it doesn't seem simply conceptual at the moment. There seems to be a greater 're-alignment' going on in which IT becoming a 'normal' part of the SCCA culture is a product of.

[ddewhurst]

***The only thing I see 'broken' with IT is that we can't run for a National Championship...and I would like that chance. ***

***It would be much easier (& safer for the class) for the guys that are interested in the RUNOFFS to change the class they compete in, then for the whole class to have to change it's basic premise.***


BUT, some people are getting greedy while pushing their personal envelope & Topeka wants to support their National program.


Seperate subject

To those who created the SECOND Triple Crown (ITTC), are you not aware the CenDiv has had a Triple Crown for National level drivers for several years. Win your Division, win the Sprints & win a National Championship.

[Knestis]

>> I said this year. :p

Guess you'll probably be keeping your money since I am all to aware of the fact that it was Bowie Gray that won last fall and not the car. I'll be driving this year and we're already planning the "Honda needs more weight" campaign, to be kicked off the minute I get squashed like a bug. ;)

We have a cause-effect issue with the SM argument. National status did NOT cause the price tag of pointy-end cars to go up. Popularity and competitiveness (both real and perceived) did that. National status and popularity went hand-in-hand, and if anything it was the obvious appeal of the class that fast-tracked it to National status. As Andy points out, there will be different effects in different places, should IT become more popular and/or competitive:

** Driver who wants to be regionally competitive in a weak to medium-level region - Might get more competition so the cost to keep up with Mr. Jones goes up

** Driver motivated in the same way, in a very competitive region - Might see some $$ increase but not relative to the dough already being spent

** Driver who "just wants to have fun" in Regionals, in a competitive region - Nothing is likely to change for him

** Driver who wants "just wants to have fun" in a couple of local Nationals in addition to Regionals - Ditto. She can spend pretty much what she would for a Regional (ignoring travel).

** Driver wants to go to the RubOffs - Will spend what it costs to be competitive in their division, which is going to vary depending on competitiveness. NPDiv is weak so you could go without making the kind of commitment necessary in SEDiv or in the NE, for example. The price of doing this can't be compared to spending now because the option currently doesn't exist.

Lots of variation but they all start with GOALS. What you spend is determined by what you want to accomplish.

K

[tnord]

When you say the 'rules'...do you mean the ACTUAL rules or 'how the game had to be played in order to win'?


both. Spec Tires happened the year it went national, although that might've happened anyway. Weight gets thrown at the runoffs winner for pretty much every class every year. Compliance Fee has been added. Cam specs have changed a few times. track width rule has now changed. and on and on and on.....



Understand that I fully know that nothing would change in my program to do so as I run in an area where you have to be on your A-game, with A-prep and A-equipment to win. Heck, 2 of the last 4 ARRC winning cars in ITA are cars I have raced against week in and week out. Understand that I fully understand it WOULD effect other areas in a much different way.

i think you guys are lying to yourself when you think you have "100%" builds and that because you race in the big bad NE, that you wouldn't have to change anything in your "program" to remain competitive. especially with this new ECU rule, dyno time is going to be of great importance, and there really is no limit that i can see where parts development stops.

i don't want IT going National on its own because i've seen first hand, and experienced what happens. but i would be ok with it if the regional/national distinction went away and the top 24 go to the show because i think it addresses larger issues within the club.

[jjjanos]

The only thing I see 'broken' with IT is that we can't run for a National Championship...and I would like that chance.

I'm not certain whether this is in jest or not, but, in otherwords and with all due respect, this is all about what you want and to hell with whether it is good for the club, the regions and the category?

1. Identify the problem - what is currently damaging IT?
2. Does the treatment actually cure the ailment?
3. Are the side effects of the treatment more damaging than the ailment?

At this point, you haven't even satisfied condition #1 let alone demonstrated the effectiveness of the treatment or shown that the outcome will be a Pareto improvement.

For example, this is going to hurt car counts. National drivers run to qualify for the Runoffs and once they have a lock, the car gets parked to save it. IT drivers not running for a championship have no reason to park the car. IT drivers running for a region or division based championship have to run MORE races. MARRS has 9 races this year and in a well-subscribed class, you pretty much need to run in at least 7 of them to have a hope of a top three placement. In Nationals, it's 6 at most because that is all that counts and many drivers don't need to do more the 4.

I'm sorry, but I see this both as an attempt by National at a cheap fix for what they shattered and another Heartland Park deal. Topeka and many of the National Categories have rules crept themselves into irrelevance and instead of addressing the cracks in that foundation, they want a cheap fix by adding IT. I also think that it won't matter what IT drivers want regarding this. The "committee" is going to be stacked and National is going to give IT National status regardless of the member input.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Trav - the members wanted Spec tires. Weights change every year in classes that allow comp adjustments, compliance fee added because members wanted a more in depth tech, cam specs never CHANGED, they just got published. These changes aren't a result of a class going National, they are a result of member driven input, just like in IT.

JJJ - VERY fair question. I am only representing my opinion when I say what I like and don't like about IT. I feel I can counter all of your 'it's going to be a bad thing' with how it could be a good thing.

Unfortunately, I think the IT ruleset would really bring in a lot of drivers who want to run Nationally. Read Josh's post. He know what is going on over teh other side of the fence. Maybe if IT poached enough drivers from classes people really don't want to be running, we would lose less members to NASA and the PTB would have the ammunition to kill those classes for good and put the time into developing some classes that could be more popular than 2 H-prod cars at a National.

Just beacuse there is no open wound to put a band-aid on is no reason to not go to the gym and try and build on a good foundation.

Your points about what a National driver does to qualify for the RO's are spot on. I believe this must be addressed across all classes before National racing can be successful again. I know the PTB are working on it.

It's a shame that some think the SCCA is using IT to bolster revenues. If you don't want to run Nationals, don't. Your program won't change and they won't get your money.

[Doc Bro]

The only thing I see 'broken' with IT is that we can't run for a National Championship...and I would like that chance. .


So Andy, if the national recognition is important why haven't you been to the ARRC or the IT fest at Mid-O? Those events along with the ITTC would bring big recognition. There is the oportunity to go 'national' in IT.

R

[spnkzss]

I'm not picking on anyone specific and yes there is some jealousy in this statement, but the people that are really pushing for a National IT are people that have multi car teams and have a MUCH higher then avg budget towards these cars, even if they are IT. There are still quite a few IT drivers out there that touch the car maybe 4 to 5 times in a winter to get ready for the year, don't spend days on a dyno, don't spend $10-$50/gal for fuel, don't buy more than 6-8 tires a year, don't spend $400 a wheel in Volks, don't have a $5k motor with a spare fully built $5k non junk yard motor in the trailer, and still would like to be a little higher than mid pack. Maybe not contesting for the win, because we know there are the people that will do what's listed above, but there are far less of them and still a chance they could go off or not finish. Make IT national and you are going to have to do what's listed above just to stand a chance at 10th.

I don't see anything wrong with IT now. I'm kinda against the IT Triple Crown for the reasons listed above, but you make IT National and the sponsorship money starts flowing, us lowly self sponsored people are really going to lose our taste for the "fun". I'll let you know now that my office has "helped" me a bit this year and there are times that I look at the problems I'm having and say, "you know, if so and so wasn't helping me, I would just take a little break." You feel a need to make your best showing always and because of that mentality the fun starts to go away. I got into IT racing because it was Regional, I liked the rules, and it was just fun. Please let's not ruin the fun. I know there are quite a few other Grassroots IT racers that feel the same way.

[JeffYoung]

This issue is serious enough, and effects all of us, such that it should be done by a vote of all IT racers. Decision by committee on this one is not the right way to go about it.

[tnord]

Trav - the members wanted Spec tires. Weights change every year in classes that allow comp adjustments, compliance fee added because members wanted a more in depth tech, cam specs never CHANGED, they just got published. These changes aren't a result of a class going National, they are a result of member driven input, just like in IT.


cam specs did change in the middle of the 2006 season.

actually, i think the changes are a result of going national, it's just not as easy to see. if it wasn't for the whole national thing, you wouldn't have people pushing the envolope to and beyond the limit, and i'm sure this will be a controversial statement, but i think people care less about compliance in a regional series.

the compliance fee happened as a result of the $7000 motors and crazy development of everything on the car creating huge gaps between the regular guys and the fat wallets. this gap led to the perception of cheating and everyone calling for more tech, and we ended up at the compliance fee (which isn't working for sh*t).

the changes may be driven by member input, but the member input would be different if it wasn't a national class.

and now to get out the tin-hat....we wouldn't have the whole clusterf*ck of 99+ cars in the class if SM wasn't predestined to be National from the start. ya know the 5year rule in IT? i wouldn't count on that sticking around. remember, the CRB can still do whatever it wants above the ITAC, and Albin can't stop it by himself.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy, if the national recognition is important why haven't you been to the ARRC or the IT fest at Mid-O? Those events along with the ITTC would bring big recognition. There is the oportunity to go 'national' in IT.

R
A combination of a few things but neither of those are a recognized National Championship...they are just the best we have to offer because there is no NC.

(Edit: timing and money are the REAL reasons I haven't gone so far...the same reason I wouldn't have gone to a NC in past years. This year I am going to the ITFest and as money allows, the ARRC...but a real SCCA National Championship is what I would want.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

This issue is serious enough, and effects all of us, such that it should be done by a vote of all IT racers. Decision by committee on this one is not the right way to go about it.

And understand this is way over the ITAC's head. If you fee like you need to weigh in, PLEASE do so to the CRB. As with any letter, try and state your desire and back it up as best you can so they have something to sink their teeth into.

[IPRESS]

Andy, we will have to agree to disagree.

I think you guys want a Runoffs appearence so bad that you are looking past some of the bad. And in bad I mean for the class as a whole.
IT has been as successful as it is because of several factors.
1. There is not the National body fiddle factor involved. (S McMasters warned of this from the beginning of SM)
2. No Nat. Champ (Runofffs) to make you have to save your car, therefore you run more events because YOU LIKE TO RACE.
3. People run IT because they like it or the type car they race.
4. (Part of four) Guys who are RUNOFFS hunting don't race IT (Go National and $$$$$$ will be spent to win....you will spend them too. It will raise most all racers cost of competition.)
5. There are lots more reason it is a success story, and none of them are BECAUSE you can run IT at the RUNOFFS.

AS this seams to be a hot topic what say we hear from a few more of the ITAC.

Also, if there is a majority of the ITAC who want to take IT down the National "Primrose" path, please get it out so we know....... Because I don't agree doesn't mean I am mad, it will just save my fingers!

[spnkzss]

they are just the best we have to offer because there is no NC.

And what is wrong with that?

[lateapex911]

I'm not picking on anyone specific and yes there is some jealousy in this statement, but the people that are really pushing for a National IT are people that have multi car teams and have a MUCH higher then avg budget towards these cars, even if they are IT. There are still quite a few IT drivers out there that touch the car maybe 4 to 5 times in a winter to get ready for the year, don't spend days on a dyno, don't spend $10-$50/gal for fuel, don't buy more than 6-8 tires a year, don't spend $400 a wheel in Volks, don't have a $5k motor with a spare fully built $5k non junk yard motor in the trailer, and still would like to be a little higher than mid pack. Maybe not contesting for the win, because we know there are the people that will do what's listed above, but there are far less of them and still a chance they could go off or not finish. Make IT national and you are going to have to do what's listed above just to stand a chance at 10th.

.

I'm quoting this passage, but my response is not to the writer, but more general.

I'm a guy who knows the results blues. You get them when you finish 6th or so in a class of 25, but, over time, more and more of the "hot car" show up, and you slide down to 8th or 10th average finishes. Hey, that's life. To me, 6th? it's ok, and so is 10th. But lets face it, neither are good, much less great.

but, you have to look at things in perspective....

If you know you aren't doing the full prep thing, and you get beaten by those that are, so what? What's it matter if you finish 7th or 10th? Listen, I have plenty of finishes like that, so don't take this the wrong way, but really, 7th? 10th? who cares!? Did you have a good race with the 8th place guy? Did you beat a better car? If you say you're racing for "fun" on one hand, you can't turn around and complain about your actual position on the other....

Now, I hear jjjjanos going on about how IT HAS a National championship, and others who say that IT doesn't need the Runoffs, what they have is fine.

And having been to the ARRCs now many times, as a driver and a crew, and to the inaugural IT-Fest, I can tell you that those are great events, and the competition is stout, and the racing good. More should attend.

But they won't. At least not to the ARRCs, because it's just not worth the haul, the time, and the money for those who are a long way away. It's just not the same prestige as the Runoffs. We Northeasterners are the exception...you don't see a lot from the upper middle, and really nothing from the Rockies and west. I've talked to a lot of IT guys, and if they had a chance to go to the Ruboffs, and be on TV, that travel distance shrinks pretty quickly.

Don't get me wrong...the ARRC organizers and the IT-Fest committee have done, and are doing a GREAT job, and the IT Championship thing is a GREAT thing for IT...but if IT goes the the Runoffs, you will see full fields, and some of the best races all week.

Finally, from a marketing standpoint, I don't think the SCCA could do anything better for participation and membership than making IT run at the Runoffs. The ruleset is very attractive to the average racer wanna be, there are cars he and she can identify with, and the races will look great on TV. For the club as a whole, its a powerful tool gone unused for years.

[Charlie Broring]

If IT goes National the character of the class is sure to change. Rule creep and high dollar builds have already made IT less appealing as an entry level class. National status is sure to expand the expensive end of the IT spectrum and leave beginners and low budget racers farther behind. It would be another big step toward becoming the new "Production" class and a step away form the role in the club that it has served so well for years.

I think the real problem is not that Improved Touring lacks National status, but rather that there isn't a good next step beyond IT for the racer who aspires to the Runoffs and National competition. The Production or Prepared classes should serve this role but their rule makers have made little effort at making these classes accessible to IT drivers who want to "Move up".

As it is, Improved Touring is too good of a class to screw up in an effort to fix the problems of the club's National Program.

[spnkzss]

If IT goes National the character of the class is sure to change. Rule creep and high dollar builds have already made IT less appealing as an entry level class. National status is sure to expand the expensive end of the IT spectrum and leave beginners and low budget racers farther behind. It would be another big step toward becoming the new "Production" class and a step away form the role in the club that it has served so well for years.

I think the real problem is not that Improved Touring lacks National status, but rather that there isn't a good next step beyond IT for the racer who aspires to the Runoffs and National competition. The Production or Prepared classes should serve this role but their rule makers have made little effort at making these classes accessible to IT drivers who want to "Move up".

As it is, Improved Touring is too good of a class to screw up in an effort to fix the problems of the club's National Program.

I know this may be WAY out there, and DEFINITELY not something done over night, but I think you are kind of right that there isn't a place for IT cars to go except production and there are quite a few things much more appealing about IT then production. What about making a place for IT cars to go. Keeping with the "stock" mentality. No tube chassis, but maybe allow the RR shocks with 4 way adjustments and little things that IT doesn't find ok. Maybe even make it run by the same IT committee, but a Nationally recognized set of classes. An IT car could go run in these classes, but a full built XX car couldn't come back because it would be illegal.

Keeping the same IT mindset, but straying away from comp adjustments that Prod lives on. I know it's vague, it would need a HUGE expansion, but seriously. Why not? Let guys like Andy (not picking on you) just bolt a couple extra go fast goodies onto his ITA Miata making your IT car faster and a National class. Win, win , win in my opinion.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I stress again, that it is my personal opinion, not the ITAC's. This is not an ITAC issue, it's CRB and BoD currently. Please send in your opinions to the CRB.

My net position is that I love IT and I want to have the ability to run for a true NC in IT. I don't think it will have a net negative effect on the class given the way the rules are set up. Opinions vary and good arguements abound on both sides. We can agree to disagree, I just think most are looking at this from a very local persepctive. I guess we would hav eto white-board the ideas on how it effects SCCA as a whole.

[Knestis]

>> I got into IT racing because it was Regional, I liked the rules, and it was just fun. Please let's not ruin the fun. ...

I'm trying to understand how National status would change things for someone with this goal. Help?

K

[gran racing]

too many classes = thin grids for everyone

Going along with what Travis said, we’ve already learned that too many racing events = thin grids for multiple regions. More options sometimes can have a negative impact especially with how things have been going with our economy.


I just don't see anything broke about IT that this would fix.

That’s the thing Vaughan, I don’t see this as something being done to fix or help IT but rather other Club Racing issues. Right now IT is the best it has ever been. When we take a look at the classes and the various makes/models that could potentially win races, it’s pretty amazing. I think the majority of us will agree this will have a big impact on the IT category, whether or not that will be a good thing is obviously quite debatable and depends upon ones perspective. People have worked very hard to get IT to where it is today, and now we’ll jeopardize it?


My desire to build, maintain and race a car with the ruleset and cars I think are the best fit for me - for a SCCA National Championship.

Andy, don’t we (including the ITAC) often say that people chose the cars they race in IT and should know what they’re getting including the good and bad when making the decision? Why is choosing the category we race in any different? It’s not.


Your definition of dilution is someone elses definition of having a chance to win...

This dilution is much broader than simply one person’s ability to run with a lesser competitive field.

I do not like splitting the category into two – either it’s national or it’s not. Let’s say IT is made into both National and Regional. Many of us including myself would be very torn where to do our racing and due to budget constraints, the answer couldn’t be doing them all.

In one sense I’d like to race in the national races where the competition is high. On the other hand I have friends who I know wouldn’t be racing in National events, so maybe I’d do that instead? There’s a social impact on this decision as well. I will also agree with what others have said in regards to thinning out the participation numbers among National & Regional.


simply because it's not a National class and there's no official national championship to strive for.

Thinking of this from a club’s perspective, that’s okay as long as they’re racing with SCCA. I’m not convinced it’s a bad thing that some people are motivated to race in other categories because they want the perceived prestige (I can’t even name one Runoffs champion). One category can’t be all things to all people nor should we try to make it that way.


Finally, from a marketing standpoint, I don't think the SCCA could do anything better for participation and membership than making IT run at the Runoffs. The ruleset is very attractive to the average racer wanna be, there are cars he and she can identify with, and the races will look great on TV. For the club as a whole, its a powerful tool gone unused for years.

Since you reminded me of my bondo explosion yesterday, how cool would that have been to capture on TV? LOL Yeah, the IT races will look great on TV at 2 a.m. I will agree it has the potential of being a powerful tool if used properly, but the club would also need to be very careful it doesn’t ruin a great thing it has.

[tom_sprecher]

Seperate subject

To those who created the SECOND Triple Crown (ITTC), are you not aware the CenDiv has had a Triple Crown for National level drivers for several years. Win your Division, win the Sprints & win a National Championship.

We were aware, have always thought highly of the concept and wanted to provide IT drivers the same oppurtunity hence the IT Triple Crown. We just hope everyone here will support and participate in this series whatever the outcome of the subject of this thread should be.

[Knestis]

... What about making a place for IT cars to go. Keeping with the "stock" mentality. ...

It's old content but we kicked around ideas for a thing we called "Modified Touring" - more at http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

Or what if "National IT" were the same exact rules applied to cars newer than the current 5-year rule allows? Make the eligibility the inverse of the Regional rules (i.e., a car ages OUT of National status only as it ages INTO Regional status)...

Just thinking outside the box.

K

[jjjanos]

Unfortunately, I think the IT ruleset would really bring in a lot of drivers who want to run Nationally. Read Josh's post. He know what is going on over teh other side of the fence. Maybe if IT poached enough drivers from classes people really don't want to be running, we would lose less members to NASA and the PTB would have the ammunition to kill those classes for good and put the time into developing some classes that could be more popular than 2 H-prod cars at a National.

1. Perhaps, perhaps not. Show me the market research/polling data that demonstrates or indicates current non-SCCA drivers will move to SCCA.
2. Poaching from Prod/etc - Expound upon how this helps the Club while addressing the potential ill-effects of alienating the remaining prod drivers. E.g. Describe how a prod-IT war similar to the open-wheel/IT war will not be waged.
3. Poaching from Prod - Have a hard time reconciling how someone attracted to the anything goes lifestyle of production will be satisfied with the limited tinkering of IT simply because it offers a national championship. I know of several prod drivers who race only in regionals and who simply like to tinker. Nationalizing IT will not change that.
4. Poach from NASA? NASA, for all practical purposes, doesn't run IT. It's all mods and whether the newer Cochran warp drive should give you enough points to go to PT1 or PT2 and what about that cloaking device? Just how many points is that worth? Me thinks that the sort of person who is enamored with such tinkering is neither going to be interested by IT nor would be welcome in IT without an attitude adjustment.
5. Killing classes - the solution is known. What is lacking is the fortitude. I'd rather that Topeka and the rule setting bodies of these classes grow their own set rather than borrow a pair from IT.


Just beacuse there is no open wound to put a band-aid on is no reason to not go to the gym and try and build on a good foundation.

True, but the first thing one is suppose to do is get a physical to determine whether you can start the workout program. I refer you back to the 3 steps I gave earlier.


Your points about what a National driver does to qualify for the RO's are spot on. I believe this must be addressed across all classes before National racing can be successful again. I know the PTB are working on it.

Well, my mama always taught me that before you invite guests over, you need to clean house. I think that lesson applies here. Before they invite IT over for dinner, Topeka needs to clean house in the National program because I'm 100% opposed to entering into a sty.


It's a shame that some think the SCCA is using IT to bolster revenues. If you don't want to run Nationals, don't. Your program won't change and they won't get your money.

It's a shame that Denver/Topeka has made decisions that furthered its interests over that of the Regions'. It's a shame that Denver/Topeka has proven so pliant to the demands/interest/whims of "connected" drivers and the National program at the expense of the Regions/Regional Racing. It's a shame that Denver/Topeka has left the impression, rightly or wrongly, that Regional racing is simply a cross they must carry to have a National Program and the Runoffs (tm). I.e. Don't blame us because we have a well-earned sense of cynicism when it comes to Topeka/National Racing and how they are here to "help" us. They can pick up their own bar of soap, thank you very much and I'd appreciate it if the BoD walked in-front of me.

[tnord]

i think it's a neat idea kirk.....but my god would it be expensive. it's like combining the costs of having to buy a new car for SS/T, then tacking on the extra 30k it takes to actually build the car.

you're looking at 50k+ IT cars as commonplace i think.

[ddewhurst]

***It's a shame that some think the SCCA is using IT to bolster revenues.***

Andy, from my view a Division & a Region ARE the SCCA. Many Divisions out side the GREAT NE Divison hold restricted Regionals with their National events. If restricted Regionals are not held to bolster Division/Regional profit why are the restricted Regionals held with National events? < That's a question stated with respect to your comment which you should respond to.



When reading below the posts by Charlie & spnkzss I keep letting my mind wonder back to the starting days of the Limited Pre cars in Production which was 1996/1997. The original Philosophy of L.P was that a person could AT HOME fab/build a car that would be a National competitor. (& not at the back of the pack) < THIS is where IT cars could have progressed into at the National level had the L.P. rules not creeped to a silly level compared to the original philosophy. How many of you know what that whole L.P. deal has creeped into. The same sh_t would happen if IT were to go National IMHJ. The same sh_t happened to Spec Miata. & to someones comment about Spec Miata costs. The first two years of Pro Spec Miata a DRIVER could get the job done with a $20,000.00 car. After the Spec Miat went National the costs REALLY escallated to you pick a number & fill in the number $??,000. Wasn't the guy who towed three Spec Miatas to the 2007 Runoffs from the GREAT NE Division.



****Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Broring http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=264958#post264958)
If IT goes National the character of the class is sure to change. Rule creep and high dollar builds have already made IT less appealing as an entry level class. National status is sure to expand the expensive end of the IT spectrum and leave beginners and low budget racers farther behind. It would be another big step toward becoming the new "Production" class and a step away form the role in the club that it has served so well for years.

I think the real problem is not that Improved Touring lacks National status, but rather that there isn't a good next step beyond IT for the racer who aspires to the Runoffs and National competition. The Production or Prepared classes should serve this role but their rule makers have made little effort at making these classes accessible to IT drivers who want to "Move up".

As it is, Improved Touring is too good of a class to screw up in an effort to fix the problems of the club's National Program.

I know this may be WAY out there, and DEFINITELY not something done over night, but I think you are kind of right that there isn't a place for IT cars to go except production and there are quite a few things much more appealing about IT then production. What about making a place for IT cars to go. Keeping with the "stock" mentality. No tube chassis, but maybe allow the RR shocks with 4 way adjustments and little things that IT doesn't find ok. Maybe even make it run by the same IT committee, but a Nationally recognized set of classes. An IT car could go run in these classes, but a full built XX car couldn't come back because it would be illegal.

Keeping the same IT mindset, but straying away from comp adjustments that Prod lives on. I know it's vague, it would need a HUGE expansion, but seriously. Why not? Let guys like Andy (not picking on you) just bolt a couple extra go fast goodies onto his ITA Miata making your IT car faster and a National class. Win, win , win in my opinion. ****

[JoshS]

I'm not certain whether this is in jest or not, but, in otherwords and with all due respect, this is all about what you want and to hell with whether it is good for the club, the regions and the category?

1. Identify the problem - what is currently damaging IT?

JJJ (what's your name, anyway?) -

I really do understand where you're coming from. You want to leave IT alone because it's successful and lots of members like the way it is. And because you don't trust "Topeka." I get it.

But -- this is a club, and we should be talking about the larger membership population, not just the IT population. And this proposal here, I would guess, is not being proposed to fix some damage to IT, as your question surmises. It's likely being proposed to address a larger issue with the membership.

So the right question is not "what is currently damaging IT", but rather, "Would adding national eligibility for IT be better for all of our current and future members than the current situation?"

Naturally any change is bad for someone and good for someone. You have highlighted a few reasons why such a change might be bad for some of the current IT-oriented members. But is there a chance that it's a net benefit for the club membership at large?

I think the answer is yes (and the reasons why are already in this thread), but I think the reason there are so many arguments here is that we're not all trying to answer the same question.

[ddewhurst]

****>> I got into IT racing because it was Regional, I liked the rules, and it was just fun. Please let's not ruin the fun. ...

I'm trying to understand how National status would change things for someone with this goal. Help?****

K, your way to intelligent to to respond like this ^. Please follow the path of Spec Miata. Or need I make a list of the items that would be impacted with IT being Regional & National OR whatever else some of you would like to call IT in the future.

[ddewhurst]

***I really do understand where you're coming from. You want to leave IT alone because it's successful and lots of members like the way it is. And because you don't trust "Topeka." I get it.***

Josh, let me add another point. Last year or the year before the majority of a poll taken on this site had a desire for IT to remain Regional.:o

[JoshS]

Rule creep and high dollar builds have already made IT less appealing as an entry level class.

Where is it written that it's an entry-level class? And what's the definition of an entry-level class, anyway? To me, an entry-level something is a good "first foray" into the world of something, and it's assumed that no one stays in the entry-level arena for very long.

Clearly, IT is not and hasn't been entry-level for a very long time, if ever. It's a destination, not a stepping-stone. Look at people like Kirk. He's been driving in IT since tires were made of wood or something.

Even the original article in SportsCar talking about it's purpose didn't make it out to be entry-level if I remember right.

This concept is just plain wrong. SCCA does not have entry-level classes. People choose where they want to race and they tend to stay there.

[spnkzss]

It's old content but we kicked around ideas for a thing we called "Modified Touring" - more at http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

Or what if "National IT" were the same exact rules applied to cars newer than the current 5-year rule allows? Make the eligibility the inverse of the Regional rules (i.e., a car ages OUT of National status only as it ages INTO Regional status)...

Just thinking outside the box.

K

I like that too, kinda going the other way of what I was thinking.

I was thinking of all the people that start in something like ITA, then want to go National with that car. I then modify my car to ITNA which allow less weight (lexan and fiberglass maybe), same engine rules, some 4 way adjustable RR shocks, and a set of slicks. Something for me to shoot for that is not of the prod mentality. You know the way it was originally suppose to happen before it got twisted over the years into the comp adjusted prod we have now. :p

[JoshS]

I know this may be WAY out there, and DEFINITELY not something done over night, but I think you are kind of right that there isn't a place for IT cars to go except production and there are quite a few things much more appealing about IT then production. What about making a place for IT cars to go. Keeping with the "stock" mentality. No tube chassis, but maybe allow the RR shocks with 4 way adjustments and little things that IT doesn't find ok. Maybe even make it run by the same IT committee, but a Nationally recognized set of classes. An IT car could go run in these classes, but a full built XX car couldn't come back because it would be illegal.


I thought you guys didn't like "dilution." You just described a way to suck IT cars out of IT and have them UNABLE to return. I can't believe that's the best approach.

[seckerich]

What is to stop IT from staying regional and still ollowing the top 24 classes Nationwide to go to the runoffs?

[ddewhurst]

***Where is it written that it's an entry-level class? And what's the definition of an entry-level class, anyway?***

If IT closed wheel cars are not entry level for SCCA Regional racing please tell us all what closed wheel class is an entry level Regional class.

[tnord]

What is to stop IT from staying regional and still ollowing the top 24 classes Nationwide to go to the runoffs?

nothing really, but the CRB/BOD has demonstrated time and time again the inability to actually do this.

doing away with the regional/national distinction and taking the top 24 is more of a broad sweeping philisophical change under which i have more faith that we actually will allow the undersubscribed classes die out.

[jjjanos]

But -- this is a club, and we should be talking about the larger membership population, not just the IT population. And this proposal here, I would guess, is not being proposed to fix some damage to IT, as your question surmises. It's likely being proposed to address a larger issue with the membership.

If National racing is ill because the rules for National Categories has made the program ill, the solution is fixing those rules. If I've torn cartilage in a joint, NSAIDs will make me feel better and mask the pain, but it does nothing about the torn cartilage and actually does harm since I'm ripping the joint more. Pain is the body's way of saying "Don't do that, it hurts." Low participation in a Category is the membership's way of saying "Don't do that, it hurts."

If there is some larger issue with the membership that needs addressing, then let the Authorities state that problem.


So the right question is not "what is currently damaging IT", but rather, "Would adding national eligibility for IT be better for all of our current and future members than the current situation?"

Define the current situation. What is the problem? So far its been framed in two ways - the desire for a gold medal and pulling the arse of National racing out of the fire into which they voluntarily jumped.


Naturally any change is bad for someone and good for someone. You have highlighted a few reasons why such a change might be bad for some of the current IT-oriented members. But is there a chance that it's a net benefit for the club membership at large?

Again, I say... define the problem/disease/issue. Those desiring an official gold medal are a very small subset of the membership and those that are both interested in winning and financially capable of persuing a Runoffs (tm) berth are very much in the minority.


I think the answer is yes (and the reasons why are already in this thread), but I think the reason there are so many arguments here is that we're not all trying to answer the same question.

I think the answer cannot conceivably be yes since the question hasn't even been defined. What we have hear is a solution in search of a problem to solve. Move IT to National because <insert problem here>. This smacks of verdict first, trial second.

What is the problem that is trying to be solved?
What are the causes/sources of that problem?

Answer those questions and then the issue of whether moving IT to National status might be relevant, but from where I'm sitting, it seems that some people think that this move will solve every crisis in the club, turn water into wine and prevent me from constantly flat spotting my tires. And while I'm in favor of something that will do the later, I really doubt the ability of this proposal to do that.

[Doc Bro]

JJJ (what's your name, anyway?) -


But -- this is a club, and we should be talking about the larger membership population, not just the IT population. And this proposal here, I would guess, is not being proposed to fix some damage to IT, as your question surmises. It's likely being proposed to address a larger issue with the membership.

So the right question is not "what is currently damaging IT", but rather, "Would adding national eligibility for IT be better for all of our current and future members than the current situation?"




I would think a membership exploratory commitee would be assigned to that task, not "change the status of IT" to fix a perceived gap in the membership. Refer back to the debate about wings, forced induction and AWD, that is the untapped membership pool. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed within the club. IT is not the panacea that solves a recruitment issue. Moving IT to national has more to do with personal agendas than it does to do with fixing problems.

.02

R

[JoshS]

IT is not the panacea that solves a recruitment issue. Moving IT to national has more to do with personal agendas than it does to do with fixing problems.

I agree with both of those two statements. But who said that this proposal that was discussed at a driver's meeting somewhere had anything to with a recruitment issue?

[JoshS]

***Where is it written that it's an entry-level class? And what's the definition of an entry-level class, anyway?***

If IT closed wheel cars are not entry level for SCCA Regional racing please tell us all what closed wheel class is an entry level Regional class.
I already said that, in my opinion, the SCCA doesn't have entry level classes. The SCCA has entry level races -- regional races.

[shwah]

I'm not picking on anyone specific and yes there is some jealousy in this statement, but the people that are really pushing for a National IT are people that have multi car teams and have a MUCH higher then avg budget towards these cars, even if they are IT. There are still quite a few IT drivers out there that touch the car maybe 4 to 5 times in a winter to get ready for the year, don't spend days on a dyno, don't spend $10-$50/gal for fuel, don't buy more than 6-8 tires a year, don't spend $400 a wheel in Volks, don't have a $5k motor with a spare fully built $5k non junk yard motor in the trailer, and still would like to be a little higher than mid pack. Maybe not contesting for the win, because we know there are the people that will do what's listed above, but there are far less of them and still a chance they could go off or not finish. Make IT national and you are going to have to do what's listed above just to stand a chance at 10th.
I am not the guy you just described, but I still would go national, and expect to be competitive. The best answer to every racing challenge does not reside in the bank account.

I have about $10k into my car over 5 years of building and 5 years of racing, buy my gas at the Citgo station, and count on good performances to enable me to afford good tires (contingency). I pull my car on a $1000 open trailer behind a $4000 conversion van, and often camp at the track.

I would love to take that same low buck effort to the runoffs and compete with the guys with lots of money and multiple car efforts, because they are probably really fun and challenging to race against. I don't understand why anyone would be critical of someone else for being fortunate - why not just be happy for them, and if you can beat them be happy for yourself too.

[Doc Bro]

I agree with both of those two statements. But who said that this proposal that was discussed at a driver's meeting somewhere had anything to with a recruitment issue?


You did. Post #103

"It's likely being proposed to address a larger issue with the membership."

R

[tom_sprecher]

Look at people like Kirk. He's been driving in IT since tires were made of wood or something.

Kirk, is this true? I heard that back in your day the wheel had yet to be invented. :D

You see, this is exactly how nasty rumors get started.

IMHO there to many agendas and not enough money to pay for them. Eliminate the distiction, reduce the total number of races and let the market dictate who goes to the Runoffs and which classes get one of the 24 groups. No matter how it's organized you have to pay to play at the pointy end of the field. Otherwise, try to at least have some fun.

[gran racing]

I heard that back in your day the wheel had yet to be invented.

Man, we need to look up which scribe it was when he really blasted the BOD about rules creap then! :D

[JoshS]

You did. Post #103

"It's likely being proposed to address a larger issue with the membership."

R
But not recruitment. I meant our current membership. I should have been more precise.

[DavidM]

Let's define the "championship" for a national class. Basically it's one race where all the top guys from each region get invited to race against each other to see who's the fastest. We already have that for IT. In fact we now have two: the ARRC and IT Fest. The best guys show up to race against each other to find out who's the fastest. It's not all formal like the Runoffs, but that's pretty much how it goes. The ARRC and IT Fest are better IMO because anybody can show up and play. You can come out and have fun even if you know you won't be competing for the win. The social aspect is just as big as the racing.

I would be against IT going national because I think the whole regional/national distinction is bogus. Let's just have classes and race weekends. You can still have the divisional championships like the SARRC and MARRS (which in some ways are more prestigious than a single race win) and you can still have the Runoffs. The ARRC and IT Fest would still be the great events they are today.

David

[Knestis]

I wrote an article about tires when I first started racing IT cars, but the clay tablet I pressed the cuneiform characters into got wet in a leaky basement situation two houses ago, and it was ruined.

>> Please follow the path of Spec Miata. Or need I make a list of the items that would be impacted with IT being Regional & National OR whatever else some of you would like to call IT in the future.

Since DD doesn't want to, maybe someone else will make a cogent case for the process by which anything would change for the "just have fun," participation-as-priority driver* if IT got National status. I truly do not understand how that might happen, absent any concern that additional competition is going to cost him/her finishing positions.

K

* The problem might be that we haven't defined this person. Doesn't have any desire to "move up" in racing, races on a very limited budget, uses tires until the tread peaks through, and (most importantly) cares more about taking the green than winning a trophy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, my mama always taught me that before you invite guests over, you need to clean house. I think that lesson applies here. Before they invite IT over for dinner, Topeka needs to clean house in the National program because I'm 100% opposed to entering into a sty.


And she is a smart woman. What is missing here is that the idea of IT going National is (I believe) part of an overall scrub down and re-evaluation of the entire Club Racing program.

[seckerich]

nothing really, but the CRB/BOD has demonstrated time and time again the inability to actually do this.

doing away with the regional/national distinction and taking the top 24 is more of a broad sweeping philisophical change under which i have more faith that we actually will allow the undersubscribed classes die out.

I was looking more at leaving the regional/national seperation but have the IT classes have a chance to earn a spot at the runoffs. Top 24 go period (or whatever number) or top 20 get their own group and the others combine. No drop in regional racing (might see a gain) and they go to national championship. I think the pure economics and pressure on the CRB will make it possible. Just my opinion.

[tnord]

>> Please follow the path of Spec Miata. Or need I make a list of the items that would be impacted with IT being Regional & National OR whatever else some of you would like to call IT in the future.

Since DD doesn't want to, maybe someone else will make a cogent case for the process by which anything would change for the "just have fun," participation-as-priority driver* if IT got National status. I truly do not understand how that might happen, absent any concern that additional competition is going to cost him/her finishing positions.

K

* The problem might be that we haven't defined this person. Doesn't have any desire to "move up" in racing, races on a very limited budget, uses tires until the tread peaks through, and (most importantly) cares more about taking the green than winning a trophy.

I'll make an attempt, since I think I fit this demographic pretty well.

I'm a regular freaking guy (27yo with a white collar desk job), living in a regular town (suburb of Kansas City), with slightly above the national average income. I have no illusions about my talent level or prospects for a future in racing, which means I'm in this "just for fun." But ya know what, that doesn't mean I where I finish doesn't have an impact on the level of fun I have. I played three sports through highschool, and continue play in adult sports leagues to this day. I'm a competitive person who has said the "it's not whether you win or lose" thing was BS since my T-Ball days. the other aspect of enjoyment comes from actually having competition, ie; grid size.

If IT were to go National, and follow the path of SM (which it will for the most part), the average prep level of both national and regional cars would go up. Keeping in mind the two things on-track that determine my enjoyment, in order to stay competitive and maintain the same level of enjoyment, my prep level must increase and I must burn more money. On the grid size front I also lose out because half of the people i used to race with are now focused on their National efforts.

So the "fun" aspect of the on-track events has changed for me because there are fewer people to actually compete with, and finishing lower on the grid is less fun for me. I can curb that a little bit by spending more, but it's still not as good as it was.

As for the social aspect of my racing enjoyment? That's changed also. We usually have regional races on Saturday, and nationals on Sunday in MiDiv. Before when SM was regional only, it used to be a big party on both Fri and Sat nights with everyone hanging out together, drinking, walking the paddock, etc. Now, that still happens on Fri night before the regional, but on Sat night people go into their trailers to analyze data, retreat to the hotel early to get good sleep, and focus far less on "fun," and far more on the big race the next day.

To my eye, there's a few different ways things get "worse" for the IT group if the National variable is added. I have no idea how much sense my ramblings made, but hey, I tried.

[cfullgraf]

My vote would be to leave IT a Regional class and especially leave the rules as they are.

IT as it is is a great place to start racing, a great place for very competitive racing, a great place for inexpensive racing (relatively speaking) and a great place for reliable racing. History has proven that any National class suffers from rules creep and will become very expensive in due time.

I've done the Run-offs thing (13th in CSR in 1983)and it is not all that it is cracked up to be for a back marker. Oh, it is quite the experience but even on a budget, it is very expensive.

If you want to run the Run-offs, there are already 24 classes to choose from. Build or buy a car and knock yourself out but leave IT alone.

[Doc Bro]

The problem with IT going national is once it goes national it can't come back to regional the way it currently is. It will change forever.

The good news is that I haven't had a good "remember when" conversation in a while....


R

[Knestis]

Thanks, Travis. In my head, you have a more competitive nature than I'd have ascribed to the "have fun" racer in question but that's helpful.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me pose this to Trav... :)

Let's say that some idiotic company hired me, Bowie, the Mosers, Amy and Ruck (insert any other well-prepped ITA car) to head up a new Idiot division HQ'd in Kansas. We all reloacte and insert ourselves into your ITA series. What do you do?

My point is that the 'stakes' or prep level can be raised at any time now. There is nothing to stop it...and you have noplace to go but out of the class if you don't like your resultant finishing position.

With a National program, your Regional program might stay somewhat 'intact' in this scenario if those drivers/cars went National.

Just another angle. It's an interesting conversation. This is the first I have heard of anyone asking for real member input. I suggest we all make our feelings known. While *I* would like to race for a NC in my IT car, I would defer to whatever is best for IT and the Club as a whole. It's not really a deal breaker for me as I think I like the rules too much to change classes...until Prod gets it's Limited Prep house in order....

[lateapex911]

***Where is it written that it's an entry-level class? And what's the definition of an entry-level class, anyway?***

If IT closed wheel cars are not entry level for SCCA Regional racing please tell us all what closed wheel class is an entry level Regional class.

I know a guy who bought a 20 year old race car for $3500, and has been racing it for a couple years regionally. He's finishing in the top 4 regularly. He bought an E Prod Z car.

He's having fun, and enjoying "entry level" regional racing.

If we didn't have the regional distinction, he'd probably hit the local races that fit his budget, his desire for competition, his social desires, and so on. Because we might lose a couple races on the schedule (perhaps some poorly attended races from the National participants) he might slide down the results sheets at a couple of races, but as long as he didn't fall into the mental masterbation aspect of worrying about if he finished 3rd or 5th, he'd be racing the same guys, having the same fun, for the same money. He knows full well that he's not "fast" or "national caliber", but he's having fun. Why would that change?

"Entry level" is where you find it.

[JeffYoung]

It's funny Andy, I have the OPPOSITE concern. I don't want to the lose the fast ITS guys in the ultra competitive SEDiv -- I think we have the fastest group of ITS cars in the country -- to Nationals.

We have 10 to 20 car fields right now that are about 1/3 guys who can win in any division, 1/3 mid pack and 1/3 new guys and totally "for fun" folks. The way I see this shaking out is if IT goes National, that top 1/3 (of which I am finally knocking on the door of) deserts our traditional regional races for the grind of the National tour.

I don't want to see that. Right now, to me, a SARRC championship and a decent showing at the ARRC is fulfillment enough. I wouldn't trade that for the threat I see that National status poses to car counts and the integrity of our ruleset.

At least with just doing away with the national/regional distinction, there is less of any issue for car counts since the "traditional" regional races still generate points. But I am really afraid of IT drivers, through the ITAC, losing "control" over the IT ruleset to an influx of former Prod, GT and other drivers (who have different views on how rules should be) who want to race IT because it is national.

[Racerlinn]

* The problem might be that we haven't defined this person. Doesn't have any desire to "move up" in racing, races on a very limited budget, uses tires until the tread peaks through, and (most importantly) cares more about taking the green than winning a trophy.

Raises hand. :)

[jjjanos]

My point is that the 'stakes' or prep level can be raised at any time now. There is nothing to stop it...and you have noplace to go but out of the class if you don't like your resultant finishing position.

True, but compare the attitude/philosophy/wealth of the average driver who is motivated to compete in the National program to the attitude/philosophy/wealth of the average driver who is racing in IT. My gut feeling is that the former is far more likely to not only want to throw cubic money at his car, but is better equipped to do the same. More importantly, the type of person who is willing to burn money to be at the pointy end of the field is far more likely to be interested in that official gold medal (OGM) and won't do it in IT because it doesn't have an OGM.

While the possibility that someone is willing to burn that sort of cash exists in IT, it is far more likely that they will choose the National Program as the place to do it.


With a National program, your Regional program might stay somewhat 'intact' in this scenario if those drivers/cars went National.

If IT isn't national, those wanting an OGM leave the category, stop racing regionals and go into the National-qualified category. If IT is national, those wanting an OGM stay in the category, stop racing regionals and go race where National points are awarded. Either way, they are gone from the regional racing program.

Again I am asking -
Other than their desire for personal glory through winning an OGM, what problem of the Club are those advocating this change hoping to solve?

[planet6racing]

If restricted Regionals are not held to bolster Division/Regional profit why are the restricted Regionals held with National events? < That's a question stated with respect to your comment which you should respond to.



David:

The Cat National last year had a handful (OK, maybe 2 handfuls) of IT entrants. There is NO WAY that our participation in that event helped the National race significantly.

It was fun to run in DP in the National race. That was an experience I won't forget anytime soon!

[lateapex911]

A couple comments:

First, I see lots of concern over what I'd term "the escalation of prep, and how it affects my world" Interestingly, people see this as a bad thing, that they will be turned into losers by the evil dollar and prep levels. But, often, it's more a case of the size of the pond. Many of us are happy racing in a little pond, and being a big, or nearly big fish. What is being forgotten is that there are lots of bigger ponds, with bigger fish. Let's not kid ourselves, there is only one "Fastest guy" in any class....and he's likely not in your (or my) pond.

Second, this "request for input" is coming from a backdoor, and is rather incomplete. We, (I) (the ITAC) don't know what other factors are being discussed and tossed about. So, please write, but don't just write that you want IT national, or regional, but write about the conditions you see as being needed IF you thought IT could go national, or why you think it should not be national .....and think big picture. I'm not on the inside of this discussion , but I bet my bottom dollar that he guys up the ladder are discussing a much broader plan that involves far more than merely IT going national.

Make your opinions known. The BoD and the CRB should get your email.

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, while I totally disagree with it as a solution, I think the "unstated problem" that the Club is trying to fix is the complete FUBAR that production/GT classes and the Boreoffs have become.

Old cars mostly. Limited attractiveness of the car sets to the general public. Crazy rulesets. Silly costs. Low car counts.

The "quick" fix to all of this is to take an extraordinarily successful regional class consisting of a "rational" level of prep, high car counts and interesting cars and turn it into the new flagship of the BoreOffs. Or if not the flagship, at least the economic "horsepower" to support it.

[Knestis]

...and (1) is that a bad thing? (2) Under what conditions to preserve what's good about Regional IT would it be worthwhile to do?

K

[tnord]

Let me pose this to Trav... :)

Let's say that some idiotic company hired me, Bowie, the Mosers, Amy and Ruck (insert any other well-prepped ITA car) to head up a new Idiot division HQ'd in Kansas. We all reloacte and insert ourselves into your ITA series. What do you do?


i go back to the class which my car is built for....SM. the reason i'm in ITA is the Spec Tire debacle in SM, and the contingency awarded by Kumho for IT. if you guys show up, i get my ass beat and my free tires wash up. short term i go back to SM, long term, i don't know what i'd do.



My point is that the 'stakes' or prep level can be raised at any time now. There is nothing to stop it...and you have noplace to go but out of the class if you don't like your resultant finishing position.


i wasn't trying to say that as soon as i drop down the grid i quit. i was just using absoltes to attempt to formulate "fun and enjoyment."



With a National program, your Regional program might stay somewhat 'intact' in this scenario if those drivers/cars went National.
....

regional contingency would likely dry up for IT, and the grids would be smaller/less competitive. the "influx" of drivers you talk about from other classes would be to run nationals, not regionals.

yes, i know how fragile my little world is being able to win ITA races in a SM, but I promise my opposition to IT going National without a larger scale restructuring of Club Racing is from a completely objective view, and not for selfish reasons.

[JoshS]

If IT isn't national, those [IT drivers] wanting an OGM leave the category, stop racing regionals and go into the National-qualified category. If IT is national, those [IT drivers] wanting an OGM stay in the category, stop racing regionals and go race where National points are awarded. Either way, they are gone from the regional racing program.

You just addressed what happens to two categories of people who are already in IT. And a fair assessment too.

But you are not asking what happens to other club members.

[bobfv2]

I want to thank all of you for putting input into this thread, As I said this was just a feeler question to see if people were interested in going National racing if and when the CRB ever brings it to us. I personally do not want to do anything to damage the regional series of these classes. I just want to make sure I can vote the direction my members wish to go. I personally believe that going National Racing could hurt the classes involved. Some areas are very strong and the ARRC proves this year after year. Some of our areas are weak in attendance and maybe this would make them stronger. The CenDiv TRO series is going strong and if you want to continue it, I am all for it.
Once again thanks for your input and I will continue to watch the thread and let you know if anything new comes up.
Bob Lybarger
Director Area 5

[erlrich]

I had one comment, and one observation -

Comment: Anyone who thinks IT going national isn't going to make it more expensive for the "cares about where he finishes, but doesn't quite have the budget to win yet" guy is fooling himself. Yes, the guy who is just out there to have fun won't be affected; he'll just have more cars lapping him each race. And yes, the guy with the deep pockets will just spend whatever it takes to keep up with the rest of the front-runners. But those guys who are maybe top-10 drivers, who want to get faster and are putting whatever spare dollar they can find into either the car or the driver are going to be pushed further back.

IT is supposed to be the "affordable" class; at least with respect to the other classes. Yes, people can spend big bucks, and some do; but make IT a national class and I bet you'll see many more big spenders coming in. And yes, I do see that as bad for the class. Maybe not Club Racing overall, but for the class yes. The only mitigating factor would be how many of those big spenders would be "national only" competitors. I'm not sure I want to find out.

Observation: For MARRS 1 we had 50 cars registered in SSM, 43-44 cars in SM, and maybe a half dozen Miatas in ITA that were either double-dipping or were shut out of SSM. As of today, with just over 2 weeks to go, there are 12 SMs registered for the Spring National at Summit. I'm not sure how representative this is of other regions, but I have to wonder if maybe some guys decided that national racing isn't all it's cracked up to be.

[tnord]

...and (1) is that a bad thing? (2) Under what conditions to preserve what's good about Regional IT would it be worthwhile to do?

K

this gets into how i feel the club should align itself competiviely against NASA.

NASA sells track time, to anyone, anywhere, with any car.
what SCCA should be selling is competition, history, prestige, etc.

going to the "top 24" format and eliminating regional racing effectively also gets rid of the "laid back/fun/hobby" aspect of regional racing. that would effectively be turned over to NASA. SCCA should try and establish itself as "the best amatuer racers in the country" and use some pro racing to help that image.

this is just the musings in my head without a whole lot of thought behind it....YMMV

[pballance]

I have followed this thread with great interest. I fit the profile of the “new” IT racer and would like to offer my opinion to the discussion.

I have no illusions about ever getting a “ride” and while I would like to think my skills are slightly above average I am also realistic. If I ever want to be at the front of a field I need seat time and car prep. Both of those things require $$$$ and time. Do I want to be competitive? Yes, do I want to race with a bunch of guys and gals that want to have fun? Yes, Am I willing to help a fellow racer out if they need a replacement part? Yes, Would I like to be at the front of the field? Yes.

I chose IT because I could race the car I wanted to race, a 36 year old Datsun. What class it was in didn’t matter and neither did the regional/national distinction. It still doesn’t matter to me. I never considered IT to be entry level. FWIW, with some window clips and other minor stuff I could race in Production and be a backmarker just like I am now. J I think that many of the new racers fit this category. They want to race in the car of their choosing that fits their current pocketbook.

I have made new friends, re-acquainted myself with old friends, and I am having a blast on track and finally getting to race. The racing is not made by having a National championship in my class. The racing is about the people, the friends, the fun we all have as we drive around on a closed course for bragging rights until the next race.

I have been asked by several racer friends “Why IT, you can’t go to the runoff’s?” My response has always been “I don’t really care.” I want to have fun, good, clean, close competition and I get that now in IT. It has been suggested by friends that I look at SRF or Spec-wrecker Miata as a way for either cost effective racing or national prestige and I simply don’t care.

If you want my opinion, leave IT alone. It is working fine and if someone wants to go to the runoffs, let them find one of the other classes.

I chose SCCA because I know the safety record and background of the club. The other major racing organization is still an unknown quantity for me, but that may change if SCCA doesn’t get their act together. The “temporary membership” fiasco that has affected SOLO participation still has me hacked off.

I respect each and every opinion voiced in this thread. Is there really a "them" in Topeka?
It makes me think of the old line "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us"

Thanks for letting me voice an opinion…….


Paul

[dickita15]

I have certainly learned something here. The train of thought that National racing is so screwed up that why would we want to be involved, and that the IT rules process is pretty good right now, are both pretty valid reasons to be skeptical.

[ddewhurst]

***David:

The Cat National last year had a handful (OK, maybe 2 handfuls) of IT entrants. There is NO WAY that our participation in that event helped the National race significantly.***

Bill, there is ONE reason that the IT cars are invited to the Cat National. To support/make the event profitable. It all started out inviting the IT cars, then when Spec Miata was Regional the IT cars were not invited for IIRC two years while the Spec Miata for those two years offered 65 & 70 cars, next the Spec Miata became National & there were not enough Regional Spec Miata to support/make the event profitable. Now the IT cars are the red headed step child again. If you don't buy my understanding ask the Milwaukee Region R.E.

With your hand full of IT cars last year are you taking the economy into account. I have not counted but the Regional car counts at the Farm & RA are looking pretty low.

[JeffYoung]

That last sentence is the best sum of the situation for a bunch of us that I have heard. Thanks Dick.


I have certainly learned something here. The train of thought that National racing is so screwed up that why would we want to be involved, and that the IT rules process is pretty good right now, are both pretty valid reasons to be skeptical.

[JoshS]

If you want my opinion, leave IT alone. It is working fine and if someone wants to go to the runoffs, let them find one of the other classes.

What everyone who says this doesn't understand is that the Runoffs participation and National participation in general is waning. One of the goals (I assume) of proposals like this one is to address this problem.

In other words, it's one thing to say, "find another class." But the problem is that there aren't very many interesting, popular classes to find anymore if you want to go to the Runoffs. You really need to think bigger picture.

[Knestis]

>> But those guys who are maybe top-10 drivers, who want to get faster and are putting whatever spare dollar they can find into either the car or the driver are going to be pushed further back. ...

So would those of you who feel this way complain if IT at the Regional level got more popular, causing competitive pressures to increase both participation and budgets at the front of the existing grids? Say 10 new, well-funded drivers show up next year in your class in your region. Presume that NOTHING changes about IT rules, etc. ...

How do you respond to that?

K

[JeffYoung]

Oh, we understand completely Josh. Topeka wants to "fix" the Boreoffs by bringing us to the party. Real multi-marque racing. Stable and rational rule set. High car counts.

Their big picture is we "fix" their problems.

My big picture is "their" problems get injected into my class.

[lateapex911]

I have certainly learned something here. The train of thought that National racing is so screwed up that why would we want to be involved, and that the IT rules process is pretty good right now, are both pretty valid reasons to be skeptical.

I agree, Dick, but I imagine there's a whole lot more to this than we know. I'm waiting to react until I hear the details. For what it's worth, I hope it's a "Let the strong survive and the weak wither" approach.

[JoshS]

Oh, we understand completely Josh. Topeka wants to "fix" the Boreoffs by bringing us to the party. Real multi-marque racing. Stable and rational rule set. High car counts.

Their big picture is we "fix" their problems.

My big picture is "their" problems get injected into my class.
Makes sense. I was just addressing the "if you want to go to Runoffs, go find another class" concept. People hear that, so they start looking around for another class that offers them the same sorts of values they found in IT, and they come up empty.

[JeffYoung]

I would welcome it.

On the other hand, I would be upset if those well-funded drivers (a) focused only on "national" events and didn't race with us in "regional" events becuase they wanted points to go the run offs and (b) exerted influence on the rule set because they were "national" and therefore "more important" than the guys who ran regionals only.


>> But those guys who are maybe top-10 drivers, who want to get faster and are putting whatever spare dollar they can find into either the car or the driver are going to be pushed further back. ...

So would those of you who feel this way complain if IT at the Regional level got more popular, causing competitive pressures to increase both participation and budgets at the front of the existing grids? Say 10 new, well-funded drivers show up next year in your class in your region. Presume that NOTHING changes about IT rules, etc. ...

How do you respond to that?

K

[JeffYoung]

We're on the same page then.


Makes sense. I was just addressing the "if you want to go to Runoffs, go find another class" concept. People hear that, so they start looking around for another class that offers them the same sorts of values they found in IT, and they come up empty.

[tnord]

>> But those guys who are maybe top-10 drivers, who want to get faster and are putting whatever spare dollar they can find into either the car or the driver are going to be pushed further back. ...

So would those of you who feel this way complain if IT at the Regional level got more popular, causing competitive pressures to increase both participation and budgets at the front of the existing grids? Say 10 new, well-funded drivers show up next year in your class in your region. Presume that NOTHING changes about IT rules, etc. ...

How do you respond to that?

K

I first look at what it will take to regain my "competitive" status. if it just means becoming a better driver, well, that's fine. if it means i need a $7000 motor and new tires every weekend.....then it's time for major re-evaluation. will i still have fun being that far back? do i have the money for this? if i build my own motor and use take-off tires, how close does that get me?

I welcome more competition (like when Mac started showing up in our Division), as it makes it more fun. Just so long as the end goal is reasonably attainable in terms of cost, I'm fine. When you get into a situation like SM, costs are so far out of reach for me, and I could at least be "out there and competitive" in IT, all the while winning free tires. well, I left.

[JeffYoung]

Let me ask some of the guys with more "historical" SCCA experience than me a few questions.

When I do some SCCA history "research" on the web, I see something interesting. I see Production being an incredibly healthy class in the 60s and 70s, open to both amateur guys and "semi pro" teams like BRE, Sharp, Group 44, etc.

What's interesting to me is that production has been in a slow decline, in my view, since the mid 80s and is now a mere shadow of its former self.

My question, and I ask this solely to figure out how we best have IT avoid this fate, is of course why?

a. Was it money/factory teams? I would argue that for all the good they did, the hyper developed 325s of B-World (great guys) and RX7s of Speedsource (same) ended up hurting IT more in the 2000 to 2004 time frame than we thought. To me, ITS is just now recovering with cars just as fast, but done via amateur programs.

My fear is Nationalsocializing (whoops!) IT would bring some of that back.

b. Was it rule madness? Again, with more "at stake," there would be more bickering over the rules, and more rule madness with IT.

c. Other thoughts?

While it is impossible to do, I'd really like to "freeze" ITS in the SEDiv as it stands now. Great car counts. Lots of makes. Some high dollar efforts up front; some amateur efforts up front. Great racing. Maybe identifying what went wrong with Prod will help in avoiding its fate.

[Doc Bro]

What everyone who says this doesn't understand is that the Runoffs participation and National participation in general is waning. One of the goals (I assume) of proposals like this one is to address this problem.

In other words, it's one thing to say, "find another class." But the problem is that there aren't very many interesting, popular classes to find anymore if you want to go to the Runoffs. You really need to think bigger picture.



This is a great post. Why are we to asume that the same fate wouldn't lie ahead for IT? It seems that the runoffs and national status may be the kiss of death for a class.

R

[erlrich]

>> But those guys who are maybe top-10 drivers, who want to get faster and are putting whatever spare dollar they can find into either the car or the driver are going to be pushed further back. ...

So would those of you who feel this way complain if IT at the Regional level got more popular, causing competitive pressures to increase both participation and budgets at the front of the existing grids? Say 10 new, well-funded drivers show up next year in your class in your region. Presume that NOTHING changes about IT rules, etc. ...

How do you respond to that?

K
Haven't we already seen a couple of variations of this theme already?

Case 1: The RX7 is one of the top cars in ITA - then the CRX, Integra, 240Sx, and Miata are added and it becomes impossible for the RX7 driver to even smell the front of the pack. Result - IT7 & SRX7 pop us as bastard regional classes so those displaced front-runners have a place to compete again.

Case 2: ITS, and the introduction of the 325. The guys with the bucks figure out that this car can be a huge overdog if built to the hilt. Result - a lot of ITS drivers parked their cars and/or went somewhere else to play.

Case one was not as much of a loss - but how many spec classes are we going to allow? Case two was a little more costly.

I'm not saying your scenario can't happen now, just saying that making IT a national class will increase the likelyhood of it happening. JMHO of course.

[pballance]

Makes sense. I was just addressing the "if you want to go to Runoffs, go find another class" concept. People hear that, so they start looking around for another class that offers them the same sorts of values they found in IT, and they come up empty.

I agree, Perhaps I should have said it better but the point being is that IT works, works for me, and I could care less about a national distinction. But I also don't want a screwed up mess if IT does go national.

Point taken, :)

[seckerich]

Let me ask some of the guys with more "historical" SCCA experience than me a few questions.

When I do some SCCA history "research" on the web, I see something interesting. I see Production being an incredibly healthy class in the 60s and 70s, open to both amateur guys and "semi pro" teams like BRE, Sharp, Group 44, etc.

What's interesting to me is that production has been in a slow decline, in my view, since the mid 80s and is now a mere shadow of its former self.

My question, and I ask this solely to figure out how we best have IT avoid this fate, is of course why?

a. Was it money/factory teams? I would argue that for all the good they did, the hyper developed 325s of B-World (great guys) and RX7s of Speedsource (same) ended up hurting IT more in the 2000 to 2004 time frame than we thought. To me, ITS is just now recovering with cars just as fast, but done via amateur programs.

My fear is Nationalsocializing (whoops!) IT would bring some of that back.

b. Was it rule madness? Again, with more "at stake," there would be more bickering over the rules, and more rule madness with IT.

c. Other thoughts?

While it is impossible to do, I'd really like to "freeze" ITS in the SEDiv as it stands now. Great car counts. Lots of makes. Some high dollar efforts up front; some amateur efforts up front. Great racing. Maybe identifying what went wrong with Prod will help in avoiding its fate.

Production racing was the poster child for rules creep during those years. A lot of the decline was from the defection to spec classes and the more restrictive IT rule set. I got tired of having 2 motors for every weekend because I was so far over the ragged edge to run up front it was just time before the rods came outside for some daylight.:p I moved to IT in 98 because I could get tons of track time in everything from enduros to sprints. Do not underestimate the draw of multi series racing to popularity of a rule set. I can also say that I stayed because of the competition that Speedsource,Bimmerworld, and Black forest brought to the table. They brought a very professional level of prep to the class but it was really the drivers that made the difference. You can't buy that kind of instruction. I look at my old results sheets and it is a "who's who" in Grand Am, ALMS, and other pro series. It was nothing to have 35 ITS cars alone start an ECR. We are heading in that direction again with all the work the ITAC has done to level the fields. It really sucks it took so long to deal with the BMW in ITS because we all lost. The BMW drivers left because they felt screwed, and many others left because they were uncompetitive. I miss racing with those guys. In years past when we pissed off a big group of car owners they just switched cars, now they leave SCCA. IT and our regional classes are what is keeping this club going. Production is down to 3 classes and limited prep is helping it make a comeback. I moved to EP with an RX7 but I do not see me out of IT long term. It is still the best racing anywhere.

[dickita15]

I think I get that Jake, but who can be sure.
My statement is what I see of the IT opinions expressed here and I think those opinions are valid.
Now what is on the minds of the PTB is something different. Adding IT to the national class mix dumps 3 or 4 current national class all other things being equal.
The top 24 go to the runoffs. Here are the national car counts from last year.
1 SM 460
2 SRF 364
3 FV 140
4 GT1 122
5 FC 114
6 FA 114
7 EP 113
8 FF 109
9 FP 99
10 FM 94
11 DSR 88
12 GT2 81
13 F5 79
14 AS 78
15 CSR 71
16 S2 70
17 FE 70
18 GTL 65
19 T2 64
20 HP 64
21 SSB 61
22 SSC 57
23 GT3 53
24 T3 46
25 T1 45
26 GP 37


</SPAN>

[jjjanos]

You just addressed what happens to two categories of people who are already in IT. And a fair assessment too.

But you are not asking what happens to other club members.

Neither was the assertion.

What happens to other members of the club? Don't know and in some ways I don't really care. Keeping 25 Prod drivers who might come to an OGM IT category doesn't compensate for the far greater number of current IT drivers that won't be happy. The club isn't offering these disenfranchised prod drivers what they want. Some have asserted that IT as a National class is what they want. I doubt the veracity of that statement and there has been no evidence presented to reject the null hypothesis - IT category, whether National or Regional will keep a disenchanted Prod driver fat and happy.

The circumstantial evidence refutes the position that there is an untapped source of NASA drivers just dieing to race IT if it gets a OGM. NASA's "successful" classes aren't IT by a long stretch. If you want to go down that road, you'll need to suggest that we adopt yet another category - NKO (Nasa knock-off).

[jjjanos]

What everyone who says this doesn't understand is that the Runoffs participation and National participation in general is waning. One of the goals (I assume) of proposals like this one is to address this problem.

In other words, it's one thing to say, "find another class." But the problem is that there aren't very many interesting, popular classes to find anymore if you want to go to the Runoffs. You really need to think bigger picture.



Physician, heal thyself. We are looking at the big picture. You are looking at the picture as if the Runoffs and Nationals are the be-all/end-all reason for the existence of the Club. You sir, have a Topeka-centric view of the world. The Runoffs could vanish this year and, I believe, the majority of club participants and the majority of club racing entries would be uneffected.

Frankly, if my Region were to lose a date at Summit Point, the first thing I would delete would be one of the two schools. The second would be the National.


Makes sense. I was just addressing the "if you want to go to Runoffs, go find another class" concept. People hear that, so they start looking around for another class that offers them the same sorts of values they found in IT, and they come up empty.

And one of the key values of that category is REGIONAL ONLY. I like dogs. I don't willingly own a cat because I cannot find one that is a dog. If only there was a cat that had the same values/characteristics/behaviors of a dog. Solution: Own a DOG.

[mustanghammer]

Finally, from a marketing standpoint, I don't think the SCCA could do anything better for participation and membership than making IT run at the Runoffs. The ruleset is very attractive to the average racer wanna be, there are cars he and she can identify with, and the races will look great on TV. For the club as a whole, its a powerful tool gone unused for years.

+1

[Knestis]

Haven't we already seen a couple of variations of this theme already?

Case 1: The RX7 is one of the top cars in ITA - then the CRX, Integra, 240Sx, and Miata are added and it becomes impossible for the RX7 driver to even smell the front of the pack. Result - IT7 & SRX7 pop us as bastard regional classes so those displaced front-runners have a place to compete again.

Case 2: ITS, and the introduction of the 325. The guys with the bucks figure out that this car can be a huge overdog if built to the hilt. Result - a lot of ITS drivers parked their cars and/or went somewhere else to play. ...

Sorry - I didnt' explain very well, I guess because neither of those situations is an example of what I was trying to describe. Case 1 was "performance creep" - where cars that were simply faster (all other things being equal) were listed in A. Case 2 was an overdog situation. Yeah - BMWs got popular but it's because they were THE car to have in S.

I'm talking about some weird influence - all of a sudden lawyers get huge windfalls in earnings and thousands of Young's colleagues go racing - causes a huge uptick in popularity and competitiveness at the front of the grid.

Jeff Y. explains that he'd welcome it, and continues that it's a DECREASE in competition that has him worried. That's a very different thing than I hear from Travis, who's suggesting that he would actually be willing to do something else with his discretionary dollar, if he can't be as competitive as he is on his current budget.

Accurate so far?

K

[JoshS]

Physician, heal thyself. We are looking at the big picture. You are looking at the picture as if the Runoffs and Nationals are the be-all/end-all reason for the existence of the Club. You sir, have a Topeka-centric view of the world. The Runoffs could vanish this year and, I believe, the majority of club participants and the majority of club racing entries would be uneffected.

You know what? I agree with you, on all of those points, including, perhaps, my perspective.

What I don't agree with is the "I'm in IT, it works perfectly for me, so leave it alone" attitude. This is how we get a club racing program that's out of touch with modern realities and cause us to have a shrinking membership. It's the same attitude that has produced the "graying of the SCCA."

The stewards of the club racing program (the CRB and the BOD) are on the hook to look after the entire program, not just the current IT racers.

[JeffYoung]

Correct. My concerns are two fold:

1. Decrease in participation at "regional" level IT events that, as of today, are very popular (and fun). Jim Stark Double at Roebling. Memorial Monster at CMP. Goblins Go at VIR. Etc.

2. Increase in influence of "national" IT drivers on the IT ruleset. No hard evidence to back it up but I think the pressure on the stability of the ruleset would increase as more became at stake. It would be harder to maintain the idea that we don't guarantee competiveness given all other National classes try to do so via balancing or by spec.

[tnord]

Jeff Y. explains that he'd welcome it, and continues that it's a DECREASE in competition that has him worried. That's a very different thing than I hear from Travis, who's suggesting that he would actually be willing to do something else with his discretionary dollar, if he can't be as competitive as he is on his current budget.

Accurate so far?

K

it's close, but there's an aspect you're missing. it has nothing to do with the increased competition that could push me away, and everything to do with the cost of being relatively competitive.

they're close to the same thing, and certainly related, but not exactly the same. for example, SM was still hugely popular and competitive 4 years ago, but the cost to compete at the front half of the field was much lower.

[Knestis]

Let me ask some of the guys with more "historical" SCCA experience than me a few questions. ...

The prod classes had turned the corner in the early-mid '70s, right before I went to my first SCCA club race (1979). Many were already getting long in the tooth - 25 years old already, even back then - and they were so highly tweaked, they were fragile. Parts were getting hard to find and for all of the same reasons we hear current IT drivers request additional rules allowances (safety, cost, safety, cost, competitive advantage, cost, safety, competitive advantage, and cost), the cars were creeping like crazy. Hand whittled gear sets. Hand whittled crankshafts... They were expensive to build, yeah - but more expensive to race. There were some class contractions - notably CP and DP, both of which had neat options but were dwindling in entries.

The Sedan category was morphing into GT at that same time, going the TransAm tube chassis route. That was arguably a smart deal by comparison and for a while there, GT3 (for example) had a resurgence, as did GT1. There weren't many options for GT2. CP got folded into GT2. AP and BP got sucked into GT1.

Partially (I think) there was a sense of irrelevance about prod cars in the '80s. The definition of "sporty car" had shifted from "sports cars" to the "hot hatch" and sedans like the 2002/320i. There were gas lines for a while and the economy contracted, hurting participation on and off over these decades. Heck - most of the "sports cars" had really lousy performance, frankly - so where was the appeal?

The pseudo factory teams were wandering off to other emerging "pro" series, like the 2-liter TransAm and then IMSA, as it emerged as a force. Group 44 for example, ran semi-pro club racing efforts but by the '80s was running TA TR8s and XJS's, then IMSA Jag prototypes. I don't think they had any real influence on the 3-decade decline of Production.

Frankly, the drivers did it to themselves with all of their "improvements." And then again, when LP came along, they got it sort of right, then some idiot decided $10,000 gearboxes would be a swell plan!

Look - IT could go that whole route even WITHOUT NATIONAL STATUS. We rules jihadists are here to protect you, though and we do it pretty fiercely. I had a silly thought the other day during the ITAC con call, that I should keep an alternate set of IT rules, implementing all of the proposals that we get - alternate body materials, Lexan - the whole shebang. Give it a couple years and then put it out for comment. That would be a riot...

We can avoid Prod's fate by leaving the rules alone, to the very greatest extent possible. We are going to lose some cars as they get old but I don't think the cost of keeping them can be borne by the category in the long term. If you are thinking that National status might increase the pressure on the rules, I'll guaran-damn-tee you that is something that every ITAC member has considered, and that more than a few current board members fully understand. But the pressure is already there and we're doing a pretty good job of ignoring it, knowing what's at stake. Do your part and discourage creep.

k

EDIT - I left out a very important influence, that I guess I figured everyone understood. I shouldn't do that so please recognize too, that there have been some VERY long-lived and influential leaders in the Prod ranks, who did a pretty effective job of preserving their vision of the category. I vividly remember people bitching about the Z-cars and RX7 not being "real sports cars" - and the SAAB Sonnet, of all things - because they were hard tops. That's a blatant example but in a thousand small ways, the old guard influenced the system to maintain the status quo. We see THAT force at work in IT, too. Quite a little bit.

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Kirk, very informative.

That last paragraph is helpful to me. Yes, I am very concerned about that pressure; sounds like the ITAC has already thought about it. THIS ITAC I trust. As you have pointed out many times, it's the one in 2015 that we have to worry about.

[Knestis]

Finally - I'm VERY interested in the us-vs.-them attitude I'm seeing here. I have this sneaking suspicion that there's enough chauvinism at work here for some, that they don't want IT to become "them" - because National racing (or insert symbol here, like Topeka) is just evil. Like an editorial I read this morning in our local "news paper," that stated flatly that "atheists are just like terrorists." How does one have a reasoned discussion with THAT?

K

[JeffYoung]

There is, unfortunately, some truth to that -- I have to admit.

It's not that Topeka/National is EVIL (to me, they've always been very helpful actually when I've had to call on them), it just appears that all National sedan/production car based classes are pretty farked up. Competition adjustments seem to be the root of it, at least in the prod categories, an I just want absolutely no part of that culture being imported in IT. I think "going National" would increase the chances of that happening, whether it be now or in 10 years.

But I would suggest that some of it is that natural reaction of the "outsider" of being asked to by the "insider" to join them. Like when that group of football jocks asked you (meaning me) to come to the "cool kids" party on Friday night. It might be fun, or it might be humiliating....so it seemed safer to hang out with "outsider" friends, listen to some Black Flag or early Maiden or TSOL or Sabbath or Siouxsie or the Pixies or whatever and drink some High Lifes.

What National has to offer COULD be good, but it could also destroy the good things that "outsider" status has meant to IT.

FOR EXAMPLE -- do other classes have anything like the ITAC? I mean, we are, as best I can tell, basically self-governed. I LOVE that. Jake will actually pick up the phone and CALL ME if he sees me concerned about something. Andy too. That's just awesome to me.

I fear we'd lose that type of stuff if we went "national" and became the lead dog in an reorg of SCCA club racing by the folks in Topeka.

[Knestis]

... As you have pointed out many times, it's the one in 2015 that we have to worry about.

Which is why it's so important for IT entrants to know where we came from, and stay clearly focused on what's important.

I saw a great T-shirt - "I don't have the patience for instant gratification." Sometimes that's how I think they must feel when IT people (particularly newer ones) make requests that seem to be pretty short-sighted, or are really just about their individual competitive position.

K

[jjjanos]

You know what? I agree with you, on all of those points, including, perhaps, my perspective.

What I don't agree with is the "I'm in IT, it works perfectly for me, so leave it alone" attitude. This is how we get a club racing program that's out of touch with modern realities and cause us to have a shrinking membership. It's the same attitude that has produced the "graying of the SCCA."

In some ways yes. In some ways no.

1. The irrelevency of Prod wasn't because they kept the status quo. Rules creep isn't status quo. The gained carnal knowledge of a canine for Prod because they didn't lock it down for what they had and simultaneously worked to freeze out newer cars.

2. If you are attempting to address the greying of SCCA (the disease), I suggest that adding IT to the national mix is the equivalent of trying to treat a viral infection with antibiotics. Great drug, wrong infection.

3. Exactly what modern realities is club racing lacking? Cost containment might be the only thing missing and I would suggest that the NASA drivers you hope to attract are not interested in cost containment. Wildly expensive and heavily modified classes are their most successful classes - other than the ones they directly stole from us.

4. Exactly why is a shrinking membership bad when the cost of increasing membership is the discarding of core values? For example, if the Flat Earth Society had shrinking membership and the cost of attracting new members was accepting a globe, would you say they should go for it?

5. Again, you are executing the sentence first and having the trial second. If you want to attract NASA drivers, then what is it about their program that attracts those drivers? I again say that I seriously doubt that IT matches their desires.


The stewards of the club racing program (the CRB and the BOD) are on the hook to look after the entire program, not just the current IT racers.

No. The CRB is on the hook to execute the orders of the BOD. The BOD is on the hook to serve the interests/wishes of the majority of the members of the Areas they represent. The club racing program exists for the members, the members do not exist for the club racing program.

[JoshS]

JJJ, I'm am not personally doing anything. I am not the cause for this concept being raised at a driver's meeting at a race somewhere, I am just responding to the concept, just like you.

I'm just bristling at the attitudes that are just about protecting ones own turf. This is a club. We shouldn't be having turf wars with other members. I do understand that people are concerned about the possible effects and you and others have brought up some excellent points.

Let's move on.

[lateapex911]

Correct. My concerns are two fold:

1. Decrease in participation at "regional" level IT events that, as of today, are very popular (and fun). Jim Stark Double at Roebling. Memorial Monster at CMP. Goblins Go at VIR. Etc.

2. Increase in influence of "national" IT drivers on the IT ruleset. No hard evidence to back it up but I think the pressure on the stability of the ruleset would increase as more became at stake. It would be harder to maintain the idea that we don't guarantee competiveness given all other National classes try to do so via balancing or by spec.


1) Jeff, I agree, that, if the club racing system were to remain as it is today, and the only change was to be the status of IT, then yes, I would worry about some fracturing of the group.

Keep in mind though, that, even today, you have races that are important and well attended, and others that are less so, and that some people may choose to go to races where the big guys don't show up. This will always be the case, pretty much regardless of the system. However, if we were to modify the "National/Regional" system, we might see more freedom in the scheduling, perhaps fewer races overall (which would be a boon for overworked regions and their workers) and increased attendance overall. It might work out better all around.

2) Yes, there will be more pressure from "National" drivers. Ho hum. I've been reamed before, and I'll get reamed again. You guys can probably even put a name(s) to the reamer(s), LOL. Honestly, I'm not worried, at least about this ITAC, and we are currently making great strides in increasing the committee's documentation and structure, so that future ITACs can operate with the proper perspective.

You asked if other "ITAC"s exist. yes, absolutely. The Spec Miata ad hoc is called, you guessed it, the "SMAC", and so on. The lists of the members is maintained on the "Boards and Committees" section of the website. Now, I might be in danger of bragging, but I get the impression that the CRB is generally pleased with our performance, and might even suggest that other committees utilize some of our methods, modified, of course, to serve their purposes. But, we a re certainly not self governed. The CRB is on every call, and Bob Dowie, the head of the CRB (great guy, BTW, a racers racer) is very vocal, and very fair. And he's not afraid to toss in his two cents. We make our recommendations based on what we feel is best for the category, do our best to explain to the CRB guys on the call, and consider their bigger picture concerns.

(An interesting aside here. Two recent ITAC members have been tapped for CRB positions. One has multiple category racing experience (two categories at the same time!) and the other races IT AND runs a pro racing team (Prototypes). And one of them has a very big picture view of the club, the National/Regional system, is most decidedly NOT "old guard" and isn't afraid to stick his neck out and say what he's thinking. One thing I lose no sleep over is the "old guard" aspect of the CRB.)

One thing is for certain, I feel that a small group (you actually know most of them) had a long range mindset to take IT from where it was a few years ago, (A great ruleset hampered by some core classing issues and a couple screwy individual rules) and systematically worked through it, move by move, it to where we see it today. That took a lot of work, required the building to be propped up while one of the cornerstones was realigned, and the subsequent rebuilding of sections, stick by stick at times. It's not quite there yet, but, there is a system in place, and the remaining work is fairly straightforward. Many on the committee have done the lifting, and will dig their heels in if outside forces try to change things.

[lateapex911]

it's close, but there's an aspect you're missing. it has nothing to do with the increased competition that could push me away, and everything to do with the cost of being relatively competitive.

they're close to the same thing, and certainly related, but not exactly the same. for example, SM was still hugely popular and competitive 4 years ago, but the cost to compete at the front half of the field was much lower.

Ahhh...but Travis, I think that the cup is at the halfway point.

You say it's the money....but......it's not just the money.

...it's really the finishing position. You will search for the class that allows you to win/finish at the front at a certain cost. But the finishing position is driving your search.

(See other posts for the winning/high finishes reference as well)

[tnord]

Ahhh...but Travis, I think that the cup is at the halfway point.

You say it's the money....but......it's not just the money.

...it's really the finishing position. You will search for the class that allows you to win/finish at the front at a certain cost. But the finishing position is driving your search.

(See other posts for the winning/high finishes reference as well)

because the finishing position allows me free tires....which goes back to money.

it's all about finding a class with at least decent competition where building a front-running car is reasonably attainable from a financial point of view.

if i had my druthers, i'd be in SM because of the increased compeitition. but a $7000 motor and tires every weekend isn't even in the ballpark.

i know i'm not explaining all this very well, because you and kirk are missing the message by a little. but i'm not someone who searches out the "easy win." whatever, there's no reason to focus on my individual situation/perspective.

[Knestis]

FWIW, I did get your distinction Travis - no problem.

K

[gran racing]

Finally, from a marketing standpoint, I don't think the SCCA could do anything better for participation and membership than making IT run at the Runoffs.

Jake, I’m sure we’ll talk about this more over the phone but do you and others really think this after giving it some hard thought?

Member retention continues to be one huge hurdle for our club to overcome. Each year as a club we gain approximately 10,000 members yet we lose that many or more. (Some of those numbers represent people letting their membership lapse then re-new later.) Does adding IT to the Runoffs actually improve this?

Would the Runoffs be broadcasted at better time slots? No matter how awesome the racing or cars are, it does very little at 2 a.m. to help participation and membership. Even if it was on a great time slot, I’m not so sure how attractive most of our cars are to potential racers. The National office did express valid concerns from a marketing perspective when were talking about what cars should be showcased on the cover of the SCCA edition of my book. IT cars were not the top of this list due to the cars not being the most appealing to the masses.

With our five year rule, it automatically eliminates some of the new and cool cars from our category. Then to top it off, that darn ITAC makes older (less sexy?) cars competitive with newly classed cars which some might say ruins the image a bit. Hmmm, what’s the Prepared age rule that limits the age IT cars from competition? Going along with all that, don’t cars in classes like Show Room Stock and Touring fit the marketing target better?

I do think we need to further utilize World Challenge to promote club racing. Every freakin’ broadcast needs to have a segment on getting into racing, and I’m not just talking about Club Racing. Have clips about Solo Racing, PDXs, and so on. Sorry, that’s getting way off into another topic. LOL!


It would be interesting to hear what various people’s perceptions and actual facts are about a few items.

- What defines the average Improved Touring racecar?

My view is that there are many nice cars out there, but the majority of IT cars are on the old side, don’t exactly have show car appeal, and the younger crowd wouldn’t fantasize about getting behind the wheel.


- What is the definition of the average IT racer and what are they looking to get out of racing with the SCCA?

- Does the average IT racer even care whether there’s a national championship race?

I for one don’t and choose my events based on the fun factor, and where my friends will be racing. Then again it somewhat depends upon my next question…

- How much would the likelihood of people obtaining solid ($$) sponsorships be by adding the Runoffs to the mix?

[erlrich]

Sorry - I didnt' explain very well, I guess because neither of those situations is an example of what I was trying to describe. Case 1 was "performance creep" - where cars that were simply faster (all other things being equal) were listed in A. Case 2 was an overdog situation. Yeah - BMWs got popular but it's because they were THE car to have in S.

I'm talking about some weird influence - all of a sudden lawyers get huge windfalls in earnings and thousands of Young's colleagues go racing - causes a huge uptick in popularity and competitiveness at the front of the grid.

Jeff Y. explains that he'd welcome it, and continues that it's a DECREASE in competition that has him worried. That's a very different thing than I hear from Travis, who's suggesting that he would actually be willing to do something else with his discretionary dollar, if he can't be as competitive as he is on his current budget.

Accurate so far?

K
Your explanation was fine, I think it was my response that failed to make its point. The examples I used were meant to illustrate the results of what happens when drivers lose all chance of being competitive, regardless of the cause.

Of course, the underlying assumption is that under your scenario the influx of new, well-funded drivers would raise the performance bar to a level beyond where it currently resides. If that were the case, and say suddenly half the field at every event were made up of brand new, 101% built Speedsource, Bimmerworld, Tri-Point and Realtime cars with former pro drivers behind the wheels (yeah, I know, extreme example), and lap records started falling and the rest of us lost all hope of ever having a shot at a win - then yes, I would start looking for someplace else to race.

On the other hand, if as you noted a bunch of rich pansy lawywers get the itch to go racing and all showed up with professionally prepared TR8s that were capable of running WITH the current front-runners, that would be a different story. I too would welcome that competition without hesitation.

And to answer your next question; yes, I realize that the potential is already there for those Speedsource cars to show up in ITA - it's just that the likelyhood they WILL show up would increase by a factor of ??? if IT were to become a national class.

[cfullgraf]

When I was racing in the late seventies and early eighties there were constant discussion about too many classes in club racing. I take a 17 year absence from SCCA and return in 2003 and there are not only concerns about too many classes, there are more classes than in the eighties! (note, IT was just starting when I retired)

One thing SCCA does well for its racing members is that cars are rarely legislated off the track (ASR, BSR, Sports Renault, and maybe one or two others are exceptions. Showroom Stock is also an exception but for different reasons). The club usually finds some place for the obsolete class cars to run. You may not be competitive, but you can go racing. In most cases that I remember, the obsolete class cars that are now uncompetitive eventually disappear from the track altogether for various reasons.

One thing SCCA does not do well is keeping the club racing classes current with mainstream street automotive technology because it continues adjust the rules to allow older race cars to be competitive and not adjust the classes to fit current production cars. As a result, many classes are filled with 20 to 50 year old race cars. It is kind of difficult for a youngster interested in racing to identify with a car that is older than his or her father.

One place it seemed to me that SCCA had made improvements over the time I was gone was it seemed that there was a structure in the rules that you could start with a car in IT. After a time, when you wanted to go National racing and go faster, you could move the car to Production. Again, when it was time to go faster and challenge your engineering skills you could then move the car to GT. Granted not all cars eligible for the various categories are not eligible for all categories but there are a number of cars that are eligible for all three levels.

For the National program, SCCA has finally decided that there needs to be a limited number of classes competing at the Run-offs. Makes sense. If there are are more than 24 classes, the classes that do not make the Run-offs will die because a percentage of the competitors will move to other classes making the participation levels even worse.

If IT were made National and now there were 30 some odd classes competing for the 24 Run-off spots, some classes will disappear. Some will be IT classes, some will be from other categories.

IT should be left as a Regional only class. The rules should evolve to include more cars that can be updated through the various categories of classes.

Now that I have written all of the above and reflecting on what to say next, maybe a different approach is needed.

IT racing is competitive and relatively inexpensive. Folks want to have higher exposure venues for their racing but many are fearful of skyrocketing costs if that were to happen.

Adjust the IT rules so that rules creep will be absolutely prevented. Mandate it in the rules. Say in the rules that at some point when factory parts are no longer available the car will not be able to compete. And so forth and so forth. It would be a daunting task for the ITAC.

Also, maybe the IT National Championship should be separate from the Run-offs. The IT Triple Crown is a step towards building that and, if successful, will build prestige that it could be equal to or even eclipse the prestige of the Run-offs.

Enough rambling. Thanks for your interest.

[JeffYoung]

My evil plan exposed. ITS WILL be Spec Lawyer TR8 by next year.





On the other hand, if as you noted a bunch of rich pansy lawywers get the itch to go racing and all showed up with professionally prepared TR8s that were capable of running WITH the current front-runners, that would be a different story. I too would welcome that competition without hesitation.

.

[Knestis]

Thanks, Earl. That helps me to isolate the influences at play in the discussion.

I deal in my daily work with what we call "causal pathways" or "logic models." These are illustrations of how we think "projects are supposed to work" - how they translate actions into outcomes. These models SHOULD be based on "antecedent conditions" - the underlying causes that result in problems that we desire to solve or mitigate. The model I'm getting from your explanation is something like...

IT goes National > IT becomes attractive to big $ teams > Big $ teams enter > Prep standard at front of grid increases > Speeds increase > Current drivers are less competitive > Current drivers do something else

The model tells a story of sorts, with each connection being the basis of an if-then statement based on assumptions and beliefs of how factors relate to one-another (e.g., we assume that National status will make IT more attractive - which may be viewed as "good" in some respects, though potentially "bad" in others).

There are almost always other factors that don't fall in a straight line between the most distal condition (IT goes National) and the ultimate outcome (Current drivers bail on IT). Travis describes, for example, questioning whether to follow that last link, or if it might be worth his time/energy/money to stick it out. There might be other factors too, not described in the model, that matter. If some influence OTHER THAN National status helped IT to become more popular, we might well see the same outcome. That was kind of what I was trying to understand about your (and others') position.

I worry about this academic crapola because we can easily make decisions that are not grounded in a shared understanding of how these factors all hook together. Or we can jump to conclusions if we ignore mediating factors (those in the middle of the model), like we do when we say something like "National status will be the death of IT."

K

[tnord]

i agree with your logic strand start to finish, and it's exactly what i've witnessed in SM.

in some places that have enough people/cars to do it, that "something else" has been SSM, SMT, SM(sealed engine), etc. here in MiDiv, we never really had more than 30-35 cars, so that "something else" has not been racing related. i can rattle off a good 6-10 names that just plain aren't heard from anymore.

[lateapex911]

Dave, perhaps, taken as an absolute, my statement is less than 100% true. yes, there are other things the club could do that might net better results.

But, my point is, (and yeah the time slot sucks) that given the Runoffs broadcast, bringing IT cars to the mix, might yield a better recruiting result.

Yes, retention is shaky. Giving free memberships to Subaru buyers, but canceling a major rallying program doesn't help, but membership is about numbers..I care more about participation. Which is better, 1,000,000 members with 10,000 active and doing some program, or 700,000 with 40,000 active? (Obviously the finances need to be juggled to recoup the lost $50 x 300,000 bucks that came in with no liability)

Think about it. Lots of cars we race are popular with the 20-40 year old enthusiast. Cars like the Integra, Miatas, BMW E36s and E46s, S2000s, RX-8s, Z cars from all years...on the broadcast introduce each class with a quick, knowledgeable rundown of the simple ruleset and I bet lots of trackday guys might perk their ears up. Really, IT is, at it's essence, a bolt on category. Stock engine internals, bolt on suspension bits, header, and safety stuff, and you're out there racing. Simple. That's enticing. No custom molded rear windows, custom shaped fenders and quarters, cranks ground from billets, and the like that Prod has...IT is so much more "available" appearing to most folk....guys see the races on TV, then look out at their driveway. Sure, we all know that's not the "smart" way to go racing, but it's a powerful aphrodisiac...

And the racing is pretty darn good, I imagine the races might actually be exciting....with full fields of guys who want to be there to race...which isn't what I see when I watch a lot of Runoffs races.

And yea, you're right, why we don't do a 2 minute piece on every World Challenge race on the club things like PDXs, and autocrossing, and schools is beyond me.

[tom_sprecher]

IT goes National > IT becomes attractive to big $ teams...

Perhaps the reason why many think this would happen should be explored. SM seems to be the example du jour but there are other classes like FB and BP that became National classes recently and I haven't heard of huge crowds of big $ teams flocking to those classes. Was SM a class with maybe the participation of ITA or ITS and then when it went nation its participation increased 4-5 times that or was it extremely popular before going National, everybody saw the $ potential and only then did it become attactive to the National office and the big $ teams?


I have no illusions...

After reading your post Paul, the next time we race together we need to sit down and have a beer. I did not quote the whole post because it would take up space but you described how and why I race IT to a "T".

[Charlie Broring]

i agree with your logic strand start to finish, and it's exactly what i've witnessed in SM.

in some places that have enough people/cars to do it, that "something else" has been SSM, SMT, SM(sealed engine), etc. here in MiDiv, we never really had more than 30-35 cars, so that "something else" has not been racing related. i can rattle off a good 6-10 names that just plain aren't heard from anymore.

Yes! Sometimes people don't appreciate how good they have things until they loose them.

I wonder how many advocates of IT going National have seen or participated in National racing or the Runoffs?

[Racerlinn]

An FYI - this thread is getting more popular - I received an email that was broadcast to many members of GLDiv this morning from our Area Director asking folks to look in and give feedback regarding the whole situation.

[tnord]

extremely popular before going National, everybody saw the $ potential and only then did it become attactive to the National office and the big $ teams?



keep in mind that a lot of this happened before i was even an SCCA member, but i did spot the class when i was starting to think about what race car i wanted circa 2000/2001.

there are some black helicopter theories about it, but this is mostly true. i think everyone but the nat'l office saw the potential early on. big teams like OPM/BSI/Advanced Autosports/MER/etc saw the potential very early. people like jim daniels (vomit) and others fought hard to get the class even recognized nationally like IT. it then absolutely blew up and you saw something you almost never ever see with race cars. you could build the cars cheaper than you could buy them because the demand exceeded the supply. this is when i built in 2002-2003 timeframe.

now....how exactly it got to be a national class is up for debate, whether it was destined to be through a deal with mazda from the start, or it was member input, or the BOD saw the $ potential, whatever, i don't know. but it happened. the very next year the whole thing changed. the culture in the paddock, the $ people were willing to spend, the level of talent that showed up....everything.

[erlrich]

Isn't it about time for a poll?

[Knestis]

>> Perhaps the reason why many think this would happen should be explored. ...

Now you're talking, Tom. I agree that this isn't a foregone conclusion, and if that link doesn't connect, then it's not possible to attribute subsequent outcomes to that "cause."

It's a tendency of human beings to see connections - it's what helped us avoid getting eaten as we gained eminence in our environment. The problem is that we often see connections where none exist. It's entirely possible that Travis' "6-10 names" would have quit anyway, for whatever reason. As a club, we do a LOUSY job of capturing data re: "mortality."

I personally think that most drivers who quit do so because they're financially overextended, having sucked on the go-fast crack pipe and gotten addicted, only to discover they can't afford the habit. If that happens coincidental to some other factor, it confounds understanding about which "causes" matter, and how much - particularly if the other factors are observable and we don't have any measure of the financial motivations. "I want to buy beach timeshare" might really mean, "I can't afford racing," and "I'd rather do NASA HPDE's" might mean the same thing.

K

[jjjanos]

But, my point is, (and yeah the time slot sucks) that given the Runoffs broadcast, bringing IT cars to the mix, might yield a better recruiting result.
.
.
snip
.
.
Think about it. Lots of cars we race are popular with the 20-40 year old enthusiast. Cars like the Integra, Miatas, BMW E36s and E46s, S2000s, RX-8s, Z cars from all years...on the broadcast introduce each class with a quick, knowledgeable rundown of the simple ruleset and I bet lots of trackday guys might perk their ears up. Really, IT is, at it's essence, a bolt on category. Stock engine internals, bolt on suspension bits, header, and safety stuff, and you're out there racing. Simple. That's enticing. No custom molded rear windows, custom shaped fenders and quarters, cranks ground from billets, and the like that Prod has...IT is so much more "available" appearing to most folk....guys see the races on TV, then look out at their driveway. Sure, we all know that's not the "smart" way to go racing, but it's a powerful aphrodisiac...

That's where the logic model breaks down IMO. The mods the track guys have done to their street/track car are not IT compliant. They don't want to race a vehicle that is slower than their daily driver, especially if the race car is the same make/model as their daily driver. They might get wise in a few years and realize you can spend more time on track racing a $6K car than a $30K car, but starting out, their eyes are full of major modifications.

If we are trying to tap new members, it is THESE people we have to pull into the club.

The folks doing track days in unmodified cars might come to IT, but they also know about IT. The instructors at these events are us.

Frankly, I'd be in favor of throwing the entire closed-wheel category structure out the window.

Level 1: IT, but allow any car less than 40 years old into the category including current model year.
Level 2: Level 1 on human growth hormone. Allow more mods and use a system similar to NASA's PT system to class the cars, but it would need to be more rational.
Level 3: Level 2 on growth hormone and steriods. Even more mods upto and including swapping engines from the same manufacturer but allow no car specific competition adjustments.

Level 3 can bolt on those stupid wings. No tube framed cars unless that was stock. Every car must rely on the stock frame/unibody. Body panels can be substituted in at least level 3 and maybe level 2.

Synchronize ProRacing with ClubRacing. Absolutely NO ProRacing series where the cars cannot transfer back and forth seamlessly between the two. Club Racing sets the rules, regs and standards for what categories and classes ProRacing may use. ProRacing decideds whether those standards are worth a pro series, but ProRacing must use the IDENTICAL technical rules. I.e. This weekend I run a regional in my L3A Corvette, during the week I do a pre-race check and the following weekend, I bolt on new tires and go race in ProRacing's Acme Rocket American Iron series.

[shwah]

Yes! Sometimes people don't appreciate how good they have things until they loose them.

I wonder how many advocates of IT going National have seen or participated in National racing or the Runoffs?

I have (though not as a driver), in the whipping boy "Prod" class GP. What I saw was incredible competition at the top of the grid, but a steep fall off after that. That is driven by a few things.
1. Those top guys bring an AA+++ game, in design, prep, and talent
2. The other guys include a few that aspire to join that group (and I have seen a few make headway), and more that are 'just happy to be there' - to the point of being way too slow in some cases.
3. There were not a whole lot of drivers in the pool to begin with - so the pickings are slim (this looks better to me now that G was starved to death).

These last two are also likely influenced by the quality of the top group, which makes participation at all, and participation at the front a more daunting proposition to anyone.

I don't expect IT to be the same way (at least not ITS and ITA, ITB is resurging IMO but not quite on the same level yet) simply because there are a lot more drivers.

[gran racing]

Good points Jake.

If IT went national, should there be restrictions on the age of the vehicle (again, ala Prepared)? If not, does it hurt things by having an old Prelude, Volvo, Wabbit, RX7, or other now antique as the marketing face?

Will the high level prepped cars become the norm compared to now, and thus deter newbies from giving it a try?

[Knestis]

...there are some black helicopter theories about it, but this is mostly true. ...

Don't forget the perception (it being 99% of marketing) that SM was the new career path to big-time pro racing. And that since the cars were all equal, a "real talent" would shine. Put a free ride on the prize list and it HAS to have an influence. Picture what would happen to popularity - and probably the competitiveness - of the ARRC ITC race, if it were announced that the winner would receive a fully funded season of Koni Challenge racing.

I'd wager that that influence ALONE could account for measurable increases in the sales prices of used C cars...

K

[RX3]

If the National car count is falling off then there is a reason for it. It is most likely because the Board of Directors has mismanaged the rules and listened to the few and not paid attention to the silent majority. If they add the five IT classes to the National list then they will need to cut the number of classes that can run.
The CRB has posed many class changes that the board would not adopt. The national car count proves there is a problem.
IT cars going National may fix the car count problem, but as the Board of Directors plays with the rules in the spirit of making cars equal, this is what will kill the classes. There is a point when old cars no longer have parts and it’s time for them to go. Hard to say, but true.
Regional racing is where the cars are and is what most people want to do, which should be evident to everyone by the shear number of cars that are competing on the Regional level. Maybe we should just drop National racing and just have Regionals, or just have one type of racing with the best going forward.
:shrug:

[Knestis]

I'm having a little trouble reconciling how one of the most popular categories is NOT a good public representation of what the Club has to offer. That presumes that IT has nothing to offer a younger demographic, and I'm not sure I buy that...

K

[tnord]

Don't forget the perception (it being 99% of marketing) that SM was the new career path to big-time pro racing. And that since the cars were all equal, a "real talent" would shine. Put a free ride on the prize list and it HAS to have an influence. Picture what would happen to popularity - and probably the competitiveness - of the ARRC ITC race, if it were announced that the winner would receive a fully funded season of Koni Challenge racing.

I'd wager that that influence ALONE could account for measurable increases in the sales prices of used C cars...

K

i agree, it absolutely would have an influence on the ARRC if that were up for grabs.

and it's not just perception, it's reality that within the club racing world, SM absolutely does have the most achieveable ladder to a racing career there is. but none of that would have been possible if it hadn't gone National in the first place.

[RedMisted]

Going national sounds interesting, but will this mandate changes to existing IT cars such as the addition of fuel cells?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why would going National require any rule changes?

[RedMisted]

I thought I heard that national cars have to have special safety mods and maybe some other stuff...

[JoshS]

I thought I heard that national cars have to have special safety mods and maybe some other stuff...Not sure what you heard. There need not be any changes to the car prep rules to allow IT classes at national races.

[RedMisted]

Well, I hope I'm wrong about my assumptions. Let's keep IT basically the way it is.... If it ain't broke don't fix it.:D

[Knestis]

I'm trying to preserve the other thread's integrity as a poll, so I've cut this out and transplanted it here:

>>Q: So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

>> A: ...What we hear a great deal when someone questions an IT rule is, "If you want to do that there a re plenty of other classes that you can race in." That comeback really fits this subject to a capital T.

Is this consistent? Not just in terms of this one post, but looking across the arguments involved...?

It sounds like some are arguing (out of one side of their mouths) that they are afraid that National status is going to result in increased costs, but (out of the other) they aren't willing to condemn changes to the current IT rule set that enable current IT drivers to push incrementally to the same end. I've got to admit that I'm a little bothered by that - again, as one of those anti-creep "jihadists" - if this is the case.

K

[tnord]

Don't over-analyze the things Mac says Kirk. He's a straight-shootin Texan who means just what he says. also one of my favorite people of all time at the track.

"if you want to race nationals there are plenty of classes that allow you to do that." that's all he means, nothing more nothing less.

but are you trying to relate this comment to changes like RR shocks and the ECU change? if so.....for the record....i've voted against both of those items and going national.

[lateapex911]

One thing I see in these posts time and again is that the person posting cites "The screwed up mess" that "The BoD and the CRB have gotten XX category in".

Interestingly, they feel IT is fine, I guess. (A stark contrast to opinions of many just a few years ago)

I have to come to the conclusion that the masses feel that we (the ITAC) can do whatever we want, because "They", (Topeka? and I guess that means the dark lords of the BoD and the CRB? ;)) don't care and let us run about willy nilly....

BUT, if IT goes National, the ITAC will cease to have control of, or a role in the running and rules-guarding of the category?

That's what I think I'm hearing, but I don't understand the mechanism behind the logic. Somebody help me see how it's going to go down.

[Knestis]

So anyone willing to say that to a person wanting to run Nationals with an IT car will say the same thing when someone asks for a new rule allowance? I'm fine with that kind of consistency.

That isn't the tone I took out of the quote so maybe I am looking for something that isn't there. It just seems like it came from the other direction, as a rhetorical device. I might be very wrong...

K

EDIT - ...and to elaborate on a point Jake has touched on: Make no mistake - the BoD/CRB/PTB did NOT get Production et al. where they are today. The racers in those categories did that to them own selves. They begged for it.

[ddewhurst]

***EDIT - ...and to elaborate on a point Jake has touched on: Make no mistake - the BoD/CRB/PTB did NOT get Production et al. where they are today. The racers in those categories did that to them own selves. They begged for it.***

K this ^ statement is just like saying that WE were ALL in favor of the Spherical bearing deal. WRONG, the CRB/BoD made the change for there most for their personal agenda. Granted there is way more politics than I could handle. Who manages the prisions in the U.S. the inmates, who manages professional ball sports teams, who manages whatever.:o

Dam, I said I wouldn't post again in this thread.;)


Oh, & to who ever said sometiong about the CRB & or the BoD straightening out the Production L.P. rules, to late the L.P. rules have allready slid to hell & then some thanks to the CRB/BoD.:cool:

[jjjanos]

One thing I see in these posts time and again is that the person posting cites "The screwed up mess" that "The BoD and the CRB have gotten XX category in".

Interestingly, they feel IT is fine, I guess. (A stark contrast to opinions of many just a few years ago)

I have to come to the conclusion that the masses feel that we (the ITAC) can do whatever we want, because "They", (Topeka? and I guess that means the dark lords of the BoD and the CRB? ;)) don't care and let us run about willy nilly....

BUT, if IT goes National, the ITAC will cease to have control of, or a role in the running and rules-guarding of the category?

That's what I think I'm hearing, but I don't understand the mechanism behind the logic. Somebody help me see how it's going to go down.

Topeka doesn't intervene with our affairs because, for the most part, our entries don't impact their bottom line.

The Runoffs (tm) and the National program are a significant money maker for Topeka. There is the $ they get from the host, the entry fee and the significant chunk of change they collect from any company that has an official SCCA-approved contingency program. IT? They get a regional sanction fee. Higher exposure and involvement with that program means the BoD has more directly at stake and therefore has a greater incentive to meddle.

Now add in pressure to pull ProRacing's butt out of the fire. Studebaker is heavily involved in ProRacing and sees the exposure at the Runoffs for IT. They really would like to see their current model showcased at the Runoffs because 8-year old cars don't sell new cars. "We (Studebaker) pump wads of cash into your organization. We would like to see that continue. We would like to open IT to our cars, but we think our car should be allowed to run this optional carbon-fiber roof rack. We really would hate it if we needed to reevaluate the racing programs we support..." I have no faith that the BoD wouldn't cave.

[zchris]

I need to say, many of you feel the cost of a Prod car is high. I have in recent years seen both IT an SM cars sell new for in the 40k range. Now these are front row builds. I recently finished a FP limited prep Miata, with Dog ring tranny that went out the door for around 40k. This also is a front row car. I think the cost is not as different as some may think. The change over cost to go Prod is not that high for a front row car. I am not trying to convince anyone to change classes. Just trying to open the eyes of those that like to bash other classes. If you wanted to say that there is not any competition in Prod at the regional level, correctomundo. You would have to travel more and you would no longer be the big fish in the little pond(AB). For those fast guys, try being the big fish in the big pond. Its harder than you might think. Look at how the Northeast SM guys get totally beat up in the national scene come the runoffs. You IT guys will share the same fate.
Chris Howard

[ddewhurst]

No to going National.............

Last year when this poll was taken it received a loud & clear NO.

***So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?***

Yes ^, including Andy. I have just as large an issue with an ITAC person pushing this IT to National issue as I do or would with a CRB person pushing his/her personal agenda.

[JeffYoung]

The poll has 76 respondents. How many IT cars are there out there? Like 800 or 1000?

So we have somwhere between 7 and 10% of the total number of IT "cars" responding to the poll.

That to me is pretty significant. And the results of the poll are about what I would expect, about 2 to 1 against.

[tnord]

Look at how the Northeast SM guys get totally beat up in the national scene come the runoffs. You IT guys will share the same fate.



this is funny to me for a lot of reasons. :happy204:

[IPRESS]

Basically I just repeated what I have heard here when a rules change or the like has been thrown out.... not every time, but on occasion.

And Kirk I can be persueded to change my mind....as example I was as loud and as obnoxious as most anybody when SM was being written into the GCR. I claimed the whole SCCA structure was trying to backroom SM. Black Helicopters were small potatoes, I suspected a "Three Days of the Condor" type SCCA operation. I thought that keeping SM from being considered for National Classification being put into the original rules was wrong and bad. Twenty / Twenty hindsight tells me I might have been wrong ( I was surely wrong about the SCCA side). Jason Saini probably thinks I was right, a bunch of guys that bought in on the ads that said "Go SM Racing for less then $10k", may think the opposite.

My feelings that IT is great like it is will be hard to change as, I think that SCCA needs a class that is what IT is now. If they change IT to a Runoffs class, they (we) need to create another non Runoffs class to provide that less "cut throat' side of club racing. IT is plenty serious and plenty fun now.

[jjjanos]

From the poll thread...

"The move could make sense for the longevity of club racing."

If you equate Club Racing to National Racing. We are Club Racing. I could make a strong case that if National program went poof tomorrow and Club Racing would actually be stronger because many of those drivers would return to Regionals and because the weaker races in a division, typically the Nationals, would flip to the better attended Regionals.

One reason National drivers don't compete at Regionals is because the car prep/talent isn't there. No Nationals and those prepped cars/drivers return. Sucks for the guy who was winning Prod, but you get more cars/race.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes ^, including Andy. I have just as large an issue with an ITAC person pushing this IT to National issue as I do or would with a CRB person pushing his/her personal agenda.

Come on David. Nobody is pushing a personal agenda. We were all asked what we thought of IT going National. I believe I was VERY clear in multiple posts that this is NOT something that is before the ITAC. It's a CRB thing - and it's not a cingular item, it's part of a much bigger look at whats wrong with events, classes, the overall structure of Club Racing etc.

:rolleyes:

[jjjanos]

From the poll thread...


Come on David. Nobody is pushing a personal agenda. We were all asked what we thought of IT going National. I believe I was VERY clear in multiple posts that this is NOT something that is before the ITAC. It's a CRB thing - and it's not a cingular item, it's part of a much bigger look at whats wrong with events, classes, the overall structure of Club Racing etc.

:rolleyes:

Hey, I thought this was just for the poll! Personal agendas...

Of the 6 members on the CRB, how many race primarily in Nationals/appeared at the Runoffs during the last 2 years?

Why is this "bigger look" not being conducted out in the open since it affects us all and smacks of presenting the membership with a fiat accompli? The way this is starting to play out, there's going to be a lot of peeved drivers across the board who will walk simply because of the process and to hell with the actual outcome. If we don't have our say during the entire process, I'll probably be one of them. I like to race, but what I enjoy more is getting the season off to a good start and just driving the bloody car.

Why are the complete calendar year participation numbers including regionals such a closely held secret?

How many times has Topeka "realigned" the same national categories as part of a plan to save it? How come we are doing it again? Why should we believe that this attempt won't turn into another National Office CF?

This isn't being done to help IT and it isn't being done to help Club Racing. It's being done to help the National program and the Runoffs. The Runoffs/Nationals are not the entire Club Racing program and Topeka frequently forgets that.

[Matt Rowe]

I believe I was VERY clear in multiple posts that this is NOT something that is before the ITAC. It's a CRB thing - and it's not a cingular item, it's part of a much bigger look at whats wrong with events, classes, the overall structure of Club Racing etc.
Maybe it isn't in front of the ITAC, but it certainly should be prior to any decision being made. It would be foolish to turn a class upside without obtaining buy in from the ITAC and their opinion should weigh heavily in the decision making process.

But keep in mind the ITAC should be tasked with what is best for the category. The CRB can and will evaluate what is best for club racing and the BOD can weigh what is best for the club but I would ask the ITAC members to be very clear what their charter is. They are advisors for the interests of IT. It would be improper to recommend a course that jeopardizes the future of IT because the club may benefit just as it would be improper to vote for national status because someone is personally interested in a runoffs medal.

Oh, and I voted no (because there are wholesale changes that need to be made to club racing BEFORE IT is changed) and I race ITA (and maybe ITB )

[shwah]

Matt,

Lets not forget that the whole reason that I brought this discussion in here is because the club asked for input, not only from the ITAC, but directly from IT racers like you and me. That is a really good approach, and a really good sign.

I still can't quite wrap my mind around what's driving the phobia of having a national class. Some say it's because they don't want to become SM. Where I race there are dozens of SM cars at Nationals and Regionals. They are not all uber money rides, especially at the regionals where a hand full finish in front of me and most behind my low budget ITB car. Others seem to think that IT would be 'used' as a solution for what ever is wrong with National racing. There are a few things wrong with National racing - 1. is that the runoffs is at the wrong track, because less folks are deciding to race there, 2. is that there are too many classes (of course we have even more classes in Regional racing - which I think is a problem here as well).

I totally understand the logic behind wishing to continue racing regionals, and to continue to have full fields at regionals (which don't exist everywhere btw - I have literally never taken a green with an ITC car in the field in CenDiv, and may have seen 3 ITS cars one time), but honestly if enough people feel this way, there will be plenty of regional competition.

The other x factor for me it the IT Triple Crown. I think this is an awesome development, and it presents a 'higher level goal' for me to strive for. I will enjoy doing my best in it as much, or more than I would running my car at the runoffs. But at some point I do want to go race at the runoffs - not drive, race - which means competitively, so don't give me that line that I can do that now. In the current system I will build a P car and go play, if IT went national I would just give the car a good twice over and go play.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with you Matt, but I also may not share the view that if IT goes National it will start the demise of the class. There are so many things different about IT than other classes that I really believe it would thrive...but that is neither here nor there.

If you want the ITAC involved in the decision, tell the CRB that too.

(Edit: To be clear on my position as of today, I would like IT to be a National class but really don't have a strong feeling either way. I love the rules and the cars but certainly have no delusions that I can be the next Joe-Pro to come out of SCCA with a hand-full of Gold Medals. I just think it would be nice to have a real Nat Champ in IT...simple as that. My job as an ITAC member is to make sure the CRB knows what the community wants. BTW: Where are all the "why is IT always a second class citizen" people? :) )

[Knestis]

...I have just as large an issue with an ITAC person pushing this IT to National issue as I do or would with a CRB person pushing his/her personal agenda.

So you can all hear it again, we have board members on the ITAC conference calls and we have not been asked to make this question an agenda item.

Further, when I joined the ITAC, I didn't give up my right to have personal opinions about issues affecting my class, category, and most pertinent to this conversation - the Club. Anything I type here is just that - my individual opinion - unless I explicitly state otherwise. (And frankly, this board isn't an official source of SCCA information, so that's unlikely to happen in any substantial way.)

I'm guilty of being Socratic - trying to encourage dialog in order to get ideas considered and clarified, and by doing so have probably confused some of you who are expect that everyone in the discussion WILL pound their personal agenda. So, here's my very own opinion on the subject, as it currently stands - I voted "yes" but not because it will change what I do. I believe IT should have National status for three reasons:

1. There are members (approx. 1/3 of those responding here) who appear interested in having the option to run National events, or to try to go to the RubOffs. I don't believe that my racing goals and plans, WHICH WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE, would be compromised by giving them that option, so it's unfair of me to tell them they can't aspire to their goals.

2. The Club Racing program would be healthier, top to bottom, if IT were a National class. EVEN IF the other issues affecting the National program (e.g., issues with the RubOffs venue choice) weren't addressed. I am not foolish enough to believe that IT could survive in a vacuum of money-losing club racing events. We ain't that important, that we can stand all by ourselves on our own current success.

3. I'm kind of proud of my involvement in the category and for purely emotional reasons, I'd like to see IT get the respect it deserves. It's gotten where it is largely by organizational accident but the same can be said for all kinds of successful endeavors. It would be vindication for a philosophy and approach that has been ignored in other categories, and I'd like to see it play out to its logical end - a semi-pro series based on the IT rules, for cars too new to be club racing eligible.

I asked myself yesterday evening, what would I actually have done differently THIS season, if IT had already been a National class. Hmm. I would have done the Double Nat'l at VIR, in addition to my current calendar.

That's it.

I don't think that my Regional program would have been affected in any significant way, and (this MIGHT BE in my official ITAC voice) many of the positions I've supported in that committee since January have increased the competition in my own class, to the detriment of my relative position (e.g., get the 924 and Fiero to their lower process weights, classify the MkIV Golf, and probably a few you haven't heard about yet). I'm totally good with that, so don't feel the need to address the National issue as an exercise in protecting my personal interests.

FWIW.

K

[dickita15]

I am kind of amazed at some of the folks that don’t want this considered because they assume that making IT a national class would mean that some other change would also happen, such as different safety specs or other rule changes.
This debate has also spread to the Gt and Prod site. There are some fascinating assumptions over there as well.
I really have no idea what this would mean from a master plan point of view. The only insight I have from someone highly place is the comment a few year back that is a concern that if IT was a national class rules enforcement would be difficult due to the obscure nature of some of the cars in the class. This person’s solution was to only let IT cars of a model year later than XX run nationals. The older cars could only run regionals. My reaction to that was negative. Other than that I have no idea what other changes might be included in IT going national.

[924Guy]

(Edit: Where are all the "why is IT always a second class citizen" people? :) )

Still here. Maybe I haven't made my personal position clear enough; my reasons for voting no are that it is not clearly stated anywhere in here that the goal (of taking IT National) is to address this. So, since we have always been Regional-class citizens, the natural assumption (for me and presumably many others, though not all) is one of distrust, that this is not the intent, but to band-aid a bigger problem. Leaving us with the same basic status, in a different pond.

I'm glad to hear that this is just one component of a much bigger pile of issues the CRB is dealing with. And when dealing with such a complex set of problems, it is appropriate to know all the options available for solutions. Therefore it is completely appropriate for the CRB to solicit this feedback, even unofficially.

However I can't, in good conscience for my own status, agree with a proposal to make IT a National class, all else being the same.

If there is a larger proposal that IT going National is a part of, then that is a different question with a different set of assumptions or boundary criteria. I will say that I would likely support some such proposals, because I do prefer the idea of a "true" IT National Champion, as well as "legitimate" status as a class and as a racer. I guess I'm just a little picky about achieving that goal with little or no disturbance to the existing very good racing environment.

[Ron Earp]

A quick look at the Prod Racing site shows those guys think National IT would be bad for IT too.......

[Knestis]

Your point on the spherical bearings issue is well made, David. That was a decision (good, bad, or something in between) made in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, I believe. It's not that I don't understand WHY that happened, I just don't support the process applied.

However, by taking our ball and going home, we don't do anything to fix the sickness of which that is a symptom. And I still contend - that excellent non-example accepted - that drivers get the category that they want, as they steer it with requested changes over time. Of course, I also believe in evolution.

And if you want to see a stink, just WAIT until something like Triple-J's Studebaker example (I think he meant to type "Solstice?") comes up. I think I know the current ITAC members well enough to believe that there will be a furor over something like that. Now, by what process we might redress it, I'm not sure - and I really hope it never comes to that - but we're trying to be proactive about issues like that. For example, we've instituted a process whereby the actual math behind every new classification and adjustment to the process is recorded. If we can codify our practices, assumptions, etc. we decrease the chance that the ITAC can be misappropriated.

K

[jjjanos]

...so it's unfair of me to tell them they can't aspire to their goals.

Kirk, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When a driver asks for an allowance to run a substitute part on his car to make it more competitive/race more - say for example the rear hubs having a tendency to break quickly - your (The ITAC's) answer is Not Consistent With Class Philosophy. Yet, when the request is to change the Regional nature of IT, the same alarm bells don't go off? I'm sorry, but I'd like to put fenders of alternate material on my first gen CRX because the plastic ones are so brittle that they crack when a fly lands on them, but I know what the answer is going to be - NCWCP.


2. The Club Racing program would be healthier, top to bottom, if IT were a National class. EVEN IF the other issues affecting the National program (e.g., issues with the RubOffs venue choice) weren't addressed. I am not foolish enough to believe that IT could survive in a vacuum of money-losing club racing events. We ain't that important, that we can stand all by ourselves on our own current success.

Assertion without any supporting evidence. I've got X entries in a National and Y entries in a Regional. Total entries equals X+Y. IT goes National. I move Z entries from the Regional to the National. National entries are X+Z. Regional entries are Y-Z. Total entries equals X+Z+Y-Z or X+Y, cetaris paribus. Congratulations, you didn't put more water in the ballon, you just squeezed it.

One could make the argument that the move would attract some drivers and raise entries, but one could just as equally make a case that the move will lose drivers and lower entries - the running for points thing.

The cost of travelling to an away race is more than two times the cost of my home race. If I'm running Nationals, my travel budget increases and that leaves less money for entering races. My total participation goes down.

[Knestis]

Well, of course we don't have any evidence of what will happen if IT gets National status. It hasn't happened yet. Every point of view under discussion here is an assertion without supporting evidence...

...most particularly here, your suggestion that National status will result in the same outcomes as would catering to individual make/model/driver requests for allowances like alternate material fenders or different rear hubs. Re: cake, I think I'm being exactly the opposite of what you suggest - that I'm being completely consistent in trying to stem the tide of creep in Improved Touring, regardless of the title attached to the races one can enter with an IT car.

I simply believe that including what is arguably the second most successful category in Club Racing into a broader set of opportunities would be good for the entire program. The ENTIRE program - not Regionals, not Nationals, not the RubOffs - the whole tamale.

K

[Dave Gomberg]

Three of the six CRB members have been to the Runoffs in the last two years; another was an entrant; one has not been eligible (IT driver). Five of the six primarily run Nationals.

The "bigger look" is being done by the Task Force announced by the BoD a few months ago. Many members chose to comment to the BoD. The idea of IT as national classes is only one of many things that were proposed to the Task Force. The Task Force will be making its recommendations to the BoD soon and the BoD will make its decisions on the Club Racing program in the near future (at least that was the plan when the Task Force was announced).

As for the regional entries, see the attached file for the 2007 numbers. (BTW, if you think we have too many National classes, just look at the proliferation of Regional classes. There are some regions that recognize over 50 classes - Regional and National combined.)

Dave

[Knestis]

A quick look at the Prod Racing site shows those guys think National IT would be bad for IT too.......

And I have little doubt as to the motivation there. The opportunity to run for a National Championship is a big factor in choosing to complicate one's life with a Prod or GT car, so they (quite correctly, I think) fear that they'll lose entries to IT, should that option become a viable route to the RubOffs.

K

(PS - sorry, Earl. You knew it was going to come to this. Move 'em or whatever but you won't stem the tide for long.)

[JeffYoung]

This one is really simple to me. IT is a regional class. It's been "run" by the racers themselves for years. If the majority of IT racers want to go National, while I see it as a bad move, I will respect that. If the majority do not, it should not be forced on them.

So to the me the real question is, how do w run the vote to make sure everyone has a chance to express an opinion?

[IPRESS]

BINGO
We have a winner!
Jeff there you go making sense. If you keep that up around here, by the end of the year you can advance to the P board and take on a real challenge!

[erlrich]

This one is really simple to me. IT is a regional class. It's been "run" by the racers themselves for years. If the majority of IT racers want to go National, while I see it as a bad move, I will respect that. If the majority do not, it should not be forced on them.

So to the me the real question is, how do w run the vote to make sure everyone has a chance to express an opinion?
Isn't the traditional process to post a request for member input? Although, based on other recent requests I'm not sure the CRB would get half as many letters as we have votes in the poll. Maybe we could survey the drivers at upcoming events? Start a petition? I'm not sure what would be the most effective method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's been "run" by the racers themselves for years.

Help me understand this statement. IT is no different than any other class in terms of it's operational functionality. It has an Ad Hoc, has CRB reps, etc. The only difference is that it won't entertain comp adjustments and has a classification process, no?

[gran racing]

We really don’t have enough information to make a well informed decision, but if we’re just going with keep IT regional or make it all a national class, then:

NO.
ITB driver



I vote yes and race IT7 for the fun of it and that coveted last place in my group.

Interesting. Would you lobby for IT7 to be recognized as a National class within IT? Should those region by region classes be allowed to participate in the Runoffs too especially since they’re not in the GCR? These are actual questions and not meant to be argumentative.

[quote]So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

So we’re not able to race at the Runoffs, but we knew that prior to deciding to race in IT. I personally don’t care if I ever get to participate in the Runoffs or not. What percentage of current IT racers is believed who’d truly want to race at the Runoffs? 5%, 10%?

Now from a club’s overall perspective, and it sure would be interesting to see how regions would handle scheduling, it might make sense to eliminate the distinction between regional and national categories. Heck, it’s almost impossible to explain or understand what the differences even are.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave,

Here is how I would do it:

National races are Divisional qualifing races for a Runoffs birth. They are longer races with guaranteed amounts of track time.

Regional races are local series' that include all the Nationally recognized categories / classes plus a few more.

IMHO, if it ain't in the GCR, it can't be recognized for a NC. If IT7 were so prolific and popular, it could certainly get added (see SM).

[Ron Earp]

This one is really simple to me. IT is a regional class. It's been "run" by the racers themselves for years. If the majority of IT racers want to go National, while I see it as a bad move, I will respect that. If the majority do not, it should not be forced on them.

So to the me the real question is, how do w run the vote to make sure everyone has a chance to express an opinion?

+1 on that one.

My estimation is the majority of IT drivers won't vote for IT to "go National".

[Andy Bettencourt]

+1 on that one.

My estimation is the majority of IT drivers won't vote for IT to "go National".

Won't vote it to go National becasue they don't want it to go National or because they may never attend the RO's?

Heck - like Dick said earlier - the questions that are coming up about what IT cars would have to 'modify' to go National shows a real lack of understanding. It's this that scares me about the vote. Fear, uncertanty and doubt driven by the problems of other classes. And that central problem? UNSTABLE rules and COMP ADJUSTMENTS.

Just asking.

[jjjanos]

Won't vote it to go National becasue they don't want it to go National or because they may never attend the RO's?

It doesn't matter. If they vote no, they vote no and the outcome of the vote needs to be acted upon. Anything else and you might as well not have had a vote.


Fear, uncertanty and doubt driven by the problems of other classes. And that central problem? UNSTABLE rules and COMP ADJUSTMENTS.

Two words - TRUNK KITS.

Those fears are perfectly justifiable given the history of the National Series. Rather than recognize that classifying the ACR Neon in showroom stock was either

A mistake, a violation of the class philosophy and, so sorry, your car no longer is legal in Showroom Stock or
Perfectly legal, kosher and too bad Studebaker, you want to compete, build a better carWe got COMP ADJUSTMENTS, lobbying for what to include in the kits, etc.

[Ron Earp]

It's this that scares me about the vote. Fear, uncertanty and doubt driven by the problems of other classes. And that central problem? UNSTABLE rules and COMP ADJUSTMENTS.

Just asking.

And your concern will in turn scare the masses. Certainly there are members of the IT group that don't have the level of understanding that you and others possess. But their reality is driven by what they understand. If "you" (meaning Topeka) decide they (us) don't understand enough and that the decision should be made by a committee, well, then don't put the item out for member input.

I was scared of what I saw on the other board - the SCCA President asking someone at a National Race "Hey, what do you think about IT being National?"

To my paranoid way of thinking I feel that Topeka has decided IT is going to be National. Now they are trying to figure out how the IT herd can be convinced to keep their heads down and to keep eating the grass while we move to a new pasture.

[jjjanos]

Moo.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If there is ever a request for member input, I would hope it was written up very clearly what they are looking for. Informed voters are what we need on a topic like this.

It DOES matter to me when someone comments on something and has no idea what they are commenting on. Sorry. If you ran your life like that you would be in a world of hurt.

[Doc Bro]

If there is ever a request for member input, I would hope it was written up very clearly what they are looking for. Informed voters are what we need on a topic like this.

It DOES matter to me when someone comments on something and has no idea what they are commenting on. Sorry. If you ran your life like that you would be in a world of hurt.



But Andy, it's not your job to protect us from ourselves in the way you described.

Your assumption is that people don't understand, and that assumption is just as unfounded as the converse assumption that they do understand. The parallel of how one lives their own life is your opinion of "a world of hurt". Again, unfounded in any truth other than your own.

The beauty of a democracy (or asking members for an opinion) is that you get what you get, and what is it that you get?....opinions.. Educated or uneducated, right by your test or wrong- they are opinions, and if the majority say no to national then it should be NO. Anything else is just a steering maneuver to allow the masses to "see the light". Alleliuah Brother!!! Can I get an AMEN?

R

[Ron Earp]

Anything else is just a steering maneuver to allow the masses to "see the light". Alleliuah Brother!!! Can I get an AMEN?

R

Moooo.

[Andy Bettencourt]

All I want to do is make sure people make an informed decision, ya or nay. Especially one which has the potential to impact the category in such a big way.

[JeffYoung]

Not to get sidetracked, but my perception is IT was created by a group of racers, and run as a regional class with its own unofficial championship run by the racers for years. While the CRB and BoD have some control over it, usually, if the ITAC recommends it (at least until recently) it gets done.

My PERCEPTION of other national classes is of tighter CRB and BoD control since they are/were "flagship" classes that went to the runoffs.



Help me understand this statement. IT is no different than any other class in terms of it's operational functionality. It has an Ad Hoc, has CRB reps, etc. The only difference is that it won't entertain comp adjustments and has a classification process, no?

Back to the voting issue. You did say one thing that scared me Andy, and that is the inference anyway that only folks "informed" on the issue should vote. I disagree. All IT guys should get a vote and vote anyway they like for whatever reason.

What would really be BAD about all of this is if the CRB or the BoD forced it down our throats because "they know better." BAD BAD BAD.

[JeffYoung]

Baaaaaahhhhhhhhh!



Moooo.

[jjjanos]

I think, or at least I hope, we all would prefer an informed vote over an uninformed vote. My fear, however, is that, regardless of the outcome of the vote or input, those opposed will be discounted or dismissed because "they were uninformed".

Iacta alea est.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff, I am seeing where our disconnect is.

The CRB / BoD doesn't muck with the IT waters that much because the design of the class doesn't allow it. There are so few issues in IT compared to every other class (sans spec classes) because they don't deal with comp adjustments and there is a defined classification structure. It's not that they don't think it's important (frankly, I bet they think IT is THE most important class in Club Racing), they just don't have to worry about it because it doesn't need much attention compared to others.

Anyone can and should vote - I just want a complicated issue like this - with a ton of misconception out there already - and big potential impact - to receive an accurate RESULT. I don't care what way that is, just that people know what they are voting for. I really don't think that is too much to ask. Who wants a skewed result based on misinformation? Only those whose side it is skewed toward....

[erlrich]

Jeff, I am seeing where our disconnect is.
I don't care what way that is, just that people know what they are voting for. I really don't think that is too much to ask. Who wants a skewed result based on misinformation? Only those whose side it is skewed toward....
What I've taken from the discussions here, and on other forums, is that those who are against IT going national all have one ultimate viewpoint; IT is a great place to race just the way it is, and if you take it national you're just going to f**k that all up. The reasons why are varied; it will make racing more expensive, there will be constant comp adjustments, it will dilute the regional fields, the same people who f**ked up prod, and touring, and ss will now start f**king with IT. But it all boils down to that one sentiment - if IT ain't broke...don't make it national.

I would also posit this - it's just my gut feeling, but I believe the majority of those who would be interested in IT going national are here, and already paying attention to what's happening. I think the drivers who don't visit IT.com, or read every Fastrack as soon as it comes out, and don't go to the comp committee and/or board meetings, but who are still the majority of the IT drivers, have no interest in IT ever becoming a national class. I think the 2 to 1 against vote we've seen here is probably not representative of the true majority of IT drivers.

[Ron Earp]

I think the drivers who don't visit IT.com, or read every Fastrack as soon as it comes out, and don't go to the comp committee and/or board meetings, but who are still the majority of the IT drivers, have no interest in IT ever becoming a national class. I think the 2 to 1 against vote we've seen here is probably not representative of the true majority of IT drivers.

I would also agree with you strongly on this point. I talk to a fair number of IT drivers (when my head is not buried under a hood) in the paddock who don't frequent this site. Clearly I haven't been able to pose this question to them, but I will be doing so at VIR next weekend. My gut feeling is the "anti-National" sentiment is even stronger among the IT folks who don't frequent IT.com. I'm basing this only on a feeling, but when having a beer with the folks at various socials over the years I never got a "I love Topeka" vibe from them.

I too would like to see an accurate vote on the issue too. I have some experience with mailing houses if someone wants to put together a info flier and send to IT racers soliciting their input. I'm sure the club should have the means to do this as well, maybe via regional meetings or regional newsletters. But even that methodology might not work so well - personally I rarely go to regional meetings, I socialize with my IT/SCCA Club folks on this forum, so my vote might not get counted.

Ron