Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Knestis]

I feel a compelling need to relay some facts for consideration by interested IT racers, without imposing any interpretations or inferences of my own:

1. Almost 20 recommendations for weight changes to IT cars, each made in response to a member request, have been sent to the Board since the ITAC's April conference call.

2. While other recommendations have been sent up, voted on, and published in Fastrack during that time, none relating to weight specification have been acted on - include a couple that were corrections of very recent mistakes WE MADE and fully accepted responsibility for.

3. The last recommendation of this nature that was voted on, was a correction to the Golf and Jetta II. Our recommendation was to reduce the weight 10 pounds. The board voted against that change (May Fastrack).

4. (Some inference here.) This recommendation was seen by members of the ITAC as significant because it was the first application of a revised practice that ignored the traditional "close enough" guidelines. That is to say, the ITAC ran the numbers, determined the weight, and recommended exactly that weight - as opposed to subjectively deciding it was "close enough to not bother changing."

5. Finally, the Comp Board has formally asked the ITAC to explain and defend its current process and practices, finalized internally over the past few months and just recently finished and codified.

The upshot of this is that - for good, bad, or otherwise - conversations about the IT category are happening among the Club leadership. If you have opinions about issues relating to IT rules, classifications, specifications, or philosophies now would be a very good time to voice them. Get involved and be heard.

K

[shwah]

I guess I'll post here what I did elsewhere, and give some thought to the content of a letter on the general subject of IT to the powers that be. It's hard for me to do that because many of the issues I see are larger than IT, and require a re-consideration of the Club Racing structure as a whole (dump Regional/National, have 'Races', invite top 20 classes in participation to the Runoffs the following year, invite the rest to ARRC, treat all the classes equitably and make the effort to make them all competitive places to race - maybe apply some of what makes IT so good to other classes).

As far as what appears to have brought this conversation to the fore:

If the intention was to make a number of changes around 'target' cars to improve equity in the class, it seems putting that together as a package would have made the concept easier to communicate to the decision makers.

Of course I am still in the position currently that we need to address the 'standard of evidence' issue for alternative process inputs. If you guys get a car wrong on the heavy side, people will be incentivised to send in data showing a lower than assumed power gain, and that data can easily be skewed. If you guys get a car wrong on the light side, people will not be incentivised to share any data - I know I am not going through a 10/10ths build of a competitors power plant to prove the mistake, and they certainly are not dumb enough to share it. You are setting yourselves up to create overdogs by not addressing this issue first because the correction mechanism available won't be triggered (unless you start to consider 'on track performance' - which is a bad idea in most cases).

Since the A2 Golf/Jetta weight 'inaction' was precipitated by my request early last year, I'll speak to it. While I agree with the philosphy of classing the cars where they land, and on this basis wish the change were approved, I could care less about whether I get a 10 pound reduction, because the reality is that the car is closer to 10 times that far off achieving equitable power/weight compared to the other front runners in the class. At this point the issue is dead to me and I'll find a way to win with what I've got (EDIT - it has been suggested to me that the expectation was that other cars would move the other direction putting them in closer to equitable positions). Building and testing several custom headers now, flow testing several heads, manifolds and throttle bodies now, whatever it takes to remove any possibility of not having everything legaly possible out of the car. This is why I have not raced this year. I don't want to bring a knife to the back straight at MO or RA next year. My position is certainly not impartial on this particular case, so my opinions are likely skewed at least some on the subject.

I have heard rumors of other requests that were not acted on, and they have raised my eyebrows a lot. To the point that I would lose a lot of faith in the category if they went through. Thus my beating the drum of knowing that we know what we think we know, rather than knowing what we were told, before taking action. It will be harder to fix a mistake than I used to think IMO.

[rsportvolvo]

IMSA, NASA, and other racing organizations thrive due to the shortcomings of the SCCA. These alternate organizations would not exist had SCCA done a better job.

My recent request for the Volvo 240 is not a weight reduction request, but a line item review as some information listed is flat out wrong (i.e. exhaust valve size is 35mm, not 37mm!). If the weight changed, good. If not, at least I can build a legal car using OEM parts. I'm not sure if my request was denied. If it is, I will be writing a letter.

Same crap happens in SCCA Pro-Racing too. It's unfortunately the SCCA way.

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.

[JeffYoung]

There will always be alternative motorsports organizations due to differing cultures. There are things that frustrate people about SCCA; there are things that frustrate others about NASA.

The Volvo request has been looked at several times and is being worked on. It has not been denied.

I certainly agree that, at a minimum, the "Process 2.0" for determining a car's race weight should be published.


IMSA, NASA, and other racing organizations thrive due to the shortcomings of the SCCA. These alternate organizations would not exist had SCCA done a better job.

My recent request for the Volvo 240 is not a weight reduction request, but a line item review as some information listed is flat out wrong (i.e. exhaust valve size is 35mm, not 37mm!). If the weight changed, good. If not, at least I can build a legal car using OEM parts. I'm not sure if my request was denied. If it is, I will be writing a letter.

Same crap happens in SCCA Pro-Racing too. It's unfortunately the SCCA way.

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.

[tnord]

and would someone like to lay out just what version 2.0 is? it'd be kinda nice to know before i try and give feedback on it, and to see if i need to put the car i just built up for sale

[chuck baader]

More than anything, I think a potential competitor should be able to go to the rule book and either find his/her car or be able to run the process on a new car to ascertain the class in which it would run. Other organizations mentioned have that capability without jumping through hoops. Hopefully, process V2.0 will alleviate some of the angst in car selection.

NASA has thrived on the GTS front on HP/WT but I think interest in that class is waning. People are starting to realize that classification solely depends on money, as does competitiveness. I am seeing a lot of NASA drivers looking hard at IT. As they say, "come on down". Chuck

[MMiskoe]

Opinion:

ITAC/Comp board would do a lot to win the trust of the masses if they would be a bit more transparent. If this legendary process was a bit less secretive there would be fewer questions asked (at least to publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board). If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed. (How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter?)

If IT went national, similar to SM, there are enough people in the grid that you would see regional only classes pop up just like spec RX7 if it were merited. In other words if people found that National IT just didn't do it for them and they had enough people who agreed, there would be a move to make some change or gentlemen's agreement not to do what the national guys were doing. This would result in a non-national class.


Fact:
If "the process" was non-subjective, was consistent and had been applied to all cars on the books at the time, none should be off an ounce. So why are is anyone fiddling around w/ a 10 pound change? Get on to more important things please like trying to find new cars to fill the grids.

[RSTPerformance]

Two MAJOR problems with SCCA/IT now...

ITAC/Comp board should at least publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board.

How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter (other than an e-mail that only says you have been waiting 8 (or isit 9) months a few more won't be to bad... If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed.

Raymond "Matt I am with ya" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

I would also be interested to k ow who's requests have been worked on and who's are still on the shelf... 20 weight adjustment requests??? Get member feedback if you guys can't figure it out!

Oh wait you ask for member feedback then do nothing with it should I mention AWD???

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.

[Knestis]

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.

Yes. Just got them finalized but even that statement can be misleading since in truth, not much has actually changed since le Grand Réalignement. The math is pretty much the same. The biggest changes have to do with the practices around applying that math - in all instances, removing ambiguity and opportunities for subjectivity.


...Fact: If "the process" was non-subjective, was consistent and had been applied to all cars on the books at the time, none should be off an ounce. So why are is anyone fiddling around w/ a 10 pound change? Get on to more important things please like trying to find new cars to fill the grids.

Because (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.

The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."

NO arguments from me - inside view - re: documenting requests, getting to them in a timely way, and keeping the membership accurately informed about where things are. We hear from our CRB liaisons that the Club office is working on a web-based system to manage that but I kind of feel like if the inclination and organization were in place to do those things well, they'd be done well. In my experience, a technology solution doesn't change inclination or organization. There's lots of room for improvement there.

It's not a general issue but member input on the AWD question WAS reviewed on the last con call (Jeff was on an airplane at the time, I think), and the ITAC responded to the CRB with a first-principle position on the subject. What they do with that will be the next step.


I would also be interested to k ow who's requests have been worked on and who's are still on the shelf... 20 weight adjustment requests??? Get member feedback if you guys can't figure it out!

Read what I wrote again, Raymond: The ITAC has made its recommendations on those. They have been referred to the CRB. I don't think member input is warranted on every weight change but member input IS warranted re: factors that might bear on what the CRB does with those recommendations. THAT'S the point of my original post.

K

[Spinnetti]

There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.

Why not class it "normally" then? the disadvantage in the dry gets cancelled out by the wet advantage?

I've been racing right about 20 years now, most of that in IT, and for me it mostly trying to keep up with the constant rule changes and the incredibly anal debate over so much of them. Right now, I'm having more fun in Lemons where its my driving and pit work that matters, not the car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And it is nice to give the membership a couple months on a solicited item. AWD was voted on and a recommendation made to the CRB. Since the member comment was 'for' AWD (NA) overwhelmingly - hey, one FAMILY (right Ray?) can have 30% of the votes, you know... :)

So AWD is something the ITAC would undertake classing should the CRB lift the ban and ask us to do so.

[tnord]

the overall view.....

1) rules "season." Oct 31-Dec 31, eff Jan 1. No changes can be made outside of that window. you can talk about them all you want, but nothing goes into practice other than Jan 1 of the next year.

2) stability. this has been completely absent in my mind over the last few years. VIN rule, ECU, weight changes, cars moving classes, FWD weight breaks, etc. the underlying philosophy is that you should be able to build a 100% car today, and be able to count on running that car competitively for 5-10yrs without major change.

3) stop trying to balance the class "on the tip of the pin." i know it was a stated objective when the process v1 was run, but i feel like you've lost the plot on that one. using simulators as data, re-running all cars to go through the process and be classed within 5lbs of the output, stepped FWD weight breaks, all seem to be in conflict with this principle. it also violates rule #2.

4) maintain a prep level between Touring and Prod

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.

3) if a listed car does not record a FINISH in 3 years, it is removed from the ITCS.

4) for cars listed not using the standard formula, all supporting data is published.

[Knestis]

A couple of your background points aren't entirely accurate (e.g., using simulations as "data") but THANK YOU, Travis.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The key takeaway Kirk from Travis' post is congruent with the misconceptions the CRB has.

[Z3_GoCar]

The key takeaway Kirk from Travis' post is congruent with the misconceptions the CRB has.

Visa-vis...


now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.


The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?

[frnkhous]

Visa-vis...



The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?


One with a renter willing to write a big check. The same reason they were at the race your refering too. Most koni teams can find a way to put almost any car back together in a couple weeks if the check is big enough. I don't see what the runoffs brings to IT racing?? I also don't understand why you would want to class AWD cars. From what i've seen they are generally gonna be classed like shitty strut fwd cars. Most of them don't handle all that well in the dry so the weight would basically be like a fwd race car, now it rains and they have a pretty good power to weight ratio+AWD. You can't possibly class them to be competitive in the dry and not walk away from everything in the wet. Ask the Koni Challenge guys.

[MMiskoe]

B
ecause (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?


The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.

[IPRESS]

You boys keep beating that IT National drum. You will be cussing yourself when it happens. Maybe it will take you a season or so, but the cussing will start just the same.

IT should remain a cheap, easy to build race car class. With the escalation of SM, IT is once again the place an average pocketbook guy can still have a chance at doing well.
It should be the ITACs main goal to keep it that way.

With 24+ classes you boys wanting to test yourselves nationally have plenty of places to play without screwing up IT.

As successful as IT seems to be, WHY DO YOU GUYS CONSTANTLY WANT TO MESS WITH IT? You have a good thing going, probably the best in SCCA, enjoy it.

Just an opinion.

[Knestis]

B

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.

As clearly as I possibly can: The "bogey" cars were left alone - without being run through the math - because the ITAC at the time of the GR saw them running competitively on the track.

Their weights were not changed and a second group of cars was aligned with them, using the process as it was in place at the time. A third group of cars was not even looked at.

In addition to the three-tiered situation, during the time of the Great Realignment the "process" was infused with substantial opportunities for subjectivity. Subjectivity as in, "I think that Civic needs to be heavier than that. It's going to be a class killer if we let it race at that weight."

For these reasons, when cars are run through the current, more constrained and consistent process, they come out different. Just like members have seen - and questioned - cars with similar physical characteristics running at different race weights.

And in the current process, there is room in one place for subjectivity: The power multiplier. And at that, only a tiny handful of the 20 cars waiting for action used anything other than the standard assumption on that factor.

K

[Ron Earp]

Have to clean them up a bit but you asked and here they are.

IT should be about grassroots racing using race cars. Not street cars. Not dual purpose cars. But grassroots, trailer-your-car-to-the-track, amateur road racing using race cars. The IT rules set should reflect this simple philosophy.




The ITAC should strive to maintain a long-lasting and stable rules set. The rules should be simplistic. Rules that are on the books that are not 100% clear to someone with an eigth grade education and rudimentary knowledge of cars should be clarified. Once the current rules set has been modernized then steps should be taken to minimize changes. A couple of examples of moderizing and streamlining the rules:


The IT rules set should eliminate any holdover vestiages of dual purpose cars: washer bottles having to be present, heater cores remaining in the car, original wiring harness must be used, and so forth. It costs nothing to remove such items and a racer might save money by not having to purchase other lightweight components in the quest for minimum weight. If nothing else these items are not needed in a race car and make the car simplier and easier to maintain.
To level the playing field between old and new engine management systems fuel injected cars should be allowed to use any ECU and sensors needed to function. The stock fuel/air metering devices must remain in the air stream though, i.e. – throttle body, vane meter, MAF – all must remain stock size/shape/dimension and engine air must pass through them.
(AWD/F induction)




The IT classification process should be easily understood and should not use subjective modifers. The classification process should focus on power to weight ratios of the classed cars and it should be as simple as possible. Class resolution should be no less than 25 lbs to eliminate the use of “prod like” adjustments.



The classification process should be published in its entirety. It should be possible for a racer to discover an unclassed car, run it through the classification process, and obtain the same race weight that the ITAC would calculate. The weight provided by the classification process should be used as projected.



The classification of newer cars with hp ratings outside the envelope of the current classes should be classed without drama. Proposals and year-long dicussions should not be needed (a la ITR) to instate a higher performance IT class if/when needed. Consideration should not be given to look, feel, or apperances of classes nor should impact on other classes be considered. If a car fits into a class based on its attributes then it should be available to an IT racer.



The ITAC should consider some form of self-policing with respect to term limits or maybe even election of members. I’m a bit fuzzy on what I’m trying to say or propose here but the basic concept would be that the ITAC gets new blood periodically (and I know this just happened recently). I do not think you’d want a 100% turnover every X period of time because we’d lose too much knowledge and continuity. But having new members added every X period of time with some change in the controlling entity of the group is a good thing to make sure the committee aligns with member wishes.


I’ll work on these concepts and others for a letter of some sort. Sorry for the disorganization of these ideas and poor writing.

[lateapex911]

Wow. interesting...ummm.. reactions. Lets think big picture.

Back in the day, as Kirk explains, we did the big reorg. (the Great Realignment) But, it was a HUGE deal to dink with IT cars, and the BoD was dead set against the idea going in. The CRB championed the cause, and changes were made. Now, we tread very lightly at the time, because of the internal resistance.

So, yea, some (a LOT) of cars never got touched. The idea, at the time, was that 90% of IT's problems were caused by 10% of the cars. Changing that much was a MAJOR deal, and really corrected the path.

Now, post GR, we've used the Process, but it's had, as Kirk points out, some susceptibility to tinkering. Adders can (could) be subjectively applied. That can result in things like "Give it a bit extra for brakes to counter the possibility of it being an overachiever in the engine" ...

The REFINEMENT of the SAME process, that we have been hammering out recently, seeks to avoid such subjectivity. IF we have DATA that the committee can document, and can vote individually with confidence on, we will alter the standard parameters. But without that, there's not any 'winging it' based on our knowledge/experience/eye witness accounts/suspicions/hunches and or, but not limited to, feelings.

Now, what Kirk is saying, is that the CRB is holding back our recent work on cars that have been requested to be reprocessed. Why? Well, they are not happy, one must conclude, with the refinement of the process.

To me, it's ironic, because I see the new 2.0 version as merely a sharper and more robust version of the 1.0 version that we've been humming along with for a few years now.

Andy will go on a con call tomorrow night, I think, to try and illustrate the similarities, and the differences so that they understand what we're doing.

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

To boil it down REALLY far down, if you like the basic direction the ITAC has tried to take, and think it's on the right path, say so. If you think we're driving the category off the cliff, speak up.

The CRB and especially the BoD are guys who have been in the game for a long time, and they are used to the ship running a certain way. That's normal. Doing it differently raises eyebrows and makes people very nervous. Tell them it's ok. Or not. But let them know you exist, you care, and you're a member who's watching and in the game.

If you are wanting to know how it all affects YOUR car before you do anything, well, that's rather missing the point.

[RSTPerformance]

Ron- I agree 100% with what you have said...


Jake- From the personal friendships and conversations I have (and reading posts on this site) I like what the ITAC has been doing. However I don't know how they feel with the several requests I have put in. While I am friends with some I never have and don't expect to get an officialin writting personal answer before the rest of SCCA. What I want is for the ITAC to officially publish all requests and recomendatios (to them from members and the ones fro
them to the CRB). Untill then how can I agree with what they are doing??? Even if it is the fault of the CRB or BOD it's all just talk and no show simply because we (members not involved behind the sceens) are not seeing results.

Raymond "how do I support Version 2.0 when I don't know what it is?" Blethen

[Ron Earp]

You, the interested IT racer, can, no, should weigh in.

If you think the FIRST PRINCIPALS (in the classification procedure) should be consistency, transparency, repeatability, and that subjectivity should be used only with hard data as a back up, and that on track performance should be used as a trigger to go get hard data, well, tell them that.

If you prefer that we continue to use the process as before, but use our intuition when the numbers it spits out don't look right, tell them that.

Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what I, the racer, thought about IT and the rules set. It appears you want me to affirm, or not affirm, the direction the ITAC is going.

[lateapex911]

Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what I, the racer, thought about IT and the rules set. It appears you want me to affirm, or not affirm, the direction the ITAC is going.

Actually, Ron, your list is quite valid. My post was aimed more to folks up the line who seemed to be saying, "What's in it for me". Kirk made the point that the re classifications that you, the member at large, have requested, have been stalled, and that you the member should be aware of that. And that the reasoning appears to be that there is distrust with the methods used to create the results.

I found the "Well, it depends, if the new process adds weight to my car then I ain't in support of it" response to be missing the point.

[lateapex911]

Ron- I agree 100% with what you have said...


Jake- From the personal friendships and conversations I have (and reading posts on this site) I like what the ITAC has been doing. However I don't know how they feel with the several requests I have put in. While I am friends with some I never have and don't expect to get an officialin writting personal answer before the rest of SCCA. What I want is for the ITAC to officially publish all requests and recomendatios (to them from members and the ones fro
them to the CRB). Untill then how can I agree with what they are doing??? Even if it is the fault of the CRB or BOD it's all just talk and no show simply because we (members not involved behind the sceens) are not seeing results.

Raymond, you're not seeing results because they are being held up by the CRB, to my understanding.

As to seeing every letter in it's full form, and the complete response, I doubt that the powers up the line from us are going to do that. Kennedy is being praised as a guy who got a lot done because he didn't demand that everything be perfect. Cmpromise is needed if progress is to be made. You might just have to accet some good, but not get everything you'd like. I have no problem posting it all. (you know me to be one of the more open members of the ITAC, (and I've been warned about flapping my gums too much))


Raymond "how do I support Version 2.0 when I don't know what it is?" Blethen

It's so ironic that YOU say that after my previous comments....but why I can't share.

But, anyway..I don't think we are in the position as individuals to publish the 2.0 as it hasn't been accepted or approved as such, so, you need to go on your gut, past history, and faith in the individuals that you have read and know who are in the system. Or not. Your call.

[StephenB]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.

[gran racing]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing?

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this?

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others?

[BlueStreak]

Before I throw my .02 out there, I want to thank all of you that have worked so hard to get us to this point, especially the G.R. Then I have to remind you that no good deed goes unpunished:rolleyes:

My .02
1) Have a rules season in the fall/winter. Keep the rules stable during the season
2) Publish the process in the GCR, have a downloadable .xls on the website:D
3) Refine the process during rules season every year.
4) Ten years from now the process should stabilize.

Allow AWD cars, but make them remove 50% of their halfshafts:p

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask everyone to be prepared to add or subtract 2% on their weight when the process gets revised each "rules season".

[StephenB]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing? YES IMHO and one of the best things that has happend in SCCA! IMHO

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this? Absolutly this would be AWESOME and exactly what I personally am looking forward to in the near future!

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others? I would support this! I think this would make the best situation for all cars and members to be equally competitive!


Dave... these are actual questions that I can answer without knowing anything about v1.0 or v2.0 if this is what the rest of the ITAC members where asking they should hire you as a consultant! My answers are in Bold.

Well done!
Stephen

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

[lateapex911]

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

Thanks Dave. But Stephen, where did Dave get all that? By reading what has been written here. Same as you have.

[lateapex911]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.


??? Where should I find it?

[Charlie Broring]

I have concerns with the ITAC recognizing the “Big Picture” at present. First of all, I think the “Process” is a great tool for the ITAC. However I think they are rather carried away with the accuracy of the formula and they underestimate the negative impact on rules stability that it is causing. I don’t think it is the Holy Grail that some of the ITAC think it is.

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.

The desire for more equal competition, is the whole point of the “process”. However some checks and balances including review of on track performance need to be part of the plan. The Process just isn’t good enough to be used on its own.

On a completely different note, I think that the SCCA would benefit from a group of classes, just above IT in preparation level, with Runoffs eligibility. Production and Super Touring just are not filling that role very well. This would both give the IT racer a “next step” in club racing and take away some of the pressure to make IT fill a role it wasn’t designed to do. Of course developing such a new class is a formidable undertaking.

Charlie

[JoshS]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Charlie, this is well-written and I think your view is shared by many people including some CRB members.

Let me just say simply that no one on the ITAC believes that 10 lbs is significant, nor does anyone on the ITAC think it "needed a weight reduction."

This is about consistency. If the 2.0 Golf was not currently classed but a request came in, it would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter than it is now. More significantly, if another car that's on paper IDENTICAL to that Golf, it too would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter. Then you would all be asking why this new listing was 10 lbs lighter than the Golf which was already there.

This has already happened, BTW, many times, only it's not usually about 10 lbs, it's usually about 100 lbs. Basically, we feel that we should adjust all of the cars such that their weights are 100% reliable and defensible, so that listings between very similar cars look similar, to reduce those sorts of questions and to lend more credibility to the weight-assignment process.


Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind.

Now, I think you must be talking not about the weight-assignment process, but about the changes to modification allowances. Totally different deal, of course. I'm sure you recognize that a 1971 car is assigned a weight with exactly the same process as a 1999 car. As far as the newer rules changing appearing to favor newer cars, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not the intent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To clear things up...and it isn't coincidence that some of the misconceptions here are shared with the CRB....

First off, 'V.2.0' of the process is 95% clarification, 5% change. And by 'change' I mean things like moving from a fixed FWD subtractor to a percentage - something that makes way more sense and has been pointed out here numerous times. What we have done over the past 9 or so months is to set into practice a step-by-step way of setting a cars weight. It is not a formula but is as close as I really feel you can get. I would LOVE a formula but don't think it's possible. Each step has it's checks and balances and is documented. We had to hash out every possible nook and cranny - and define many things in order to get it down on paper. The result IMHO is really quite nice. Again, it's not so much change, as it is really a development excersize in definitions and policies so that we could go back and be guaranteed (barring no new information) that we would get the same answer for the same car year after year.

As for as the MK II VW is concerned...we ARE NOT telling anyone that a 10lb change is more accurate. What we are doing is running cars through the process - as documented - and setting the weight as spit out. That could be a 5lb change or a 200lb change...doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that all cars are 'set' using the same stick (however flawed that stick may be). I want to run every car through the process and set the weights however they fall, no matter the delta that is in the ITCS. Again, not saying that it's more accurate, just more consistant...and that is a HUGE goal of the ITAC...and by defination to some, STABLE. To me, the weights in the ITCS are a cluster-fark. Easily 3 ways of classing cars have resulted in weights that are in there. I can't think of one car that is a dominant run-away - that has been classed by the process. The cars that being 'left behind' are cars that we haven't had the 'luxury' of measuring with the same stick the current cars are being measured by.

The on-track performance issue is a grey area. I believe it is to be used as a 'trigger' to take a closer look. A look that is aimed at uncovering a 'mistake' or 'new information' that needs to be plugged into the process that would result in a different weight...most common would be a car exceeeding the standard 25% power multiplier. I do not believe in using it to reset weights based on finishing positions at singular races. The Process is still the way we class cars in IT. Not by trap speeds at the end of a straight at RA or whatever else you want to look at that we traditionally call 'Prod-style' adjustments.

Some still want to bring up the ECU issue (or rule changes like it) and rules stability. If you want to freeze the IT rules in time, then we could do that. But most agree that as times change, they rules will need to be updated. Wheel sizes, shock format, ABS...all being requested for change NOW by members just like yourselves. We resist such things for as long as we feel it makes sense. I can tell you for 100% certainty that the ITAC is a 'no' first, a 'yes' only after significant discussion and pain.

So, in summary, not much about the 'process' has changed, just defined. The CRB needs to recognize this too. They need to understand that a request to change a weight 10lbs isn't a proclamation that we think that is more accure - but that it is CONSISTANT and CONGRUENT with how everything that we have been classing over the past X years. To me, that is what will make IT desireable for years to come.

[Knestis]

I want to elaborate on my original post by reminding everyone that you can post here until the cows come home, and it means NOTHING to the powers-that-be. In fact, I've heard grumblings about "internet chatter" as seemingly unwelcome by some folks in the rules-making process.

Write to your representative on the Board. Email the CRB. Tell them - don't tell us.

Stephen - I'm personally trying hard to not make this a question about endorsing or not endorsing current ITAC practice. I suppose that IS the question to a significant degree but we need to focus on first principles, like Ron and Charlie elaborated. The differences between "v.1" and "v.2" are MINUSCULE compared to those considerations and unless/until there's some vision established for the category, we'll always be mired in the minutiae.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

[Bob Roth]

1) I think the way that car weights are calculated leaves the Honda VTEC contingent and other cars with high stock Hp/liter cars out to lunch. If a car has 100hp/liter stock, 10.5/1 compresson, free breathing intake, decent exhaust etc, there isn't the legal development potential compared to cars like the non-vtec prelude that has 0.6 hp/liter. Say what you want, the most raceable honda's built are absent from signficant IT results and numbers.

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. My suggestion is that the IT classes be considered based on what cars SCCA believes would make good fields, focus on them as the competitive target for IT classes, and let less qualified cars also compete knowing that they probably won't win. Also I think at NASA has it right with Spec Honda, Porsche 944, BMW etc.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago. Otherwise I think the trend is not promising, face it, without Spec Miata (which has probably peaked) IT and regionals would be in a bad situation.

[Charlie Broring]

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie

You didn't answer my question. I understand you think the process fails here. What would YOU do - and why? Running the exersize through the keyboard helps you think it through and us to understand where we can improve.

[lateapex911]

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.
Charlie




3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago.

Wow....hard to believe the two guys race in the same club. But, maybe that's because their views are self centric. What happens to their pond, and their cars is considered most important.

Bob, your points are most interesting. I think you're saying that new cars should be classed in such a manner as to make them the top dogs, and older cars should be handicapped, to encourage people to get new cars.

Yet, you also state that the racing should be "of reasonable cost" with "at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive."

I'm struggling how to resolve those two very different goals. Causing a large contingent of cars to be "B listed" would, in effect, you say, push people into new cars. Well, that's actually a forced move. You want to run near the front? Forget that car you've got and have developed and go get a NEW car. How is that "reasonable"????

I assume you don't think that new cars should be classed at weights below the current class performance envelope do you? Track records be damned? So that leaves only the option of adding weight to all the 'old' cars.

This guys, illustrates the conflicting picture that is IT. We got, just last month, tow requests to classify old Alfas and Fiats. REALLY old. And we get requests to classify cars young and old, all the time. Should we be just refusing if they aren't new and cool? And by whose standards?

(Bob, don't forget, the S2000 got classed with THE lowest power multiplier in ALL of IT. We got hate mail on that too.)

[Knestis]

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

How would that information be used - contribute to resolving "competitive issues?"


...The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. ...

I know I asked for input and am trying to let people share their ideas but this demonstrates a misconception re: how new cars get classified. There is no - zero - disincentive applied to new listings. Now, if you are talking about the 5-year rule, that's a different thing but otherwise, you want it listed? It gets listed using the same process that has been getting applied in response to "please revisit" requests.

On the other hand of course, if current cars are specified such that they are lighter than the CURRENT PROCESS says they should be, they WOULD indeed start the process at a disadvantage.

K

[Charlie Broring]

Andy, I thought I did answer you question but I'll be more specific. I would ask questions and listen to the answers. The hypothetical Car A that you describe may be very challenging, but I bet all of his fellow competitors at the ARRC have observations. Such as " has a center of gravity below the ground and a real wide track. Nobody can go through a corner like him." or " I saw him filling the nitrous bottle between sessions." Or look at lap times are they all over the place or all the same and a second faster then everybody else.

Yea, it's more work and time. However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

I think that in some cases correcting for shortcomings in the Process is relatively easy. In the example I sited, the 911 Porsche, a member of the ITAC who is also a ITS driver rep could look at the car, report back that the car is really nicely built, well driven, but has 200# of lead on the floor and runs mid pack ITA times. And if this information was deemed reliable, the ITAC may consider a weight adjustment.

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

Well, I guess I feel the total opposite. To me, its the WHOLE point of IT and the Process. No matter what year, what make, what model - you have a chance - ON PAPER. Slightly better, slightly worse, so be it...it will NEVER be perfect or exact...but everyone gets to play. I am not sure why the age of a car has anything to do with the sucess of a category - so long as those who like new and those who like old, feel that they are being treated fairly.

The SCCA shouldn't care about CARS, they should care about MEMBERS.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

I appreciate your response Charlie but what if you only had the information I gave you? The Process can only be so granular. Centers of Gravity? Track width? While they are just examples, how detailed do you expect us to be? And most importantly, how would you like to apply weight given one of these issues?

Car A just came across our plates. Really. Anyone else want to take a shot?

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;


Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#'s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#'s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #'s in ITB was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.


i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;


Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#¢s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#¢s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #¢s in ITB) was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.


i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

It certainly makes someone question the process, however I think that if the ITAC feels that they have a good process then all the cars should be run through the process the SAME, and it should not look at current or past success. I can give plenty of examples of cars that have dominated without any weight adjustments going back a couple years to when Volvo's dominated ITB to more recent years when Miata's dominated ITA in certain areas/tracks. As discussed many times before maybe Car A is a great car at tracks like Road Atlanta or Pocono but not so great at tracks like NHMS. You cannot class a car based on the success at certain tracks. You have to trust the process that you are trying to sell.

This car you question at the ARRC... Was it successful before or after the GR (Great Realignment) where several cars were added or re-classed and now dominate the class?

Raymond "With such success I bet the request (even though it may appear) was not made for his/her interest but more with a feeling that all should be treated the same, if such a process existed" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ray - I am just asking a hypothetical. I will always fall on the side of 'trust the process, it hasn't let us down yet - and WHEN it does, we have the ability to fix it'.

[Knestis]

...However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

That was me. I'm not alone in that respect among ITAC members, I don't believe.

Tom - On the ITB CRX Si, your letter was considered along with a number of others (Gran, at least one Blethen, et al.) as part of the genesis of what got us to where we are right this very second. We did not act on your letter as a particular agenda item, because it didn't ask for a rule change or anything like that, but it did contribute to the conversation.

The primary issue that we started to address then was the "close enough" question. Recollection among ITAC members on that CRX is consistent with what you describe - it got a chunk of weight when it went to B, pre-process. THEN when the process WAS run on it, it was "within 100 pounds" so it got left alone.

That is most absolutely NOT how we are currently running the ITAC specification process - which appears to have something to do with why the 20 cars in question are waiting. (And no, the CRX isn't among them.)

I'd normally suggest that you specifically request that we revisit that car but at this point, we're on hold it appears.

For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

K

[Knestis]

...So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

In that kind of a protocol, how would Dave Kerr's 7-year-old VIR ITB lap record of a 2:22.6 figure into deliberations...?

K

[tom91ita]

........

For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

K

as far as i know, and i am quite certain, all 85-87 honda crx si's and civic si's are 1488 cc, 91 HP and 12 valves and same basic suspension geometry (torsion bar and strut up front and beam axle in the back). they are "equivalent" except for the civic is sometimes seemed as more stable (longer wheelbase) and the crx is seen as better aero.

EDIT: and 93 ft-#'s of torque per this site:

http://www.sportscarmarket.com/AffordableClassics/2004/January/


and i will rephrase my original request into two letters. one for to look at the weight of the car and another to support the process.

[Z3_GoCar]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

[Z3_GoCar]

Why do you need that data James? That data was used in the caluclation of the 'process weight of 2300lbs'. Assume that all the ganularity of the process has been utilized. If you are asking us to consider aero, the amount of gears, the construction of the intake manifold, the size of the valves...we don't.

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed? How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility? Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

[lateapex911]

I'd be looking for a reason it'd have a larger gain than normal. Is there a chance that a cam swap was performed? chance? Sure, because the car wasn't torn down, the only thing we KNOW, is that we don't KNOW what was in the engine.

How about intake manifold swaps? Is that another possibility?
Sure, see above.

Gearing can really help too, see the discussion on the ITB Metro for sale thread, where at one time a factory aftermarket race ratio set was avalible. Maybe the owner felt the car was such an outsider, he took matters into his own hands to equalize it in his own less than kosher way. You need to find out if the single case was an outlier, or the norm.

James, you have a point. But, how are we supposed to do that? None of the racers can! Well, some of the racers are SURE the other guy is cheating, and some of the racers are SURE the cars just classed wrong....

Do you want us to:
1- Assume he's cheating, and ignore it?
2- Assume he's legal, look at the lap times and just add a hundred pounds.

I'm guessing most will choose "3".

So, how do you get the data, and how do you trust it? What can you apply consistently as a method for such data acceptance?

Simple answers are few and far between.........

[shwah]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Just to clarify for those that don't speak VW. The A2, or Mk2 Golf is NOT the 2.0 liter powered Golf. Kirk races a Golf III aka A3 Golf aka MK3 Golf, which has a 2 liter, 8v, crossflow head engine. I race a Golf 2, aka A2 Golf, aka Mk2 Golf, which has a 1.8 liter, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

[jimmyc]

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.


I don't think this is possible. With the invent of WC-Vision, it seems that SCCA pro racing is JUST a sanctioning body, that enforces rules given to them, and conducts all of the on track stuff. But they don't have, or appear to have much of anything to do with the rules.

And WC-Vision seems VERY set on keep the current rules they have.

[Ron Earp]

, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

I hope you are joking.

[JeffYoung]

He's 100% joking.

[lateapex911]

Phew...it's a long way to drive to administer a beat down, ;)

[gran racing]

Right or wrong, here are my thoughts that I forwarded on to the CRB.

Dear CRB,

I am an active racer within the Improved Touring Category I T B and want to voice my support of the ITAC’s process to classify cars, the need to use it on additional cars, and suggest future improvements. Thank you for taking the time to read this and you’re consideration.

Utilization of the Classification Process:
Huge improvements on the classification process have been made during the past couple of years, which lead to what I personally consider the best thing that has happened to the category in quite some time. While some cars were put through the revised process and adjusted accordingly, there are still numerous which were not and it is quite evident classification errors still exist. I recognize that initially only “major” issues were identified and the weight or classification was adjusted accordingly. While a fantastic first step, it needs to be utilized further. Based on my understanding, only cars that fell outside of a 100 pound + / - target weight were initially reviewed and acted on.
We now need to take the next step and examine other vehicles to gain more accurate and consistent classification results among cars. While it might not be practical to run all cars through the process, we could at least run cars membership submits requests for to be run through the process. Based on this, evaluate the results and make any necessary adjustments if it falls outside of a 10 pound window of its current spec weight. If for some reason there’s a consensus that a particular vehicle falls outside of the standard parameters, table the vehicle and conduct additional research. Do not fall into a trap of permanently tabling the request, but take some additional time to do additional research and give it the attention is deserves. If no conclusive evidence is found that the process is inaccurate, then trust the process after all it’s the best method of classing cars we’ve had yet.

We also have to recognize that some cars will perform better at some tracks. Just because a vehicle has traits that lend itself to being quite successful, it may not have the traits to be successful at other tracks. I do not expect the process to be totally accurate, however it does need to be explainable and consistent. My biggest fear is that we have a great tool to evaluate cars yet we’ll elect not to use it . That would be a shame and step backwards in the confidence of what members have viewed so positively thus far.

Process Improvement aka Process 2.0:
Based on my understanding, the recently updated process is merely reducing subjectivity and better defining how the math is applied. In order for vehicles to be run through the process and obtain consistent results in both the short term and long term future, this is a necessary step. Our goal should be for future boards to arrive at the same results (or very close to) as previous boards. An explanation that one car was classed by one board and another by a different board which explains why the weights are so different is unacceptable. This refinement to the process will move towards this goal.

How should on-track performance be utilized? Do not use the on-track results as subjective adders or deductions in the classification process itself. Instead, use this as one method to uncover potential mistakes and identify cars that might necessitate further research. For example, maybe initially it was thought a power multiplier of .25% was used and now various results make that multiplier questionable. Do not simply make assumptions; instead do further investigative research. There are way too many variables that can impact this beginning with track conditions, quality of driver and car prep, to the potential of it being an illegal car. For all we know it could have illegal cams, gears, among other things. By using on-track results we’d be hurting people who race the same exact car legally. Again, if there are too many questions about the vehicle table the request and conduct further research.

Improved Touring Rules Stability:
Most IT drivers will agree that one great thing about the class is its rules stability. We should continue to strive limit the number of adjustments to the rules themselves.

While it may not seem like it, reviewing additional cars and utilizing the process goes towards rules stability. It’s impossible to say that we have a stable rule set if the same rules (in this case classification results) are not being applied. Using the process and adjusting classifications accordingly actually takes a step toward rules stability and membership confidence.

Communication Improvements:
There’s room for improvements with the communication provided to the IT community (actually the entire SCCA membership base but that’s a different discussion). One of the first steps should be to document and make available to membership the most recent classification process. This information should clearly state how the process is applied, define how results are concluded, and any other key elements to the classification formula.

Another area for improvement is when a member submits a request, we receive a brief message that it has been received and will be forwarded to the appropriate board. With at least one of my requests, it was determined that the ITAC did not receive it. If I had not followed-up, it would appear it was received and in process. In addition to receiving the initial automated message, we should receive some type of tracking number related to the request. While this might not be a short term improvement, ideally members could log into a website or database and obtain a status update even if a concise and simple one (pending review, reviewed – approved, reviewed – denied, reviewed – pending BOD approval).

Thank you again for the time and energy you are spending on these areas. I truly believe utilizing the process on additional cars will yield benefits for the category as a whole.

[seckerich]

I had that Z car up my tail at the last race Jake--he gets NOTHING!!!:D

All joking aside the ITAC has done a pretty good job with getting IT to good close racing we can all enjoy. It is more and more the place to be for drivers leaving other classes. I stand by my post in the fastrack thread about the "resistance" to further change by the CRB.

OPINION:
1. Get your process ironed out and in writing.
2. Run every car REQUESTED through the process (waste to bother with cars nobody has raced for years)
3. Put a note on the spec line for any car that got other than a 25% power number. Back it up with the numbers you used and let someone prove it was wrong. If that happens then you can fix it.
4. You have the power in the IT rules now to deal with the obvious overdog and modify the power number.
5. if the power number is correct and they are winning big they build a good car--period.
6. Rule changes happen in one month only to be effective for the following race season. This allows rules to be set for the regions that start their next years racing in October. After that only "errors and omissions" clarification. You can post them all year but no changes happen mid year.

I understand the CRB opinion that IT is pretty good right now and they do not want to mess that up. If there is no documentation how we got here future CRB/ITAC will go down the same path that almost killed ITS.

[lateapex911]

Dave, see my private email. Steve, I like your points. Please also forward them, today (!) to the CRB/BoD. Thanks. And that goes for all of you! ;)

[shwah]

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?
Just making the point that they are different cars with different motors/heads.

[callard]

Hmm....just noticed that I'm an example here. First let me say that I believe that this system/process is the best thing going. Then, some folks say that it needs a few tweaks still. I have to agree.
I built and drive a Porsche 911E that started life with 165 crank HP. It also started life with individual runners, cross flow, headers, small intake ports and matched intake stacks, a mechanical fuel injection pump and mechanical distributor. The process says that by applying an IT build I should be able to get at least 25% more and have 206 flywheel HP. That number is not achievable by a long shot. With enrichment of the 911E MFI space cam we're lucky to get 10% more HP on my car, not the 25% that sets my weight.
I wrote the letter last year to have my car reassessed and the feeling was that the MFI can be manipulated (I agree) to produce more power. I just don't agree that with the other advantages already on the car that the MFI itself would account for the 25% gain that other cars can achieve when adding headers and playing with spark and fuel via ECUs.
Stop by my pit at the Summit double this coming weekend and admire the stack of 45 pound barbell weights bolted to my floorpan. That's data. IT build = 25% more power isn't as precise.
Regards,
Chuck

[Knestis]

Chuck has pointed out something that makes it clear that I lied in my first post here. It's been substantially more than the "almost 20" weight-change recommendations sent up the line from the ITAC but not yet acted on. He reminded me that we reviewed 911 listings in January and recommended some changes. Those are apparently waiting as well.

K

[seckerich]

Dave, see my private email. Steve, I like your points. Please also forward them, today (!) to the CRB/BoD. Thanks. And that goes for all of you! ;)

Letter written and sent tonight. Is there a direct email address that goes to all ITAC members?

[Knestis]

Any IT item sent to the CRB is supposed to go on our agenda, so far as I know.

K

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I didn't get the Z PAST your tail pipe, so clearly it needs a non cross flow head weight break.

Helpful thread though, Kirk thanks for starting this.

I will say one that thing that seems crystal clear: the majority of those offering input want the process published, and a limited "rules season." I agree strongly with both of those points, personally.

[JoshS]

Does the "rules season" most people want include weight changes, or just modification allowance changes?

What about clarifications to the modification allowances (vs. all-out changes?)

[Knestis]

Good point there, Josh. Real rule changes (a la the VIN requirement going away) and new car listings already have to wait for Board approval and publication in the follow year's Fastrack.

We do weight fixes through technical bulletins, among "Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments [bleah!], Clarifications, and Classifications." I would be VERY surprised if folks wanted us to have to wait a year to fix things that we find to be in error.

And to be clear about something - ITAC practices, including the math that is the core of the process used to classify and specify cars, are not "rules." We have chosen to codify what we do in an effort to make it as repeatable as possible but there's absolutely no requirement for any ad hoc committee to do such a thing. We could totally pull classes and weights out of our butts if we decided to...

:)

K

[Z3_GoCar]

chance? Sure, because the car wasn't torn down, the only thing we KNOW, is that we don't KNOW what was in the engine.

Sure, see above.


James, you have a point. But, how are we supposed to do that? None of the racers can! Well, some of the racers are SURE the other guy is cheating, and some of the racers are SURE the cars just classed wrong....

Do you want us to:
1- Assume he's cheating, and ignore it?
2- Assume he's legal, look at the lap times and just add a hundred pounds.

I'm guessing most will choose "3".

So, how do you get the data, and how do you trust it? What can you apply consistently as a method for such data acceptance?

Simple answers are few and far between.........

Jake, I agree this isn't a simple problem with simple answers that can be typed in one post. That's why you, Andy, Josh, Kirk, et. al :happy204::smilie_pokal::happy204:

But, I think we all agree the assumptions need to be minimized. Isn't that what the process v 2.0 is about?

[lateapex911]

And To Be Clear About Something - Itac Practices, Including The Math That Is The Core Of The Process Used To Classify And Specify Cars, Are Not "rules." We Have Chosen To Codify What We Do In An Effort To Make It As Repeatable As Possible But There's Absolutely No Requirement For Any Ad Hoc Committee To Do Such A Thing. We Could Totally Pull Classes And Weights Out Of Our Butts If We Decided To...

:)

K

Pooma!

[Bob Roth]

To respond to some prior comments/questions on my note;

1) The reason I think that race results, entry counts and times are important is that it seems to me that results are the most compelling basis for adjustment and classification discussions. As an example, I commented that VTEC cars are getting a sort shrift. If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars, I would reconsider that and arguement. As it is today, I can only comment based on the handfull of tracks I see. Without data, its pretty easy to argue that the process is right and that anybody who questions is is just isn't trying hard enough....

The second need for class results is I think its time to be worried about entry and participation trends. Again, I can only judge based on the fields I see but I see a 10 year trend of declining fields (other than spec miata.) and I believe unless the concept of IT is changed, there could be problems sustaining regional racing. Again without data its just an opinion.

2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. (Speaking as a feeder class, why is it that used Showroom stock cars don't have a competitive place to run in IT) As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them. I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent. But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda, 944, 3 series etc challenges. For the all time great IT cars, if there are the participation numbers, we want them to have a place.

Here is my big picture, the ITAC needs to come up with a plan that grows IT fields by 50% in 5 years. Otherwise, we may not have a regional series to compete in. Its going to be a crap economy for a while so keep it cheap, simple, rely on both spec classes and classes with similar cars with limited prep to discourage the cheaters. Who knows, you might end up with something, Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.

[seckerich]

I won't quote Bobs post because it is so long but a few comments.

You see IT as a feeder class where many of us see it as a destination. I have run at a National level and the racing is better in IT for the most part. Drivers going to just enough races to get a "finish" and pulling in. Then they hide until the runoffs and don't support the National race series. That is why Nationals are in trouble everywhere except Road America. Damn, thats where I want to race. :blink: Many IT drivers run 10 plus races in the Southeast. Why does everyone think you have to be moving to a different class in SCCA to be growing?

You talk about cost of IT compared to production and then say we need places for newer cars and SS cars to go. Newer = higher cost for inital investment as well as replacement parts. No cheap parts cars. Get this process ironed out so the newer cars WE WANT TO RACE get classed correctly. That will grow the fields more than some BS about a home for Showroom stock. Much like the home for World Challenge we created. How is that big snafu working out?

Not personal towards you Bob, but you bring up the usual points that assume IT racers are just Noobs that are passing through. IT goes from $5000-$30,000 and has a place for just about any budget.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

I am pretty confident that you are overestimating the field size of some of the NASA classes you quote and vastly underestimate the size of the IT fields across the country. IT is the single largest category SCCA has (keeping in mind it has 5 classes within)...but it certainly requires tracking.

It would be stupid to ignore NASA. They are a for-profit dictatorship that has done some things that the SCCA should takes notes on...but ask the Honda-Challenge guys what they do wrong. You will get an earful.

The bottom line is that new OR old, no matter what marque you like, IT has some real solid options for you.

[jimmyc]

It would be stupid to ignore NASA. They are a for-profit dictatorship that has done some things that the SCCA should takes notes on...but ask the Honda-Challenge guys what they do wrong. You will get an earful.

Sounds like some IT guys are giving the ITAC an earful about what they are doing wrong too..

No sanctioning body is prefect, no rules group is. And not every competitor is going to be happy.

[JeffYoung]

Most of the folks I race with in ITS SEDiv view IT as the destination -- no thoughts of going prod.

[lateapex911]

...If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars, I would reconsider that and arguement. .......

I'll skip the usual comments about "finishing position 'data' being...errr...hard to use as 'evidence', but will mention that your world is Honda front drive centric. Interestingly, there are TONS of Honda FWD cars to choose from, some newer than others. Your Del Sol, though is, what, 15 yrs old? Every car has strengths and weaknesses...but, V2.0 has handled FWD just a bit differently. If THe CRB approves it's use, FWD cars may get more, or less of a weight break, as it is now figured as a percentage of it's weight, as opposed to the flat pounds off in V1.5. The basic 'bogey' remains similar, but heavier cars were getting screwed.




2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. .... As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them. Gotta stop you here.

There are lots of newer cars in the ITCS. The opportunity is there...but, as mentioned above, newer cars aren't 'reasonable' to run. Older cars are often simpler, the 'book' on how to race them is written, the aftermarket support is there, and built examples are available for a fraction of a new car. How is eliminating old cars going to make racing cheap? You mention IT as a 'feeder' category....isn't buying an old built car the single BEST way to get in the game? Your argument is rather conflicting, I think. Really, this one has me scratching my head.


I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent. What newer cars would you like classed? Request 'em! If they fit, we'll class them! We LOVE doing that.


But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda, Cuz, yea, the Honda Challenge series has what, a dozen guys nationwide? (yea, an exaggeration, but...it's no Spec Miata)

944, Which is TWENTY FIVE years old! What happened to newer cars atracting drivers?

3 series There are a DOZEN 3 series cars classed in IT.

I know, you mean classes for ONLY those cars. I think you want to go after a different type of diver, one that wants to ONLY race against his model car. (Heck, currently, ITR could be considered a spec class for 3 series BMWs!). That concept is a whole different kettle of fish. That type of racing is strong with the marque clubs. More classes. :blink: Not really something we, the ITAC can do much about. Spec Miata started here in SCCA, didn't it?



Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.It's interesting you say that. nationally, it's the REGIONALS that are making money, and the NATIONALS that are losing money. National races are adding "restricted regional" classes...often IT...to bolster the bottom line. Many of the higher ups see IT as one of the healthy categories in the club, and stats suggest that IT racers are second in enrollment to SM. (I better dbl check that, but I think that's correct...if not, darn close)

I don't know for sure, but I bet some of the big head honchos have considered/pushed making IT national for purely profit driven reasons, and old guard grand poobahs have nixxed it for old guard reasons. (but that's PURE speculation)

[Knestis]

I think Bob has a point about someone having to look out for the strategic - cross category - picture at the Club.

I think NASA has done some smart things, because they aren't a "club" as such, but equally they have done some dumb ones. They do however have an arguably clearer focus, mission, and priorities in practice than SCCA.

Your "merge with Prod" concern is well founded, Bob, but my guess it would come about because of the implosion of Production rather than fundamental failures of IT. That is precisely the kind of "anti-strategic" decision that I see our current cultural/organizational structure capable of. It's "keep the dinosaur on life support" that has had Prod hovering on the edge for the three decades I've been watching it and - not to put words in your mouth - I have a feeling it's THAT behavior that you're scared of us slipping into...

If so, I share that worry.

K

[Ron Earp]

1) The reason I think that race results, entry counts and times are important is that it seems to me that results are the most compelling basis for adjustment and classification discussions. As an example, I commented that VTEC cars are getting a sort shrift. If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars

I dunno Bob, from my view they are fairly competitive....have a look at this video from near the front of the pack at VIR this year. Two VTEC FWD cars in front of me, along with a mix of other cars. Racing is pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HoTfKYxGhg

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Vee-tAk on the one directly in front of you at the start me-thinks. ITA car? But regardless, teh process gives low torque, FWD cars a break.

[Ron Earp]

No Vee-tAk on the one directly in front of you me-thinks. ITA car? But regardless, teh process gives low torque, FWD cars a break.

Maybe not, but there is VTEC Yo! on the one just to the left of me in T1.

I think the ITAC is trying to be progressive about IT. ITR was created to class many new cars, but as I recall Bob didn't like how that turned out because I think he's "Hondacentric". The ITAC got Pony cars into ITR but again I don't think Bob liked that progressive action either as he dislikes the cars and/or how they were classed.

IT is going in the right direction and IMHO the best place to race within the SCCA or NASA. I complain about IT from time to time, as we all do, but the bottom line is that if you like racing and competitive fields IT has it. Not that it means much but for me IT is the destination - I have no intentions of going National or Prod. If the CRB still has the impression that IT is the Prod breeding ground I think they are mistaken, at least among the racers I know in the SE.

[benspeed]

I will chime in that I have returned to IT because it is the destination. IT is where the some of the best competition exists, the classification process gives you a reasonably fair shot at selecting a variety of competitive cars and costs are reasonable. The quality of driving in IT is every bit as good as national driving - this is not a noob class but new people are always welcome, just as they are in national classes.

I don't see problems in IT - that class is healthy. Where I see issues is with the strategy of our club, specifically regarding race classes and field counts. From my perspective here in the NE the business of regional vs. national makes little sense. The reality is there are too many events so each event is a, "hold your breath and hope we don't lose our shirts" stress fest for our race planners. I've raced in a number of nationals and there is huge opportunity for consolidation of GT and Prod at national and regional events. Why that hasn't happened is a shame.

So here's my grand vision (leaving out open wheel cars) - take GT and Production and combine them in GT. Take the tube framed cars and put them in GT. Take the former world challenge cars and put them in GT. Make GT the place where the purpose built race cars run.

This statement will ruffle some feathers - take the model of the ITAC and put this group in charge of reclassing these production and GT cars. I believe there is a strong methodology that should be developed into institutional knowledge. The historical agenda which seems to slow the pace of change presents a weakness to our club. I define historical agenda as people refusing to force competitors to change their class and possibly become more or less competitive. Take a look in Sportscar National Race Results and count how many drivers are running in class - my wife was looking at the counts and remarked, "there's not enough cars in class to call that a race..."

Keep IT, Touring and Showroom Stock the same. Make some of these classes race in the same group.

Make purpose built cars race in GT. Form a “process” to class these cars – it will be the next challenge for the folks who have mostly figured out the IT “process”. Race some of these GT classes with American Sedan.

Combine the regional and national schedules, turn out big fields and lose less money. If national needs to make certain events special to qualify for the Runoffs - do that - no big thing.

IT turns out enough cars to call the event a race. That's not the case in the production and GT classes – It’s obvious to me those classes need consolidation.
The economy is not getting better for awhile and counts are not going to rise for several years – let’s not lose more money on events. Consolidate.

[lateapex911]

Ben, if I were further up the ladder, I'd be beating the drum on some of your topics loudly. Heck, I bet the CRB is tired of hearing me do it now.

[Bob Roth]

I don't think people are reading the same note that I wrote, but I can't fix that. I'll leave these comments regading big picture

1) Nothing else matters if there are declining cars coming to the races. Though SCCA doesn't share participation data, I believe IT is declining based on my race participation. Even if the present formula is perfect, if it doesn't stem the reduction of participation, its irrelivant.

2) In my professional world, people are expected to make fact based business cases to support their suggestions. My utter frustration in this duscussion is that SCCA shares no facts on who runs, who wins, etc. Until somebody gets the numbers, any big picture input is subject to the next responder who dismisses it as "centric". Get data, not opinions and do everybody a favor.

3) It is my point of view that the present rules do nothing to encourage car counts, and do a lot to discourage good cars from showing up. Poor rules/classifications are something that needs addressing.

I do the executive product planning for a $600m business. If I were working for the CEO of SCCA, My guidance is based on how you are presently running the class, I'd look to cost reduce and harvest IT (and regional racing) as its a declining business. The biggest favor the ITAC committee can do for our class and SCCA is figure out a plan that increases car counts. There are many ways to do it, I've made my suggestions.

bob

[spawpoet]

Bob, maybe I'm wrong because I haven't been out to the track much this year, but as a whole IT car counts have been excellent in the Southeast over the last few years. Maybe there are issues in your region, but I "think" nationally IT counts are very healthy. Maybe somebody else with a more thorough grasp on IT participation nationwide will chime in. Are IT car counts really down significantly across the country??

[gran racing]

Race participation in all areas of racing (SCCA, other clubs, Pro) are in a decline due to the economy. It's not improved touring specific.


Even if the present formula is perfect, if it doesn't stem the reduction of participation, its irrelivant.

If the product is better and more attractive, you better believe it goes towards attracting and retaining active membership.


My utter frustration in this duscussion is that SCCA shares no facts on who runs, who wins, etc. Until somebody gets the numbers, any big picture input is subject to the next responder who dismisses it as "centric". Get data, not opinions and do everybody a favor.

I have to admit that some of your posts confuse me a bit because they contradict themselves a bit. Could be just the way they're written and/or read. You can find facts on who runs and wins, but that shouldn't tie into classification requests.

If based on results - why are these cars winning more than others? Is it because someone built a particular car, proved it was a race winning chasis so others followed in his or her footsteps? That doesn't mean other cars don't have the capability to win. How talented was the driver(s)? I've seen first hand a car being driven by a capable racer who turned some decent lap times, then have his son get in the same exact car the next session out and kick some serious ass. If based on the father's results, one could argue some lead needs to come off the car. If based on the son's, a bunch of lead might be warrented. You can't base it off this type of stuff.


If I were working for the CEO of SCCA, My guidance is based on how you are presently running the class, I'd look to cost reduce and harvest IT (and regional racing) as its a declining business. The biggest favor the ITAC committee can do for our class and SCCA is figure out a plan that increases car counts. There are many ways to do it, I've made my suggestions.

Would you really look at such a short term view? When I look at IT over the past several years, it continues to grow in popularity and participation.

SCCA needs to figure out ways to increase active participation, membership retention (which has been a HUGE issue in the past), help regions as much as possible - not the ITAC. The club also needs people's active participation in ways one might be able to help or they believe the club could use assistance.

[Knestis]

Bob, maybe I'm wrong because I haven't been out to the track much this year, but as a whole IT car counts have been excellent in the Southeast over the last few years. Maybe there are issues in your region, but I "think" nationally IT counts are very healthy. Maybe somebody else with a more thorough grasp on IT participation nationwide will chime in. Are IT car counts really down significantly across the country??

The take-away from Bob's message is that we just don't know. The Club doesn't know, or maybe doesn't disseminate the information internally. The ITAC has to use it's collective judgment which is just the sum of all of our individual perceptions - or misperceptions.

K

[lateapex911]

Back in the day, Sportscar used to list race results that included some regionals. It wasn't ideal- far from it- but it was a window to see some info. Now you have to dig around to see what's happening out of your own backyard. They said that regional people didn't care about things beyonsd their own region, and the regionals publication was a better place for regional results. Space in the national publication was just too valuable.

I miss the results in Fastrack, even limited as they were.

[JoshS]

Until earlier this season, all race results were posted to the SCCA website: http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=82

However, I don't see anything since late May.

But even if we had those results for the whole season, without a lot of analysis we wouldn't know the trends year-to-year.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Club has the numbers. It's not hidden information. I am 99% sure you can request participation numbers for any and all classes. I will look into the trends and report back.

[Dave Gomberg]

The reason you haven't seen the numbers is that until recently, they haven't been tracked. At the end of 2007, an attempt was made to capture as much of this information as possible (I caution you not to draw too many conclusions about trends because this information is known to be incomplete). In 2008, a more concerted effort was made. Although not updated recently, the early 2009 numbers are on the SCCA web site. (Go to http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=40 and click on the link above the event listings.)

Here is what we have for the IT classes:


2007 2008 2009 (through 7/1/2009)
ITR 193 304 158
ITS 1093 1358 543
ITA 1817 1920 936
ITB 920 873 352
ITC 418 454 171Dave

[Knestis]

I was unclear earlier. I thought that Bob was talking about "competitiveness" - what cars do or don't run up front - but I did a lousy job of translating that into words. Car counts are easy but I didn't think that was the issue. Sorry for not being more specific.

K

[ddewhurst]

The information given in 2007 on the Production site by a CRB member is that ALL Regional class cars & ALL National classes cars are tracked.

[JeffYoung]

This has been a good thread -- much appreciated on all of the input, thanks for the effort guys.

[benspeed]

Nice job and a shout out to Dave G for locating the IT numbers - those get posted in Sportscar almost annually if I recall. Those counts look healthy - would you be able to show Prod and GT so we can see if those classes are down?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nice job and a shout out to Dave G for locating the IT numbers - those get posted in Sportscar almost annually if I recall. Those counts look healthy - would you be able to show Prod and GT so we can see if those classes are down?

Its an apples to oranges comparision but a look at numbers through June of 2009 look like this: National races only...

Top 5
SRF 18.1 cars per race average
SM 16.1
FV 7.2
EP 5.8
GT-1 5.4

Notables
AS 2.9
T1 2.6
T2 2.5
SSB 2.5
T3 1.8

[Dave Gomberg]

The information given in 2007 on the Production site by a CRB member is that ALL Regional class cars & ALL National classes cars are tracked.
National entries have been tracked for many years. The Regional numbers started being tracked - by class, not totals - in 2007. That's why there are no numbers available for earlier years. As I said, the 2007 numbers are "iffy" because of the way they were gathered.

Dave

[Dave Gomberg]

Nice job and a shout out to Dave G for locating the IT numbers - those get posted in Sportscar almost annually if I recall. Those counts look healthy - would you be able to show Prod and GT so we can see if those classes are down?
Actually the numbers published in SportsCar are National participation only.

Are you asking for all Prod/GT numbers or just regional?

Dave

[benspeed]

I'd be curious to see what national and regional trends look like for Prod and GT - being sensitive if the request makes it harder including regionals.

I think racing in a fuller field with more passing and being passed develops better racecraft and offers more fun. I also think the regions should offer relief to the workers and rake in more $$ per event.

Here's another question - does anybody else think combining the national and regional schedules makes good sense? Jake - sounded like it did to you also.

[shwah]

I stated as much in my first response.

Of course then we are talking about something much larger than the 'state of IT', which is what we SHOULD be talking about. IT is healthy, could use some tweaks here and there, and always will, but we need to improve the SCCA Club Racing program from the standpoint of event financial solvency, regional organization capabilities, venue scheduling/availability, worker scheduling/availability and driver options (too many events to choose from at times).

Still not sure how to word a CRB letter on 'IT in general', but planning to write a letter to CRB and BoD on the subject of Club Racing structure....again.

[lateapex911]

I stated as much in my first response.

Of course then we are talking about something much larger than the 'state of IT', which is what we SHOULD be talking about. IT is healthy, could use some tweaks here and there, and always will, but we need to improve the SCCA Club Racing program from the standpoint of event financial solvency, regional organization capabilities, venue scheduling/availability, worker scheduling/availability and driver options (too many events to choose from at times).

Still not sure how to word a CRB letter on 'IT in general', but planning to write a letter to CRB and BoD on the subject of Club Racing structure....again.

yea, I'm probably with you on that boat. One aspect to that is IT's place. A central question to that is:
Why is IT successful?
Is it the ruleset? or the Regional status? Some think it's the latter. If so, changine the overall structure will affect IT. (I think it's other reasons, but...) Just something to consider....

[IPRESS]

Jake,
I think the success is due to both.
I have a question, do you think IT racers just race enough to be sharp for ARRC? I don't, I think they race (and they race more than most) because they love to race.
Put the RunOffs apple out there for IT and you will change the culture. You will get those 4 race folks that just want to qualify. And some of them will be guys that raced a large number of races the years before. Your regional type championships will lose their luster (and entrants) and the serious guys will be "saving" cars, money, and time for the "Holy ROs Grail". Of course you will also be lucky enough to pick up some crossover folks who "moonlight" in IT for 4 races, but really are into other classes. They just will want an extra shot at a RO plaque.
Not saying this is bad, it is just not what I want for IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is why you just have 'races' and not Regionals and Nationals. You want to qualify for the Runoffs, you come and score points. Your top 5 in each Division get an invite.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Jake,
I think the success is due to both.
I have a question, do you think IT racers just race enough to be sharp for ARRC? I don't, I think they race (and they race more than most) because they love to race.
Put the RunOffs apple out there for IT and you will change the culture. You will get those 4 race folks that just want to qualify. And some of them will be guys that raced a large number of races the years before. Your regional type championships will lose their luster (and entrants) and the serious guys will be "saving" cars, money, and time for the "Holy ROs Grail". Of course you will also be lucky enough to pick up some crossover folks who "moonlight" in IT for 4 races, but really are into other classes. They just will want an extra shot at a RO plaque.
Not saying this is bad, it is just not what I want for IT.

I don't agree. I don't think bringing IT National will change anything for the top guys who are already building Top 5 cars. The only group going National hurts are the "have nots". That may not be ok for people mid pack, but that is racing.

[lateapex911]

I'd think that if you look at other National popular categories you'll get an idea for how people will treat IT. Look at SRF etc... do they race the bare minimum and pull off half way to save the car? If the category is popular, that stuff won't fly if you want to be top 5.

[raceita]

Isn't it us "mid-pak" guys who contribute to the "Health" of IT?


Steve Burns
'86 MR-2 ITB

[shwah]

As far as the 4 races to qualify deal, everyone likes to trot this out whenever national racing is discussed, and it happens. There are also folks that just run enough to have their stuff ready for the ARRC. That doesn't mean everyone does this. Aaron Stehley - 2nd place ARRC 08 in ITB, winner of the Improved Touring Triple crown in ITB - moved to T3 this year, and has run every single race in his division to secure the divisional win (and $1000 VW contingency for such). Chuck Mathis - 2nd, 1st and 2nd at the last three GP Runoffs however has run just enough to qualify for the runoffs this year - why? - because when his class was eliminated and his car moved to FP at an amazingly low weight, with an underdog motor, he had to focus ALL of his time and attention to preparing a car that could be competitive. We are two years in, and are finally now going to have a 'real' car ready for the FP runoffs. The point is that there are reasons people do what they do, I doubt that it is often that they don't like racing, and I think there is a continuom between Aaron and Chuck.

In short that is a weak argument IMO.

[JoshS]

In short that is a weak argument IMO.

I agree. It does happen but it's hardly the only strategy. I personally ran 10+ national races a year when I was racing nationals. In T2 in particular in 2006, we had pretty much the same 8-10 racers at every race, despite the fact that the division is 16+ hours from the northern-most track to the southern-most.

When it does happen, IMO the reason it happens is because the divisions are laid out poorly, making people travel huge distances to run all of the races in the division ... and we're club racers, not pro racers. It takes too much time and money to do all that travel ... so people cherry-pick the races closer to them.

[dickita15]

For those of you who believe that there should not be separate races for regional and nationals how do you propose we deal with the current format restrictions on national races? Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.

[JoshS]

Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.

I have done lots of double nationals. Why do they prevent doubles?

I think the latest fastrack had some sort of change to the timing requirements, but I can't remember the specifics.

[Jeremy Billiel]

For those of you who believe that there should not be separate races for regional and nationals how do you propose we deal with the current format restrictions on national races? Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.

Dick is it as simple as combining the 80 billion prod classes, etc that only have 2 cars and let IT be treated the same as Nationals? Longer Qualifying and races.

[lateapex911]

Josh the NE has some short tracks that limit group sizes to 38 cars. And they have late start (10)and early finish times which combine to make it tough to fit it all in.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As far as the 4 races to qualify deal, everyone likes to trot this out whenever national racing is discussed, and it happens. There are also folks that just run enough to have their stuff ready for the ARRC. That doesn't mean everyone does this. Aaron Stehley - 2nd place ARRC 08 in ITB, winner of the Improved Touring Triple crown in ITB - moved to T3 this year, and has run every single race in his division to secure the divisional win (and $1000 VW contingency for such). Chuck Mathis - 2nd, 1st and 2nd at the last three GP Runoffs however has run just enough to qualify for the runoffs this year - why? - because when his class was eliminated and his car moved to FP at an amazingly low weight, with an underdog motor, he had to focus ALL of his time and attention to preparing a car that could be competitive. We are two years in, and are finally now going to have a 'real' car ready for the FP runoffs. The point is that there are reasons people do what they do, I doubt that it is often that they don't like racing, and I think there is a continuom between Aaron and Chuck.

In short that is a weak argument IMO.

I think the point trying to be made is that Aaron didn't HAVE to do that to qualify for the Runoffs. He is running in a class that Nationally sees less than 2 CAR PER EVENT. Weak sauce, yo! IT is healthy - probably the healthiest catagory in all of SCCA. Rule set? Cheap donors? Big fields? No National? You pick your reason why.

[Z3_GoCar]

Another example is Mike Miserendino, who races in about every regional I've flagged at.

I'm of the opinion that as good as the ITCS are, they have holes in them that just aren't explored like say SM, EP, or any other national class does. If IT were to go national, we'll see a new dawn on rules creep as grey areas are explored in the name of winning the RO's. IMHO, if there is a National version of IT, it should include a small number of cars that are holomogated and are closely monitered for performance, all specs should be listed down to the shock packages that can be used, and there should be no suprises. The closest pro-series would probably be Grand-Am ST/GS cars and prep rules. In the end you'd have Touring without the specific sunset clause and stripped interiors.

[dickita15]

I have done lots of double nationals. Why do they prevent doubles?

I think the latest fastrack had some sort of change to the timing requirements, but I can't remember the specifics.

We do doubles and even a triple on a two day weekend. You cannot do that with the national format. The GCR requires two practice/qualifying session with a minimum of 45 minutes and a 45 mile or 30 minute race. If I remember right the fastrack change made it worse by not allowing hardship time to count.
Meeting the national requirements would allow nothing but single long races on a two day weekend. by the way the number of double nationals is severely restricted by the current rules as well although some divisions have gotten dispensation because of local track problems.
I contend that one of the reasons that regional are much more popular in my part of the country is the varied and more enjoyable formats than nationals.

[dickita15]

Dick is it as simple as combining the 80 billion prod classes, etc that only have 2 cars and let IT be treated the same as Nationals? Longer Qualifying and races.

To point one: there are no prod cars combining them does nothing.
To point two: boring

[JoshS]

We do doubles and even a triple on a two day weekend. You cannot do that with the national format. The GCR requires two practice/qualifying session with a minimum of 45 minutes and a 45 mile or 30 minute race. If I remember right the fastrack change made it worse by not allowing hardship time to count.
Meeting the national requirements would allow nothing but single long races on a two day weekend. by the way the number of double nationals is severely restricted by the current rules as well although some divisions have gotten dispensation because of local track problems.
I contend that one of the reasons that regional are much more popular in my part of the country is the varied and more enjoyable formats than nationals.

Just curious Dick ... how long (time, laps) are your typical regional races (green flag to checkered flag?)

[dickita15]

15-20 laps, 20-25 minutes.

[wcmcarlos]

On that same thought, the regional and enduro at Sebring this weekend offers IT cars and other classes that run the enduro and the regionals, Three Hours of track time for $290.
That's hard to beat, anywhere for WTW racing.

[Bob Roth]

Say, I will give another idea for consideration. Again understand that I came from the perspective of IT being the entry brand for club racing and that without clear brand distinction between IT, Touring, and Prod, you get a muddle that dilutes all three brands. My objective is to increase car counts.

Anyway, what if we went from 5 classes to 10. The idea being that with more clases you can more accurately assemble classes around the natural car type clusters. This is how autocross is organized, do the same for IT. With more classes, the ITAC compmpetitive adjustments are smaller and a pleasent byproduct is that we spend less time arguing about whether a 5 liter mustang should be in the same class with an Integra Type R. Trophys are cheap, give them out.

Now, the one area where somebody will probably be bummed is that at the ARRC, instead of winning the 25 car ITA field they get to win the 7 car FSL field. But, who cares if the result is more drivers think they have a chance to win, and accordingly show up...... If somebody is offended by this idea, and can't stand only beating 2 to 5 cars in their class with their $15 to $20k state of the art car, SCCA has a place for them in production.

The virtue of this is it gives more people a chance to have a competitive car, it makes racing more fun because your class is inherently classed closer, and it makes it a lot easier for the ITAC to give 25 years of cars a competitive class.

Again, my goal is getting more entries and more people to build cars. If SCCA got 25% more IT cars showing up as the result of more classes, that pays for a lot of trophies. As somebody who was around when IT was created, three classes was probably right as almost all the class was 4 cyl and between 1.5 and 2.4 liter. If we look at the diversity of now 25 years of cars, a lot of classification problems would be solved, and a lot of "no chance" cars would have a place to race. Hope you give it a thought.

[JoshS]

Say, I will give another idea for consideration. Again understand that I came from the perspective of IT being the entry brand for club racing and that without clear brand distinction between IT, Touring, and Prod, you get a muddle that dilutes all three brands. My objective is to increase car counts.

Increase car counts in IT? Or increase turnouts for club races? Because all of your proposals talk about making changes to IT, and I think generally your only audience for that is existing club racers, resulting in no net change.

If you really want to increase car counts, then first, identify who the new drivers are, then build a product that will attract them. I haven't seen you try to identify where the additional people will come from. Autocrossers? NASA racers? BMWCCA racers? PCA racers? HPDE drivers? What demographic?

Then explain how your new IT classes, or an IT rule change, or whatever, will attract those drivers.

[JeffYoung]

According to Andy's numbers, car counts in IT are increasing even in a down economy.

Why would we want to spread those numbers across 10 classes instead of 5 (R,S,A,B,C)?

[seckerich]

I wouldn't even know where to start with a reply so I won't. Spec IT and we can just give participation plaques to everyone. :rolleyes:

[Knestis]

Sorry, Bob - yuck. I'm influenced by a philosophical position on the subject but I just don't buy that more, smaller classes attracts more total entries. I felt that way when I went to my first SCCA race - a Double National at Seattle, in the summer of 1980. They were running a restricted Regional class for IT and CP cars (Conference Production, a NWRegion thing). The car count was low enough that pretty much nobody was racing anybody.

K

[RSTPerformance]

To many things going on in IT to make it a National Runoffs class however... Regions should add IT and other regional only classes to National weekends and eliminate some or all of the regional only weekends. The regional classes don't need races the same length as the National races if that is the issue or concern.

Andy is right in stressing that we have to many races and need to cut back weekends... I think he is talking about IT only, not sure. What amaizes me is that we have even more race weekends for the least popular classes in SCCA when you add in the National option! Terrible business plan IMO.

In short; Combine National and Regional weekends and make them all SCCA races and just limit what classes are eligible to be considered for Runoff eligability.

Raymond "Regional only championships still survive and car counts per weekend go up!" Blethen

[IPRESS]

Raymond,
GOOD ANSWER!

One of the reasons car counts may be on the rise in IT is a good number of SM racers are tired of the baggage that comes with being a national class. They are seeking out where SM started and it is in IT.
If a person is in need of RunOffs glory and can't find a present eligible class to compete in, they just are not trying very hard.
I bet we stay regional only (actually non RunOffs eligible) but they need our entry fees so we will get to race on the same schedule with national classes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like Dick points out, a total revamp of the 'requirements' for a National would have to happen for Regions like NER to combine. Too little time. If that happens, it could work.

Think about IT as a class and not SCCA as a club.

[StephenB]

FYI,

The NER National ended about 3 hrs early at NHIS with running the TeamDI Pro-IT race in the spring. granted "some" or maybe most if us all like doubles and that weekend was a single but tons of extra time to switch up the format. Maybe have a double regional for the regional cars and the current National format for the national drivers. LRP National also had a ton of extra time If unforseen accidents didn't occur and that held 2 It races that day.

Those are the only two nationals I attended this year.

Stephen

[JoshS]

Regions should add IT and other regional only classes to National weekends and eliminate some or all of the regional only weekends.

Here in San Francisco Region, we have 8 regional-only weekends a year, and 1 national-only weekend. We haven't done any regional/national weekends for several years, although one regional race group was invited to the double-national weekend.

So you are saying that we should turn all of our regional weekends into national weekends? That would make people in the division, but outside the region, forced to travel to San Francisco Region a lot more (15 hours or so from the next-biggest metro area, Seattle.)

It doesn't make sense.

[StephenB]

Think about IT as a class and not SCCA as a club.

I think overall in the regions that I race in IT is just as healthy as ever considering the addition of both SM and SSM. In my opinion that class is our (IT community) biggest competition for attendance and growth. You can't argue that SM and SSM are great alternatives to entry level, relativly easy to maintain, and relatively inexpensive cars to race. IT and SM/SSM are realistically a less than $15K investment to run Wheel to Wheel. I can't think of many if any other sedan style classes that run for that $$ amount. (Some cars are exceptions like maybe all ITR cars :shrug: )

For us to grow I think we need to encourage Double Dipping of SM cars since this pool exists and fit into our rules set. All sorts of ways to encourage double dipping that is really up to each region not the ITAC in general. However just maybe the ITAC could help! Possibly by making different weight requirements for SM legal (or SS legal) cars to run in the appropriate IT classes, and be competitive and most importantly still meet the rules of SM or SSM. From my understanding SM and SSM cars have less of a performance potential than a fully prepped IT car.

The second "pool" of applicants that I can think of is clubs like the BMW club or NASA (and probably some others that do Wheel to Wheel racing, not just time trials) I know most of these clubs "think" SCCA is carnage and crashes but if we could just get 1 or 2 in each SCCA region to visit us maybe we can change that over time! I think the ITAC could look into classifying cars that meet the requirements of the sanctioning body and assign other weights that make them more competitive and encourage them to race their already well built and prepaired racecars without modifying them. Remember they are most likely already racing at our tracks in opposite weekends, and enjoy racing at those events... they just dont have a place to race competitivly with us. I know this means enforcing additional rules that maybe we don't currently use but these are built cars racing in tracks all around us.

The Third "pool" of aplicants or potential racers has to be in HPDE and such clubs that hold these events. I know we as SCCA don't do that great and again not something the ITAC an really do that I can think if. Just somthing else to throw out their.

I Feel strogly that Improved Touring should be a stepping stone into SCCA and a way for racers to race at whatever budget they want to. IT should be used by SCCA as a way to encourage new membership into our club to help our club grow into the future. Plenty of other car clubs have started and grown all around SCCA and we need to realize all those members have the same desire most of us do... to race relativly compeitivly, get faster and better every time we go out, and to meet others that have the same interests in cars and racing that we do. Each club that has popped up has done so because we as a club missed an opportunity.

I also feel that National and Regional levels can stay and IT should stay as-is. However the elimination of National Vs. Regional weekends need to happen. We say over and over again we (IT Comunity) have two many weekends on the schedule. Almost everyother class we race at on any given weekend has twice as many as our IT comunity! Keep National structure as is with the runnoffs, classes and everything else, just add Regional classes to the schedule and have each region have their own runnoffs... AKA here in the NorthAtlantic Region re-invent and bring back the real NARRC Runnoffs. I would also argue the Fee that Regions pay towards the National Runnoffs could be added to the entry fee for those racing for National points during any of our SCCA weekends (Not SCCA National or SCCA Regional weekends since those would go away with my idea).


Stephen

[StephenB]

Here in San Francisco Region, we have 8 regional-only weekends a year, and 1 national-only weekend. We haven't done any regional/national weekends for several years, although one regional race group was invited to the double-national weekend.

So you are saying that we should turn all of our regional weekends into national weekends? That would make people in the division, but outside the region, forced to travel to San Francisco Region a lot more (15 hours or so from the next-biggest metro area, Seattle.)

It doesn't make sense.

IF attendance is high and all people that qualify from the division are attending the Runnoffs and they had to travel 15Hrs then I think the problem actually lies in the size of the teratory that the division currently has. What if all people that live near San Fransico didn't want to travel 15+ hrs to other tracks in the division to qualify for the runnoffs? Why can't San Fransisco region be it's own division and encourage people to run the races and go to the National Runnoffs? Maybe then with the huge population of San Fransisco we could try to drive up membership and send SanFransisco Region members to the runnoffs. Nothing says that if the SanFransisco Region has the numbers and is 15+ hrs to other tracks that they can't submit or challenge SCCA to be it's own Division. Hear in the Northeast our Division does not range 15+ hrs away unless maybe you are traveling from 1 extreme to the other.

Stephen

[lateapex911]

One thought I'd add, and that is: Ignoring all else, I think the Runoffs NEEDS IT. Imagine a top drawer ITA or B or ITS race. Deeper fields, tighter lap times. IT would instantly have 2 of the top 5 classes I bet.

But, yea, what's good for 'the club' and the 'club racing program' (and the club needs IT) might not be good for IT.

[gran racing]

I came from the perspective of IT being the entry brand for club racing

IT is one of the best entries to racing as it offers people a broad range of competition – from a newbie, limited prepped racecar, to experienced and fast drivers, and well prepped racecars. It is a fantastic place for people to begin racing and grow.


But, who cares if the result is more drivers think they have a chance to win, and accordingly show up......

If that truly generated more interest for potential drivers and existing drivers, then it should be something to be considered. I honestly don’t think that’s the case though. When someone is getting into the racing gig, most look at car counts to determine a class where there’s plenty of entries and good racing. Adding even more classes dilutes the racing. I personally would rather race in a 20 car field than a 3 car field and believe most would feel the same way.


Again, my goal is getting more entries and more people to build cars…… If you really want to increase car counts, then first, identify who the new drivers are, then build a product that will attract them.

That’s an excellent goal and one that deserves quite a bit of additional thought. There is no quick or easy solution and this could easily be a lengthy thread in its own. Overall we have great products, Improved Touring being one of them. One of the products we need to build is our performance driving experience program. Our “ladder” system for people to get into racing sucks. We tell people it’s important to get some track time before doing Club Racing, and have to refer them to another organization then ask them to come back afterwards. Sure, there are a couple of PDXs being run but it needs to be grown. This goes right along with what was just said about us getting racers from clubs that host HPDEs. Change of format to include PDXs or a “prep” group geared to people interested in doing w2w. Membership retention – at one point we were generating about 10,000 new members but losing just as many. How to promote the club better. I don't even know how many times I've heard "I had no idea this stuff existed right in my own backyard."

[gran racing]

I think the Runoffs NEEDS IT.

That might be true but more importantly, how would it impact the club beyond this one championship event? That's a challenging one to gauge. Somewhat selfishly, I'd rather not see IT at the Runoffs or become a national category.

[benspeed]

Dave - can you share why IT going national would be a bad thing? From my NE region perspective I believe consolidating many of the national and regional weekends and letting IT participate on a national level is a good thing. I don't believe that eligibility for runoffs participation will change IT much - maybe it gets more competitive and that's a good thing. I agree with you entirely about racing in a 20 car field vs 5 - that's a key reason I came back to IT. Plus the drivers are a great bunch of psychos to run against. :-)

[JeffYoung]

I'm a newcomer to the SCCA and IT (started in 04). I'm opposed to IT going National for this reason:

I can't say I planned on being an IT racer, I kind of fell into it. But in my first year, I unknowningly ran regional weekends and national weekends that had our IT Pro Series "attached" to them.

The regional weekends were far and away the better of the two. Higher car counts, better competition (all around), just more racing. This is all SEDiv, so you understand my geographic perspective.

I'm very happy with IT as it stands now, with informal national championships and hotly contested regional ones. I'm afraid that "going national" would dilute attendance at the regional events, and infuse some of the things we have seen happen to SM when it went national.

I can't for certain say going national wouldn't improve IT. I can say that IT seems healthy, and growing, right now, and I think the risk of going national versus the potential upside (for me, the only upside I see is the ability to go to the Runoffs) is too great.

[gran racing]

I don't believe that eligibility for runoffs participation will change IT much - maybe it gets more competitive and that's a good thing.

Not sure it will be a bad thing for the club, but IT would change. While we can't create rules to reduce costs, we can control some of the perception or "reward" for winning / spending lots of money. There are plenty of guys out there spending a ton of money in other categories. Not saying there aren't some in IT, but not nearly as many people. If we now add in that Runoffs allure, it would become that much more tempting for those other racers to start racing IT. The number of people spending large sums of money grows. As a result of this, people looking to enter IT racing see the average level of prep being higher than it currently is and perceive the barriers to entry being higher or at least the idea of racing in this group more intimidating. That's not worded well but gotta run off to Summit Point in a minute.

Maybe the solution (and again, I personally would rather this not happen because I love where IT is now and where I hope it's going) would be make IT elgible for the Runoffs, and have it less geared to new people. Then create a new category, have less of a "reward" and prestigue if you want to call it that for winning.

I also share much of the same feelings of what Jeff just said.

[IPRESS]

Jeff,
Hang in there, (on the ITAC) you have the correct idea of IT in my opinion. There is no reason for the PTB to push IT towards becoming something it was not setup to be. IT is successful. Please continue to represent the folks who see IT for what it is and are happy with it. No matter what others say, if the Run Offs are involved, "The price of poker" will go way up! (And let me throw this out: For those that say you don't have to spend if you don't want too, that is true now too but most everybody does as much as they can to be competitive. So that is a bad reason to justify Run Offs eligibility.)
SOMETIMES WHAT YOU GOT IS ABOUT AS GOOD AS IT GETS, enjoy it don't change it!

[Andy Bettencourt]

On the IT-going-National idea: My thoughts.


It won't change in some places. The pointy end efforts are just as robust as any Nationals effort (given rules). Really.
It will go from night to day in some places. As humans, we prepare and execute to the level of our competition. If you have never driven against a top driver with a true 10-10ths product who goes to 5+ test days, analyzes data every session, and puts tires in the trash after 6 heat cycles - you WILL if someone is running races with a dream of a National Championship
It will dilute Regional racing (should these two types of events never merge). This is an interesting issue as some think its a bad thing. I am not sure. If the guys who want the best competition move 'up' to a National, it leaves the mid-back packs to race against each other. Could it be that new people win, stay excited and it 'opens' up the door to people who may have seen the 'big dogs' dominate - to give it a go if they were intimidated? In other words, does it 'make room' for more entry level drivers/cars? While Regional monies may suffer, National entries could skyrocket making the regional-pocketbook concern potentially moot.
IT is just as 'set-up' to be National as any other class.
I don't think going National would improve IT. I don't think it would hurt IT either. In the end, it would probably help the CLUB as a whole
As I continue to think about it, I am indifferent to the concept. With the ARRC and IT Fest as top National-level events that carry significant clout, the benfit to IT is debatable.

[shwah]

Good final point Andy. IMO current IT has a MORE relevant measuring stick for the top contenders than the National classes, with the IT Fest, ARRC and Improved Touring Driver's Championship.

[Ron Earp]

Jeff,
Hang in there, (on the ITAC) you have the correct idea of IT in my opinion.
SOMETIMES WHAT YOU GOT IS ABOUT AS GOOD AS IT GETS, enjoy it don't change it!

I'll second that. Too many potential downsides to IT being national, not enough upsides (for the dedicated IT racer).

I'm sure Topeka is eying IT hard. Add up all the Prod entries for the year, what do you get, about 1/6th the number of IT entries? IT isn't doing what it was predicted to do, to be a breeding ground for Prod. It is a destination for most of us and "most of us" seem to be far larger in numbers than the Prod folks.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I don't get it. What about the rules is everyone scared of? Do you think the board would all of a sudden open the rules up and make IT National?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'll second that. Too many potential downsides to IT being national, not enough upsides (for the dedicated IT racer).

I'm sure Topeka is eying IT hard. Add up all the Prod entries for the year, what do you get, about 1/6th the number of IT entries? IT isn't doing what it was predicted to do, to be a breeding ground for Prod. It is a destination for most of us and "most of us" seem to be far larger in numbers than the Prod folks.

IT just may be doing what they want it to do. It's a breeding ground for SCCA Club Racers.

[quadzjr]

I think the ITAC is doing a fine job. It seems to me that the bottle neck is the CRB and instead of dealing the ITAC's recomendations for the last few months they are now asking to prove the new process. That may or may not have very little to do with the recomndations made.

I am just waiting for the weight to be "corrected" on my vehicle. I was told it would be and I trust the person that told me, I do have faith.

About IT going national. Andy makes a bunch of good points, and I think he hit the nail on the head on how it will affect us. Now my question to you is, For an entry level breeding ground do we really want to increase the attendance of people that

top driver with a true 10-10ths product who goes to 5+ test days, analyzes data every session, and puts tires in the trash after 6 heat cycles - you WILL if someone is running races with a dream of a National Championship


Then you have a class that if you want to win, you WILL have to spend money to get on the podium, and for those that already have a 9-10/10th car you will probably have to spend even mroe money than you used to to compete agaisnts a national level effort.

Going national woudl like to have an open invitation for compaines of the likes of speed source, bimmerworld, phenonix, etc.. Which probably would be good for the club, however bad for the typical IT guy.

[JoshS]

Going national woudl like to have an open invitation for compaines of the likes of speed source, bimmerworld, phenonix, etc.. Which probably would be good for the club, however bad for the typical IT guy.

This point has been made by quite a few people over the years, and a few times in this thread. There's no doubt that people will spend crazy money to win The Runoffs and that companies like that with more resources than the "guy with his car" will be playing it for business.

But -- those efforts are going to show up at NATIONAL races, not at REGIONAL races. REGIONAL races is the SCCA's entry level place. All classes at regional events. I agree with Jeff and Andy that making IT eligible for national races is likely to reduce the regional entries a little bit initially with some drivers switching to a national race schedule. The question is, will that effect stick around for a long time? Will new racers come into regionals to take their place?

The big-buck operations are generally going to run national schedules and skip the regional weekends. That's what happens in most classes, at least up and down the west coast.

[quadzjr]

correct. Other than for cheaper testing purposes, there would be no reason for them to run regional.

However, you would be a fool if you didn't think that they wouldn't sell there chassis, whether new or old to regional racers that have the money to aquire the car. Same reason why you see the ex speedsource cars pull more money on re-sale than a standard 2nd gen RX-7, they tend to be, or atleast was, a very well prepped car.

There will be guys that have the money that want to do well, and want to win races. So they will spend the money and (should) do really well at the regional level. Most people if they are doing it for fun and not to further there career, that have no interest in driving to the Run-offs, would rather be in the front of a lesser field, then the rear of a faster one.

[JeffYoung]

It's a little different here in the SEDiv, we get some crossover between Regionals and Nationals in SRF and SM and some of the top dollar/dogs do show up at Regionals on occasion.

The larger issue for me remains dilution. I frankly don't think we will see any extraordinary growth in IT regardless of what we do -- I think retaining racers and gradual growth with new ones should be our goal.

I see "going National" as hurting that goal. For the most part, you split the existing body of IT racers in half -- half go National and half Regional. You end up hurting fields in Regional classes and having a much smaller National IT class than you expected.

I see a lot of risk in this and again, not much upside.


The big-buck operations are generally going to run national schedules and skip the regional weekends. That's what happens in most classes, at least up and down the west coast.

[Z3_GoCar]

I would argue that club racing is really in trouble, look at the number of entries for our Labor day double regional:

https://www.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/2D92BC51-B344-7E92-05DFBE087FB6575A

The single largest group are the workers. As for IT we've got 5 in ITA, 1 in ITB, and that's all . The fact is any racing is super expensive, and only attractive to a small group of people. Alot of those people are gone, either they stopped paying for it or they've gone to NASA/marque/Vintage racing. What we're facing is an implosion of the middle class who might desire to race but simple can't afford it, and no amount of cost containment can stop it.

We also don't run any stand-alone National weekends, they're all held with at least a restricted single regional, otherwise those weekends would be even fewer racer than show up to our regionals. I know that everyone on the ITAC thinks the rule set is iron clad, but make it a National class and wait and see what creative interperatations show up

[Jeremy Billiel]

I know I am being a broken record, but if SCCA eliminates the National/Regional designation and everyone is on the same playing field there is no dolution, no lower prepped cars, its bring your A game and a well prepped car. If you don't then you will loose and have to be ok with that.

[quadzjr]

Is it just me or atleast on this page the big promoters for the national expansion run BMW Z3's in IT? :happy204: just messin.

[Ron Earp]

I would argue that club racing is really in trouble, look at the number of entries for our Labor day double regional:

https://www.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/2D92BC51-B344-7E92-05DFBE087FB6575A

The single largest group are the workers.

How strong is NASA in So CA? Just a query to see if the strength of a competing organization might have something to do with low SCCA turnout. Other than that I'm not sure - economy bad in So CA? I go there fairly frequently on business and I know our sector (academic research/biotech/pharma) is hurting.

[Knestis]

...The big-buck operations are generally going to run national schedules and skip the regional weekends. That's what happens in most classes, at least up and down the west coast.

Precisely. Look at the differences between the levels of commitment between National and Regional-only Production racers for example.

K

[JoshS]

I would argue that club racing is really in trouble, look at the number of entries for our Labor day double regional:

https://www.motorsportreg.com/index.cfm/event/event.status/uidEvent/2D92BC51-B344-7E92-05DFBE087FB6575A


Ouch. Guess they're all coming up here. Meanwhile, we have a double regional this weekend at Infineon with 290+ entries.

[jimmyc]

Dave - can you share why IT going national would be a bad thing? From my NE region perspective I believe consolidating many of the national and regional weekends and letting IT participate on a national level is a good thing. I don't believe that eligibility for runoffs participation will change IT much - maybe it gets more competitive and that's a good thing. I agree with you entirely about racing in a 20 car field vs 5 - that's a key reason I came back to IT. Plus the drivers are a great bunch of psychos to run against. :-)

sounds like, from your posts and from others about the NE region and events, that the region has issues.

Your trying to fix a local problem on a national level.

Doesn't seem to make sense.

[jimmyc]

How strong is NASA in So CA? Just a query to see if the strength of a competing organization might have something to do with low SCCA turnout. Other than that I'm not sure - economy bad in So CA? I go there fairly frequently on business and I know our sector (academic research/biotech/pharma) is hurting.

NASA is pretty strong in SoCal, never been to a SCCA socal race though, but it always seems slim compared to NASA

[Z3_GoCar]

How strong is NASA in So CA? Just a query to see if the strength of a competing organization might have something to do with low SCCA turnout. Other than that I'm not sure - economy bad in So CA? I go there fairly frequently on business and I know our sector (academic research/biotech/pharma) is hurting.

I noticed a drop in the numbers at VARA, and I know that BMCCA-CR had to cancelled a couple of races in So-Cal. So, I think it's pretty much covering everyone. I know Cal-Club's been like this for the past couple of years, it seems like it wasn't that full of a padock the weekend that I had my incident, but not this bad.

[Z3_GoCar]

Is it just me or atleast on this page the big promoters for the national expansion run BMW Z3's in IT? :happy204: just messin.

:shrug:



.... IMHO, if there is a National version of IT, it should include a small number of cars that are holomogated and are closely monitered for performance, all specs should be listed down to the shock packages that can be used, and there should be no suprises. The closest pro-series would probably be Grand-Am ST/GS cars and prep rules. In the end you'd have Touring without the specific sunset clause and stripped interiors.

I used to advocate a National IT change, but have become more conservative the more I think about it.

[shwah]

Same here. I no longer advocate a National IT, but a single tier Club Racing program. If we cannot have the latter though, I prefer the former over the current situation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know I am being a broken record, but if SCCA eliminates the National/Regional designation and everyone is on the same playing field there is no dolution, no lower prepped cars, its bring your A game and a well prepped car. If you don't then you will loose and have to be ok with that.

First off Jeremy, that is a HUGE 'if'. Secondly, if they do, are we to assume that IT would be eligible to go to the Runoffs? If they are, *I* believe, that due to the ruleset, IT would explode...it won't make SCCA more popular but it would cannabalize from other classes. top builders everywhere would dive in. That may not be great for some racers ego's.

[Bill Miller]

Well guys, I haven't been around for a bit, but I did read this whole thread. Lots of stuff to cover, and I'm sure I'll miss some points. Interesting stuff, that's for sure. Kirk is to be applauded for starting this. I'll try and hit this stuff in the order it was in the thread. But it will probably start to ramble and be all inter-twined and what not.

To Kirk's original request (at least I think that's what he was asking). In my opinion, IT is a MUCH better place to race today, than it was 10 years ago when I started in it. To those that weren't around then, trust me, it's a LOT better. This kind of open discussion w/ folks that were involved in the policy / rules process just didn't happen.

Ok, here goes. Kirk states that the CRB is sitting on action items that were sent up a while ago. He also states that the ITAC is being called in for a formal 'sit down'. To me, throwing the CRB under the bus like that can't be a good thing for the ITAC. I'm all for openness in the rules making process, but it's usually not a good idea to publicly tell people that your boss isn't doing their job. It makes them look bad, and nobody likes to be made out like that in public. Kirk, I applaud you for what you did, but it was a gutsy play, and I'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if there are consequences.

As far as the ITAC having to defend and justify what they're doing, I'm confident that they've got that one covered. That's not to say that the PtB haven't already formulated opinions and made decisions, and this may be a mere 'formality', but I sure hope that's not the case.

If on thing is evident in this thread, is that some things will never change. You will ALWAYS have people out there that are 'me-centric'. Do whatever you want, but don't do anything that may have a potential negative impact on me. Doesn't matter if it's better for the overall good or not.

Process v2.0. At the beginning of all this, many years ago, that's something I always figured would happen. It would be an itterative, evolving process, getting better and more refined w/ each itteration. That's exactly what looks to be happening, and that's a good thing, IMHO.

That being said, I never supported the "w/in 100# is close enough" approach. I understand that there were some valid reasons behind it (less changes having a greater potential for approval over changing everything, etc.). And it's easy to say in hindsight that the safe approach is now catching up w/ them (ITAC). Who knows, the whole thing may have been dead in the water if they (ITAC) tried to set every car at process weight from the outset. I would have liked to have seen that done, but it's not fair to, in hindsight, say they made the wrong decision at the time. I'll continue to believe that what was done, was really done w/ the best interests of the category at heart. And it's not a bad thing to now admit that maybe it should have been done that way. It's a learning process. Unfortunately the me-centric folks won't care about objectivity and repeatability, if it means they get lead. But I think these folks (ITAC) have tough skins and are up to the task.

One of the things I'm really surprised that no one has brought up in this whole discussion is the 'no guarantee' clause. To the ITAC folks, don't be surprised if that isn't raised by the BoD / CRB in your meeting. I personally think that the time has come for that language to be removed from the ITCS. At this point, it's just an easy 'out' for not wanting to deal w/ individual issues.

I like the 'rules season' idea. Fix legit mistakes at any time during the year, but rules evolutions should happen at one time in the year, and the end of the season (for most folks) is probably the best time to do it.

Andy, to your question about that car that came out of the woodwork, I'd say you go w/ what the process says. If the car is that good, others will build them. If all of the examples show to be top dogs, a closer look will be needed. There are cars now that get 'special treatment' because they're greater than the sum of the parts, this may be just one more example. I don't think you can toss out a process that you've put so much time into, and seems to work pretty well, just because you've got one unknown car out there that nobody even knows if it is legal or not.

The whole IT National thing. I advocated years ago that the whole National / Regional distinction needed to go away. If you want to maintain National and Regional races (for whatever reason), you re-label them 'Qualifying' and 'Non-Qualifying' (for purposes of going to the Runoffs) races. Other than the names, and the former National races having to slot the IT classes into their schedule, I really don't see anything else changing.

For those that say the cost for every IT racer will go up, I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. As Kirk pointed out, look at the commitment levels of Regional Prod guys vs. National Prod guys. The same pretty much holds true for all of the National classes that run at Regionals today. Sure, you may get some folks that 'cross-polinate', but it's not going to raise the price of poker for everyone. And as Kirk (at least I think it was him) pointed out, pulling the top dogs out of the Non-Qualifying races, may make those events more palatable to people just starting out.

And for those that say that if IT goes National, you'll have guys only running 4 races, and waiting around for the RO. Do you really think that's going to happen? Maybe in ITC, but if you run an ITA car, and decide to only run 4 races, you're not going to qualify for the RO, you won't be high enough on the points list.

I honestly thinking having Process v2.0 in place actually facilitates IT's move to a RO-eligible category. The NG clause goes away, you've got a defined, objective process for classifying cars, and established 'rules season', off you go w/ a very stable category.

For the folks that say people would spend more to have a shot at that RO trophy, think about what's hidden in that statement. What is implied by that statement, if it is indeed true, is that an ARRC/IT-fest/TC championship really doesn't carry the weight of an RO championship. Sure, those things are nice, but they're really not the same as having that RO trophy. Another thing that is implied in that statement, is that even though those ARRC/IT-fest/TC champions have good programs, they're not spending as much as the would if it were for a RO trophy. As Greg and some of the other top IT folks if they feel that's the case. As someone else mentioned, I think you'll find that a lot of the top IT programs are more comitted than some of the top National programs, just because these guys run more races. And in many cases, because the competition is better, and deeper. And let's not even bring up the folks that go to the RO just becasue it is a big social event. They bring cars that wouldn't see the pointy end of the grid at a Regional.

To the ITAC, hang in there, you guys 'get it' probably more than most in your position (and above).

Hope I didn't miss anything, but I'm not going back and reading 9 pages again.

[ddewhurst]

*** *I* believe, that due to the ruleset, IT would explode...it won't make SCCA more popular but it would cannabalize from other classes. top builders everywhere would dive in. That may not be great for some racers ego's.***

Very similar to Spec Miata going National except there would be no where else for cars to go in SCCA. That will be a sad day. Midwester Council here I come.

[RSTPerformance]

First off Jeremy, that is a HUGE 'if'. Secondly, if they do, are we to assume that IT would be eligible to go to the Runoffs? If they are, *I* believe, that due to the ruleset, IT would explode...it won't make SCCA more popular but it would cannabalize from other classes. top builders everywhere would dive in. That may not be great for some racers ego's.

Andy-

We are getting off topic but I think you are right... IT should not be runoffs eligable however regional/National weekends need to be combined to make our club more stable by increasing car counts and decreasing entry fees...

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

How do you know that having IT become RO-eligible wouldn't increase car counts and hopefully, lower entry fees? There just may be people out there that would jump at the chance to run for a RO trophy in a car that's prep'd to the IT rules. I'm sure there will be some cannibalization, but you'll probably get new racers as well. I also think one of the best ways to increase car counts is to have the SCCA market its product better.

[JeffYoung]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

[IPRESS]

There are several factors at play here that probably help form the differing opinions we see here.
Size and activity of IT in different DIVs.
Level of competition
History, Expectations, Money, ex......

With that in mind, we should all be aware of where others thoughts are coming from.
Up in the NE, the IT fields tend to be larger and therefore more expensive to be at the pointy end of the grid. Same is true for the SE. Throughout the rest of the country there are pockets of IT areas that have well developed cars and can run with anybody. (For instance the Midwest IT guys are really stepping up their game at this time.) On the other side there are plenty of places in the country where cheap builds are competitive. I sort of think I have a little bit of grasp on this aspect having raced in a lot of different areas of the country, but still it is hard to say what the average IT guy wants or needs.
The question is what is or what should IT be? Who is it for? Why is IT one of the most raced groups of SCCA? What is important to the IT racer?
The answers to these questions (and several others I haven't put here) vary from racer to racer. IT is one thing to to the "dead serious must win" racer and it is another thing to the "hey lets have some fun" racer. It is even different to the guy in the middle who "races to win", but doesn't sacrifice the fun part to do it.
So how do we decide what IT should be? Do we leave it up to the PTB and hope they pick the right path? Do we try to organize a ground swell of public opinion and blast the BOD with what we want? Do we do nothing? What is it?

After reading this thread, (and considering that this is only a small group of IT) I am less sure than ever about how or where IT should go....or if it should go anyplace at all. As much work as the ITAC does, (and I appreciate that work) the group needs a more varied input to tackle "the deeper meaning of IT". If the direction of IT is to change or not, a lot more voices from a lot more areas need to be heard.
I know it is hard to get feedback and it is easy to do nothing, but a big change in IT will impact all club racing areas, so every effort should be made to get opinions from as many areas as possible. (The IT racer from say ..... Albuquergue needs his ideas heard as much as the ideas of the IT racer from Atlanta.)

[Jeremy Billiel]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

Jeff - After watching the runoffs for years, I think that it is less attractive than IT Fest, The ARRC, etc as some classes/races could be won with the less prep level as IT cars!! There are still people who get all goo goo eyed when they think about running nationals, but to be frank (I am from NE) the IT competition is better than most Nationals. I have no problem leaving IT the same olde', but for the sake of SCCA, I think the BOD needs to take a good solid look at the National/Regional distinction again. I don't get all fearful of the rules changing if the class goes to the Runoffs.

[IPRESS]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

Jeff I definitly qualify as an "old guy" and having long time SM experience I can tell you going national hurt an helped in that it kept the SM name in the public eye. SM was a media darling back at the start (my car was in three or four national magazines) but was losing a little of the hot class luster. Going national (which I was one of the loudest proponents for) kept the SM name in the public eye. Great for MAZDA, was nice for SCCA, good and bad for the class itself. SM has become somewhat fragmented and I expect it to continue to do so. MAZDA has a big stake in SM and therefore I see SM doing fine for a good while. Would IT benefit from strong mfg. support? That part I would like. Not sure if it would happen. As I have staed I think the cons out way the pros.
Oh numbers, I think numbers are probably down overall in SM, but is it because of going national? Maybe some, but it could be, economy too. All I know is IT miata numbers are going up.......for now (as long as they don't get too fat! :D

[RSTPerformance]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

I am not a newer guy but my thoughts are... Runoffs are "Big league" and they need (IMO) to stay that way... We do get a lot of exposure as a club in that one event... It is probably one of he largest affordable club racing events in the world.

SCCA needs a feeder class. For some like me it may be a dam good destination and for others a steping stone.

How many people have been to a local National and watched the races??? I have to admit the racing is great in most of the classes in our region! Combining the weekends but keeping IT non runoffs eligible would bring IT back to it's original goal of being the intro class. I wonder if the success of IT has caused it to loose it's original goal?

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does SCCA need a feeder CLASS or a feeder SYSTEM? Like has been said, IT is a destination for me. IMHO, it has the best and most stable ruleset that isn't a 'spec' class.

That may be were National / Regional seperation is needed.

[JeffYoung]

To me, IT was both a feeder and a destination.

I started as a newbie with an underprepped car, but because of the class system, I always had someone to race -- a fast B car, another slow S car, or an IT7.

As I got faster, I moved closer to my destination -- the front of the ITS field.

In that regard, doing it all in one car with one development arc (and I've seen this with nearly all my friends in ITS), IT has been perfect for me.

IT is REALLY good now, and I share the concerns of those who think that continuing to try to improve it all the time, even if well-intentioned, might lead us astray.

We got in trouble iwth the old weight classing system and overdogs, but that has been fixed....maybe we let the pot settle a bit for a few years, see how Process 2.0 shakes out, get ITR up to speed, and then see what other "big picture" changes might be needed?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff,

If IT went National, how does your entry and development curve change? I subnit in only the smallest of ways...you do what you did, then once you conquered the 'regional' foe, you went after the 'national' foe.

[JeffYoung]

Probably initially it would not have changed, since I knew nothing about the difference between National and Regional even after I finished the car and went to my first race weekend.

Looking at it now, I know I would seek out a class that:

(a) has the most stable rule set;

(b) the highest car counts; and

(c) the widest variety of marques available for me to choose from to race.

I see "going National" as potentially hurting (a) and (b). I'm concerned that if we go National, some of the IT culture we have about less rule change the better might get tossed as high dollar teams and more politics have more influence on our direction.

On (b), I still continue to believe, based on my experience in the SEDiv, that we wouldn't necessarily increase IT participation by going National, we'd dilute it by splitting essentially the same "universe" of cars into two camps. Of the 10-12 guys in ITS I normally run with, I suspect we'd have 3-4 go run Nationals and the remaining 7-8 stay Regional.

Just guessing, but I think the example helps you see the dilution I am fairly certain would occur.

[dickita15]

Andy-

We are getting off topic but I think you are right... IT should not be runoffs eligable however regional/National weekends need to be combined to make our club more stable by increasing car counts and decreasing entry fees...

Raymond

Raymond,
I just do not see where you get the conclusion that eliminating the distinction between regionals and nationals would lower entry fees. The division has almost 50 regionals and about 8 nationals, I am not sure how eliminating the nationals would lower your entry fee or make the club more stable.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just guessing, but I think the example helps you see the dilution I am fairly certain would occur.

What if IT going National brings in people who didn't race IT before? Bet it would....

[JeffYoung]

That's where we disagree. I just don't think it would, much. Maybe a few, but I think we are still pretty much divvying up the same pie.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's where we disagree. I just don't think it would, much. Maybe a few, but I think we are still pretty much divvying up the same pie.

I think most of Prod and most of Touring would go away if IT was a choice...butu again, IT would grow and the others may die. Good? Bad? Natural Selection?

;-)

[tnord]

quick response before i go play my round of golf (which is becoming more and more appealing to me over racing).....

SM #s in my area are WAY WAY down from where they were before the class went national. the year before nationals (2005?) we'd typically get about 20-30 cars for every event, people were coming in from everywhere, new drivers showing up at every event. everyone was having a good time, and partying with each other just as much as racing.

2006 saw a MASSIVE arms race in a big hurry amongst about the top 15 drivers. new sets of tires every weekend, buying multiple pro motors and testing to until they got a good one, tons of testing, etc. instead of staying up a drinking on saturday night people packed their shit up and went to bed. the first national race had an obvious and drasticly different atmosphere. it was a huge achievement just to qualify for the runoffs, and by year 3 all you had to do was show up to enough events and you'd qualify.

a GOOD national SM race around here is maybe 12 or 15 cars, i think the regional this weekend has 3 or 4. i can't think of anyone who has joined SM as a new driver in a couple years now. most have defected to other classes, or quit altogether.

i know a lot of you think you're doing all you can do right now, and there's no more money to spend, but i highly doubt it.

[JeffYoung]

Andy, just have to agree to disagree on that one...but I'll still drink a beer in your honor this holiday weekend..lol...

Unfortunately, I think the picture Travis paints is what we would mostly see in IT. The guys I know racing Prod and GT don't think much of the prep rules in our class. THey are in Prod and GT for a reason - a reason that would be frustrated in IT. They like to build and innovate.

[Z3_GoCar]

I think most of Prod and most of Touring would go away if IT was a choice...butu again, IT would grow and the others may die. Good? Bad? Natural Selection?

;-)

We actually have a stong core of T1 guys, who started from HPDE'ing Vette's, but there's no IT class for that kind of power which would be at least two levels above "R". I'll take Jeff's point farther out. Say the tinker guy's do come to IT, we'll see all sorts of "inovations" snuck in. Your vacume hose to the ECU, or using a plastic spacer to port-match are childs play compaired to what you might see happening. Also, don't bring out the allowed modifications can't perform prohibited functions rule. Because where are the prohibited funcitons listed in either the ITCS or the glossery? Since they're not listed it can be argued that they don't exist.

[tom_sprecher]

The guys I know racing Prod and GT don't think much of the prep rules in our class. THey are in Prod and GT for a reason - a reason that would be frustrated in IT. They like to build and innovate.

Besides the lack of rotor houisngs this will be one of the main reasons I will one day switch to one of those categories.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The guys I know racing Prod and GT don't think much of the prep rules in our class. THey are in Prod and GT for a reason - a reason that would be frustrated in IT. They like to build and innovate.

You ever take a look at the 'limited prep' prod rules? Bet you would be surprised to know how many 'new' prod cars are being build and to what prep level.

It's a topic that will never be proven until it happens. I doubt it will...but what happened to Spec Miata won't happen in IT. Why? Because we all have different cars and we aren't developing for the last 1/2 a hp. Also, SM was too young to go National. The drivers had no idea what to expect. They were having fun while it was growing fast. They got dragged along for the ride and had no idea what it meant to run a spec class in the big leagues. It was more about being happy-go-lucky and not seeing what was coming.

If I ever get a vote, I will probably vote no now. IT has a couple great events that hold water and the members don't seem to want it.

[Knestis]

It's more than a little ironic that we're talking about IT becoming a National class when evidence right now suggests that the CRB isn't comfortable with what the ITAC is currently doing with it as a REGIONAL class...

SM is a great case study in the "rules don't control costs" dynamic. I have a suspicion that if one drilled into understanding why drivers became disillusioned with SM, it would have a lot to do with folks coming to understand that - contrary to the PR BS - it was NOT possible to "be competitive" with a $6000 car because "everyone has the same hardware." I heard over and over from drivers starting in SM that "equal equipment" would be the great equalizer: That real talent would rise to the top, and that one couldn't buy a title in SM.

Wrong.

There's little question that competitive pressures would increase among drivers who might decide to do a "National program" were IT to have that opportunity. However, I don't see how that would have much - if any - impact on someone who wanted to continue doing precisely what is possible right now - running for regional or divisional points, or just having fun competing at one's local track. There might be a few "national" guys/gals running regional races but they wouldn't bring a much bigger gun to the OK Corral than do the current high-end Regional efforts.

I also don't buy the thesis that offering IT as a National class wold siphon off a substantial volume of current Regional-only IT racers. If running National events were a priority for Racer X, he wouldn't have chosen IT. I tend to think that IT would swipe from other National classes but we won't ever know because frankly, current trends make it clear that IT won't ever be considered for National status: There's just too much pressure for it to continue like it is, as the cash cow that supports a big chunk of each Region's club racing revenue...

...or if it DID happen, it would be within the prevailing National "competition adjustment" (bleah!) paradigm. That influence is what has me most worried at this point, about IT as a REGIONAL category...

K

[tnord]

It's more than a little ironic that we're talking about IT becoming a National class when evidence right now suggests that the CRB isn't comfortable with what the ITAC is currently doing with it as a REGIONAL class...

SM is a great case study in the "rules don't control costs" dynamic. I have a suspicion that if one drilled into understanding why drivers became disillusioned with SM, it would have a lot to do with folks coming to understand that - contrary to the PR BS - it was NOT possible to "be competitive" with a $6000 car because "everyone has the same hardware." I heard over and over from drivers starting in SM that "equal equipment" would be the great equalizer: That real talent would rise to the top, and that one couldn't buy a title in SM.

Wrong.


wrong.

you can't buy a title in SM. you have to have a very good car, but you also have to have some serious driving ability, as well as a very good setup. it takes all 3 (~$18-20k i think will get you a car fast enough to do the job.)



There's little question that competitive pressures would increase among drivers who might decide to do a "National program" were IT to have that opportunity. However, I don't see how that would have much - if any - impact on someone who wanted to continue doing precisely what is possible right now - running for regional or divisional points, or just having fun competing at one's local track.


here's the problem.....a big part of the fun for the regular guys is being in the middle of a big pack, with lots of cars in the field, and still being able to "see" the guys up front. split the class into regional/national and suddenly you have much smaller fields, the front runner guys are WAY the hell out there, and suddenly you're paying higher entry fees to turn laps by yourself for 45min. THAT is a real impact to an individuals fun.



I also don't buy the thesis that offering IT as a National class wold siphon off a substantial volume of current Regional-only IT racers. If running National events were a priority for Racer X, he wouldn't have chosen IT. I tend to think that IT would swipe from other National classes but we won't ever know because frankly, current trends make it clear that IT won't ever be considered for National status:

it wasn't exactly a priority for the early competitors of SM either. :shrug:


....whatever. i couldn't care less right now.

[IPRESS]

SM was designed to be just like IT....... a regional class. It got so big so fast that outside forces (racers from other classes) joined the fray and changed the design. I tend to think that the same thing would happen if IT went RunOffs eligible. That would be fine for a certain faction of present IT racers, but I am guessing (and this is just a guess) that the greater numbers of IT racers would not like it.

I dabbled in the National Racing scene a little this year and found the goal I was racing for to be different than in the past. It was sort of an abbreviated effort which after the fact I blame on IT racing being so much fun!
With the ROs going to RAmerica this year, I decided last fall to get a SS car and make a run at going. After chasing those dang Hondas and Acuras at ARRC I decided if you can't beat'em then join'em. I got an Acura to run this season and then turn it into an ITS car. Racing Nationals was a whole different mind set for me (maybe I am different who knows). Instead of lining up and racing each race for as much fun (and speed) as I could have, I started thinking about getting enough races in to qualify. Tires were being eaten up quicker and in fewer races so I worried about the tire budget. The IT guys were doing their usual assing around antics between races and plotting to pull some crazy night time paddock mayhem.....I was over messing with my car (which tells you something as I ain't no wrench!) After "qualifying" for the ROs ( finshing four races, big deal) I made plans for a big time at the ROs. MY problem showed up in June......I ran my miata in a regional affair and found out what I had been missing since the previous November. Since then I have canceled my ROs reservations and entry, found a buyer for the Acura, sold my "A" miata and started a build on another IT miata. All that was brought on by racing in a regional where I really had a good time. I started weighing the ROs against the ARRC. (actually I would have done them both, because I won't hardly NOT go to ARRC.) Yeah I am going to miss several things at the ROs, brats, Honda Racing support, big dinners and giveaways, brats, a great track, good people, German potatoe salad, and mostly.....brats. But come November I will be sure I made the best decision ...for me. You NE guys need to watch out for an old guy with Shiner Bock putting firecrackers in your trailer...it won't be me.

[JoshS]

SCCA needs a feeder class. For some like me it may be a dam good destination and for others a steping stone.

What is a "feeder class?" I'm asking honestly, I want to understand this point of view. I don't understand the stepping-stone concept. Is there some sort of rule set which is naturally conducive to people who don't want to stay in the same car very long? Are people really attracted to a ruleset that cannot be a destination (other than people who sell cars?)

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- the club already has a concept of an entry-level program and a more advanced program ... it's called "regional racing" and "national racing." In any class but IT, you can do this with the same car! You don't need to have a throwaway car. That's REALLY ATTRACTIVE. It makes SM, FV, SRF, and yes, limited-production Prod, and other low-barrier-to-entry classes much better "entry level" classes than IT ... because if someone aspires to move up, they don't have to throw away the car they started with.

[Knestis]

>> here's the problem.....a big part of the fun for the regular guys is being in the middle of a big pack, with lots of cars in the field, and still being able to "see" the guys up front. split the class into regional/national and suddenly you have much smaller fields, the front runner guys are WAY the hell out there, and suddenly you're paying higher entry fees to turn laps by yourself for 45min. THAT is a real impact to an individuals fun.

We're mixing up a bunch of factors to paint a picture of a negative outcome, without being consistent - or even really understanding - what "causes" what.

How does "split the class into regional/national" cause "much smaller fields?" That presumes that some large proportion of the CURRENT IT crowd would abandon Regionals to Exclusively run Nationals, simply because they can. This ignores that, if Racer X aspired to run Nationals, he would likely have picked a class in which he could do that in the first place.

Now, if you're talking about someone who grows into wanting to "move up" to Nationals - an Aaron Stehley or Mark Carpenter - we would have lost them anyway. We would have lost them to a National effort, but we more than likely NOT have lost them FROM IT if they had that opportunity with their existing car. They could still run local races to stay sharp and develop their tools, and done showcase IT races like the ARRC.

There is NOTHING stopping someone from having fun and drinking beer while running a National event. You just can't do that, leave a chunk of performance on the table, and expect to be competitive. If a person wants to be able to do that AND run up front - or not buy new tires, build a real engine, or test and still run up front - that can only happen in a situation absent real competitive pressures.

I have a hard time supporting any policy that is intended to decrease - or maintain low levels of - competitive pressure in IT.

K

[shwah]

Another viewpoint on the theory of IT as cashcow for regions. Here in CenDiv that is certainly not the case. IT entries have been reletively sparse for the past few years. Competition level is occasionally high in a given class. ITB was pretty sharp for a few years, ITS has a solid consistent front runner that is relatively competitive at the 'big events', but there are rarely if ever double digit entries in any IT class, and usually less than 5. ITA fares the best with double dipping Miatas, but with SSM in the same group most of them just run that class.

I have not raced this year to date. If I had, I would have been the 2nd or 3rd ITB car on track each time. If I were to go enter the Nationals in HP, I would have been in a 7-15 car field every time.

Now I am the tinkering type that really likes to design a better solution, and I LIKE the prod rule set, even for the Level 1 aka full prep cars. I also like designing a better solution within a set of constraints, like we do in IT. I REALLY like racing IT at the 'big events', and had lots of fun fighting it out on track with Aaron for a few years, but with the greater contingencies and entries available in Production I think more an more about going that direction once I meet my goals in IT. I'll take it one year at a time, and hope that things change, but just wanted to illustrate that IT is not carrying club racing everywhere. Heck in CenDiv if anything carries club racing, it is SRF national stuff.

[tnord]

>> here's the problem.....a big part of the fun for the regular guys is being in the middle of a big pack, with lots of cars in the field, and still being able to "see" the guys up front. split the class into regional/national and suddenly you have much smaller fields, the front runner guys are WAY the hell out there, and suddenly you're paying higher entry fees to turn laps by yourself for 45min. THAT is a real impact to an individuals fun.

We're mixing up a bunch of factors to paint a picture of a negative outcome, without being consistent - or even really understanding - what "causes" what.

How does "split the class into regional/national" cause "much smaller fields?" That presumes that some large proportion of the CURRENT IT crowd would abandon Regionals to Exclusively run Nationals, simply because they can. This ignores that, if Racer X aspired to run Nationals, he would likely have picked a class in which he could do that in the first place.

K

explain to me then why nearly 90% of the old regional SM guys ran nationals in the first year (at least around here)?

but like i said, whatever. a nice BMW and a set of Taylor Mades is sounding pretty good to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Travis, using SM as an example of 'what happens to a class when it goes National' is a red-herring. It was too young, grew too fast and most of the drivers had no historical perspective.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, it is, I agree, all conjecture, but I feel very strongly that going National will simply split a single group of racers into two classes. All I can do is rely on the experience that I have, but in the "core" group of 10-15 ITS racers in the NC/SC area of the SEDiv, 3-5 of them are tinkerers and my guess is they would immediately go national in IT if given the chance. The esteemed Mr. Eckerich is a good example, the Van Steenburgs probably too, Ricky Thompson in ITR another.

Maybe we will attract a few new cars to ITS, but my guess is the numbers would be minimal. I think this, while a limited example, is the more likely result across classes/geographic regions.

Andy, not trying to be sarcastic, seriously just curious. You're pretty plugged into to the "big picture" with SCCA (more so than me), and I know you've said on several occasions limited prep prod is working and car numbers are increasing.

The perception I have, as well as most of the guys I race with, is that limited prep was just a gloss on dying classes. I've not seen any real numbers increase in prod car counts at regional events -- are they up at Nationals?

[shwah]

Travis - I don't really know you, but if you want to play the 'take your car and go home card', just play it. Threatening it over and over does nothing for us. If you like racing, then build your car the best you can and go race it, in this class or another. You have complained about a 'rumored' weight change to your car so much, I would imagine many folks that may support such an idea never considered it until they were turned on to it by you.

I understand having an expectation and faith in how things will be done, to learn that it is not quite so, but don't understand not going out and racing to prove the point, or changing sports/classes immediately to do something else, rather than knashing your teeth for months on end and threatening to quit.

Maybe this all just comes across wrong when typed on the internet...

[tnord]

Travis - I don't really know you, but if you want to play the 'take your car and go home card', just play it. Threatening it over and over does nothing for us. If you like racing, then build your car the best you can and go race it, in this class or another. You have complained about a 'rumored' weight change to your car so much, I would imagine many folks that may support such an idea never considered it until they were turned on to it by you.

I understand having an expectation and faith in how things will be done, to learn that it is not quite so, but don't understand not going out and racing to prove the point, or changing sports/classes immediately to do something else, rather than knashing your teeth for months on end and threatening to quit.

Maybe this all just comes across wrong when typed on the internet...

it is, and thanks for pointing it out.

i didn't mean it as a threat at all. i mean it as an example of one guy who is frustrated enough with the whole thing to be giving consideration to doing something else altogether, and that i'm probably not the only one. racing is way too big of a commitment in time and money to not be having an absolute fucking blast doing it. for me at least, the seemingly constant changing landscape and escalating 'seriousness' of it all take away from that. if it were to go national, i only see more of that forthcoming.

and no, i'm not going out and racing "to prove a point." that point is way too expensive to make, and i don't have the resources. and i wouldn't say i'd be immediately changing sports/classes. i have been doing this since 2003, and have been around racing for almost 10 years now.

PS - Jeff, i haven't noticed a significant increase in prod numbers around here either, regional or national. there's a couple more FP guys that have gone over from SM, but that's about all the "new blood" that i've seen.

[dickita15]

As we discuss thing like IT going national we have to remember that the situation is very different in different parts of the country. Some places like the NE have very strong regional programs, lots of races and lots of racers. In some parts of the country most of the races are national or regional national weekends. In those places you will have less people choosing IT because having a car that can run nationals means more opportunities to race.
Even here with lots of regionals I was recently talking to a regional EP driver who does not have a high level of prep and asked him why he did not race IT and he said his perception was that having a regional only car limited his options.
It may be that IT being a national class would eliminate that perceived disadvantage and cause more new drivers to choose IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, not trying to be sarcastic, seriously just curious. You're pretty plugged into to the "big picture" with SCCA (more so than me), and I know you've said on several occasions limited prep prod is working and car numbers are increasing.



I don't know if Prod is growing per-se Jeff, all I can look at is what is being built new. Not a guarantee of overall category growth, just a shift in what is on grid. FP is a great example. Integra's and Miata's are what is happening. VERY limited in prep allowances. Is it s gloss? Your call. :)

[tnord]

I don't know if Prod is growing per-se Jeff, all I can look at is what is being built new. Not a guarantee of overall category growth, just a shift in what is on grid. FP is a great example. Integra's and Miata's are what is happening. VERY limited in prep allowances. Is it s gloss? Your call. :)

uhhh, what?

Sam Henry of Springfield Dyno (where i take my car) has a Huffaker built FP Miata. maybe it's limited prep per Production class standards, but it is a LONG LONG ways from IT.

~$8k taylor gearbox, re-engineered suspension geometry, Penske RR shocks, fiberglass bodywork (with aero consideration), alternate ignition source (changed to crankfire ignition), i believe he can go with a completely different valvetrain including cams, etc...

[Andy Bettencourt]

uhhh, what?

Sam Henry of Springfield Dyno (where i take my car) has a Huffaker built FP Miata. maybe it's limited prep per Production class standards, but it is a LONG LONG ways from IT.



Trav, that's the point. LP SEEMS to be more attractive to people who are willing to build new cars for Prod.

[Bill Miller]

i didn't mean it as a threat at all. i mean it as an example of one guy who is frustrated enough with the whole thing to be giving consideration to doing something else altogether, and that i'm probably not the only one. racing is way too big of a commitment in time and money to not be having an absolute fucking blast doing it. for me at least, the seemingly constant changing landscape and escalating 'seriousness' of it all take away from that. if it were to go national, i only see more of that forthcoming.

Travis,

I'm really having a hard time understanding the logic you're applying here. One of the reasons that you see 'escalating seriousness' in IT, is because there's only one sandbox for them to play in, Regional races. While having IT go National may up the game a bit at the National level, I (and others have as well) submit that IT racing at the Regional level would be a whole lot more fun for the guys that didn't want to (or could afford to) spend cubic dollars. It's been stated over and over again, look at a Regional Prod program vs. a National Prod program. Believe me when I tell you that they're night and day.

Kirk,

I can see a scenario where IT going National will probably siphon off some of the Regional folks. And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. And I don't agree w/ your contention that if RacerX wanted to go National racing, he already would have gone, or he's going to eventually be lost from IT anyway. Sure, you'll have some guys that go that route, but several people have talked about IT as a destination, not as a stepping stone. I think it's completely valid to think that you've got plenty of IT guys that will stay in IT. They've got the budgets and the skills to be competitive at the National level, but an IT car is what they want to run. I can see top-tier IT folks going National, in search of better competition. I can see plenty of folks staying at the Regional level, and possibly even more coming in. Ask yourself, why does anybody race a National-eligible car at the Regional level? Less pressure, lower budgets, less travel, etc., etc.

I personally think IT going National is a win/win all the way around. You've got a great category with some fast folks that put on a good show. You now have a lower-stress environment (Regionals) where someone can run one of those cars, develop it, develop themselves, and maybe eventually go National racing.

People talk about a feeder class, what is really there, is a feeder 'environment'. That 'environment' is Regional racing. I don't see how anyone can say that IT is a feeder category when you've got some serious programs that run in IT. If I were starting out, I'd much rather have a lower stress 'environment' to run a car in, regardless of what car or category I picked. People talk about IT as a feeder class, mainly due to the historical view that people had of IT, and the fact that it really never got any respect as a category. Being branded Regional-only by the PtB created this artificial sense that IT wasn't a serious category, but a place to starte, and when you decided you wanted to drive a 'real' race car, you'd go Prod, GT, etc., etc.

[CRallo]

All this talk about making IT National is interesting... Especially when they are reducing the number of classes at the RO's and have literally said "no new national classes"

A new class "F6" is in the process of being developed on the regional level atm. These are basically F5's with 600cc 4 stroke motorcycle engines (r6, GSXR, etc.) The only option they are being given to exist at the national level is to combine with F5...

[tnord]

they've said "no new national classes" for as long as i can remember. i've only been around for 5 years, but can think of 5 new national classes without even trying.

[seckerich]

We already have way too many classes now. Just a reality check: LP prod Mazda RX7 to run up front will run you 35,000 plus. I have built 2 in the last 2 years and it is very easy to go north of $50,000 quick. Motors run $8,000 with no Motec. That is extra. Shocks over $6,000 and up. Only reason we have limited prep was to bring down the RPM and power range of the hand grenade motors. I always took 2 motors per weekend with my Triumph. 9000 rpm in a tractor motor with 14.5 compression was a nightmare. Now somehow a discussion on the process V2 has come full circle to National/regional again. Budget $2000 a race for a national run and plan on buying more stickers than you ever imagined. If IT went national tomorrow it would raise the price of poker for everyone involved.

[tnord]

We already have way too many classes now. Just a reality check: LP prod Mazda RX7 to run up front will run you 35,000 plus. I have built 2 in the last 2 years and it is very easy to go north of $50,000 quick. Motors run $8,000 with no Motec. That is extra. Shocks over $6,000 and up. Only reason we have limited prep was to bring down the RPM and power range of the hand grenade motors. I always took 2 motors per weekend with my Triumph. 9000 rpm in a tractor motor with 14.5 compression was a nightmare. Now somehow a discussion on the process V2 has come full circle to National/regional again. Budget $2000 a race for a national run and plan on buying more stickers than you ever imagined. If IT went national tomorrow it would raise the price of poker for everyone involved.

another reality check; i know of a FP Miata that got built for $50k+.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The money arguement is stupid. Please guys. If you have a top shop do a top car - for you - with all the bells and whistles - ANY car is going to run you north of $40K. If you don't believe it, I will send you some spreadsheets.

I couldn't agree more with Miller's post above.

[tnord]

i think your ego is getting in the way here andy. honest.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i think your ego is getting in the way here andy. honest.

What about an ego has anything to do with what a prep shop will charge to do a ground-up no-expense-spared car? :shrug:

[tnord]

your ego has to do with the perception that going national won't affect YOU in any way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, I don't. Sorry if that is offensive to you. I have my budget and I race to it. It's all I can do. We have large fields and cars that are uber-developed up here. Not just one, but many. What is it about the Northeastern or Southeastern IT scenes that you know that makes you disbelieve? These are the backyards of IT-centric (at one point) businesses like Speedsource, BimmerWorld, ISC Racing, FOM, Kessler Engineering, etc.

Having said that, just because it won't effect ME, doesn't mean it's good for IT on the whole. Looking at the potential effects through SM-colored glasses is not the right thing to do as has been explained by a few people. I really do think Bill has it right in his post. But again, we have no recent historical data to look upon when a mature category goes national. All we can do is make educated guesses.

If it does ever go national, I hope that the CRB and BoD feel that it will be good for IT AND Club Racing in general.

[tnord]

offend me? hardly.

there actually IS a world west of the Appalachians you know.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I think that it has been accurately portrayed what it would do to IT in any area where IT was a more casual environment. Take Prather. I bet he would have some customers that would want to get in. He builds them a 10-10ths car, gets good money for it and if driven well, it blows up all the current IT records. Good for IT? Who knows. More drivers, better quality entries but the rest of the current class has to up there game on most fronts. Probably depends who you ask if it was a good thing - evel locally.

In my mind, its the weighing of the various parts of the country and making a decision for the whole that is the tough call.

I still think Bill is on the money from 10,000 feet however. Regional races for National classes are VERY casual compared to their National counterparts in non-spec classes. Patullo's point way back I think.

[tnord]

yeah, same out here.

for non-spec classes, IT is the only regional racing i wouldn't call a "joke."

[Bill Miller]

yeah, same out here.

for non-spec classes, IT is the only regional racing i wouldn't call a "joke."


And THAT Travis, is why I think you have this skewed view of how IT going National will raise the costs for everyone that wants to run IT. You're looking at it from the typical me-centric view. You like the current level of competition in IT in your own little fish bowl. You like where you are on the grid, w/o a Prather-like effort. If IT were to go National, you'd want to stay at your current level of competition. And since you view the other categories that run Regionals in your area as "a joke" (your words), you might have to step up to Nationals. Problem is, you will have guys that will show up w/ Prather-like efforts. So for you to maintain your current slot on the grid you will have to up your game.

Your comment about Regional (other than IT) racing in your area does two things. One, it shows that you are condescending, and have no respect for your fellow racers, and two, pretty much proves my point that IT going National won't increase costs for everyone.


If IT went national tomorrow it would raise the price of poker for everyone involved.

Steve,

Please see my above comment to Travis.

You folks that keep trotting this out, do so in the face of some pretty hard evidence to the contrarty. All those people running National-eligible cars at the Regional level would almost certainly disagree with you.

Andy,

This has really been my position all along w.r.t. IT going National. I may not have always articulated it that well, but that's what I've always believe, and always tried to get across.

[spawpoet]

We already have way too many classes now. Just a reality check: LP prod Mazda RX7 to run up front will run you 35,000 plus. I have built 2 in the last 2 years and it is very easy to go north of $50,000 quick. Motors run $8,000 with no Motec. That is extra. Shocks over $6,000 and up. Only reason we have limited prep was to bring down the RPM and power range of the hand grenade motors. I always took 2 motors per weekend with my Triumph. 9000 rpm in a tractor motor with 14.5 compression was a nightmare. Now somehow a discussion on the process V2 has come full circle to National/regional again. Budget $2000 a race for a national run and plan on buying more stickers than you ever imagined. If IT went national tomorrow it would raise the price of poker for everyone involved.

In all honesty how much of the extra cost of a prod car national effort over regional IT is specifically because it's a National effort, and how much of the delta cost is because of the differences in prep levels of an IT car and a 10/10th prod car? We don't run 9000 rpm in IT, and we aren't crackin' our motors open after almost every event, and we don't get to run $6000 r/r shocks. That's really due to the ruleset, not to the fact that we aren't running nationals. I would do better (for less money) points wise in my region running EP than I will in ITS. IMHO the level of competition in IT in the SE has already raised the bar to the limit in terms of what you have to spend to run up front anyway. I'm not necessarily for IT going national, but increased costs aren't a viable reason against IMHO.

[tnord]

give me a fucking break bill.

I am one of the ones causing the increased prep levels in our division, and the best ITA car around here is basically a Prather car being driven by a multi-time Runoffs winner.

when a 3 car field is a good turnout for a regional class, that's a fucking joke

you guys sure aren't doing anything to disprove your regional stereotypes.

[shwah]

Most common mistaken assumption in club racing is that a front running Level 2 Production car is significantly less expensive to build than a front running Level 1 Production car.

I like that the two prep levels give me two classes to consider should I ever decide to convert my car to prod, but don't see either route costing a lot less than the other.

[IPRESS]

Trav, the best ITA car up there is yellow! Ray's may be the best driven.

I guess the best thing would be for IT to go National EAST of the Mississippi River and stay the same to the WEST.:happy204:Bye Bye ARRC and Fest. Maybe we could have a big ol blowout race type party in the IT Regional Nation (West) at say .......Topeka....naw that didn't even work for "The Fiesta"! We might ought to rethink.

And Bill, Travis is right at the front of a group of MidDiv IT guys "spending and prepping" their little butts off. (that may be why he tends to be so cranky!):D

This has been hashed and rehashed, some think it would be just grand for IT to be racing at the "RAmerica Fiesta". Some think it wouldn't be so grand. This little forum won't probably change either sides opinion. The alphabet groups control things, you got to convince them.......and Jeff don't let'em brainwash ya!:D

[Bill Miller]

give me a fucking break bill.

I am one of the ones causing the increased prep levels in our division, and the best ITA car around here is basically a Prather car being driven by a multi-time Runoffs winner.

when a 3 car field is a good turnout for a regional class, that's a fucking joke

you guys sure aren't doing anything to disprove your regional stereotypes.

Travis,

You're doing a damned good job proving my point for me. Sounds like the biggest reason why your car isn't at the front, is the nut behind the wheel.

[RSI]

whatever happened to just having fun!

parts of this discussion remind me why I HATED high school sports. The boosters seemed to take all the FUN away.

It was a business and folks dreams for their children got in the way of people have a good time.

Folks we are all into racing and Im sure we would all love to win, but at the end of the day, regardless of the rules an regardless if my svelt and aerodynamic brick of a volvo will ever win a race...I'm out there because I LOVE race wheel to wheel.

[tnord]

Travis,

You're doing a damned good job proving my point for me. Sounds like the biggest reason why your car isn't at the front, is the nut behind the wheel.

it IS at the front dingbat. i won my first two races out (and 1st overall) with it in a ~17 car ITA field.

[Bill Miller]

it IS at the front dingbat. i won my first two races out (and 1st overall) with it in a ~17 car ITA field.

So why the hell are you running your mouth? As Chris said, your BS is getting really old. I've watched you piss and moan on this board for years now, and it's always from a me-centric point of view. How about doing us all a favor and buying that BMW and set of clubs? I honestly can't remember one post from you that's been constructive in the slightest bit. I wonder if this board has an 'ignore' list?

[tnord]

because i'm not so arrogant to think that the same thing that has happened to other classes can't happen to IT.

you guys just like to think that you're efforts are so awesome that you can't possibly do any more than you are already, and going national will have no affect on you whatsoever.

[KelleyHux]

As a flagger/registrar/long-time SCCA member (i.e. non-driver), I have just a couple of outside perspectives to suggest for consideration:

I was at Topeka for the first "IT Fests", and the middle of the country location ensured some participation from both the east and west coasts. It was a fun event, and the pursuit race where the guys launched down the front straight based on qualifying times so that all would finish at the same time, was a hoot!

I've been to a couple of ARRC races as a flagger, and they were a couple of the most fun races I've ever been to. Even the ARK in 1999 when it rained 5.5 inches in three days! The competition has been great, and the fields were pretty good. Yes, there's no "qualification" per se, and the participation is a bit slanted to the east coast simply due to the distance, but it's still a good chance for drivers who don't usually race together during the year to get together for an end-of-year event.

As far as IT going national - my suggestion is to talk to the American Sedan drivers. When their class went national, the costs skyrocketed to the point where many of the original drivers are no longer able to actively compete. The class has gone through several development cycles and has been a national class for awhile.

I think talking to those Spec Miata drivers who have been around for awhile will also give you some background about how they are coping with the move to national class status. In MiDiv, Travis is right - we used to have very large SM fields when it was regional only, but once it moved to National class status the fields were large the first year or so and have dropped off since. Part of that could be attributed to the RunOffs location (Heartland Park Topeka) and the difficulties that the local guys had qualifying for the "big show", or they simply outspent their budgets in that first year.

During 2008, a committee appointed by the board of directors examined the concept of removing the designations between "regional" and "national". As I recall, the idea was scrapped, simply because the dynamics of racing are very different across the country. In the "flyover zone" (RMDiv, MiDiv), we are not blessed with population density, so we don't draw the large crowds that other divisions do. Each coast appears to have strong regional racing, and the national racing in the west coast is not as strong as it is along the east coast (probably because of the distance to Runoffs).

Just a few thoughts.

Kelley Huxtable
DMVR
"PLAY SAFE"

[JeffYoung]

Kelley, thanks for the post and perspective. It is appreciated.

[Bill Miller]

because i'm not so arrogant to think that the same thing that has happened to other classes can't happen to IT.

you guys just like to think that you're efforts are so awesome that you can't possibly do any more than you are already, and going national will have no affect on you whatsoever.

But you are arrogant enough to only care about what happens to you. To me, the ONLY reason to not have IT go National, is that Kirk's fear may come to pass, and that is that the rules for IT will get really dorked up. But there's nothing to say that that won't happen anyway. Sure, I think the current group of folks that are on the ITAC will work very hard to prevent that, but Kirk's already hinted around at something that may be coming down from above.

If you're a guy that likes to run at the front, I would think that you would welcome more competition. But maybe you're just one of those guys that likes to be the big fish in the little pond. Nobody makes you spend money except yourself.


During 2008, a committee appointed by the board of directors examined the concept of removing the designations between "regional" and "national".

Interesting. No wonder people keep referring to the SCCA as the Secret Car Club of America. I don't recall seeing anything in Fastrack about that.

[tnord]

But you are arrogant enough to only care about what happens to you. To me, the ONLY reason to not have IT go National, is that Kirk's fear may come to pass, and that is that the rules for IT will get really dorked up. But there's nothing to say that that won't happen anyway. Sure, I think the current group of folks that are on the ITAC will work very hard to prevent that, but Kirk's already hinted around at something that may be coming down from above.

If you're a guy that likes to run at the front, I would think that you would welcome more competition. But maybe you're just one of those guys that likes to be the big fish in the little pond. Nobody makes you spend money except yourself.


you haven't got a damn clue what you're talking about.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Travis, is it possible that there ARE Regional IT programs that are as serious as National programs? If you say yes, then I wonder why you are so persistant that some people may be arrogant? Why are you pressing so hard on something that you don't know about?

We don't have regional sterotypes. We know that a guy like Kip V. won't do ANYTHING different in his IT program if it went National. We also know that if it went National, and it raised the level of the cars in a region, it will have a significant affect.

The issue is prediciting the result of those outcomes at the National and Regional levels. I am confident that boths sides would be 'right' in various parts of the country. What the best thing for IT is - we won't know until it is tested.

[tnord]

many people have been through this many times with you guys. you don't want to believe it, that's fine.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Quote me some posts Travis. You are saying that there are effectively no IT programs that are at National level right now. I submit you are wrong. Nobody has written anything to prove otherwise that I can recall but I look forward to your quotes.

Here is what *I* think a National level program looks like:

- 10/10ths motor program. Thousands in dyno time developing intakes and exhausts. Every legal allowance exploited. Probably have 2 of them
- Optimization of the reduction of rolling resistance
- Extra attention to the rediction of unsprung weight
- Thousands spent on test days gathering data, testing different spring rates, shock settings, bar setting and sizes, develping track specific alignment settings and the never ending quest for the next tenth
- A rediculously expensive tire program. Usually 6 heat cycles or less on a set of DOT R-Comps
- A religeous and PROACTIVE maintence program. Replacing items like hubs, pads, rotors, clutches, plugs, wires, coil packs before they fail. A 'nut and bolt' and a alignment check before every race
- Spares. You can't eliminate every issue. Full spares on suspension, diff, tranny, wheels, tires, you name it - you gotta be ready to replace it at the track

What am I missing?

(Edit - understand that I am being very general in some ares because the application of them is very tedious yet complex)

[tnord]

this has been beaten to death for YEARS, nothing i say now will be any diffferent than what i or anyone else has said before.

i just don't care enough to go through this again.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't think you have gone through it once. All we are saying is that SOME regional programs won't change. Not sure why you continue to dispute that.

[Bill Miller]

That's a pretty weak cop-out Travis. Sounds like you're the one that doesn't have a clue. But once again, please do us all a favor and care even less.

[shwah]

Interesting. No wonder people keep referring to the SCCA as the Secret Car Club of America. I don't recall seeing anything in Fastrack about that.

Bill - we had a brazzilion page thread here about that topic when a BoD member asked some IT driver's what they thought about going National. I think this was part of the same 'project'. No notes in Fasttrack were more specific than noting that input on ways to improve club racing was received from a comitee.

[Bill Miller]

Thanks Chris, I must have missed it when I was on hiatus.


Bill - we had a brazzilion page thread here about that topic when a BoD member asked some IT driver's what they thought about going National. I think this was part of the same 'project'. No notes in Fasttrack were more specific than noting that input on ways to improve club racing was received from a comitee.

[IPRESS]

You guys are afraid of missing washer bottles, but embrace changing one of the foundations (shall be a Regional Only Class) of IT.
Yes there are ultimate IT programs already, but even those will find more ways to spend when RO trophy hunters invade a national IT class.

Somewhere in this long thread or the poll thread a person was directed to run a different class from IT if they didn't like the existing prep rules.....oooookaaaaay, that fits here too......pick one of the 24, then refer to Bowie's suggestion.
Justification for not cleaning up a rinky dink rule because of the "Where does the creep end?" thinking and yet beating a drum for total change of a class principle, wOW that baffles me.

But I digress...please continue the Tnord vs MillerMan bout!:bash_1_:

[Knestis]

From an entirely academic point of view, rules and costs are only weakly linked.

The ONLY thing that really controls what racing costs is what the most enthuiastic entrant is willing to spend. THAT is influenced by a lot of factors but most of them sort of fall under the heading of "competetive pressure."

A racer will spend what he/she wants to in order to achieve personal competitive goals, considering budget (liquid assets and credit) and other lesser factors like ego. (For example, I refuse to drive or rent out a car that looks like crap so I spend money on real bodywork and paint.) More restrictive - or more open - rules won't change what I want to accomplish, UNLESS it changes my competitive interests or those of the racers around me. Otherwise costs won't change

Similarly, it stands on wobbly logical legs to suggest that "National status" will automagically make it more expensive for any given driver (including one's self), without qualifying the assertion with context about competitiveness.

We have got to set free the idea that we can legislate costs or that spending is DIRECTLY linked to policy decisions. Or at least qualify each of our positions to be clear what it is we think is going to happen.

K

[tnord]

If A then B.
If B then C.

what causes C? B, or A?

[shwah]

Actually I am advocating a total change of the CLUB RACING STRUCTURE, not IT, or IT going national. Yes I would like that. No I don't need it. If I really need to chase that windmill, I have no problem with the fact that it would likely be in a Prod car.

[JoshS]

If A then B.
If B then C.

what causes C? B, or A?

B. And possibly D (some other factor you aren't yet considering.)

[lateapex911]

I would guess (!) that IF IT were to be a Runoffs elible category that the landscape would certainly change. Some for the better, some for the worse.

It would depend heavily on the racing structure (Regional/National) that exists. IF it remains as is, then I'd bet that we'd see more IT entrants overall. We'd get some from outside the club, and we'd get some from other categories. I bet SM, Prod SS and Touring would be the major donor categories. I think that there are drivers in those categories who are there because they want "National" status (for whatever reason, ego, Ruboffs, whatever) who aren't thriled with the ruleset they live in and would want to try the IT ruleset.

Some of them would think that IT would present an easy and cheap route to the Ruboffs. ("Hey, IT's pretty open...easy pickings, we should be able to win it first year out, those guys don't know what it takes").

The current "top programs" will migrate to National races, and their finite budgets will allow only limited Regional dipping. (All things are finite, to some degree). This means that the lesser desirable Regional events will be less 'competitive', which would encourage mid packers and newbies.

So, for the first few years at least, IT would see bigger numbers, albeit at the expense of other categories. That's fine with me....natural selection. Lets adapt and move on.

That's the upside. The downside is that, the 'top prep' teams will head to Nationals, where they will experience new competitive pressures. Guys like Andy, who is part of a great prep shop, and spends his finite budget successfully might find pressure to spend more. Some of that will be forced travel to the arcane race all over the world rules of Ruboffs qualification, and some will come from increased counts of big spenders. Maybe he can buy more tires to maintain record setting performance at each race, maybe not. But, yea, spending sure won't reduce. More popularity of the program WILL drive up costs for those who wish to remain in the same competitive position as they are now, (that means those who are typically fourth on the grid will go National and try to stay fourth, those in the vast middle will stay regional, and they might see stable costs)

Another downside is the splitting of the brethren. Your pals have gone elsewhere, which sucks. new one fill in though...change is inevitable.

So, sure, some good, some bad. As always.

I'd hesitate though, to change IT's status without seeing a much larger strategic vision, and understanding it.

[JeffYoung]

On a more pleasant note, awesome runs this weekend Mr. Gulick! I heard a track record fell.......

[KelleyHux]

I said: "During 2008, a committee appointed by the board of directors examined the concept of removing the designations between "regional" and "national". <and more...>"

Interesting. No wonder people keep referring to the SCCA as the Secret Car Club of America. I don't recall seeing anything in Fastrack about that.

Bill (and others)
Check the March 2008 FasTrack, page 5:
MOTION:
1. To form a task force composed of two members of the CRB, two members of the Staff, and three Board members, to gather information meet and develop a plan for national racing and its championship. The task force shall submit its results by March 31.
2. At its May meeting, or earlier, the Board of Directors will select one plan, to be implemented effective with the next Fastrack publication.
a. Selection of any plan will require at least nine affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.
b. The Board of Directors will publish the plan, with a full explanation of the goals and reasons, and will commit to the essence of the program for three years.
(Jones/Christian) PASSED Unanimous

And, the June 2008 FasTrack, page 5:
(Note - Members are also encouraged to read the Club Racing Task Force Summary in the June Fastrack following the Board Minutes on page 6.)

June 2008 FasTrack, page 6:
The Board discussed whether or not to retain the current Club Racing program which provides for the Regional and National racing structure as compared to a program that would involve "just races." The latter would involve all races being equal but having Divisional Championships, a national points system or a combination thereof to select Runoffs entrants. While a change to the traditional Regional/National race concept had some support, the Board voted it would be best for the program to retain the current system.

(both FasTracks are available in full text by going to www.scca.com (http://www.scca.com), selecting "Club Racing" at the top, then choosing "FasTrack News" on the left hand side)

Kelley Huxtable
DMVR
"PLAY SAFE"

[Bill Miller]

Thanks Kelly.

[Knestis]

If A then B.
If B then C.

what causes C? B, or A?

A = [Whatever change in IT]
B = Increased competitiveness
C = Increased costs to run up front

You are clearly of the opinion that C is bad but you predicate the cause-effect action that gets us there on the awful mediating outcome of greater competitiveness. IT'S RACING for Pete's sake! It's SUPPOSED to be competitive. Shouldn't the Club be trying to improve the competitiveness of its racing categories...??

SO, Spec Miata got expensive to run up front because it was SUCCESSFUL.

You want to argue the logic of the deal, argue the WHOLE logic. Don't jump to the awful conclusion with scare tactics about ruining the category. It's intellectually dishonest and you're smarter than that, Travis.

I wish that this thinking were actually rare but evidence suggests that there are a lot of others out there who are more concerned about their individual competitive positions than the health and viability of the category. I've understood that for ages but being reminded of it so vividly in the middle of all of the other silliness is just one more reason to say WTF.

K

[Bill Miller]

Careful Kirk, or Travis will tell you that you don't have a damned clue what you're talking about.

[tnord]

A = [Whatever change in IT]
B = Increased competitiveness
C = Increased costs to run up front

You are clearly of the opinion that C is bad but you predicate the cause-effect action that gets us there on the awful mediating outcome of greater competitiveness. IT'S RACING for Pete's sake! It's SUPPOSED to be competitive. Shouldn't the Club be trying to improve the competitiveness of its racing categories...??


1) for 90%+ of us, this is a HOBBY. not a job. there's only so much money and time people are willing to throw at a hobby to remain competitive.
2) i never said competition is bad. refer back to my previous comments re regional "racing" with fewer than 3 cars per class being a joke.



SO, Spec Miata got expensive to run up front because it was SUCCESSFUL.


spec miata was hugely successful BEFORE it went national, yet it was still very competitive (kinda like current IT, no?). now it's national, and with decreasing levels of competiton compared to a 2006 baseline. is it any coincidence that attendence at the REGIONAL ONLY SM derivative classes has surpassed SM?



I wish that this thinking were actually rare but evidence suggests that there are a lot of others out there who are more concerned about their individual competitive positions than the health and viability of the category. I've understood that for ages but being reminded of it so vividly in the middle of all of the other silliness is just one more reason to say WTF.

K

i'm so fucking sick of this of this argument. why is it that anyone who is against increasing costs to maintain the same finishing position as a result of going national is being "me centric?" did i miss something? is spending more money good for racing at any level? fuck, even just about everyone involved with F1 recognizes that costs to compete are way out of control. look at the natural life cycle of ANY of the major pro series over the years......someone creates a class....some grassroots people think it's a good idea....lots of racers join the fun....it attracts some media attention.....mfgs and suppliers get involved and bring a whole nother level of prep and expense.....the grassroots guys are driven out.....class dies. IE....World Challenge, Trans Am, IMSA Group C, etc.....

Travis
-who is headed back to the golf store to get fitted for his new set of Pings on Thursday.

[Knestis]

>> ...someone creates a class....some grassroots people think it's a good idea....lots of racers join the fun....it attracts some media attention.....mfgs and suppliers get involved and bring a whole nother level of prep and expense.....the grassroots guys are driven out.....class dies. IE....World Challenge, Trans Am, IMSA Group C, etc.....

I am 100% with you there, Travis. The problem for those grassroots guys/gals however, is that they wanted to be more competitive - and could be until their series of choice got healthy - than they could afford. I heard some REALLY good advice a long time ago: "Pick the type of racing that you can afford to do as well as the best effort likely to show up." That might mean slot car drag racing rather than RC cars, rather than an IT car, but we pretty much always go the opposite route, reaching up a level rather than down - an "eyes are bigger than our stomach" kind of dynamic.

...so the solution - for anyone who keeps doing this - is to decide "I want to be as competitive and have as much fun racing as I can for [$whatever]" rather than "I'm willing to spend whatever it takes to be at the front." For the first guy, NOTHING changes. Every class will eventually attract a few of the latter but most of them will go somewhere else in short order. In the meantime though, we can't eliminate them (except possibly with a claim $$ rule) and we can't make policies to prevent their influence.

K

[Bill Miller]

i'm so fucking sick of this of this argument. why is it that anyone who is against increasing costs to maintain the same finishing position as a result of going national is being "me centric?" did i miss something? is spending more money good for racing at any level? fuck, even just about everyone involved with F1 recognizes that costs to compete are way out of control. look at the natural life cycle of ANY of the major pro series over the years......someone creates a class....some grassroots people think it's a good idea....lots of racers join the fun....it attracts some media attention.....mfgs and suppliers get involved and bring a whole nother level of prep and expense.....the grassroots guys are driven out.....class dies. IE....World Challenge, Trans Am, IMSA Group C, etc.....

Travis,

I think you need to relax man. You're comparing IT w/ F1 and other pro classes? WTF dude? And I imagine even the top IT efforts wouldn't get more than 2-3 weekends in WC or GAC with their entire yearly IT budget. Talk about comparing apples to bowling balls.

And even if IT doesn't go National. What happens when a top-tier effort shows up in your area? You want to stay where you are on the grid, either pony up some more money, or figure out how to improve the nut behind the wheel. So, one more time (try and keep up), if you're against change because of the impact it may have on you, you're me-centric. You either don't see, don't want to see, or don't give a damned about the big picture. The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced that I hit the nail on the head when I said you like to be the big fish in the little pond.

Now go get those new clubs!

/edit

Kirk and I were typing at the same time. One thing I'll add to Kirk's comment. Sometimes it's that the series becomes so successful, that guys (and gals) that got in early, can no longer afford it. And sometimes it's that the series becomes so successful, that it attracts folks that are just better racers.

The SM folks got sold a bill of goods. It was going to be a spec series, and it was going to let it come down to driver ability, rather than who had the bigger check book. What's one thing that you see in all the other spec series in SCCA Club Racing? Sealed motors. They should have gone that route from the start. $1500 - $2000 crate motors from Mazda rather than $6000 - $8000 'pro' motors from (fill in your favorite engine shop).

You say you're already spending a bunch of money, and you're one of the guys at the front, in your area. If you're doing that w/o a top-tier effort, you're skating by. You say you don't want to spend more money to maintain your current position, but you say you already are spending lots of money. What I'm reading between the lines here, is that you don't want IT to become more popular, and attract better drivers to your area. We've all seen guys that throw tons of money at a car, and still end up in the middle of the pack. By the same token, you see folks that can just drive the wheels off of what they have. Where it gets dicey, is when you've got someone that can drive the wheels off the car and has a bigger budget than you do.