IT National Racing [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

fivedimeracer

07-18-2011, 09:43 PM

Since I first began racing an ITC Ford Fiesta back in 1996, I was of the opinion that IT should be national or rather there should be no differentiation between National and Regional races in SCCA. My desire to qualify and race at the Valvoline Runoffs lead us to converting what was one of the fastest ITC cars in the NE into a backmarker and one of the first tin tops in FP in 1998.
At the time National meant big money to be competitive (still does and even on the regional level to be up front is not cheap) and many regional racers warned me that the National guys weren't nice and wouldn't talk to me. Truth be told, they were nice and I met some of my best friends to this day, however, what was different was that my car had been so modified it had now become unpredictable, unreliable and un-winning...if there was a way to have run on a "National" level with my little Fiesta without spending boatloads....

I'm sure it has been discussed here before at length well prior to my return now to IT, but I'm no longer 22 and looking at running the Runoffs or bust, but rather looking at SCAA holistically and what would be the best model to move both the club and grassroots roadracing forward?

I feel IT racing is the single best way to promote Grassroots RoadRacing and it does not need to be the "steppingstone" that in my opinion it is often thought of. I raced in fields of 17 ITC cars at Lime Rock and The Glen in the 90's that frankly made me think harder and drive better than I ever did at the 5 Runoffs I ran. The driving at the regional level is on par with national, the car counts at NE regionals are on par or better than many NE nationals(except maybe the Glen National). Some areas of the country are already running combined events due to lower overall numbers which I sure is also a cost effective measure.

IT at Runoffs would increase car counts not only at the Runoffs, but on the divisional level as well. However, the key would be not just making IT national, thereby, making those interested in the Runoffs to just run the 7-8 Nationals...but rather making all races SCCA National Races that qualify towards Runoffs..

Thoughts ?

Thanks
Joe Z

lateapex911

07-18-2011, 10:19 PM

In short, you're preaching to the choir....at least in my opinion. The NAtional/Regional debate has raged on here several times. It used to be that a majority of IT guys were against it, but thats waned.

In general, I think the National/Regional distinction has run it's course and was suited for a different time. now, I think we just need races.

But, to do so requires dropping certain requirements of race length etc. Can you imagine a National at Lime Rock for ALL the myriad of classes?

(yes, we have TOO mANY classes, but thats another, though integral discussion)

It would be difficult to fit all the classes with the required race length at a short track like LRP with it's short days.

And National guys, in general, would be opposed, as they will lose track time, and various other intrinsic aspects.

The CRb has opposed the IT going national idea (Some have supported it) due to numerous reasons, but a main one mentioned has been the difficulty in teching the 300 plus cars in the ITCS at a Runoffs.

Some say the whole Super Touring concept was an outgrowth of the frustration in certain parts of the club for not taking IT national.

you'll get lots of opinions on this, but at this point, my gut tells me IT won't go National unless "National" racing as we know it evaporates...

Knestis

07-18-2011, 10:39 PM

Shorter version: The people who most influence decisions bearing on the issue have the most to lose - personally - from IT going National. It won't ever happen.

K

fivedimeracer

07-18-2011, 10:59 PM

Jake,
Thanks for your reply..I really appreciate it, and I realize that you are playing devils advocate as you said you are somewhat in agreement. The points are the same ones that I remember discussing in 2003 at the RUnoffs when the combination of GT4 and 5 was "suggested" to us as we felt we had no choice...this was the advent of the "SIR". At the time it was all about how much track time SRF could get and FV at the RUnoffs and they needed there own class, and there was this new SCCA Formula car that needed time...oh and dont forget this new "Miata" class that regional guys were running and wanted to be a part of Nationals...etc. etc. This to a certain extent caused a fear mentality and people ran races just to play the game and the systematic "numbers" so their class could maintain its national status. This caused great classes like GP (which was annually one of the best Runoffs races)...to be lost, even though it only had 1 bad year compared to some classses that always did.

Here's the thing...I went to the Glen last week and was a quite surprised...barely any AS, half the SRF from back in the day, waaaay fewer Showroom Stock cars, less FV, barely any Atlantics or Continentals(there used to be 20 FC 's !!) E Prod was a booming class from 2000-2006, and one of my favorite classes even though I wasn't in it. However, at this 2011 Glen National there were not even a quarter as many. National numbers and specifically the Runoffs are bolstered by Spec Miatas, however, it may be a case of subtraction by addition ? Possibly, when folks realized that good competitive racing could be had on a somewhat cost effective budget, folks turned to SM...rather than the other classes, and when new folks came they entered there or the traditional entry classes like IT.

Many of the track time questions folks have/are raising..will be answered when the 2.5 rule eliminates these classes, as there are currently quite a few classes under the limit. Clinging to .."I want my own race"..just isn't reality...as there won't be races... Just look at the event results..regional and national in Sportscar...1-3 cars/no entrants in many cases.

Most of these questions/concerns that are raised are no longer the concerns they were when times were great and SCCA could decide what classes got to be on TV(there was a time when all weren't on), and the tv coverage was a reason given for certain decisions around the Runoffs.

Thanks,
JZ

fivedimeracer

07-18-2011, 11:19 PM

K,
Understood, and I appreciate your honesty. I have felt this way too, when my GTL was going to get the axe and my huge investment was going to be lost...even though other classes may have not been meeting minimum reqs. , but was given National status based on a "probationary" period..... I feel that if the IT community comes together and the vast majority states that they feel that IT should be national it can be....just like SM.

Many National competitors did not want SM to be national, even though it had earned the right as it proved the numbers it could produce at the regional level.(numbers which IT had always produced, but philosophy prohibited National status ) However, because it was seen that SM was a savior, from a Runoffs car count perspective, folks accepted it...

We are always looking for a "new" class, or tweaking an existing car by putting a different motorcycle engine in it, but all this does is further splinter the classes and separate those in a given class who have invested and often these classes require new unrealistic cars that range from 20-65k...As a club we often focus being "catch all" and what's "hot"..remember when we got into promoting drifting..., when we should be focusing on what we are good at, we have fantastic workers and great grassroots roadracing. Lets have Races....the rest will take care of itself.

The "new" class...is a very old one, and it has been sitting there all along.

JZ

lateapex911

07-19-2011, 12:19 AM

K,
Understood, and I appreciate your honesty.
yea, Kirks right, LOL. I was trying....for once in my life....to be a 'responsible poster", LOL. And not comment on things that are conclusions based on soft issues that are obvious to some. But yea, turf protectionism is very very prevalent. We have a great BoD guy here in the NE, Dick Patullo, and I'll be interested to hear his take, should he be able to post.

Many National competitors did not want SM to be national, even though it had earned the right as it proved the numbers it could produce at the regional level.(numbers which IT had always produced, but philosophy prohibited National status ) However, because it was seen that SM was a savior, from a Runoffs car count perspective, folks accepted it...

Yup, but also remember that SM is ONE class, whereas IT is a category of FIVE classes.
Further, just a year or two ago, this came up and the PTB, IIRC, have shut the door on changing the philosophy to allow IT to qualify for National inclusion.

I think you'll continue to see a decline in classes that require guys to fab and tinker and build. Sure, there are guys who love to do that, but, I think social norms (Dad MUST be at every soccer game) have changed significantly and classes like SM are the best option for many. Look around the paddock. 20 years ago, you'd see open trailers and some top dog rigs...duallys with enclosed trailers. Now, Toter rigs and Diesel pusher motorhomes towing 35 foot enclosed trailers are commonplace. Motorhomes that cost more than many houses. People want to crash in the AC motorhome, with the pop out section and the leather couch watching satellite programming on the 50" flatscreen between races, NOT tinker with the Stromberg carbs and get all stinky with gas on their hands.

Arrive and drives are much more popular, again because Dad can't just ignore the fatherhood responsibilities anymore. So you'll see more and more consolidation of classes that are easy to care for and reasonable to race, and more money spent on comfort.

That means more erodinging of many of the old school classes, and more consolidation into SM, SSM, etc. OR Boxster Cup. OR BMW E30 Cup (or whatever it is.) Or Ferrari Cup. Or the latest cool thing NASA has going for a 'Cup"...
SCCA once was the center of the universe, but the universe is shifting.

I told the CRB, when I was on the ITAC, and the whole question was being discussed, that I thought they should use IT to make a better Runoffs, and better National program, if they insisted on keeping the National/Regional distinction. Some feel it would destroy IT, but I think it would help the club, in the big picture.

fivedimeracer

07-19-2011, 11:16 AM

Jake,
I too have tried to explain this to folks for quite some time. The majority of guys would rather hit the easy button(that is not a slight) than work on a car every night..its just reality. I did it..but when my son began playing soccer 4 days a week and I was coaching.......??
In previous discussions many would state that my priorities shouldn't change others classes, but as proven by SM....Im not alone.
IT provides a fair amount of prep and fab that those without engineering degrees can do quite well.
My father ran the IMSA bfg radial challenge in a pinto in the 70's and when we look back...it was an IT car! ...and was a pro series...with 50 car fields.

jake,so funny and true, that you brought up the open trailers...2006 Speed Runoffs GTL coverage.

Matt93SE

07-19-2011, 11:29 AM

IT isn't as popular here as it is up north, but the only difference in run groups between our National and Regional races is the absense of IT incorporated into the Prod/ST/GT/T classes. ITR, ITE, ITS all run with GT, STO, and T; while ITA/B/C run with Prod, GTL, and STU.
I'd say we might have a max of 10 IT entries at an event though so it's not much different for car counts.
Plus I'm friends with most of the IT guys and like racing with them so I'm all for IT going national.
Hell the ones in the area that want to drive Nats just enter in STU and come out anyway. it's the same guys on track with different letters on the side.

benspeed

07-19-2011, 11:43 AM

+1 ^ - I totally agree Jake.

fivedimeracer

07-19-2011, 11:47 AM

Thanks, good points. there are plenty of folks that run HP with IT spec vw's and Hondas. Let's not just say well if you want to run nats you can buddy..just in another class where you'll be in the back....
Again, if IT was national and was promoted by the club as such...it would be even more popular..even in areas where they may not have huge fields.

JeffYoung

07-19-2011, 12:32 PM

For years I was opposed to my "outlaw regional class" going national. I've changed my mind. The regional/national distinction is meaning less and should be eliminated in my view. But like Kirk said it is probably too late.

fivedimeracer

07-19-2011, 12:57 PM

I think Jeff's opinion was a popular one on both sides of the aisle a few years back. However, as I've said..its not about IT going national, but rather regionals going national. Gcr states ""IT is a regional only class"...agreed...no verbiage change needed..as they'll all be races..
I know there are national guys who wouldn't push back as they had in the past.

Would it hurt to try?

Ron Earp

07-19-2011, 01:03 PM

It has already been said here by others, but I too agree that the national/regional distinction needs to be eliminated by the SCCA. NASA doesn't suffer from not having a national/regional distinction. In fact I think they benefit greatly from having a simplified organization that is far easier to approach and understand.

Renewing my NASA license for the upcoming UTCC took all over three minutes. I dread renewing my SCCA license each year.

gpeluso

07-19-2011, 02:04 PM

I run both NASA and SCCA..... each have there good and bad points. I just feel that there should be no distinction from national and regional classes. I know the argument is look at SM. I just do not believe that National class drivers are BETTER than Regioanl drivers. If I am not mistaken I have seen many Grand Am drivers driving IT cars recently. We already have guys spending $50k on IT cars. I just came back from a NASA race at midohio and I can not believe the amount of $$ that these club racers have...... get mad at me but a regional SCCA cars look more like crap can race cars..... It is sad to me and I support both clubs. I just want to race and have fun.

Greg

TStiles

07-19-2011, 10:10 PM

Another voice for the elimination of Regional / National distinctions. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

If I were the SCCA czar , the 1st orders of business would be to transition from the current structure ( regionals & nationals ) to club races and to grow competitor participation.

As part of that you figure out the runoffs invitation process for the highest participation classes ... All the other classes get invitations to an ARRC type event ... You end up with 2 premier events.

Runoffs could be for xx number classes needed to put on a GREAT show that takes much less time for the competitors.

Those are big and bold brush strokes , but it solves the number of classes question , it works for the runoffs and ARRC , and the IT question.

In another thread ( or venue ) the club needs to figure out how to remove barriers to entry so that we can grow overall participation.

lateapex911

07-19-2011, 10:49 PM

Yup, good plan. HUGE resistance would be encountered though, LOL.

That's SCCAs greatest strength...and weakness. Lots of experience in how to run races and a racing program, but lots of resistance to change....especially if the change affects something you like.

Clearly the 'club racing' pie has grown and morphed over the years. Track days/HPDEs used to be rare. They were called "Time trials" in the 80s. Now they are commonplace. For many they are enough...removing some potential racers from the ranks. On the flipside, they often inspire people to take the next step into racing. SCCA is poorly positioned to benefit from the "step ups", as the SCCA HPDE program is just getting off the ground, and is hindered by a racing program that often has underutilized track time. Other clubs have a head start here.

Marque racing used to be solely a one event per year deal with PCA or BMWCCA. Now there are dozens or marque clubs and hundreds of events, from novice education to full up racing.
The participants were once club racing candidates as well, but now many filter into their favorite marque specific activity, including racing and stay there, having made friends and becoming comfortable with the program. I'd say SCCA loses on this one, except for the rare guy who decides that the marque club pond is too small for him.

Bottom line is that there is a bigger pie of customers ...BUT, the pie is much more splintered. SCCA needs to streamline and ensure that it attracts as many of those potential customers as it can. It's impossible to be everything to everybody, but, the club needs to ensure that it has a logical and easy to follow path that eases members into whatever activity they desire. And it needs to cut down on things that are inefficient.

In the end, a plan such as the one above will do it, as it naturally eliminates the weak while the strong remain, freeing up resources for better ease of entry.

Flyinglizard

07-19-2011, 11:16 PM

The real answer is to not have any Nationals or Regionals. Races are races. Top 10 east, top 10 west, all go to the Nats.
True, the Crap Can Racers, often are ex IT cars.
The biggest problem that I see with SCCA is the business model. SCCA has many volunteers that make it all work(MOL). Many of these people just left work fri, show up at SCCA to work and have a nasty attitude towards the people that pay SCCA. The issue is that it is not the workers money.. The customers are treated less than perfect..
Most of the crap can racers are ex SCCA, ImSA/ Pro, drivers that have had enough. NASA, Chumpcar, PCA, SVRA, all treat the racers like they want them back. The pie slices are small, as stated. SCCA needs to figure what SCCA does well, and do it better.
Making the drivers jump through hoops to get a Nat license is just nuts. My son had about 8 races last year, and is a good instructor. Can he get a NAT ticket to go race a couple of HP NAT races?? " No, he needs another reg race. " He has more laps than most track sweepers. Will he go out of his way to run SCCA?, No way. NASA does it much better. Chumpcar also does it well. It is a business, treat customers like you want them back.
I ran a PDX last week @ Sebring. I had to get a TT novice permit. The instructor asked my what my experience was. ( I have about 8-10k miles @ Sebring.) The PDX instructors dont get any track time!! How can SCCA compete with all of the schools that pay with track time.
When I start racing a new venue, I copy the known good value. SCCA needs to do the same . Copy success.
IMHO, MM

JeffYoung

07-19-2011, 11:42 PM

Somebody said it better than me, but SCCA is a club and acts like it and NASA is a business and acts like that.

This may ultimately be our (I'm an SCCA guy through and through) undoing.

I just signed up to renew my NASA comp license so I can do the UTCC. Took 3 minutes. SCCA is a few hours at least tracking down sanction numbers and other stuff.

What SCCA does best is (a) rule and class stability (I know, I know, but still better than NASA) and (b) competition. With (b) being the key.

Z3_GoCar

07-20-2011, 01:28 AM

with one exception IT is pretty much dead in So-Pac. Last season for one race there were three of us in ITR, now there's none. ITS has one regular, used to be a couple of others, but they ran out of money a couple of years ago. ITA has about 3-8 real ITA cars with about that many more double dipping SM's. ITB has maybe 2-4 racers who come out as they can afford to.

I left ITR for STU for several reasons, it best addresses the issues my car has. STU allows me to swap motors for one that will make power instead of futilly trying to prove it can't. I can replace my soft motor mounts for something that'll last longer than 4 races. I can replace the heavy and soft dual mass flywheel which is more expensive with a light weight aluminum one. Finally, I can really solve the aero issues of driving a car that looks like a backwards wing by adding a wing on the back that balances the car better than just a front air dam/splitter.

Andy Bettencourt

07-20-2011, 08:53 AM

For those with large car counts and small tracks (NHMS, LRP, anything under 2 miles) it would be dang near impossible to run a 'race' under the current minimum track time rules. ESPECIALLY if you cut down the number of races (because you can't expect to crown a real champion if you have 20 races to choose from).

For many places, the logistics are NOT simple.

Ron Earp

07-20-2011, 09:50 AM

What SCCA does best is (a) rule and class stability (I know, I know, but still better than NASA) and (b) competition. With (b) being the key.

In some classes SCCA seems to have an edge with competition - SM, IT (depends on which IT class and location), SRF. But others are woefully under-subscribed and down right pitiful.

However, NASA does well with car counts in some classes and I think it'd be unfair to say the competition is poor unless you've driven in the class. Their CMC class gets large fields at some races. Some NASA regions have a large SU contingent. I can't imagine that all the NASA racers that enjoy those races classes are participating in classes with sub-par competition but I honestly don't know as have no means to race with them. I know you've tried the "IT-like" class and said it wasn't very good, but that was a pretty long time ago and maybe that class isn't NASA's strength.

I sure like the SCCA but I get downright frustrated with the stodginess of the organization. Part of me wants to volunteer in my local region and try and make things better for racers. But then I hear stories of those that have tried to no avail and the motivation is gone. Even if you made regional changes you'd still be saddled with an organizational structure and rules set from 30 years ago - "we must transcribe all race communications" and "we must run T&S by hand in case the transponders should fail", and so on.

JeffYoung

07-20-2011, 09:56 AM

The two non-UTCC races I've run with NASA seemed to be more like SCCA than you'd first think.

Spec E30, Spec944 and SM had a lot of entries. The rest were either very small fields, or larger fields with a number of different classes or huge speed differential between cars in class.

NASA is very regional as well. Mid Atlantic and Southeast seem to do really well. Others, not so much, like SCCA.

I still think it very fair to say that competition levels in SCCA are generally higher. SCCA still serves, for example, as a feeder to World Challenge, Grand-Am, etc., while NASA not so much.

I'm not knocking NASA. It has its strengths, primarily in the concept of "run what you brung" and in creating V8 classes. But I do think overall competition levels in SCCA are higher.

In some classes SCCA seems to have an edge with competition - SM, IT (depends on which IT class and location), SRF. But others are woefully under-subscribed and down right pitiful.

However, NASA does well with car counts in some classes and I think it'd be unfair to say the competition is poor unless you've driven in the class. Their CMC class gets large fields at some races. Some NASA regions have a large SU contingent. I can't imagine that all the NASA racers that enjoy those races classes are participating in classes with sub-par competition but I honestly don't know as have no means to race with them. I know you've tried the "IT-like" class and said it wasn't very good, but that was a pretty long time ago and maybe that class isn't NASA's strength.

I sure like the SCCA but I get downright frustrated with the stodginess of the organization. Part of me wants to volunteer in my local region and try and make things better for racers. But then I hear stories of those that have tried to no avail and the motivation is gone. Even if you made regional changes you'd still be saddled with an organizational structure and rules set from 30 years ago - "we must transcribe all race communications" and "we must run T&S by hand in case the transponders should fail", and so on.

JIgou

07-20-2011, 10:00 AM

Those of you supporting the elimination of the regional-national distinction ARE writing letters to that effect, right? :D

Flyinglizard

07-20-2011, 10:12 AM

After taking 10yrs to do away with the VIn rule for IT, how long would this take??
I just joined again, after 10 yrs of not. I carry a lot of weight, I'm sure.
The whole SCCA system is set up to support both. A few guys would be out of work. ..
MM

JeffYoung

07-20-2011, 10:28 AM

Actually just went and looked at the NASA SEDiv site on AI, AIX and CMC. About 9-10 cars in each class scored points this year. Only 3-4 made most of the races. Field separation in AI at CMP in CMC was EIGHT seconds.

In contrast, there were over 70 individual entries in ITS in the SEDiv SCCA this year, with about 25 cars running at least 4 events. At CMP back in May, the top 7 qualifiers (Kent, Steve, Me, Steve P., Ron M., Mark Gray, Chuck Hines) were within 2 seconds of each other.

fivedimeracer

07-20-2011, 10:35 AM

Jarod, point well made. That is my intent. However, because this has all been hashed out numerous times....we take what we are given.....
The old track time argument is an old one...and certainly had its place, but as times change as Jake and I have both noted....so will the number of cars in certain classes. I already noted that there are no longer fields of 25 FC's and AS...classes by the way that I had loved, but I feel that the rapid paced, short attention span, working from a phone in the airport, telecommuting world, well....has changed things.

I didn't want to muddy the waters with NASA comparisons or really the class structure.

JZ

Butch Kummer

07-20-2011, 10:36 AM

One thing to remember when restructuring the SCCA view of Club Racing is we NEED to keep/maintain a distinction between events for "casual" vs. "serious" racers. Obviously there are exceptions (such as the ARRC by GRM and many of the bigger SARRC weekends), but historically that has been Regional vs. National.

i.e. - Do you/we really want guys with no prior racing experience coming out a double driver's school being turned loose with a bunch of Ayton Senna wannabe's at the June Sprints or a Road Atlanta Double National?

Any recommendation(s) to the BoD/CRB/XYZ needs to address this concern. It may not be an issue to the folks on this forum, but as a race organizer that's trying to grow his region's road racing program it's a very real concern to me.

JeffYoung

07-20-2011, 10:41 AM

Butch, I rarely disagree with you but I do here. I think it perpeuats the (to me) myth that the competition at the National level is better/higher than on the Regional level. I don't think that is the case. SM, SRF, ITS all hotly contested at the front this year (and in previous years).

Collapse the classes,a nd let the newbs run. They are in just as much danger at CMP when a four car lead chain in ITS or SM or SRF comes up on them in lap 6 as they are at a National event.

One thing to remember when restructuring the SCCA view of Club Racing is we NEED to keep/maintain a distinction between events for "casual" vs. "serious" racers. Obviously there are exceptions (such as the ARRC by GRM and many of the bigger SARRC weekends), but historically that has been Regional vs. National.

i.e. - Do you/we really want guys with no prior racing experience coming out a double driver's school being turned loose with a bunch of Ayton Senna wannabe's at the June Sprints or a Road Atlanta Double National?

Any recommendation(s) to the BoD/CRB/XYZ needs to address this concern. It may not be an issue to the folks on this forum, but as a race organizer that's trying to grow his region's road racing program it's a very real concern to me.

preparedcivic

07-20-2011, 10:55 AM

Butch, I rarely disagree with you but I do here. I think it perpeuats the (to me) myth that the competition at the National level is better/higher than on the Regional level. I don't think that is the case. SM, SRF, ITS all hotly contested at the front this year (and in previous years).

Collapse the classes,a nd let the newbs run. They are in just as much danger at CMP when a four car lead chain in ITS or SM or SRF comes up on them in lap 6 as they are at a National event.

All of what tJY says and then some.

Here in NEDIV, within the regular IT racer contingent are some pretty nifty car prep and driving campaigns in ITR and ITS. A noob coming out of Driver's School must do a fair bit of mirror driving if they do not want to get plain old run over, especially if in a slower B, C or S/SM. My first weekend this year getting my butt-rust off was at VIR for March Memories. It wasn't any different there in that part of SEDIV when I ventured out for the Carolina Cup practice/qualifying on Saturday morning. Not the recommended way to learn a new track in a slow car.......

Getitng back towards the topic, following through on the sunset rule for poorly subscribed classes along with a restructure of the National/Regional event distinction are the absolute biggest challenges the SCCA faces in the next 5 years.

Done right, it will absolutely put the club in a much better position with competing organizations.

fivedimeracer

07-20-2011, 10:59 AM

Rob,
See my post above...classes...I think Jeff, Butch and I posted at just about the same time, and I was editing mine.
JZ

Butch Kummer

07-20-2011, 11:35 AM

Obviously there are exceptions (such as the ARRC by GRM and many of the bigger SARRC weekends), but historically that has been Regional vs. National.

Maybe I should have said "typically" rather than "historically".

I fully realize there are parts of the country where regional races/classes are more hotly contested than many national classes. Of course there are also parts of the country where regional racing is dying.

All I'm saying is we need to have a place for the newbie driver to get her/his feet wet and gain experience without having to deal with a pack of "serious" drivers passing her/him on the inside at Turn One. I get calls after just about every event from drivers wanting me to move their class to a slower run group because they're driving in their mirrors all the time. Sometimes, however, it's because of people in their own class. Yes we can tell them to cinch down their belts and deal with it, but they can also tell us they'd rather spend their money elsewhere.

I'm not the only stodgie old has-been that is concerned about running off the less intense participant by throwing everyone out there together every weekend. As I said, any proposal asking for a change in the structure of Club Racing needs to provide an opportunity for the casual racer to have fun without fearing for their life. I agree the current regional/national distinction is not perfect, but it IS the best option we have going right now.

mossaidis

07-20-2011, 12:09 PM

Butch, I am sorry, but I honestly don't think true track rookies should be "racing". I stepped up the ladder over 5 years and I truely feel it benefited everyone. Solo -> HPDE/TT -> Club Racing. Doing so allowed me to build the car AND the driver, I finished 6th (with 2 year old Toyo's) at the DS regional in out of many top notch ITA drivers. So 5 years might be too long for many folks, for me it was fine since funds were limited. Even so, asking a true rookie to go solo'ing and then HPDE'ing over the course of one year before they attend a DS is NOT asking much and certainly makes it better for EVERYONE. So in the vein of the discussion, should SCCA be stricter about DS graduation? I think doing so might be essential for regional/national consolidation. Last, there are a few national and pro level drivers that are just not good drivers, but have money and a license.

Ron Earp

07-20-2011, 12:17 PM

All I'm saying is we need to have a place for the newbie driver to get her/his feet wet and gain experience without having to deal with a pack of "serious" drivers passing her/him on the inside at Turn One. I get calls after just about every event from drivers wanting me to move their class to a slower run group because they're driving in their mirrors all the time. .

But this problem you describe is going to happen in SCCA regional racing too. I have to dodge newbies when I'm driving my ITS jalopy around. Are a close pack of ITS racers who race nine times a year any less serious than three E Prod guys doing their fourth national race of the year so they can make the boreoffs in Topeka?

They can go to other organizations but I don't think their experience is going to be a whole lot different.

mossaidis

07-20-2011, 12:27 PM

^ thank you Ron, well said.

Butch Kummer

07-20-2011, 12:28 PM

I was SEDiv Solo I (now Track Trials) steward for five years back in the late 90's, and I encouraged everyone to do at least a year of Solo I before attending their first drivers school. I still do that today, but not everyone is patient enough to learn how to go fast before they try to race. And other parts of the country don't have a TT program as strong as the one here in SEDiv. I do know the idea of letting TT experience count toward earning a road racing license is gaining traction at a BoD level, but that has been a long time coming as well.

I CERTAINLY know there are exceptions, but all I'm saying (which no one seems to hear) is that throwing everyone out there together and letting the strong survive has consequences as well.

I'm done here now...

mossaidis

07-20-2011, 12:32 PM

^ I hear you. Your post is not in vein. Thanks Butch.

erlrich

07-20-2011, 01:02 PM

I agree with Butch in that we should keep the distinction between national and regional events. I'm now of the opinion that it won't make any difference if IT gains national status (my reasons for opposing this have proven to be unfounded). However, there will still be true regional-only classes (ITE, ITO, SPO, SSM...) that should not be included in national events IMO, and I do also believe there are drivers who just won't want to participate in national-level events for whatever reason (and not all of them are rookies). If you were to make all GCR-listed classes Runoffs eligible, then have certain events that are "national" points events, you would accomplish the original goal.

My $0.02

itracer

07-20-2011, 01:13 PM

Here is what I would like to see if we were to eliminate National vs. Regional race classes:

First of all: Maintain the Regional/National Licensing requirements we currently have.

Create two classes of races: One for local series points and another for races that earn points to go to the Runoffs :smilie_pokal:.

Anyone with a license could enter the local (Regional?) series races and race for region/area/series points.

Only National license holders could enter the National(?) races. These races would be run with the National Championship in mind and would only exclude regional classes that are not listed in the GCR. These could include any of what we consider to be our top races: ITfest; ARRC, NARRC, etc. You can even maintain the requirements to go out of division for points to the Runoffs. It really just adds IT to the class structure and maintains the integrity of the regional race program.

Chip42

07-20-2011, 01:25 PM

Andy Bettencourt

07-20-2011, 01:53 PM

Not what I would have said, but said better than I could have. and it accomplishes the same idea: "championship" races with restricted access and only GCR classes (replace national), divisional race weekends for everything (new regional).

+1.

fivedimeracer

07-20-2011, 02:06 PM

Yes, there are folks who think jeez...I don't want to race "National"...those drivers are soooo competitive and will protest you at the drop of a hat, and they are all direct descendents of Nouvolari, Moss, Fangio, Clark, Donahue, Gurney, Andretti, Stuck, ... sorry, just like anywhere in life there are nice guys and not, good and bad,...quick and...not so much.

Really ? ...I can only assume those folks have not driven Nationals. I am in full agreement with Jeff on this topic and maybe this is deeper engrained in folks than I had ever thought.

Which is harder on the newbie or "reluctant" first time "National"(even though there would't be this distinction) racer. A 16 car ITB field or a 3 car XX field...even mixed in with 4 other classes, just like they would be at a "Regional" ???? It is far harder in ITB and for the most part the drivers are not "Better", I just went to the Glen National and saw a former/still part time "REGIONAL" driver clean up in small bore......I have run plenty of both events and can say there are Regional drivers who are every bit as good as National...especially in the IT ranks. Furthermore, 3 of the drivers that I raced with in the NE in ITC in the late 90's are either now Pro Driving Instructors or ran Pro races, in my days of GT4 and GTL Nationally....none.

Also, If you are not quite up to speed or reluctant, there is nothing stopping you from giving up your qualifying position and starting at the back of the pack so that you can ease into things..when the pack comes, get off line and stay there...then resume your training.

Nationals..won't be...they will be "Club Races"...the "special" race event idea may be an option, and I believe it already is...."The BFG Super Tour ", but it still could seem like National vs. Regionals, and I wonder if "National" guys would still just run those events to qualify for RO's? Maybe ? However, I suppose if IT was a part of the program it may still work and help the club overall? I think maybe only 2 of these Marque events are needed per Div. so that they could be promoted as such.

JZ

Matt93SE

07-20-2011, 02:59 PM

Maybe I don't get the picture, but I don't see any difference between Regional and National races. The fast guys are still fast, and the slow guys are still slow.

At our last Rational race, the overall winner and fastest car in our run group was a Regional driver driving an EP Caterham with a 1:56 fast lap. The slowest was a regional SRX7, running a 2:44 fast lap. FORTY EIGHT seconds per lap slower!

But wait.. there's more!

Look at the STU National results. Fast lap was a 2:00 and the slowest guy ran a 2:28. And that's JUST the National drivers.

Combine the Regional and National cars and the top 15 of the 34 were within 10 sec. 8 out of 34 cars were more than 20 seconds off the pace. Four were 30 sec off the pace.

My point? Within our region, there's really no telltale difference between Reg and Nat drivers.

JeffYoung

07-20-2011, 03:12 PM

A trend I've noticed with IT guys is that the closer you get to the front, the more you want IT to "go National." Natural progression I guess, and some of it is driven by the belief that the guys that race up front with me in ITS in the SEDiv are some of the best there are (just like with IT in the NEDiv, or at Summit).

When I was a solid mid packer, I had less interest in it and was worried about how it might affect my class. Valid viewpoint at the time, but at least now I see some of the attractiveness of being a Runoffs class.

Always something more to achieve I guess.

erlrich

07-20-2011, 03:19 PM

To me it's not so much that there is a huge difference in competitiveness between regional-only v. national-only drivers; we've had (still have) some drivers racing in the MARRS (and SARRC, NARRC, etc.) series who are every bit as talented/fast as any driver to have been to the Runoffs. I think it's more about the atmosphere at a regional event v. a national; national events (at least the ones I've worked) just seem to be so much more...serious, for lack of a better word.

At the regional level you're racing with a lot of the same guys at almost every event, so there develops a sense of camaradarie that I don't believe you get at the national level. That carries onto the track too; I think most of us are more cordial(courteous?) to drivers we know personally than we are with total strangers, even if we don't realize it, or do it intentionally. And yeah, you are still going to have your share of dickheads at the regional level, but even then at least they're known, and people quickly learn who they are and how to deal with them.

I know for some guys that doesn't mean much, and I'm sure those are the ones who would be just fine with dropping the distinction between national and regional. But I think for a lot of guys a race weekend is as much a social event as a competition, and those are the ones who I think would just as soon let the "serious" racers have their own events.

lateapex911

07-20-2011, 03:32 PM

Well, Earl, that might be the way it is for you, but it's not like that for every Regional guy. I've raced with you, the guys in Ohio, Atlanta, Virginia, Upper New York, and of course, New England.
There wasn't a single race that I didn't know somebody, and have a good time socially as well as on the track.

fivedimeracer

07-20-2011, 03:47 PM

Sorry,
The perception that national guys aren't nice..is wrong and are not social...is wrong. The runoffs at mid Ohio were like the Woodstock of roadracing.

Actually, this brings forth an even more important reason to combine....to
end this class system.

Jz

TStiles

07-20-2011, 04:38 PM

I fully realize there are parts of the country where regional races/classes are more hotly contested than many national classes. Of course there are also parts of the country where regional racing is dying.

All I'm saying is we need to have a place for the newbie driver to get her/his feet wet and gain experience without having to deal with a pack of "serious" drivers passing her/him on the inside at Turn One. I get calls after just about every event from drivers wanting me to move their class to a slower run group because they're driving in their mirrors all the time. Sometimes, however, it's because of people in their own class. Yes we can tell them to cinch down their belts and deal with it, but they can also tell us they'd rather spend their money elsewhere.

I appreciate the point you're making in regard to the slower drivers and market choices ... Maybe the solution would be to bring back ( or enforce ) with no exceptions the 105% rule.

With the number of DE's out there , it should be EZ for a driver to get to within 105% ( or whatever ) of the class pole time before he/she goes racing. That way the beginning guys/gals know what they need to be able to run x time before they go racing . Maybe we should give the folks that don't meet the 105% time a credit for the next event ?????

In Texas ( granted , not the hotbed of regional racing ) we're running Rationals. I think I've run them all and from my perspective we've had few problems ... Not even close to as bad as " Wings & Things " national races in the mid 90's

I think all of us agree that it's a complex issue with few simple solutions.

Russ Myers

07-20-2011, 04:58 PM

Face it, it's about immortality. Win the Runoffs and your name in inscribed in a book somewhere that years from now, some people will ask, "Remember old so-and-so. Boy, could he drive." This community holds Paul Newman in much higher esteem for his national championships than his Oscars. For one, I'd love to be remembered as a National Champion.

Russ

TomL

07-20-2011, 05:32 PM

I see a lot of discussion of how there is little difference in talent between national and regional drivers and I agree. Talent is one thing, but dollars is another. The one thing I haven't seen in this discussion is that fact that the cost of being competitive in nearly all cases is substantially higher in National races. The differences between top level cars in regional vs. national races isn't the drivers, it's (primarily) the money spent on them.

I ran Nationals for a few years in a mid-level FP car. I got a few decent finishes, but I didn't have a prayer of winning a race (unless none of the fast guys showed up or they all broke). It was entertaining to do, but when the best I could hope for was a third or fourth, I decided to go back to IT. There, I can run and have a reasonable chance of winning, for less money than I was spending on a National program.

At this point, I'm sure some of you are going to say, "You just don't like the competition" or "That's just the cost of being competitive." Well, my view is, I don't care to spend $50,000 a year to go racing if that's what it takes to be competitive (and many people couldn't afford it even if they wanted to). Yes, I recognize that someone could decide they want to spend $50,000 on an IT7 program and I'd have a harder time. But the chances of that are pretty small. And since I'm in what is effectively a spec class, spending a lot of extra money isn't going to get nearly as much benefit as in most classes. But except for spec classes (SM, SRF and FE) or sort-of-spec classes like FV and FF (and IT7), spending lots more money generally equates to lots more speed. And I don't buy the contention that if IT went National, the price of being competitive wouldn't go up, at least for running in Nationals. Nor do I buy the idea that regional racers are just as fast as national racers. If you have a regional racer who is faster than your national racers, it almost certainly means that you have a 10/10ths regional car beating an 8/10ths national car in that class.

My point is, National races provide a playground for people who are willing to spend whatever it takes to be competitive, or are willing to run around at mid-pack or further back. Regional races provide a playground for serious racers who would like to be reasonably competitive, but can't, or don't want to, spend the money it takes to run a National level program. Eliminate the National/Regional split and you give most of those racers the choice of: a) spend more money (and possibly a bunch more money) to stay competitive, b) be satisfied with running midpack or c) leave. Racing competitively is already too expensive as it is, so I don't think that eliminating a lower cost venue is a good idea. Let the really serious racers who are willing to spend serious money run Nationals. Let the serious racers who don't, run Regionals. If someone is willing to spend a National budget to win regional races, you can't stop them, but I'll take that chance.

Let IT run Nationals? Sounds like a good idea to me. But eliminating Regionals, particularly on divisions where both Regional and National programs are reasonably healthy, no way. For the divisions who have problems filling fields for either or both, running Rationals may make sense. But forcing everyone to play in the National sandbox seems a bad idea to me.

mossaidis

07-20-2011, 05:36 PM

I'd love to be remembered as a National Champion "of what?" I guess is the question...

mossaidis

07-20-2011, 05:39 PM

Let IT run Nationals? Sounds like a good idea to me. +1

red986s

07-20-2011, 07:30 PM

Lots of great ideas here. My vote would be to keep it simple, treat IT like a "National" class. Don't eliminate National and Regional races. New drivers would have a safe place to learn at the regional level and those of us who want to move up would have the opportunity to compete at the National level. Done!:023:

Runoffs: National top 10% ITR, ITS, ITA, ITB, IT7, ITC. Group accordingly (2 Run groups?).

R2 Racing

07-21-2011, 02:01 PM

Here are my quick & random thoughts/experiences, as I'm now quite familiar with both.

- The talent of the absolute best drivers, out front and always winning, between regional and national racing is almost nothing.
- In national racing, a larger percentage of the field is made up of damn good drivers in damn good cars.
- The terrible-ness of the lappers, both in lap times and inability to get out of the damn way, is actually worse in national racing.
- The personality and attitude of national racers is the exact same thing as regional racers. We're all the same - just "racer guys" racing.
- In national racing, yes, there is more at stake. The unbelievably generous support I now get from Honda Performance Development, Hoosier, and others companies, I never would've received had I stayed in regional racing. And yes, when dealing with potential sponsors or opportunities, saying that you're a Runoffs Champion carries with it about 1000x more power than saying you're an ARRC Champion.
- If you're mind, nerves, and skills are "ARRC tough", they're already "Runoffs tough".
- Over the past three years that I've been national racing, on average national racers seem to do less complaining about their classes/rules/changes than regional racers do.

Russ Myers

07-21-2011, 02:37 PM

Andy Bettencourt

07-21-2011, 02:53 PM

What is wrong with this idea:

All GCR classes at 'Runoff Qualifier' races (formerly Nationals)
All GCR classes + Regional only classes at 'Regional' races

Top 20 CGR classes in average participation get their own run group at the Runoffs (calculated from RQR's) , bottom X get combined run groups with split starts proveided they meet the GCR mandated minumums.

It seems so simple to me but I must be missing something huge.

RedMisted

07-21-2011, 03:08 PM

lateapex911

07-21-2011, 03:31 PM

924Guy

07-21-2011, 03:42 PM

Weighing in on the regional vs. national driver debate, I've always assumed that national drivers were better, and ONLY because they have more $$$ to pay for things like extra track time and private instruction.

...and you know what they say about assumptions.

My wife's made similar assumptions about SCCA-licensed Regional drivers vs. locally-licensed (Waterford etc) drivers...:blink: Fortunately, she still watches her mirrors!

Trust in Allah, but tie up yer camel... ;)

Butch Kummer

07-21-2011, 04:53 PM

It seems so simple to me but I must be missing something huge.

But, but, but - WE'VE NEVER DONE IT THAT WAY BEFORE!!!

No thinking outside the box allowed once you're on the CRB/BoD/XYZ... :rolleyes:

Knestis

07-21-2011, 09:10 PM

fivedimeracer

07-21-2011, 09:21 PM

Andy,
I like the idea, and think it could work...I remember a similar plan/discussion in 2006 about the Runoffs having to many classes and the possibility that the 18 best subscribed classes would go.

Kevin, well done at the Glen...

JZ

Andy Bettencourt

07-21-2011, 09:47 PM

It's perfect but it doesn't have enough "gimmes" in it for the entitled among the membership.

K

Sure it does. Everyone gets to race, even when IT gets to go.

JLawton

07-22-2011, 07:18 AM

they always taught us in drivers school that we were to hold our line and the fast cars were suppose to pass us backmarkers safely. so I hold the line and a ssm miata puts me in the wall at VIR. it ain't that the backmarkers won't get out of the way, it's the feeling by the fast guys that it's their God given right to the whole track and that if I ain't fast, I just shouldn't be out there interfering with there race.

Russ

I've always disagreed with the "hold your line ALL the time and let them get around you" thought process. More importantly is to be predictable.

There is an art to being passed and I learned that in my early years of being lapped by half the field. When you have the leaders comin' round, and they're in a dog fight for the win (or championship) their main goal is to get around you without losing any time or getting balked up. They WILL stick their nose in, they WILL dive bomb you, they WILL try to pass you on the outside, they WILL try to use you as a pick.

Be prepared for all that.

Not saying that it's right, just reality...............

Knestis

07-22-2011, 08:45 AM

Sure it does. Everyone gets to race, even when IT gets to go.

...but what about all those poor drivers whose current National sacred cow classes will have to compete with IT for entrees and RubOffs berths...? Unless the current National stalwarts support an idea, it won't happen.

K

Matt93SE

07-22-2011, 10:01 AM

Unless the current National stalwarts support an idea

That would NEVER happen. :023:

fivedimeracer

07-22-2011, 11:13 AM

For IT to be included in the National program the folks in IT need to buy in and voice their opinions....in numbers for things to change...and classes like ITS, ITA and ITB each could produce 40 car fields.

With more entries....comes more dollars, more manufacturer interest, and eases cooperation from the track and surrounding community....all big factors of the Runoffs, which was a large profit maker for the club. Classes with 8 cars....don't do that.

Just like engines....Simply Cubic Dollars.

JZ

Andy Bettencourt

07-22-2011, 11:18 AM

...but what about all those poor drivers whose current National sacred cow classes will have to compete with IT for entrees and RubOffs berths...? Unless the current National stalwarts support an idea, it won't happen.

K

But in my scenario, everyone who meets minimums gets a birth, they just may have to share a track.

RacerBill

07-22-2011, 11:52 AM

I like Andy's idea. With one addition. I do not know if I am that keen on letting every driver who completes the school requirements enter the 'Championship Qualifying Events'. Perhaps change the GCR to stipulate that Novice Permit holders complete 4 races without incident before granting a full competition license and then be able to enter the events that qualify you for the runoffs. One should not be able to go directly from school to the runoffs (except for waivers for prior experience).

Knestis

07-22-2011, 11:55 AM

But in my scenario, everyone who meets minimums gets a birth, they just may have to share a track.

"Don't you know who I am? I've been running Nationals for years and am a multi-time champion, and you tell me my class is going to have to run in a MIXED GROUP so the jalopies can have their own race? I've got Directors on speed dial dammit...!!"

JIgou

07-22-2011, 02:11 PM

After taking 10yrs to do away with the VIn rule for IT, how long would this take??

Not picking on you specifically, but....sorta... :D

How many letters did you write requesting it?
How many of your friends did the same?
Was there EVER a concerted effort to do away with the VIN rule, or was it onesy-twosy stuff with guys writing in for specific requests based on what's in their garage and not bigger-picture requests?

I've been around the club long enough to be jaded and appreciate the "how long would this take" path, but I've also been around long enough and involved at enough levels to understand that sometimes stuff doesn't happen because no one (or not enough people) ask for it, or people ask for it the wrong way.

For better or worse, there is an art to it.

Andy Bettencourt

07-22-2011, 02:14 PM

"Don't you know who I am? I've been running Nationals for years and am a multi-time champion, and you tell me my class is going to have to run in a MIXED GROUP so the jalopies can have their own race? I've got Directors on speed dial dammit...!!"

Good for you sir - but 1. you must not have seen the IT paddock yet because the prep level exceeds about 75% of the Prod cars at this event and 2. they averaged 300% more entries than you did. Next question.

Knestis

07-22-2011, 02:19 PM

Good for you sir - but 1. you must not have seen the IT paddock yet because the prep level exceeds about 75% of the Prod cars at this event and 2. they averaged 300% more entries than you did. Next question.

"What about the FACT that IT drivers are barely better than demolition derby lunatics, crashing into each other every chance they get...? No NATIONAL class driver would willingly be on the same track with them, if your ill-advised multi-class group idea were to happen. And if they DID get their own group - there's no accounting for the massed idiot hordes - they will be an embarrassment to the SCCA, ruining any chance of future TV coverage."

K

Andy Bettencourt

07-22-2011, 02:33 PM

"What about the FACT that IT drivers are barely better than demolition derby lunatics, crashing into each other every chance they get...? No NATIONAL class driver would willingly be on the same track with them, if your ill-advised multi-class group idea were to happen. And if they DID get their own group - there's no accounting for the massed idiot hordes - they will be an embarrassment to the SCCA, ruining any chance of future TV coverage."

K

LMAO, this is fun.

1. That would make for better TV than the 3 second fast-lap differential in the top 5 of every Prod class...

(EP: 3 second differential in TOP 3!...FP: 5 second differential TOP 5...HP: 6 seconds TOP 5... MUST BE AWESOME RACING!!!!)

2. That statement immediatley takes your ill-informed opinion out of the running for consideration!

fivedimeracer

07-22-2011, 02:57 PM

I've been around the club long enough to be jaded and appreciate the "how long would this take" path, but I've also been around long enough and involved at enough levels to understand that sometimes stuff doesn't happen because no one (or not enough people) ask for it,

Again, the key is that IT racers combine to write a clear, concise letter copying both the BOD, their Area Director and whomever they seem to think "matters". Large numbers...of "customers" banded together...matter. Possibly, one draft letter could be written, reviewed by a few key folks, and then forwarded or posted here to others then be forwarded individually to club officials.

JZ

240zdave

07-22-2011, 03:17 PM

Andy Bettencourt

07-22-2011, 04:53 PM

I believe that we need to be careful what we ask for. The guys that run in the National classes are spending way more money than most IT racers. If all of a sudden they can run in IT in the Runoffs, a lot of those guys will start spending cubic dollars on IT cars, and it will get a whole lot tougher to have a front running car if you are a Regional only type racer. That's going to discourage a lot of guys racing now, and also discourage others thinking about getting into racing.

So this is one of the commonly used arguements over the years. Fact: In some areas, money is no object now. Fact: There is nothing stopping cubic dollars from enertering your class now.

If IT is a better place for these racers, so be it. What COULD happen, is that they DO migrate, some other classes die off and we see fuller fields with better racing across the board. And remember, there will still be NQ's and regular Regionals for drivers to choose from if they want to pick the pool of drivers to race against. In fact, Regional races in IT might actually get EASIER in some areas for the middle pack as the 'cubic dollar' crowd moves out. If you believe dollars are the major contributor to wins.

Russ Myers

07-22-2011, 05:16 PM

You mean they AREN"T. WOW. I thought the Golden Rule of Motor Racing still applied.

Russ

fivedimeracer

07-23-2011, 12:41 AM

Send me a PM if you want to work on drafting a Letter, people can obviously send a letter in their own voice, but this may help some folks out ?

lateapex911

07-23-2011, 02:04 AM

Not to be a killjoy, but didn't we JUST go through this? IIRC, there was a strategic study, and the advisors suggested IT going National. Didn't they get support from IT guys??* I think they did. And.................
The PTB didn't like it.

or am I hallucinating?

* over the years I've run polls or started threads about this, and it's always been hotly contested, but, in general, the trend is that more and more IT guys think it's not such a bad idea. I'd say that 5 years ago, it was 40% for, 60% against. A couple years ago, I'd say that flipped, or was 55 for 45 against.

lateapex911

07-23-2011, 02:10 AM

What would be the probablilty of IT going National by attrition? Will the 2.5 rule eventually knock enough classes out of Runoffs eligibility that the CRB will finally come to IT to fill in the holes?

I believe that we need to be careful what we ask for. The guys that run in the National classes are spending way more money than most IT racers. If all of a sudden they can run in IT in the Runoffs, a lot of those guys will start spending cubic dollars on IT cars, and it will get a whole lot tougher to have a front running car if you are a Regional only type racer. That's going to discourage a lot of guys racing now, and also discourage others thinking about getting into racing.

Ok, if they are, WHY? HOW?

A major cost that a lot of National guys encounter is travel costs. It's not like you can just do your qualifying in a few events at your local track. And traveling costs a lot.

And, other than that, I'd say that statement is debateable. I bet I can borrow a buddies E Prod car, and qualify for the Runoffs. And I won't spend that much. Now, I'll GO the the Runoffs, but, lets face it, I won't win.

If we gathered all the IT guys who race now, and told them 'meet here for the National championship race", do you think it would be cheap to win??

Locally, in just ITR/ITS, I bet there are a bunch of builds that are over $50~75K in. I won't list who and how much, but....Andy, you concur?

gpeluso

07-23-2011, 10:19 AM

Andy,
You are wasting your time...... the only class worth watching currently at the Runoffs is SM...it is the only class that crosses over to NASA were many people are playning and understand the (more) stable rule set. If SCCA thinks what they are doing works let it be...... My suggestion for you and people that have visions of growth would be make IT or PRO-IT its own race series and market it to all groups running events. We could be a series within NASA,EMRA,SCCA, BMWCCA, PCA, and other groups. I saw the 944 guys do this a with a few groups.
I bet if you market PRO-IT to NASA next year you will have a full race group at their Runoffs at MidOhio. The show will be good and NASA can help you put a telecast together .....they did it with SM last year. Who knows.....maybe you can get the series to be a support race for other Pro races or SCCA national races...............
Hell....laugh at the telecast idea but my idea of GrandAm anymore is a bunch of RICH club racers or club racers with their credit cards maxed out racing to be on tv ,which very few people know about or watch..I watch it, but can't believe it is that popular to anyone outside of club racing. I'm an idiot...if I had $9k to burn I'd run around the back of one of these races. To me a real pro race means you make more money winning the race than it cost you to run that one race....that means you are making money...not reducing your costs.
I run both groups but this year my goal is to do well at NASA Nationals and SCCA regionals are just something to do for now.

Greg
ITS RX7
PTD E46 BMW 323i

lateapex911

07-23-2011, 12:54 PM

Just curious Greg, how many cars are you running against in PTD? And in ITS? IF the ITS guys form SCCA (nationwide) came to the NASA Nationals, how would they fare? And, if the NASA National PTD guys came to the ARRCs (or any top drawer ITS race ) how would they fare?

I missed the NASA Nats telecast...where was it broadcast?

Regarding "Pro" racing, well, yea, it's obvious that 95% of the guys racing in the Pro ranks aren't surviving on their 'paycheck' form the winnings, or even independent sponsorship, in roadracing. Even guys at the DP level are "pro-am"-ing it.

RedMisted

07-23-2011, 05:37 PM

Hell....laugh at the telecast idea but my idea of GrandAm anymore is a bunch of RICH club racers or club racers with their credit cards maxed out racing to be on tv ,which very few people know about or watch..I watch it, but can't believe it is that popular to anyone outside of club racing. I'm an idiot...if I had $9k to burn I'd run around the back of one of these races. To me a real pro race means you make more money winning the race than it cost you to run that one race....that means you are making money...not reducing your costs.

Well said.

Anybody who wants to have a 'career' in pro sportscar racing is fooling themselves unless they are a Fellows, Pobst, Said, etc. There are only a handful, maybe two, of these drivers around.

Otherwise, you're just gonna lose money, and lots of it.

I like what I do. Virtually the same as the 'pros' but without all the bullshit...

Andy Bettencourt

07-23-2011, 10:53 PM

Who is talking about Pro Racing?

gpeluso

07-23-2011, 11:24 PM

NASA SM was on Versus.

Last PTD race had 6 and I think at Summit there were 11-13 ITS cars. That was my last two races. If I sign up for the Beaverun race next weekend I will be only the 2nd ITS car.......NASA pt is still in the early stages but has traction.

Greg

gpeluso

07-23-2011, 11:33 PM

Jake,
sorry....I got 2nd place at the last NASA race and won the ITS race at summit if that was your question..... If you are askingme who's better....neither....this year I have had equal success ...... I am not that good and I am not saying that in anyway....actually got my ass kicked in SM for 2 years and last year came over to IT and have got a chance to win more than a few races.

Greg

gpeluso

07-23-2011, 11:42 PM

jake,

found it
http://www.nasaproracing.com/2010/11/spec-miata-national-championsh-1.html

Greg

disquek

07-25-2011, 02:05 PM

Not going to stir the pot.

jjjanos

07-25-2011, 04:24 PM

Now there is a push for IT to go national? Why?

You answered your own question.

National racing is really hurting.

I think there is value in having a ladder. Having raced both regional and national extensively including the runoffs, I can say that most of what's been written (by people with first hand experience) is true. The difference between national and regional racing (talent wise) is not at the tip of the field. It's in the middle of the pack. There are fast guys and slow guys at nationals, just like at regionals.

Which creates a ladder in what way... I mean other than how much money one throws at a car? Ladders typically are defined in development of the participant. Is there a difference in driver skill at the National level or is simply the amount of $ one has? If it is the former, that argues for creating a driver licensing system. If it is the latter, then there is no need for a ladder as all one needs to do is have rich DNA.

The difference is that (in general) the national only classes spend WAY more money at the pointy end. Like WAY more. I've seen national racers using TWO sets of stickers EVERY SESSION (@ $2500 a set). They actually stop for a tire change (practice and qually only). These are $250k cars with full time crews. You don't want to invite these guys to your casual party.

That's the rub in moving IT to National. There are those who say let IT go National. (I'm not one of them.) There are those who say get rid of the National/regional distinction and simply have races. (I might be one of these). But that opens up the question of how does one get to the Runoffs? If every race earns points towards the Runoffs, then qualifying for the event gets VERY expensive. If only some events grant points, then how is that different than what we have now?

The cost arguments have some merit, but they really only matter if one is trying to get the Runoffs. I don't need to run stickers at every race if I'm only interested in my Regional series and every race isn't a Runoffs qualifier.

The bigger problem will be those who "lose" their single-class championship. They are going to be howling mad.

lateapex911

07-25-2011, 04:56 PM

This whole Runoffs qualification thing has me wondering...when, other than SM, was the last time you actually had to qualify for the event, as in, they had a full field? (I should check the numbers, but my impression was that most classes were far from full.

On the other hand IF every class was full, I imagine that would be bigger than nearly any track or event could handle...

Regardless, if they aren't showing up now, (and lets face it, if you want to go, it's not THAT tough) I don't see changing the qualification standards would make a huge difference.,,,

disquek

07-25-2011, 05:09 PM

Not going to stir the pot.

dickita15

07-25-2011, 06:19 PM

Please do not sacrifice IT at the alter of national racing. IT has an important role in getting people into club racing. There are better ways (for the club as a whole) to fix national racing than to add IT.

Plus, most of the IT folks that want to attend national races already do in the form of restricted regionals and STU/STO. So I doubt that adding IT to the national classes will help national participation numbers (from the event stand point).

If it's money or talent, it doesn't really matter in club racing. Lap times and finishing position tell the whole tale. There is no prize for being the highest finishing guy in an under prepped car. Like it or not, the car is a factor. More so in classes with looser rules. Sometimes money can buy the best car. Sometimes you have to build it yourself. Both are worthy of a national championship. This is racing, it's not always fair.

One thing you need to consider is that the classes that are not regional only (GT, prod, Tx, FA, FC, FF, FV) are what we're really talking about when we talk about "national racing". So comparing regional EP to national EP, for example is what we should be doing. Not comparing ITA to FP.

The difference between a winning national GT1 effort and a winning regional GT1 effort will likely be substantial in both money and experience. It's impossible to speak in absolutes. The guys with more money tend to gravitate toward more expensive cars. Nothing wrong with that. That's just a fact of life in every endeavor. So you don't see a lot of fast (money and talent) regional entries for these national classes. Mostly because the cars are expensive to run, so you only run them where there is decent competition (nationals).

Regional only classes should be geared toward providing a great value for the money. National classes (those that are not regional only) should include (notice that I didn't say "be limited to") classes that offer an engineering (read $$) challenge along with a driving challenge.

Re: drivers ladder. Granted the four races needed to go from a regional to a national license does not create much of a ladder. But the reality of national versus regional racing is that the average national racer has more career starts under his/her belt than the average regional racer. Granted, there are individual guys at regionals that more starts than some entire nationals (Ken Payson). FWIW: I'd like to see the requirement for a national license be made more like 20 races.

So is there a ladder in terms of car development and experience? Yes - for the non regional only classes. Does it apply to every car and every driver? Certainly no. Does it apply as an average. IMHO: yes. Does it add value to the club: Yes. For sure.

Good discussion.

-Kyle

Oh thank you experienced national driver for coming to our lowly forum and imparting your wisdom.
Honestly Kyle you are coming of as a condescending ass.

disquek

07-25-2011, 06:27 PM

dickita15

07-25-2011, 06:50 PM

Thanks Dick. I didn't mean to be.

I'd heard that this forum was hostile. I guess there was some truth to that. Good to see the "us versus them" thing was a fable. :rolleyes:

I'll delete my posts and leave you guys to yourselves. Feel free to delete your quoting me.

-Kyle

Actually I do not think this is a hostile forum at all, and I do not mean to drive you away but I am sorry I am calling it the way I see it, for you to come here and tell the IT community what their place in the big picture is overreaching at the least. Improved Touring is a huge and important part of this club and for others to tell what our class’s purpose should be is, well, condescending.

Andy Bettencourt

07-25-2011, 07:13 PM

Kyle's data is I am sure accurate but it doesn't so much apply to IT. Two $2500 sets of tires for qualifying? Fine in GT1, can't happen in IT. I never had a set of tires over 6-8 heat cycles...and it would have been less if they had fallen off before that.

Full time crew? Got that. Almost a weeks worth of dyno time, check. Etc, Etc. The beauty of the ruleset is that you CAN spend as much as a GT-1 team but it won't get you very far given our chassis and parameters.

Will it raise the price if tea at the front of a National field? In some areas, no, some yes and some HELL yes. Will it create a tough class to win at Nationals with a big field? YOU BET. What's wrong with that?

To Kyle: Thoughts on my theory that if a National class is created, then the Regional racing for that class has the potential to get 'softer' or more inviting for the 'average spender' (both in money and dediciation to the driver)?

disquek

07-25-2011, 11:09 PM

Dick,
You're out of line. Plain and simple. Resorting to name calling is the last bastion of a dead argument. There is a difference between straight shooting and being a jerk.

I never told anyone what their "place" is, let alone an entire category. I offered my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, let's discuss that.

But calling me an ass for having an opinion is just not right.

Andy,
My experience with SM (and I know you know a lot about SM too) tells me that having a national side to a class only ups the game. In SMs case, big time. My GT1 example wasn't supposed to be specific. It was just an example of the level of the madness. Don't think you cant spend big money on an IT car when you can spend $40k on an SM.

FWIW, I'm done here. As a long time forum participant, racer, and worker, I dont deserve the treatment I got. Dick, I was glad you got to elected area one director. Up to now, you've always been a good guy to me. Let's hope this is was just a bad day.

-Kyle

lateapex911

07-26-2011, 12:27 AM

Kyle, minor point of order. He said you we were "coming off as a condescending ass", as opposed, to "Kyle you condescending ass".

I consider Dick a close friend and worthy adviser. Trust me, he's told me that I have 'come off as a dick" at times. I took the thought as a good suggestion, and reviewed my path.

That said, I read your post and I nearly responded, but i didn't. Too much material actually, and it's ground well covered. I disagree with the whole ladder thing, the whole 'entry ' aspect and all. And yea, I saw some 'tude in there, but I hoped you didn't mean it, or it was a bad day...

dickita15

07-26-2011, 06:32 AM

Ok ok I am sorry I told Kyle he was coming off as an ass. I was very annoyed that someone who has no stake in IT racing coming here and declaring what regional only classes should be.
Kyle, I am Sorry I offended you.

Andy Bettencourt

07-26-2011, 07:42 AM

Andy,
My experience with SM (and I know you know a lot about SM too) tells me that having a national side to a class only ups the game. In SMs case, big time. My GT1 example wasn't supposed to be specific. It was just an example of the level of the madness. Don't think you cant spend big money on an IT car when you can spend $40k on an SM.
-Kyle

Oh, we all know you can spend huge dollars on an IT car. Builds can easily exceed $70K if you have someone else do the work.

I also think SM is not a great class to look at when you want to call on what will happen if IT goes National. SM seems to have a extraordinary amount of double-dippers. So they bring their 'pro' car to regionals. And with REALATIVELY low development costs, builds of these 'pro' cars are cheaper than in IT or whatever class you want to choose. Add in how many classes they can actually run in and you a have the best value in club racing across both Clubs.

924Guy

07-26-2011, 08:27 AM

I dunno, I didn't find Kyle's post all that condescending, if somewhat incorrect; he's got a point of view that doesn't match with ours.

Is it really all that surprising that guys running Nationals only would have a pretty minor view of IT? After all, it's not like they see much on a regular basis - the big Regional races are the doubles and IT-Fest and ARRC, not single and Restricteds coupled with Nationals, right? We go to our races and see huge fields of IT cars, and develop our perspective on how important we are as IT racers... and how meaningless those 3-car FV fields etc are... meanwhile, they go to their National races, see 3 IT cars total show up for a Restricted Regional, compare with their 20-car FV fields, and see that IT's a fringe element.

Let's just not get too stuck in our own little world, now.

Interestingly enough, there's been some similar discussion - on the DSR/CSR board, of all places - about ditching the National/Regional distinction, and how much sense it'd make, start to get the numbers up at the races.

Mind you, DSR and CSR are struggling at the bottom end of the participation numbers grid, and trying to find a way to boost attendance. Of course, being as how they're the sharp end of the field WRT cost and speed, the barriers to joining are pretty high... and they can't arbitrarily lower those without completely undermining the philosophy of the classes. After all, DSR is intended to be the place to go extreme with your engineering and design!

So I've pointed out in that discussion that one of the natural consequences to removing the Regional/National distinction would be to open up the gates to the IT Horde... and this might directly mean that classes on the edge of participation numbers, like DSR/CSR, might end up getting the bump off the Runoffs invite list.

I'm still waiting for a response to that point...

Greg Amy

07-26-2011, 08:59 AM

I didn't find Kyle that condescending, either; I saw him as simply stating the facts as the rest of the Club sees it (outside of present company, of course).

It's a simple fact that SCCA Club Racing has clearly mandated that Improved Touring be a Regional-only class from its very inception. There's no equivocation in there at all, it's been codified from the start. And, given I know IT's history well (I was there at the start) the only reason it was ever put into the GCR was so that different regions across this great country had a standard set of rules so that a competitor could drive from New York and Southern Cali and be able to run his car with no changes.

IT was put into the GCR simply as a favor from Englewood CO (SCCA's HQ at the time) to regions for consistency of rules. Unfortunately, the publication of a nationally-approved set of rules carries with it the implication that it was potentially a National class, which is why they added in the express note that it was never intended to be that way. Further, its publication in our Club regs gives it the visibility to make it attractive to everyone (it was the first - and continues to be the only - Regional-only category within our club to be published in the national General Competition Rules*). I suggest that if the IT regs were not published in the GCR that three things would be different:

- The cars would run widely-varying rules nationwide;
- There would be no talk of IT going National; and
- The class would not be nearly as popular.

If you think of it that way then it's easy to accept that IT cannot - and should not? - ever go National. One can mentally accept that if we were to, for example, create a separate Regional GCR ("RGCR"?) supplement with an expressed purpose of publishing a consistent set of rules for Regional-only categories (e.g., Super Production, Improved Touring, Spec Neon, Spec RX-7, Club Ford, Club S2000, etc). The preface for this RGCR would be clear: the only reason we're doing this is for nationwide regs consistency; nothing more, nothing less. With that we kill two birds with one stone: state the the purpose for these regs is to offer an agreed nationwide-consistent set of rules, and to make it clear from the get-go that these classes are not, and will not, be considered for National status.

But as long as the Improved Touring regs exist within our main document (that happens to describes how one can gain National status) this argument will continue in perpetuity...

GA

* SM held that status for a short while, as - I seem to recall - did American Sedan. But those were extenuating circumstances; in both cases the Club expected both to eventually go National. Of course, SM had that same verbiage as IT - Regional-Only Category - which gives some within IT misguided aspirations that it can happen here, too. Personally don't think it'll ever happen.
.
.