SCCA's answer to the HPDE participants

[Matt Rowe]

When talking about what SCCA is doing to attract the younger crowd I frequently see the comment that SCCA is losing out to organizations like NASA due to their HPDE program. What I don't see is an awareness that SCCA does have a program, Time Trials, designed to attract these people that want to bring their current car out and either learn to "race" or even compete for times.

To be completely forthright I am a little partial to this topic because I have led the Time Trials program for the last several years. But that also means that I have the perspective that the tools exist, the greatest challenge we still have is getting individual regions and event planners to take advantage of the program. While it is true that the NASA style format of a combined racing/HPDE format will work for every area, the rules are intentionally designed to be flexible enough to operate either:

1) within a club racing weekend where car counts are low enough to allow for an extra group
2) in parallel with club racing school weekends
3) standalone Time Trial only events
4) ...?

So, I would ask that for those of you that think (or know) we are losing out on this source of new drivers please encourage your region to consider taking advantage of the Time Trials program. Even better it would be great to offer to help your region as they are frequently maxed out on their current responsibilities.

Either way, if you have any questions I would be happy explain the program or talk about possible improvements.

[Ralf]

Nebraska region brought this up at the last meeting. So far there seems to be some interest. Time will tell how many actually participate.

[jumbojimbo]

Great Lakes was stuck at 3 PDXs per year, now down to 2 with WOR losing their MO date. Last year Cincy tried running an actual level 1 (or whatever it is called) time trial but got few cars and cancelled. WOR used to do a stand alone PDX but for several years all PDXs have been the Friday before a race.

It seems the biggest obstacle in GL is that lots of other organizations run track days and the perception is that virtually all of them do it better or cheaper. We're at the bad end of the cost/value spectrum and also on the hassle factor. More expensive, less fun is the perception.

[downingracing]

This is all my personal opinion (my .02¢): I don’t think that HPDE/PDX generates a large number of racers. I think it is like Autocross – it is its own thing and not a great feeder for w2w. It generates racers – sure, but not in mass. If it did, That N club would have had to split into separate weekends for races and HPDE events due to the number of folks moving from HPDE to racing. I know quite a few folks who HPDE/PDX and most of them are very happy doing just that. They can have a nice street car with little to no modification and enjoy lapping days. No licensing, safety gear (cage/suit/H&N/fire system…), trailer or any of the other expenses that come with racing. Heck – They can even purchase cheap insurance for the PDX to cover their street car if anything happens to it! Now many of the track day folks do trailer their car to the track and have some or all of the safety items – some even use race prepped cars. But they seem happy with just doing the track day and have little to no interest in racing. (At least the ones I’ve talked to). Sure – I’ve seen guys do one PDX and purchase a race car the next week (Dan!). But that seems to be the exception… Some of the guys I’ve talked to said they PDX/HPDE because of the high cost of entry to club racing. These same folks are doing the track day in their $50k Porsche 911 or BMW or S2000 or Z06 Corvette. Wearing a race suit that cost thousands of dollars and running R compound tires, big brakes – upgrades galore to the car….. When I tell them they could have more fun w2w in a Civic – I get a funny look. When I try to explain the way in (i.e. selling the expensive street car and getting a DD beater to afford to go racing), I get the same funny look. If they really wanted to go w2w racing – they could make it happen.

I know around here (GLDiv), we have decent turnout for the PDX events at Mid-Ohio. Everyone I talk to has a good time and some express interest in racing. I also know that there is not time during the weekend for a PDX group. The race groups are still large enough to fill the weekend schedule.

[Knestis]

There are two different questions a play here:

1. How many NASA HPDE participants transition to W2W racing - a relatively small percentage

2. How many NASA racers started out in NASA HPDE - I'd venture that it's a huge majority

Focusing on the first question - which I think Matt is doing? - doesn't answer the question of where SCCA's new racers are going to come from.

Now, for my $.02... I don't think that the SCCA as an organization or a culture, is going to be tolerant of the relatively lower expectations re: safety that are at play in the NASA HPDE ladder.

K

[Marcus Miller]

As a related aside.... You are talking about SCCA PDX events twice or three times a year; At least for Norcal and Socal NASA regions, they have 10-12 events per year. Way more opportunity for track time in their HPDE sessions.
I'd also agree with Doc K; of NASA racers, high percentage wnet through HPDE as a way to get involved. Many HPDE folks have no interest in racing.

[seckerich]

Add to this that the TTAC (Time Trial Admin council) is currently thinking of allowing open passing in their level 3 events with cars that have no more than a roll bar. Idiotic that we are heading the NASA direction with our safety and turning this into a glorified race or test day. Drivers will get hurt and then we will force full road race gear on the group because of the stupidity of a few in power. Drivers are not wanting this, and my region damn sure does not want it. It will kill many of the good programs in place now.

[Matt93SE]

Never been to a NASA HPDE, but I know several friends that have, and are now racing with ST*, PT*, SM, etc etc etc within NASA. A few of them have also come over to SCCA.

I did HPDEs (just not in NASA) for about 8 years before I finally had the money to get into racing.

Almost all new racers stem from an HPDE type of environment, but as said, not all HPDE guys want to become racers. For those that do, the barriers to SCCA are seen to be high and wide.

honestly it wasn't that hard for me to get into SCCA- just expensive. I could have bought a legal, running IT car for less than the car I started racing with, but I wanted to build _MY_ car the way _I_ wanted.
That's one of the main differences I see in SCCA vs. NASA and the younger crowd. The younger guys look at SCCA and go "WTF? My daily driver is faster than an IT car and has more mods, and is cheaper to maintain. Then there's those Prod cars. Those things look stock on the outside with stock brakes, and have a $15,000 engine and $5000 in shocks? EFF DAT! I can go to NASA and build the car I want, then just add up the points and there's my class. easy!"


SCCA's classing structure is FAR from what the HPDE driver looks at when building their car. Unless you run in GT and some will fit in ST*, you're stuck with a crappy intake manifold, poor stock cams, brakes, whatever.. They can make their car faster for cheaper just staying in HPDEs and having fun.

[red986s]

Some of the guys I’ve talked to said they PDX/HPDE because of the high cost of entry to club racing. These same folks are doing the track day in their $50k Porsche 911 or BMW or S2000 or Z06 Corvette. Wearing a race suit that cost thousands of dollars and running R compound tires, big brakes – upgrades galore to the car….. When I tell them they could have more fun w2w in a Civic – I get a funny look. When I try to explain the way in (i.e. selling the expensive street car and getting a DD beater to afford to go racing), I get the same funny look. If they really wanted to go w2w racing – they could make it happen

I'm an example of that. It was easy for me, I WANTED to race and knew what I had to do. It was tough sell my toys I had really worked hard for and wanted since I was a kid. Once folks realize they can't afford to convert their high end sports car to a racer we loose them. How do we change their minds?

[betamotorsports]

SCCA's classing structure is FAR from what the HPDE driver looks at when building their car.

Exactly. Its a different culture/mindset regarding car classing. SCCA will draw far fewer people from their HPDE program into Club Racing then NASA does (which is still a small percentage of HPDE participants.)

I have two customers now that are going with NASA TT/PT because their 150hp, 2,500lb. cars would have to run ITE. Both have run local SCCA PDXs and I tried to talk them into making a couple minor changes to get them into STU or ITA/ITB but they are not interested. Both asked, "Why go to the trouble when NASA will accept and class our cars as is?" I explained the classing philosophy to them but they don't care about the history of SCCA or IT. They just want to race and see SCCA class rules as a barrier to entry.

[Knestis]

... Once folks realize they can't afford to convert their high end sports car to a racer we loose them. How do we change their minds?

In a lot of cases - probably most - we can't. And if we position the club strategically assuming we HAVE to accomplish that, we compromise what positive core competencies we do have.

K

[Jeremy Billiel]

Our problem in New England was the lack of volunteers to staff such and event. Given that our racing weekends are typically full, we experemented with running the PDX on a Monday (say memorial day), but it was very difficult to staff with the volunteers wanting to go home and already being at the track for 2+ days.

So the region decided the PDX was not worth the effort and not worth the burnout of our critical volunteers to make the bread-winner (RR) work.

[jumbojimbo]

In a lot of cases - probably most - we can't. And if we position the club strategically assuming we HAVE to accomplish that, we compromise what positive core competencies we do have.

K

When you are at a PDX and someone starts to act interested in jumping from pdx to w2w and they start talking about building a car, the first thing you do is start talking them down. Because we all know that for 95% of people building a car is a mistake. They'll spend a bunch of time and money, the car will be slow and they will burn out.

Maybe it's a little different in NASA where some people do slowly build their car up and maybe it is just as simple as adding $3k worth of safety to it.

It seems to me that NASA is in the position of not saying no, they just go ahead and eat up those newbies and spit them out because they have a steady stream incoming. So what if most burn out and only a few stick around long term, we got there money and filled our fields? And that might not be a bad philosophy. Our "strategy" of weeding the newbies out before they even show up might save a lot of people money but it might not be the best long term strategy.

[Chip42]

mixing a restricted regional of IT/ST/SM and maybe Touring/SS/B-Spec and a PDX in rotation like a regular race weekend would be a good way to really expose them to track time and racing and the competitors and cars up close and in person in a way that highlights the "ladder" for their cars.

Partnering with a successful local track day club would be a good way to start with a base pool of entrants, too.

obviously doesn't work for higher end sports cars and big buck super cars but hopefully they will see the "rental cars" running wheel to wheel at better lap times then they are getting and decide that racing can be for them. and meybe the PDX guys will see the light about moving their car up vs. picking up a racecar. sometimes it makes more sense that way.

[lateapex911]

When you are at a PDX and someone starts to act interested in jumping from pdx to w2w and they start talking about building a car, the first thing you do is start talking them down. Because we all know that for 95% of people building a car is a mistake. They'll spend a bunch of time and money, the car will be slow and they will burn out.

Maybe it's a little different in NASA where some people do slowly build their car up and maybe it is just as simple as adding $3k worth of safety to it.

It seems to me that NASA is in the position of not saying no, they just go ahead and eat up those newbies and spit them out because they have a steady stream incoming. So what if most burn out and only a few stick around long term, we got there money and filled our fields? And that might not be a bad philosophy. Our "strategy" of weeding the newbies out before they even show up might save a lot of people money but it might not be the best long term strategy.

I think that, until you really get into racing, and are brutally honest with yourself about the actual competition (YOUR talent winning, vs 'car love'), you don't 'get' classing structure. So NASAs PT class is fine for most. They don't get that it's really not about actual competition, or, that in most cases, competition is rather thin.
Of course, once in, they discover the costs associated (time and money), and then look at SCCA, where the competition (in some classes) is deeper, and they see more time and money.

[downingracing]

..Almost all new racers stem from an HPDE type of environment, but as said, not all HPDE guys want to become racers. ...

Where did you get that stat from? I've searched in the past and can't find a 'real' source for actual data. I've known folks to come from PDX, Autocross, Drag Racing, friend of a friend... Tons of starting points. I know my sample is small (like 30-40 folks over the years) and would like to see some data on the road to w2w.

[ShelbyRacer]

As one of the people who helped this to happen, I think we must consider several things-

#1- In NASA (and some other clubs), if you want to RACE, you WILL participate in track-day events, since that is the core of their driver/racer education process. You work up through from track days to time trials to mock-racing scenarios, then you get to race. When you say that most of NASA's racers come from HPDE, realize that is by design, not by choice.

#2- We in SCCA still have the mindset that PDXs are best put on by racers. Coming from a region of hillclimbers that did autocrosses to help pay the bills, I can tell you that if people are putting on the events because of real or perceived obligation, the event will stop as soon as the people can find a way to get out of it. DC Region, and a few others, have built a program based on PDX participants (grown out of a few racers, many others, and some people from- GASP- other organizations) and it is relatively successful. It has taken them a few years to get to this point, but their efforts are getting results.

#3- Most racers are people who wanted to, um, race. Some autocross, or do HPDE events, or do other Time Trials, until either (a) they can afford to race, or (b) they can find a way to get into racing. The chances of converting a "true autocrosser" to racing are slim to none, since they really want to autocross. However, providing a means from someone who *wants* to transition from autocross to racing was something that SCCA lacked for a long time. PDX was meant to give people options, not only in finding a path to racing, but also to have another type of track event in which to participate.

A few notes though-
Steve- I am monitoring the discussion of alteration to the passing rules, and I will do everything I can to maintain rules that help keep our participants safe. While I am no longer head of the Safety Council, I still to have the ability (I believe) to weigh in if needed.

As mentioned by others- I believe our biggest barrier to entry for racers is our class structure, AND the perception of an archaic ruleset and leadership mindset. While PDX has the ability to attract participants and expose them to the true nature of our club, I'm not sure that doing so will do any more than to reinforce those views at this point.

I think Matt's original point was that if you honestly feel, given the situation in your particular area, that we are losing people by not having a way to bring them in without thrusting them neck-deep into Driver's School, then SCCA has a way to address that. It doesn't solve the problem, but it gives you one way to treat a major symptom...

[lateapex911]

I tell you, you Matts are VERY hard to keep track of! BOTH involved in HPDEs, BOTH Dodge guys, BOTH of you have two cars in your sig, and they are the SAME car!

[Matt93SE]

Where did you get that stat from? I've searched in the past and can't find a 'real' source for actual data. I've known folks to come from PDX, Autocross, Drag Racing, friend of a friend... Tons of starting points. I know my sample is small (like 30-40 folks over the years) and would like to see some data on the road to w2w.

Personal observation, obviously a small and fairly biased field, but it's what I've seen locally.

I started Autocrossing myself in about 2000 or 2001, then got into DEs because I wanted more speed. I did DEs and autoX for a few years, then decided to concentrate my money on DEs.
During that time, I watched many of my friends go through the same path and 'graduate' to w2w racing.

I finally went through the driver's school myself last summer, and most of the people there I knew from running DEs in the past, with the exception of a few "kids" that went directly from karts to racing. Just about everyone else there had done DEs for at least a couple years before they went racing.

Many of the people I race with, I also see participating and instructing at HPDEs for various local clubs like Driver's Edge, NASA, PCA/BMWCCA (they play together locally..), Viper and Corvette guys, etc.

So that's obviously hard, official data... But that's what I've seen. YMMV.

I tell you, you Matts are VERY hard to keep track of! BOTH involved in HPDEs, BOTH Dodge guys, BOTH of you have two cars in your sig, and they are the SAME car!

And then there's that blabbermouth in his Nissan that just won't take a hint he's not wanted. ;)

[Jeremy Billiel]

Personal observation, obviously a small and fairly biased field, but it's what I've seen locally.

I started Autocrossing myself in about 2000 or 2001, then got into DEs because I wanted more speed. I did DEs and autoX for a few years, then decided to concentrate my money on DEs.
During that time, I watched many of my friends go through the same path and 'graduate' to w2w racing.

I finally went through the driver's school myself last summer, and most of the people there I knew from running DEs in the past, with the exception of a few "kids" that went directly from karts to racing. Just about everyone else there had done DEs for at least a couple years before they went racing.

Many of the people I race with, I also see participating and instructing at HPDEs for various local clubs like Driver's Edge, NASA, PCA/BMWCCA (they play together locally..), Viper and Corvette guys, etc.

So that's obviously hard, official data... But that's what I've seen. YMMV.


And then there's that blabbermouth in his Nissan that just won't take a hint he's not wanted. ;)

I did the same, but in hindsight I also thought I knew it all and didn't ahng out with the "real" racers. If I did I would have done the whole racing thing TOTALLY different. I think you guys are on to something...

[preparedcivic]

Personal pet peeve alert.

Careful throwing around the term 'moving up' to PDX, HDPE from autocross or from either to road racing.

Case in point: I joined SCCA in college, wanting to -go racing-. That was not going to happen for a 21 year old kid in school whose only car was a '71 Duster. I did have the small change to buy a more suitable car, at least to autocross, from a family member. That ultimately became a means to end activity for 25 years where I was perfectly happy and satisfied with my choice of competition. At several stages along the way I certainly had the financial capability to switch to the Club Racing side of the club, but other life events took precedence; things like a home purchase, marriage, kids and all that sort of whatnot.

What finally pushed me over to racing was the SRS BSNS aspect of what competing at the upper levels of autocross had become, along with the overt personalies that I ended up tangling with in that activity in the leadership positions I held. I still autocross, just very selectively, and basically now spend the same dollars a season with my ITB car that I burned on a G Prepared Civic. I can also share the car with my 15-year old son at a race weekend, which cannot be done yet at an autocross due to him not even being eligible to hold a Learner's Permit, based on age requirements.

Frankly, I look upon these as lateral moves. There are different levels of committment in all three activities. Going from National level autocrosser to Regional road racer definitely dialed my intensity meter back several notches.

[Matt Rowe]

Wow, lots of good discussion and let me try to address some of the recurring themes.

First, let me be clear that the primary purpose of the TT program has always been to address a gap in SCCA's racing programs and provide a place for people to drive at speed on a track both with instruction and/or competing against the clock. It's true that it CAN be used as a progression for people looking to eventually go wheel to wheel but we have always stressed that it is a destination of it's own for many people and that is a great thing.

Now, as for hard data on the number of people that move from TT events into Club Racing as many of you know SCCA doesn't track driver statistics in that manner. Anecdotal evidence from within my own area is that over the past 5 years we average about 3 people a year that make the transition. This from a series of roughly 60 regulars. So while it won't "save" SCCA it is a positive gain into CR and the program is more than self sufficient so I would argue that it can be done and be worthwhile.

I do agree that pressuring the existing club racing organizers into holding new TT events is heaping more workload onto an already over taxed group. That was part of my reason for asking the people here that see this as a gap to help volunteer to exploit this tool.

There were also some comments about squeezing these groups into weekends where the event is already trying to find track time for 200-300 club racing drivers. I absolutely agree it's tough and may not be worthwhile. In that case some type of stand alone event with it's own set of organizers can fill that role in the region. But, there are areas that struggle to bring in 100 racers. They would not only seem to be the places that can more easily host a combined event but also the ones that would benefit the most from attracting new drivers.

Let me clear up one thing on the comment on passing in the last FastTrack. The TTAC is looking for member input on revising the passing rules based on requests by some TT drivers. I think the wording that made it into FastTrack would lead people into thinking the TTAC has made a decision, the reality is I think there is a lot of internal discussion that needs to occur and happily we have a LOT of member input to review.

Lastly, yes, Matt and I are hard to differentiate. For those that have hung out with us off track it may help to use the terms Good Matt (Rowe) and Bad Matt (Green). :rolleyes:

[gran racing]

I suppose that I don't understand some of the philosophys of regions. Just like our overall goal shouldn't be to coerce Solo participants into road racing, why do we feel the need to do this to Time Trial or HPDE participants? Maybe I just don't understand what SCCA is supposed to be about. In my opinion, it's about being a club where we can enjoy participating in motorsports on all levels.

Regions whine about a lack of revenue generated through Club Racing events. Guess what, if done properly there's money to be made through HPDEs. Guess that's why we see so many more for-profit HPDE businesses than w2w. Heck, NASA NE is basically all about HPDEs.

From a road racer recruitment perspective, I do think that one objective we should have is to get people a taste or being out on a track. HPDEs are a natural fit. Obviously the continued hard headed "we can't possibly do it any way; don't you think others haven't already thought of that" BS attitudes are not working. Time to try some different approaches.

Good for you Matt and others who are willing to attempt to slowly turn this big ole ship around.

[TStiles]

Good discussion here , I guess I might as well throw out a few points from a guy who came into SCCA racing in 1987 after doing PCA HPDE's a few years and who instructs HPDE events.

It appears to me that we have quite a few guys come thru the HPDE's who want to go racing. Unfortunately , they tend to end up :
-a- ChumpCar / Lemons
-b- NASA
-c- SCCA

Very few end up in SCCA. When I ask them why they choose Chump / Lemons / NASA over SCCA the reasons I get are :
-a- Chump/Lemons is perceived as cost effective. I agree , it's cost effective until you try to win
-b- You can rent a ride in Chump/Lemons on the cheap
-c- Chump/Lemons is more about team / friends / experience than it is about the competition
-d- It's perceived that you get more track time in NASA . Down here it's 4 sessions per day in NASA and 2 per day in SCCA. They are comfortable with NASA short sessions vs. SCCA longer sessions
-e- It's perceived that it's a lot easier / user friendly to build a car for NASA with their open rules packages vs SCCA restrictive rules packages
-f- Let's face it , NASA events are younger. We are perceived as being old and the younger guys prefer to be in a younger group.
-g- Let's face it , if you don't have an SCCA guy to guide you thru the process , it's a very high barrier to entry in SCCA

What they don't say , but I think is in the back of their minds is that they perceive that's it's going to be tough to build and develop a car that is competitive with guys who have been developing their car & race skills for 10 - 20 years.

My take is that for the club to prosper , we need to change with the times. To me that means that our choices are :
-a- commitment to continue to develop as the premier amateur road racing provider , with fewer classes , better competition , better rulesets that drive great competition with good value , ect.
-b- Restructure the club weekend to look something like NASA
-c- Some mixture of a and b

Let's face it , the landscape has changed over the last 20 years

[lateapex911]

Dave, in our area (which is possibly unique), the successful HPDE events are for profit. They run on off days when the tracktime is cheap, use professional staffing that the tracks provide, and they make money.

As a club, we would merely have to insert a few key people into the roles that are now paid positions, and entice instructor corps.

But, the problem is the staff positions that are needed to be filled. Tough to find quality people on work days, and reimbursing them appropriately would anger the normal race staffs greatly.

Sometimes I think we should just hand out SCCA brochures at SCDA events, LOL. (Ian and Elivan do a pretty good job of that, actually!)

[Lauren]

Our problem in New England was the lack of volunteers to staff such and event. Given that our racing weekends are typically full, we experemented with running the PDX on a Monday (say memorial day), but it was very difficult to staff with the volunteers wanting to go home and already being at the track for 2+ days.

So the region decided the PDX was not worth the effort and not worth the burnout of our critical volunteers to make the bread-winner (RR) work.


Jeremy,

We do pretty good with volunteers down here in th DC region. We figured at the beginning that it was going to be a challenge to attract our regular MARRS Flaggers (let's face it, flagging a PDX can be like watching the grass grow) so we added a little incentive to the picture. What we offered was what we call W3G1F which stands for "work 3 get 1 free".
All volunteers get a free PDX day if they work any 3 days in an 18 month period. Our first year we had a few MARRS Flaggers show up because working a PDX does count as a day towards your license. What it also brought in were some rank beginners as Flaggers who were interested in getting the free track day. We trained them to be Flaggers and paired them with the regular Flaggers as often as we could. That has resulted in PDX/TT becoming one of the prime avenues for new MARRS Flaggers including several ROY Flaggers. We now have a volunteer core made up of approximately 25% regular Flaggers and 75% PDX/TT participants and we never really hurt for volunteers although I still sweat staffing because I'm neurotic. LOL! Our Chief Stewards who act as Control also keep it very light on the radios making it fun to watch the "grass grow"! It's worked for us so maybe the same setup would work for you? :)

Lauren Robison
Crappy ITA Driver
Worker Chief PDX/TT

[mgyip]

The biggest barrier to attracting a younger crowd (or any crowd for that matter) is the clique-ish attitude of the regulars. All too often, I see newbies getting shuffled to the side or treated like an interloper b/c they aren't one of the regulars. This is especially troubling since it seems many Regions are combining PDX with Club Racing.

We've toyed with the idea of a mentoring program in the DC Region although it's never taken off in a formal sense. That doesn't mean that we don't try to look after folks, it's just not at the Region level which is probably for the better. In my case, we "took in" our current RE at a Club Race b/c he was looking for paddock space - in retrospect, we probably should have treated him better had we known that he'd become the Grand Poo-bah :rolleyes:

As for PDX events - SCCA is 10 years late to the Track Event game. That isn't necessarily bad but the biggest challenge is that PDX is the ONLY non-competition program that SCCA offers. With that comes the challenge that participants aren't competitors and can't be treated as such. The vast majority of PDX participants are the starry-eyed dreamers that we were when we started into motorsports - remember that time? It was when "racecar" meant a fun and exotic mistress instead of the money-grubbing old hag that now resides in the garage.

IMHO, the trick to PDX is promotion - the events are virtually identical to the events that NASA, BMW, Audi and a host of others hold during the calendar year. What makes SCCA's events different? Not much - better organization and hopefully more advantageous scheduling. The harsh reality is that Track Events are luck-of-the-draw. John Q Customer looks at his schedule and decides "I want to goto the track on the 3rd week in July". He looks at his schedule and SCCA has an event that weekend so they're the winner. If NASA had an event on the 3rd week of July, they'd be the winner.

For Regions where track rental is expensive, start talking to the small local clubs who would like to have their own track event on a weekend. Get 3-4 small clubs together under the PDX brand and you'll have yourself an event. Do this a few times/year and you'll be surprised how the word spreads. The trick is to do all your homework in advance so that the participants "never see you sweat". Club Racing has been doing this for years and I can count the number of times that things were "confused" on one hand - these were usually surrounded by an extraordinary emergency that was well outside the real of normalcy.

PDX and Time Trials workers really don't need to be Race Flaggers - in fact our experience is that they shouldn't be Race Flaggers. They'll be bored stiff watching cars "circulate" - instead, tap friends of participants and folks who aren't quite sure that a Track Event is in their future. You'd be amazed how excited a first-timer can get when they get to hear tire squeal from their favorite sports car whilst standing in a tub.

[pballance]

For what it is worth, from a race chair perspective. We have added a PDX during quiet time or as an additional group during a race weekend. We had minimal success even though we heavily promoted it within our region. Could we have done better, yes! Did we learn from it, yes. Will we try it again, more than likely.

From a TT perspective as a member of the hosting region, We have added a PDX group within the normal "rotation" of run groups and it has worked pretty well. We are planning on doing it again.

I was a driver when TT's were run as a pod with only 3 cars on track at a time, 3 laps and then in to the paddock and wait for 2 hours to run 3 more laps. It sucked, I hated it and started looking at other bodies to provide me with track time. Thankfully The Regions stepped up and worked to make needed changes with the division.

The current TT format, which I fully support and worked to get approved as an alternative way to run a TT event is GREAT. I openly supported the change to similar lap time run groups with limited passing; but I will do everything I can to prevent a change to OPEN passing as some members have proposed to the TTAC.
IMHO, a change to unrestricted passing is a foolhardy move and subjects the club, and me as a host region member, to unnecessary risk that we are unprepared to respond to. Just a couple of questions to think about: Do we have enough "trained" workers to handle unrestricted passing? Do we have the necessary EMS/FIRE?rescue tools to handle car to car contact that results in a serious crash? Just some things to think about.

I provided the above to clarify my thoughts on the PDX program of SCCA. First off, PDX is an SCCA term and HPDE is a term used by NASA and other organizations. If we are going to discuss things we need to discuss the same things, not try to talk about HPDE, Track days, Test days and Level 1 TT, or solo trials under a single term. They are each slightly different.

We are competing with any number of track time "businesses" that offer lots of track time at a lower cost than NASA or SCCA. Porsche, BMW, Chin, and many others are all in the business of providing driver training and non competitive track days and they also "compete" with SCCA and NASA for the available $$$ of those seeking an on track experience. Do we need to improve our marketing to potential PDX/TT drivers absolutely. Is it the responsibility of the National office to promote TT/PDX events in your region? No, but helping promote our event is certainly proper. Has anyone asked for that help? I don't know, I know we have not asked for direct assistance in promoting our events.

Recently we had more than 40 drivers in TT and we also had a single day PDX(during the TT weekend) that I think had 10 drivers. I wasn't there I was at the ARRC. So in our area, in spite of competing track time groups, we seem to be holding our own.

In my opinion, it is wrong assumption that TT is a stepping stone to racing. Many of the TT drivers I know have expressed their desire to continue TT but do not wish to jump to road racing. Many road racers are now realizing how much track time/test time that a TT event provides and are starting to use it to tweek their skills and cars for road racing. In the above mentioned, hastily thrown together, TT event, each driver had over 2 hours of track time available for them.

Do we need to do a better job of marketing what we(SCCA) offer YES. Do we sacrifice safety for the sake of getting more entries? Hell no! Do we need to go head to head with other bodies that offer track time, I don't think so. We offer much more than a low cost track experience, but we do it a reasonable cost, not a bare bones costs. Most young people only look at the bottom line...How much to get MY car on track? They don't look at the value until after they have to shell out big bucks to dig themselves out from a low cost track learning experience.:dead_horse:

Paul

[Kahl23]

This is a very interesting thread.

Being a 26 year old currently building a car for ITR, I figure it might be worthwhile to give my perspective, along with what I have heard from other youngsters. My background is I started out drag racing back in high school, got bored going in a straight line, started karting, did some autocross events, saved up my money to do a Skip Barber three day and now here I am with a BMW in the garage with a half-painted rollcage.

I think everyone is right that the SCCA is facing an uphill battle with the younger racers. However, I think the issue is broader than just a discussion about whether new racers come from the HPDE ranks. Every racer starts off with the idea "I think I want to race." That thought leads to "How do I start racing?" While the SCCA does a decent job answering the second thought (thanks in no small part to Dave Gran), it doesn't do a good job nurturing the first thought. If I'm expected to learn a rule book, take driver's courses and spend thousands and thousands of dollars on a race car before I even hit the track w2w, I better be damn sure that this is what I want to do with my time and money. I think the appeal of HPDEs is that they allow drivers to feel out racing at their own pace, without having to dive in. They can see if they truly love the sport, have enough talent to make it worthwhile, etc. before they are committed. Whether the SCCA decides to embrace HPDEs or not, they definitely need to figure out better solutions to help potential drivers confirm that thought of "I think I want to race."

Beyond the HPDE discussion (and this might deserve it's own thread) the biggest complaint I hear from young racers about the SCCA, especially in IT, is the rules. Jeff Young has said this several times in various threads and is correct in his assumption that the rules are a deal breaker for many of the younger racers. When you come to a place like improvedtouring.com and see arguments over things like washer bottles and wiring, it's an immediate turnoff. Why should I be forbidden from pulling out unnecessary wiring or the washer bottle when all it costs the racer is time and effort and doesn't give them an unfair advantage? From my perspective, while keeping the cars as close to factory as possible is admirable and was the original mandate of this class, that ideal of a street car for the track really went out the window with the current safety rules. Instead, I perceive IT as a (relatively) low cost class of racing, with enough mods to keep the mechanic in me happily tinkering away. These are race cars and I don't care if they have washer bottles, toggle switches, etc. as long as having such things doesn't give one racer a competitive advantage over another. The amount of arguing that goes into items that other clubs toss without a second thought reflects poorly on the SCCA and IT.

I decided to do IT because I was told by many people that some of the best racers in the Northeast are in IT. If this wasn't the case and I felt comfortable that similar depth of talent could be found in NASA or BMWCCA, I would be building a car for one of those clubs. Over the past year, reading the forums, SportsCar, etc. I've developed a real passion for the SCCA, but if at the start of my decision making process the depth of talent wasn't there to keep me around, I would have gone elsewhere.

There you have it. Obviously these are my own opinions (though I have heard them echoed by other young racers) and I'm sure some of the things I've said (especially about the purpose of IT) will be met with understandable hostility from the old guard, but I hope you see that it comes from a desire to see the SCCA grow and stay relevant over time. If you decide that bringing a new generation of drivers to IT is a worthwhile goal, then that will require some serious discussions that delve at the heart of IT as a class.

[lateapex911]

A most reasonable and insightful post, Kahl, thanks.

I'd like to hear you expound on your last point.
If YOU were on the ITAC, what would you do with the ruleset to make it more, shall we say, 'user friendly".
I might be the 'old guard' in some people eyes, but when I was on the ITAC, some (on the ITAC) thought I was trouble, LOL. I guess I'm trying to say that i try to see both sides of issues? So feel free to say what you think!

[gran racing]

I wonder if there are any relatively simple steps that could be taken to help address the "I think I want to race" aspect? Getting regions to host HPDEs / PDXs is a longer term goal.

The WDCR and I'm sure others allows spectators to take their cars on the track for controlled parade laps during lunch hours. The cost is something like $20. Prior to racing, I would have absolutely loved to do this! (While it was controlled, the pace was brisk.) It doesn't take many people to run this - a pace car driver and maybe a couple of other people who could be racers at the event.

SCCA could potentially have a sign-up form where a person whose potentially interested in becoming involved could be paired up with a racer to attend an event as crew. I guess this would be somewhat similar to a mentor program but less involved from the Administrative side.

Think combining the two of these would be useful?

[mgyip]

The DC Region offers parade laps during some of their race weekends but it's offered at EVERY PDX and Time Trials event. The flaggers, oftentimes the friend of a participant, are thrilled with this opportunity to see the track from the driver's perspective. To Lauren's post, many of our flaggers are working the events so they can get a freebie - offering them a parade lap is akin to giving away a free rock of crack...

From a financial standpoint, hosting PDX events should be the short-term goal as it will provide the funding to hold other events. Think of Motorsports as a pyramid with Pro at the top with the highest cost of entry and conversely, the lowest number of participants. Follow that down the chain to Amateur racers (most of us here) and then to Driver's Education events (PDX for this discussion).

Trying to grow Club Racing without any foundation has been SCCA's Achilles Heel for decades - let's grow the most expensive part of our Club by telling people that in order to come play, they need to spend (ostensibly) $10K to build a car, purchase safety equipment and then risk it all at a driver's school with NO MANDATORY EXPERIENCE. No wonder people (young and old) are running to other Clubs in droves. Think of it like sky-diving - buy a plane, a parachute and hope that you figure it all out BEFORE you become a spot on the pavement.

SCCA rules as a whole are incredibly restrictive but much of that revolves around the focus of SCCA. Having attended the NASA Championships for my employer, I had a good opportunity to see some of the differences between the clubs. SCCA's cars are all about the driver while NASA's cars are all about the engineering - neither is better than the other and admittedly, there were some very impressively built cars at their event.

The hard sell to newbies is "Run what you brung. Don't waste money on mods until you know what to change". That's a hard sell because we live in the world of instant gratification where virtually every enthusiast car has been modded to some degree. It's so bad that one club's unwritten mantra is "You're not going fast around this track? You need a faster car."

This is where PDX comes into play - let'em get their feet wet in a environment where they can learn how to drive safely. What many of them quickly realize is "This is my baby - I love my baby and wouldn't want to hurt her". They come to two conclusions - either "beat on my baby b/c she loves it (no, we don't encourage S&M at our events) or "I need to buy a POS for track events".

[ajmr2]

Beyond the HPDE discussion (and this might deserve it's own thread) the biggest complaint I hear from young racers about the SCCA, especially in IT, is the rules.

This to me is the bottom line, assuming a driver gets to the "I wanna race" idea. Having been an SCCA member and CR racer for more than 20 years now (no comments from Matt, Matt or Matt), I have to say that recently I've seen a dizzying number of classes appear in the GCR. I know that the intention is to increase membership by expanding car classes, but really? As an example, and having witnessed it firsthand with my MR2 going from ITA to ITB in 2009, the "formula" for determining a car's weight in a class is almost funny but certainly frustrating and overly complex. I have no idea how the "NA" group does it, but my understanding is that they basically let you run what you brung and find a class for your car somewhere.
The goal in the SCCA should be to provide a place for drivers to safely have fun in their cars, and whether we are involved in CR, Solo, PDX or Rally, we should each point any person interested in any of our programs in the right direction. In the WDCR we're consciously trying to bridge the gaps and working more as a club than as separate groups under the SCCA banner and I think it's working.

[Matt93SE]

This to me is the bottom line, assuming a driver gets to the "I wanna race" idea. Having been an SCCA member and CR racer for more than 20 years now (no comments from Matt, Matt or Matt),
Old f***.. (What I really meant to say is that you bring a great deal of experience and perspective to the table. ;) )


In the WDCR we're consciously trying to bridge the gaps and working more as a club than as separate groups under the SCCA banner and I think it's working.

I'd like to see that happen in other places too. In our region, TT, rallycross, and road rally are completely nonexistant. It's Solo vs. Club racing. some people mix, some don't.
NASA is pretty big here with good size fields, but really only the Spec Miata guys run both groups. for the most part, the rest of them have a car built for a single club and class, and that's it.

I'd definitely like to see SCCA members work better together in promoting the other aspects of the club, as I'll freely admit I don't see it here.

[seckerich]

Wow, lots of good discussion and let me try to address some of the recurring themes.


Let me clear up one thing on the comment on passing in the last FastTrack. The TTAC is looking for member input on revising the passing rules based on requests by some TT drivers. I think the wording that made it into FastTrack would lead people into thinking the TTAC has made a decision, the reality is I think there is a lot of internal discussion that needs to occur and happily we have a LOT of member input to review.

Lastly, yes, Matt and I are hard to differentiate. For those that have hung out with us off track it may help to use the terms Good Matt (Rowe) and Bad Matt (Green). :rolleyes:


The simple fact that open passing with limited safety equipment and no roll cage is out for imput by the TTAC is the problem. That this is considered, and supported by the group as possible is a problem. Adoption of open passing will end cars with roll bars running, and lead to a mandatory H&N device like Road Race. Pushing the boundries for a few is dangerous at the least. This should have died in committee. But then all that will be left is level 2 and that will suit many agendas.

This is based on 20 years of competing, organizing, and teching level 3/4 events since it was Solo 1. Simply put I have some skin in the game and not very happy about the direction the TTAC is going today.

[Chip42]

Art - I'm a bit lost about your example. How is moving the MR2 or any car to a class where it has a greater chance to be competetive equivalent to introducing new classes and adding confusion?

I'll be the first to point out the culture and understanding steps that are necessary if one is to step into SCCA, and I've helped a bunch of people make that step in some small way or another. but the density of the rules and the lack of clarity in their writing (particularly in IT, unfortunately) coupled with the "perception" of being overly limited are hard to overcome. NASA's system is simpler, no doubt. but I think some more base-language statements DESCRIBING each class and more clearly written class/category rules would go a logn way to dropping the barrier.

I have no clue how to make the club better known or more attractive inthe first place, though. I do know that the huge number of classes means less opportunity to fit in TT or PDX on a race weekend. that and odd idiosyncracies liek the God hour in the south or sunday at lime rock I think hinders the success of such programs a stepping stones to club racing.

[farrout]

For the South East Division, TT Level 3 and Level 4 is simply a continuation of the SOLO I program that we have held since the 80’s. In the SOLO I program we had track events and Hill Climbs which folded in to a SOLO I Championship Series. Now we have been transitioned to Club Racing Time Trials. The Level 3 and Level 4 Championship program continues to be strong with 8-10 events per year.

The Flat Track (Level 3) events are run with cars grouped in pods of the same relative lap times. Numbers of cars in a pod is dependent on the length of the track. They run 15 minute sessions with passing on the straights with a point-by. Most TT events are full stand-alone weekends with drivers getting more than 2 hours of track time for their $250 entry fee. PDXs are frequently run in groups on the same weekend – same price, same track time. On a $/Minute basis, TT is much better than any of the Road Races, Test Days, or HPDEs being run by other entities.

We are finding that the TT drivers generally do not want to drive a long distance for a one day Track event with 3 sessions which is what you find when combined with a Road Race weekend. This is particularly true when there are other options for track time.

We have reviewed the TTAC proposal on open passing in Level 3. The almost unanimous response from our drivers to the TTAC has been to NOT allow open passing.


By way of progression, I ran HPDEs at Summit Point, Watkins Glen, VIR and Road Atlanta for 5 years in my daily driver, a 1993 RX7. Took me one HPDE to install a rollbar and harnesses since I saw some cars roll and I was capable of hitting 155 on some tracks. When I lunched an engine one weekend, it convinced me to get a trailer. Then it was a move to Alabama and the SOLO scene. A year of that and my Miata became a CSP Solo I car used for both SOLO and SOLO I. Couple years of that and it was time for Road Race School and a DSR. Now it is a balance of Time Trials and Regional Racing. The reason for this progression was mostly due to the friends that I met in SCCA. That camaraderie is the strength of the SCCA.

[mgyip]

I'd definitely like to see SCCA members work better together in promoting the other aspects of the club, as I'll freely admit I don't see it here.

This is exactly what needs to happen - promoting SCCA as a whole, not just a favorite program but the region as a whole.

What the DC Region has seen with PDX is that it pulls the entire Region together, tapping resources from each program. Both PDX and Time Trials are open to all cars and drivers. For Time Trials, SCCA's classifications are mind-boggling BUT they recognize both Club Racing AND Solo classes so literally everyone can participate.

[Lauren]

This is exactly what needs to happen - promoting SCCA as a whole, not just a favorite program but the region as a whole.

What the DC Region has seen with PDX is that it pulls the entire Region together, tapping resources from each program. Both PDX and Time Trials are open to all cars and drivers. For Time Trials, SCCA's classifications are mind-boggling BUT they recognize both Club Racing AND Solo classes so literally everyone can participate.

Thats what I like best about our WDCR PDX/TT events! It is a nexus for Solo racers, MARRS racers, volunteers, spouses of racers, you name it. It is THE one event where I know I will see friends from all the different forms of racing in one place and I love that. It's more of a party than anything else. I have to say, if I could only do one event I would choose one of our PDX days. Okay, that was my kumbya moment.... ;-)

[Kahl23]

I'd like to hear you expound on your last point.
If YOU were on the ITAC, what would you do with the ruleset to make it more, shall we say, 'user friendly".


I believe it requires a shift in thinking about what the purpose of IT is. According to the GCR, the purpose of Improved Touring is to provide the opportunity to race "low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition." This sentence should be what is used when evaluating proposed rule changes, not "does this rule take us further away from the original purpose of IT?"

For example, motor mounts. People wanted them changed because stock mounts aren't up to the stresses of racing and rip out once a year, cause misshifts, etc. Does this change go against the original intent of IT? Absolutely. But if you look at the rule change from the perspective of "is it low cost, does it make life easier for the majority of members and does it give a relatively equal advantage across cars" then it makes total sense.

I think that most (if not all) new racers coming into IT use this second line of logic when it comes to rules and therefore, when they see these incredibly acrimonious debates over suggested changes that, from their point of view are no-brainers, they get turned off and start looking for other clubs. They don't care about what the original purpose of the class was, they're just looking for a low cost, straightforward way to get on track.

Now, car classing is a much trickier part of the ruleset and frankly, I don't think there's ever going to be a clean, simple way to evaluate cars, adjust weights, etc. Someone is always going to feel like they're getting burned. The good news is that, from a newcomer's perspective, I don't think many people coming into the sport care about things like car weights. That only becomes important after you start winning and want to fight for the lead.


I wonder if there are any relatively simple steps that could be taken to help address the "I think I want to race" aspect? Getting regions to host HPDEs / PDXs is a longer term goal.

The WDCR and I'm sure others allows spectators to take their cars on the track for controlled parade laps during lunch hours. The cost is something like $20. Prior to racing, I would have absolutely loved to do this! (While it was controlled, the pace was brisk.) It doesn't take many people to run this - a pace car driver and maybe a couple of other people who could be racers at the event.

SCCA could potentially have a sign-up form where a person whose potentially interested in becoming involved could be paired up with a racer to attend an event as crew. I guess this would be somewhat similar to a mentor program but less involved from the Administrative side.
Think combining the two of these would be useful?

I absolutely agree with this. The key is to make sure there is a high awareness of the program. For example, on scca.org right now the "Go Racing" page talks about how difficult the process is. Not exactly the best way to attract new customers! Instead the Go Racing page should have a drop down of regions and when you select a region, it should list upcoming events where interested parties can get a ride-along. It should encourage people to come to a race and see what it's all about. The fact that in the first paragraph of the current SCCA "Go Racing" page it talks about how difficult it is to get started is symptomatic of how far the club needs to come in recruiting new drivers.

[Knestis]

>> I think that most (if not all) new racers coming into IT use this second line of logic when it comes to rules and therefore, when they see these incredibly acrimonious debates over suggested changes that, from their point of view are no-brainers, they get turned off and start looking for other clubs. They don't care about what the original purpose of the class was, they're just looking for a low cost, straightforward way to get on track.

But what they don't have the experience to understand (and what you don't seem to get) is that each of them - as an individual - is only going to be in the game for a few years, on average. If we give every short-timer what he wants, the entire category gets dorked up for the everyone in a few years, and the guys/gals who pushed for the changes are long gone anyway.

The ITAC's first obligation is to the category. Second, to the Club. Third - a distant third - comes any individual group of racers, defined by a geography, class, marque, or time period.

Racers are, by and large, a bunch of selfish pricks. They want to win and if an entire program has to lose because of it, many of them don't care.

IT has some of the best racing in the SCCA. Add a bunch of new allowances and the distance between the front and back of the grids will get even bigger. If someone wants to monkey with things more than IT allows (yeah, I'm gonna do it) they can run Production. Or STx. If someone doesn't want that, wants what is good about IT, but then wants to shove the category closer to those more open categories WTF do they choose IT in the first place...?

K

[Flyinglizard]

The most succesful PDX groups all have some sort of ride along program. Some charge 50$ and they get an instructor for 2- 15min sessions. Is it a money loser? Short term ,yes. I had one student that had been three times before. But he could find 50$ for the day, not 300$. Young guy in school, etc. Doe he love cars, yes, will he come back with more money later?? maybe.
Again copy success, not failure. SCCA wont even let people into the track. Man the reg booth for the day, pay some kid the 25$ and sell 10$ passes. Hang some dam signs, maybe where kids race or work or drive cool cars. Have car shows at the local restaurant, on race weekend, handing out some passes for Sun.
It doesnt take a lot of thought to see that every one turned away, is turned away for good.

I have rented race cars for 20yrs. I get maybe 4 SCCA drivers per year @ 900 per race weekend.
I will rent about 25+ seats this year to Chumpcar guys. Why is that?? Hassle,and one freaken class. DOT 190 tires!!
3000 racers last year. hassle free fun
Cheap-ish racing.
ONE CLASS... far from perfect, a little scary in some areas, but in reality, a good time with lots of seat time.

Market SCCA by making it visible, making the first touch, a nice touch. By fixing the racing... MY ITB car can go into how many classes?? it will run HP next time , so that we can use the free tires.
Make it user friendly. Make the classes mean something , quit adding classes .


SCCA PDX; I had to get a TT Driver logbook to run my Chumpcar @ the PDX?? really .
Ride with me, follow me around what ever, log book? Bag of Hassle .
The TT board should just clean up the whole program. Just a sticker on the Club card should be fine. If you drive likeshit, remove the sticker and start over.
Copy success, NASA does a good job, makes money,/welcomes/brings young people with money.
Chumpcar does a good job, brings lots of money and drivers from all backgrounds. I think that the 4 driver rule is a hidden/accidental, part of the low rate of driver idiotis. Chances are good if you have 4 drivers, than someone may have a clue, and passing on that clue to success and non interface with hard objects.

SCCA needs a PR person with a vested interst.
Give me a budget.
I'll make a plan..
SCCA in HS driver ed. HS VS HS solo, Local cops take on the winners. against the cops!!
SCCA in the local car shows. pay 20$ off with a pic of your car at any show. Hand out schedules and passes!
Bring a non SCCA friend to a race. Get those people a 20 min session on the track, that day!!
Make the races shorter and more of them. practice session, qualfying session, race , qualifying session, race. Not!!
Practice/qualifying, Race, Invert the start, race, race, drink. easy
More fun, more racers.

I need more engineering lube. >:, MM

[jumbojimbo]

... If someone doesn't want that, wants what is good about IT, but then wants to shove the category closer to those more open categories WTF do they choose IT in the first place...?

They chose IT becase that is where the car they bought was built. And they stay because that is where the cars are at. Why would someone move from a 10 car class to a 0 car class just to replace plastic fenders with metal?

But you are also dumping all requests for changes into one "lets go prod racing" group.

1. Changes that don't make any difference and don't undermine the category, washer bottles, wiper switches, etc.
2. Changes for nla parts. Civic 4G hubs bolt right on, 3G hubs NLA. No performance difference, ok, maybe outside the philosphy of the class, but so what?
3. Actual allowances, bigger brakes because my car sucks, better hubs for "safety", etc. definitely outside the philosphy of the class. Bad idea.
4. Random changes like plastic windows, fender flairs, sequential gearbox, pistons, things that are clearly outside the philosphy of the class and have no business in the category.

The issue is that you jump all over people for asking why types 1 and 2 are not allowed anad you treat those potential changes like types 3 and 4. Oh my god, no washer bottle, that will lead to titanium pistons and custom cams. Cats and dogs living together.

And to some degree, same issue with NLA parts. Why force cars out of our class just because plastic fenders don't last 35 years? Ok, i get it, it's outside the class philosphy, but there's no way to extrapolate that to cars getting PERFORMANCE allowances, that argument sounds insane to most drivers. Trot out your SS example of some obscure car that got a bolt changed on rear calipers and then dominated the class and killed it. Or how some small allowance for deer whistles led to custom cranks. But that argument doesn't ring true to CRX guys who want to buy aftermarket metal fenders. You might be "right", but it still doesn't sound logical to most people.

(sorry, didn't mean to use the word 'You' so much and make it sound like a personal attack. That's the royal "You")

[Knestis]

I've been watching SCCA classes (and those in other sanctioning bodies) since I went to my first race in 1979. It WILL happen, Jim. The incremental creep from changes that you don't think matter to performance (they DO make a difference to competitiveness, but there's no convincing "You" of htat) will get made, then the ones that REALLY make a difference in performance will follow hot on their heels. It's happened in the last 10 years.

The only thing that's preserved IT in the form that is as close as it IS to the original rule set, is the neglect it got during the dark ages before the Not-so-Great Realignment. Look how much other classes have morphed since 1986 and you'll have some perspective.

If you stick around long enough, you will see it.

K

EDIT - Because, to be clear, when ONE car gets a gimme, everyone else will eventually get it too, regardless of 'need.'

[mgyip]

SCCA PDX; I had to get a TT Driver logbook to run my Chumpcar @ the PDX?? really

For a Time Trials, you'll need a log book and for PDX, we'd like to have a log book so, like other Clubs, the organizers can track the student's progress. There's no requirement to bring a TT Driver logbook for a PDX though and issuing one takes less than 5 minutes (if that).


SCCA needs a PR person with a vested interst.

I doubt that will ever happen at the National level for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that each Region has it's own "special" needs. At the Regional level, you're on the right track - get someone who has a FULL-TIME VESTED INTEREST in SCCA to promote the program. The concept of having a part-timer trying to promote a Region's events simply doesn't work. I work with several Clubs' local chapters - we get an invoice sometime well after the year has started and then there is no contact until the next year when we receive a call about "advertising". Given the level of service we receive, it's more akin to a donation b/c the ROI is minimal.

[ajmr2]

Art - I'm a bit lost about your example. How is moving the MR2 or any car to a class where it has a greater chance to be competetive equivalent to introducing new classes and adding confusion?

Sorry I wasn't clear, but I was trying to support Kahl's post. The "greater chance to be competitive" in the case of the MR2 has been well discussed in the past and not worth resurrecting here. I was simply trying to point out the difficulty in understanding the rules even as long time racer, and how that contributes to potential members looking elsewhere. And I may be wrong about the wisdom of adding so many new classes but "time will tell about the cirlcles in the wishing well." Another example of confusion with the rules would be a guy who can run a PDX or Club Trial all day but can't bring the same car to the same track for a Track Trial. I know there are several guys in the WDCR who are facing this situation.

Finally, in regards to attracting new members, I have been one of the pace car drivers for a number of years for MARRS events at Summit Point. I always make a point of inviting a volunteer or friend of a friend to ride along. This year I got busted for taking a 15 year old out. Yeah, that was a bad idea, but he was thrilled. His dad had won an auction that I had offered at his school for a Day at the Races. I also took out his dad, his dad's friend and 2 other teenagers over 16. Now the rule is only SCCA members can go in the pace car. So now I don't get to invite non members, which would include almost all spectators/family members and potential members to see the track from the pace car. I get the safety issue (liability lawyers), but that keeps me from trying to get someone interested in joining the club from my little place in the pace car.
AJ

[jumbojimbo]

Maybe we're at an impass Kirk. I'm pointing out the reality that the vast majority of current and potential drivers just don't agree with the logic that allowing us to remove one wiper is going lead to custom cams. They see it as pure pigheadedness. More of the same old been-there-done-that arguement. And yes, as member number 176823 I've been around a bit too.

What needs to be done is find the driving principles of IT and make that the line in the sand we will not cross. Allow the little changes tht don't matter and absolutely do not allow the ones that do violate the real principles. Don't protect the main principles by resisting all changes.

What you are describing in the past is a lack of disipline and poor decision making. The failure was the decision to voliolate the guiding principles of those other classes, not the little changes that led up to it Or perhaps to change the guiding principles themselves. But now, we're making the opposite mistake. We're resisting reasonable changes because we lack the faith that we'll be able to resist the unreasonable changes when the requsts comes along. That's why people keeping asking "why?"

[Kahl23]

>> I think that most (if not all) new racers coming into IT use this second line of logic when it comes to rules and therefore, when they see these incredibly acrimonious debates over suggested changes that, from their point of view are no-brainers, they get turned off and start looking for other clubs. They don't care about what the original purpose of the class was, they're just looking for a low cost, straightforward way to get on track.

But what they don't have the experience to understand (and what you don't seem to get) is that each of them - as an individual - is only going to be in the game for a few years, on average. If we give every short-timer what he wants, the entire category gets dorked up for the everyone in a few years, and the guys/gals who pushed for the changes are long gone anyway.


I completely understand your point of view and agree with the point that any single racer is likely going to be in the class for a few years at most and rules shouldn't be changed for any one individual.

However, what I am saying is that, while the rules shouldn't be changed for the interests of any one individual, there is clearly an issue facing IT when it comes to bringing in new drivers and changes should be considered in the interest of the long-term future of the class. The comments I've made merely reflect what I've experienced and seen among those people who are looking to get into racing and I'd suggest that there is a much larger group of people than just the newbies that get turned off by the ruleset in IT.

I also don't buy the argument that these incredible debates over things like washer bottles, wiring and motor mounts are worth it because they keep the class from transforming into Prod. Pretty much every other club has a low cost class that allows these types of mods while keeping the transformations to a minimum. It sounds like there have been past experiences where this was attempted and it didn't turn out well. I would suggest that perhaps rather than that experience being an indictment of changes as a whole, it perhaps was more a reflection of the way those changes were executed at the time. That said, I'm now talking about things I don't know enough about, so I defer to your experience.




IT has some of the best racing in the SCCA. Add a bunch of new allowances and the distance between the front and back of the grids will get even bigger. If someone wants to monkey with things more than IT allows (yeah, I'm gonna do it) they can run Production. Or STx.


Just because someone wants to simplify their wiring for troubleshooting or change mounts because they keep forking out for OEM replacements doesn't mean they want a class with cams, four-way adjustable suspensions, seam welding, etc.

[JeffYoung]

This is basically what I have been saying for a long time. We need to "codify" the IT core principles that cannot be changed, and allow member input to shape IT around them.

I've always said that I think we would agree on 99% of those core principles, but this thread has given me a bit of pause because I personally don't think lexan and fiberglass panels should be allowed. Core IT philosophy, to me, is stock stuff in those places.

Maybe the IT Core philosophies approach will be more difficult than I anticipated then, but I still think it worth the effort.



Maybe we're at an impass Kirk. I'm pointing out the reality that the vast majority of current and potential drivers just don't agree with the logic that allowing us to remove one wiper is going lead to custom cams. They see it as pure pigheadedness. More of the same old been-there-done-that arguement. And yes, as member number 176823 I've been around a bit too.

What needs to be done is find the driving principles of IT and make that the line in the sand we will not cross. Allow the little changes tht don't matter and absolutely do not allow the ones that do violate the real principles. Don't protect the main principles by resisting all changes.

What you are describing in the past is a lack of disipline and poor decision making. The failure was the decision to voliolate the guiding principles of those other classes, not the little changes that led up to it Or perhaps to change the guiding principles themselves. But now, we're making the opposite mistake. We're resisting reasonable changes because we lack the faith that we'll be able to resist the unreasonable changes when the requsts comes along. That's why people keeping asking "why?"

[mgyip]

Maybe the IT Core philosophies approach will be more difficult than I anticipated then, but I still think it worth the effort.

I'd be more apt to say that IT Core Philosophies have been lost during one of the many "scope creep" allowances.

Let's start with a simple question to the ITAC - Please provide a mission statement for Improved Touring.

Once that's codified, that should lay the groundwork for how IT was/is designed so that the ITAC can follow written guidelines instead of pulling in separate directions to satisfy each member's special needs and desires.

[Knestis]

I'm old.

And I'm going to try to stay done on this topic. I'm convinced that the horse is out of the barn. In 5 years, I'll look back on it as an academic question and see how it shook out.

When you define your 'core principles,' Jeff, you would be well advised to look at how they align with LP Prod, and be clear about what is different, because you are defining where the line will be drawn in very short order.

If you go as far as it sounds like you are, IT will be three proposed allowances away from those rules. I hope that's enough for it to maintain its identity and you best be ready for the Huns at the gate on those last few differences...

Rock on, y'all.

K

[coreyehcx]

Once again, this turns into a discussion about IT philosophy and the rules or how a washer bottle is the gateway drug for cocaine. I get it because IT is where the most competition is and with that comes arguing but jesus it gets ridiculous.

This is part of the "people getting turned off with certain comments/arguments" that have been mentioned.





But what they don't have the experience to understand (and what you don't seem to get) is that each of them - as an individual - is only going to be in the game for a few years, on average. If we give every short-timer what he wants, the entire category gets dorked up for the everyone in a few years, and the guys/gals who pushed for the changes are long gone anyway.

The ITAC's first obligation is to the category. Second, to the Club. Third - a distant third - comes any individual group of racers, defined by a geography, class, marque, or time period.

Racers are, by and large, a bunch of selfish pricks. They want to win and if an entire program has to lose because of it, many of them don't care.

IT has some of the best racing in the SCCA. Add a bunch of new allowances and the distance between the front and back of the grids will get even bigger. If someone wants to monkey with things more than IT allows (yeah, I'm gonna do it) they can run Production. Or STx. If someone doesn't want that, wants what is good about IT, but then wants to shove the category closer to those more open categories WTF do they choose IT in the first place...?

K

I dont mean to point you out but this as a newcomer doesnt get me puffy, maybe it explains part of the problem. Sure maybe I drive for a year or two and then I dont....How do you know for sure? I could enjoy the hell out of it like I enjoyed HPDE for the past few years and want to continue doing it. I could recruit everyone I know to come race SCCA with me. You have been club racing since whenever you started, how did anyone know at that time how long you would be around and your group? I assume there are some statistics to back your claim and I would love to see them.

The only thing I agree with from all of that is the selfish prick part because I want what I want too.

This is the same BS that made me get out of autox with SCCA about 8 years ago and run with Martin until I just didnt enjoy autox anymore at all and moved on finally to HPDE.


Im in the same boat as kahl like I have stated before in other threads and agree with most of what he had to say.


I have friends that have helped me through my process luckily (probably will hate me after this post), without them I probably wouldnt have gone this direction. NASA is very friendly and inviting to new people which I think SCCA lacks to an extent and most are arrogant about it and think its a selective club. SCCA is prestigious and has history but that doesnt mean it gets a freepass from the newer gens looking to race/compete/be cool whatever you want to call it.




I pointed this out recently for STL:

"OEM brake systems must be used" but "The standard production calipers or any 4-piston calipers are permitted.”

Basically it appears you can and cannot use an aftermarket caliper. Yes you can use an aftermarket caliper!

This I believe will be re-worded, some rules seem to need decoding which makes it difficult if you dont have a friend or you dont know a forum like this exists with contributing members.

SCCA's website as mentioned is one place to start. It gets you all excited when you first get there, "Go Racing with your car!" but first try to decode this big rule book that you may have no idea how to disect.

Dave Grans website was a huge help when I intially was doing HPDE's and decided I wanted to do w2w racing (count me in the group of HPDE guys that wants to really race) at this point in my life. Dave has taken the time to answer a few questions for me too which I appreciated a lot.

Greg Amy has been patient with my questions as well which is the type of reception you would want when youre trying to do everything within the rules when you are new. I dont get that vibe from some on this board and some I have met outside of friends at events.


Im curious, some of you have a lot of input and argue a lot concerning IT and whatever else.

How many events are you doing per year where you are actually competing in IT or XYZ class?



I will be happy to run in STL by myself, with 2 cars, with 20 cars or whatever. Why will I be happy? I will actually be out there which I think is the hardest part. I will be enjoying the specific car I want to drive with other cars faster and slower around me.

One thing really stuck with me oddly considering I dont listen to my own wife enough.

"While at a race as a spectator, he talked to his wife about how badly he felt for one of the drivers. “That driver is so far behind everyone else that is racing. That must be really awful.” I know when I watched races in the past, I used to think the same exact thing – “That poor person!” Of course, it often takes the wisdom of a woman to set us men straight. “Who should feel bad for whom? You are the one sitting here on the hill and not driving. I feel sorry for you, not him!” She was absolutely right. Keep in mind that running in the back of the pack is the worst-case scenario. But when you really think about it, that worst-case scenario really is not so bad. And by all means, I am not saying that you will be running in the back of the pack."
-Dave Gran

Obviously I like him and his site which were instrumental in my decision to go w2w from HPDE.


Those are my opinions/perception on it all obviously and I know some wont be liked.

[Knestis]

Once again, this turns into a discussion about IT philosophy and the rules or how a washer bottle is the gateway drug for cocaine. I get it because IT is where the most competition is and with that comes arguing but jesus it gets ridiculous.

This is part of the "people getting turned off with certain comments/arguments" that have been mentioned. ...

Those are my opinions/perception on it all obviously and I know some wont be liked.

No worries. Your timing is actually pretty good because you caught my last barrage before I waved my white flag. Y'all win.

I've tried various strategies to kick my give-a-shit habit about the IT rules and fallen off the wagon every time, but I'm seeing a hypnotherapist who's self-actualizing my understanding that more liberal rules are actually to my benefit. I've just been slow to come to that realization but I am very confident that I'm actually cured this time.

Hell - if the powers-that-be would get past the silly "USDM" engine requirement, I'd look very seriously at STL at this point.

EDIT


...How many events are you doing per year where you are actually competing in IT or XYZ class?http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/history.php



K

[coreyehcx]

I wish the USDM and JDM thing could be worked out because I know some other people that would surely join me too.

Thanks for your link, that and my whole post wasnt attacking you :)

[Knestis]

As I said, no worries. I hope you *do* beat the odds and stick around.

I picked up the "most don't last more than 3 years" number from a discussion here or at rr-ax.com. It could be flawed but the most obvious evidence of turnover is member numbers. Mine is 103210, which was actually a NEW number I got after I taking a short break after first joining in 1979. SCCA doesn't make it easy to know how many people quit - or why, certainly - but we're up in the 430,000s now, I think.

That's all academic though. The current ITAC - and prevailing sentiment among members, I guess - are taking the category further down the path, so we'll all follow...

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, you are a good friend, but you are dramatically, dramatically over stating the claimed change in directon of this ITAC versus the one you were on (the one that allowed open ECUs, and sphericals, etc.).

We've probably had, what, maybe 25-30 rules request changes come up in the last year since you were off?

Almost all were shot down summarily.

The power steering removal allowance was voted down.

The engine mount change - a legacy from the ITAC you were on -- was finally approved.

A few small non-essential items can now be removed from the car.

You can legally now add an ignition switch, a starter button, and switches for wipers and lights.

Far MORE of what we do NOW than the first two years I was on the ITAC has been using the process to either class or fix cars.

I don't get the angst. I really don't. There hasn't been a major rule change from this ITAC (engine mounts were originally approved by the "old" one) and my guess is there won't be one.

[red986s]

[I]>> The ITAC's first obligation is to the category. Second, to the Club. Third - a distant third - comes any individual group of racers, defined by a geography, class, marque, or time period.

K

Totally agree!!!


NASA is very friendly and inviting to new people which I think SCCA lacks to an extent and most are arrogant about it and think its a selective club. SCCA is prestigious and has history but that doesnt mean it gets a freepass from the newer gens looking to race/compete/be cool whatever you want to call it.

I think you see the difference. The SCCA is a club where (IMHO) NASA is a business willing to cater to the individual to keep your business. In SCCA you pay your dues/prove yourself and then folks open up. We all experience that at the beginning.

As you pointed out there are a bunch of great people in the club willing to help. There are just as many who won't extend a helping hand. Such is life. Like all of us you'll learn and then pass that on to "the new guy".

[Knestis]

Point of historical accuracy: ECUs and spherical bearings got "allowed" by a de facto application of the same kind of logic that says air bolts are OK. All the ITAC (which I wasn't on at the time) did was NOT put those genies back in their bottles - with the help of the CRB on sphericals - because they were politically untenable "take-backs." There was no proactive plan by the Committee to get to that place, and it only happened because earlier "safe" allowances were made, then exploited by members. That's how creep works.

Many of the most recent allowances were denied by the ITAC in the past 3 years - when I WAS on the committee. And the only "legacy" of the engine mount allowance from "my generation" is that we voted against it. The trend in the past 9 months clearly represents a line in the sand being wiped out by the current Committee. My current understanding is that you're going to redraw it based on the "core" attributes that are being kicked around, which will usher in another round of envelope-pushing reinterpretations (creep).

But that's just for historical clarity - not to argue that it should be different. It is what it is. I know we'll creep because we always do but I'm fine with the new way of things. Power steering WILL be looped, for example. There is ZERO question it will happen. The only question is, "when?"

I'm not clairvoyant. I'm just your reminder of the fact that this is how it ALWAYS works. I'm along for the ride and ready to take full advantage.

K

[JeffYoung]

I tire a bit of the "just putting the genie back in the bottle" excuse for creep, because that's all it is. An excuse. You guys could have said no, but you didn't. You allowed open ECUs and you didn't recommend against sphericals.

The interesting question is why? But the answer is easy: BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT BEST FOR THE CATEGORY.

Your understanding of what I -- just *I* because no one on the committee is on board with it yet -- would like to do is wrong by the way. All I want to do is codify what we have NOW as existing core principles so that they don't get changed in the future. Essentially, NO MORE ECU rule changes, or no more sphericals.

If members want to change certain things around that, and can muster the support for it, the ITAC should in my view consider it.

That's all.

And in all cases this ITAC is doing what it thinks is best for the category. Just like you did. I just wish you'd give us some credit for it.

[Knestis]

That's all fine, Jeff.

It's what people want and I'm good with it. I'm disappointed that you (collectively) don't acknowledge the implications for the future based on past patterns but, again, that's where we now are.

I do *not* think that sphericals and open ecus were good for the category but it's water under the bridge, and it sounds like have now established the standard by which all future allowances will be judged to be "within the spirit of IT." I hope that works but it could cut both ways.

We've got a lot of freedom now and the "core principles" will run us right to the edge, removing the "buffer" that's slowed our getting there by incremental creep. I hope everyone is clear about where the brakes are.

K