February 2013 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Kai Noeske]

So, IT remains regional only for the foreseeable future...

[Greg Amy]

So, IT remains regional only for the foreseeable future...
Per the CRB, for the "permanent" future, foreseeable or not.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Am I the only one who has trouble opening SCCA PDFs in Google Chrome? They never seem to work for me, but will in IE.

[mossaidis]

I have the same problem. Save to your download folder and open from there.

[Gregg]

Am I the only one who has trouble opening SCCA PDFs in Google Chrome? They never seem to work for me, but will in IE.
If you want to disable Chrome's built-in PDF reader and use whatever is the default for your PC instead (like Adobe or Primo, etc) check here:

http://superuser.com/questions/395552/how-do-i-make-adobe-the-default-pdf-reader-in-chrome

[DavidM]

That was a fairly emphatic FU from the CRB. Sure IT cars can run in ST. Hell, they can run in Prod. The chance of running at the front is zero if there's more than 3 cars running. Kirk's request was just for the *possibility* of IT becoming a national class and they couldn't even do that.

David

[Knestis]

Since a couple of people asked why I "wanted to make IT national," I should share that the question was frankly intended to get exactly this result.

With the advent of the Majors program, an initial (and arguably successful) year of the IT National Tour, and conversations about ST perking along, it just seemed like an appropriate time to affirm the intentions of the CRB vis-a-vis the IT category.

I had exactly ZERO expectation that the prohibition would be removed, even though it still doesn't make any sense in the big scheme of things.

Among us chickens, I think the CRB has pretty much confirmed their view of the irrelevance of IT to the future of Club Racing.

K

[Greg Amy]

Among us chickens, I think the CRB has pretty much confirmed their view of the irrelevance of IT to the future of National Club Racing.
A bit melodramatic. Fixed for you.

I'm quite certain that the CRB is well aware of the value of Improved Touring to Club Racing as a whole; only a fool would suggest otherwise. All that happened here is they affirmed that they like where it is now and do not wish to add it to the National racing program.

GA

[DavidM]

A bit melodramatic. Fixed for you.

I'm quite certain that the CRB is well aware of the value of Improved Touring to Club Racing as a whole; only a fool would suggest otherwise. All that happened here is they affirmed that they like where it is FOREVER and do not wish to add it to the National racing program.

GA

Fixed yours. I'm not certain the CRB knows which way is up. What is certain is that anyone who had hopes of IT becoming a national class and going to the Runoffs in IT will now move to another class or leave SCCA all together. Either way it's a loss for IT.

David

[Greg Amy]

...What is certain is that anyone who had hopes of IT becoming a national class and going to the Runoffs in IT...
....were not reading the rules. That verbiage has been in there since the class was created in 1985, and it has been affirmed by the CRB many times over the last nearly 3 decades -- twice in response to emails from me.

Sorry, no empathy.

Kirk is a close friend of mine but I see his request, and all the others that followed it, as nothing more than a non-sincere attempt to throw a stink bomb into the room and get people all upset. Again. And that's verified by Kirk's admission above that, for all intents and purposes, he knew it wasn't going to work and all he wanted to do was throw a stink bomb in the room and get people all upset.

Looks like it's working.

GA

[Ed Funk]

What's that smell?

[mossaidis]

Kirk's stink bomb.

[mossaidis]

In all seriousness, now that the CRB has officially confirmed again that it will never go National/Majors, I am sad. Near term for me: kids; long term car classification: who knows. So sad.

[jjjanos]

1. Whether you support IT being Ruboffs-eligible , it is disappointing and mildly insulting that the CRB did not even put it into the what do you think section.
2. Seems to me that the CRB is being marginalized by the BoD in regards to the future of Club Racing. They essentially said that everything to do with the Majors Program is out of their hands.

[Knestis]

Not intended to be a stink bomb at all.

Some things were changing and rumors were bubbling up suggesting that the regional/national distinction might change on the heels of the Majors introduction. ST has SUBSTANTIALLY changed the context around IT. Greg can confirm that I shared that opinion with him on our VIR 13 trip. The SS and Touring rules are in major flux.

With everything spinning around IT as it has been for the past 18 months or so, affirmation that something is *not* going to change is as important to members' planning for future seasons as getting confirmation of a rule change.

Yeah, I'm sad about it too because I think that intransigence on the part of a few has compromised what IT could have been. With just a tiny number of exceptions (FVee?) NO category has survived since the mid-'80s without pretty major changes. When motivated, the PTBs can change (or ignore) any GCR rule. IT is Regional-only NOW for reasons completely unrelated to the existence of that one line in the book but that truly doesn't matter. What does matter is that we're all clear what the category will NOT be moving forward.

At this point, I'm not building another IT car, even as I have no powerful motivation to run Nationals/Majors.

K

[DavidM]

....were not reading the rules. That verbiage has been in there since the class was created in 1985, and it has been affirmed by the CRB many times over the last nearly 3 decades -- twice in response to emails from me.

Sorry, no empathy.

Kirk is a close friend of mine but I see his request, and all the others that followed it, as nothing more than a non-sincere attempt to throw a stink bomb into the room and get people all upset. Again. And that's verified by Kirk's admission above that, for all intents and purposes, he knew it wasn't going to work and all he wanted to do was throw a stink bomb in the room and get people all upset.

Looks like it's working.

GA

Times change. You of all people know IT is not what it was when it was started. I think there are a lot of people that would like to be able to compete at the Runoffs in IT and held out hope that the CRB/BoD would entertain that idea. Some people have no desire for the increased modifications that moving to Prod or ST entails. I see the requests as an attempt to ascertain if things were any different within SCCA than before. The resounding answer is no. IT is still one of the strongest categories in SCCA and deserves better treatment than it gets. I think this just re-affirms what the people running the show think of IT. How that translates into IT car counts only time will tell.

David

[lateapex911]

I can see both sides. I know the CRB had. at the time I was on the ITAC, reservations.
-One was a tech issue with old cars that couldn't be documented properly winning the Ruboffs. (there were solutions proposed, none were accepted)
-Another was the fact that IT sets weights via the Process, and the CRB was loath to allow that into the Ruboffs without dictatorship control (competition adjustments) over weights should some car dominate. (We were, at the time, told to give the 'grand experiment' some time regarding the Process and it could be revisited)
- And there were real concerns that it would hurt Regional car counts, that people would run reduced schedules saving up for the big trip to the Ruboffs, and IT and the Regions pocketbooks would suffer.

All of these issues were brought up, I should add, not as a response to any official business or request, but as side conversations on ITAC /CRB con calls, often occuring before or after the actual business of the call happened. Lots of guys on the ITAC never heard any of this.....

[Greg Amy]

...affirmation that something is *not* going to change is as important to members' planning for future seasons as getting confirmation of a rule change...
That, I will grant you, Prof. Though it's an answer that was never really up to question until you brought it up. We've both queried over the years in regards to National status for Improved Touring (the latest, prior to this one immediately before a current CRB member finally said, in effect, "Fine, eff it, let's create a new class to get around this. Pass me a Crown") and the answer has always been the same: "No".


With just a tiny number of exceptions (FVee?) NO category has survived since the mid-'80s without pretty major changes.That, my friend, is a self-evident truth. I'd argue that the REASON IT has lasted as long as it has without major changes is EXCLUSIVELY due to its Regional Status. Hell, Spec Miata lasted about 32 microseconds before the competition adjustments crept in. Crap, it's already starting in Super Touring Light...

It may seem Bourgeosie or self-important, but I've personally come to believe that Improved Touring is better off with its Regional-Only status. I keep coming back to ITx each time I venture into National racing because of what it is.

But more likely, I keep coming back to Improved Touring mostly because of what it isn't.

GA

[RSTPerformance]

If IT went "National" or whatever the name is and the CRB got more involved than they already are things would get much much worse for IT... Currently we do not have a great class structure in SCCA "national racing" and things seem to constantly get added/changed around, I would hate to see that happen to IT.

While I agree IT should be national, I also don't think it works right now. It would only work if it was part of a simple class structure for sedan type cars (IT, Touring, Prod, GT & a few specialty classes such as AS & SM). I think that for now SCCA needs to keep things how they are if a class is working, and in a few years if things get a bit better organized re-look at it... Not to mention if an Audi won the Runoffs the entire club would fall apart ;)

Raymond "All other negative CRB comments edited out of my reply!" Blethen

[924Guy]

Now that I'm running Nationals/Majors, and in one of the classes that isn't SM/SM-Lite/Prod SM/GT SM, I'm definitely moving more and more in the direction of "leave IT alone and be glad"... serving on two rule advisory subcommittees isn't doing much to impair that, either...

[gran racing]

While there's no way of controlling costs in racing, it is possible to make some of those with big bucks feel like it's not as cool or prestigious. Not being a national class does this for many. I really do not believe that as being a bad thing. Yeah, there are a fair share of IT cars with big bucks in them but it's not nearly as prevalent as it would be if IT went national IMO.

We need a category where the average Joe can look at and think building or buying a car is relatively attainable, then can go racing and not get their asses totally handed to them due to everyone else outspending them. IT still serves as this critical place for the Club.

Be careful of what you wish for.

[Knestis]

Reasonable points all, Greg (et al.). Those ideas are a big part of the reason I asked for the "never National" clause to be removed, rather than proposing that IT be granted National status.

I didn't have any interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, and didn't want to rehash all of the various positions on the subject. I just wanted to assess the boards' (CRB and BoD) current position on the POSSIBILITY.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

While there's no way of controlling costs in racing, it is possible to make some of those with big bucks feel like it's not as cool or prestigious. Not being a national class does this for many. I really do not believe that as being a bad thing. Yeah, there are a fair share of IT cars with big bucks in them but it's not nearly as prevalent as it would be if IT went national IMO.

We need a category where the average Joe can look at and think building or buying a car is relatively attainable, then can go racing and not get their asses totally handed to them due to everyone else outspending them. IT still serves as this critical place for the Club.

Be careful of what you wish for.

One of the things that would happen IMHO is very similar to most all (except maybe SM) National classes, is the top dollar cars go run Nationals and the Regional-level cars run Regionals. After the initial giddiness of the inclusion, the water would find it's level and your 'Joe' would actually be BETTER off as the top stuff would be gone.

[Flyinglizard]

The easiest place to restrict cost and cash input in general, is to change the tire rule to a much higher tread wear rating.
Reduce the lap time benefit of brand new tires.

[Chip42]

wrong. tire cost would be helpful, but you still need to get things outside of club control like the gas, insurance, rental, etc.. costs down (a huge plus in CFR due to the awesome deals we get with DIS and SIR) and take away the desire to win to drop the costs. if street tires turn out to have a sweet spot on the 3rd through 7th heat cycles (just an example) then you can bet the top guys will have extra track time booked to run in their rubber before a race weekend. that would end up costing MORE than new hohos every weekend. other stuff on the car can cost a ton too - from development to brake parts. Castrol brake fluid costs over $80/bottle. seriously, get over the tires being a magic bullet. they are just an expense. racers will always spend what is avaialble on what they can do to maximize performance within the rules. right now, a guy can run on star specs if he so chooses. if he doesn't want to spend top tier money, he doesn't have to. he wont win, but with that mentality and budget, he wouldn't anyhow.

thats the reality. racing is expensive because everything about racing in this day and age is expensive. if we were running all simple spec cars with general event fees like they were 20 or 30 years ago, yeah, tires might be a huge percentage of the weekend. now they're just another big cost, but not out of proportionally so.

[StephenB]

legend cars! did you know they run 11 road course events at nhms! any guess on the entry fee? $30.... top of the line car is less than 15k. 132hp rocket ships. tires last all season!

Stephen

[Dano77]

LEGEND CARS!!!!!! Did you know you can buy them at the NHMS in thier own Dealer showroom. And they also have a working shop on race day when you crash.

All this for 30 bucks?

but wait theres more..........

[Flyinglizard]

And the class is smart enough to race on 300-400TW tires.

When oval tracks have a hard tire rule , IE "4cyl Box stock", 400TW tires, the class thrives. Some tracks then move to make money from the tires, allowing slicks , etc. The class dies as you need a new tire or two every week. Happens all over the country BTW.
Again, copy success. The hard tire groups are the most successful @ this point in time. Chump 190, lemons 190, legends 300-400( federal 595) Chumps can get 20+hrs out of a set of tires.

1991 My winning stock car used 10 DOT tires for 14 races, (winning 7-8)
1992, my first year of SCCA. The Yokes lasted all year.2 schools, 3 races.

Last weekend @ PBIR, ask around how many Hoosiers were used by the SM. 4 new each day for many..
Tires are a big part of the cost per race.
SCCA cant be afraid to change with the times to be successful. IMHO.
Fun per $ is the key to a successful business model.

[Bill Miller]

One of the things that would happen IMHO is very similar to most all (except maybe SM) National classes, is the top dollar cars go run Nationals and the Regional-level cars run Regionals. After the initial giddiness of the inclusion, the water would find it's level and your 'Joe' would actually be BETTER off as the top stuff would be gone.

That's been my standard response to the "If IT goes National, it will cost everybody more" argument for years now. All you have to do is look at the folks running cars in other categories at Regionals to see it.

My issue with what the CRB said, is essentially what my issue w/ the CRB has been for years. They think they run the show, and they know what is best for the members. If the members want IT to be National-eligible, the CRB's job is to implement the wishes of the membership, not give them the finger.

I would just like to know who is driving it, and what the real motivation behind it is. There is no obvious, objective reason for it.

[Greg Amy]

My issue with what the CRB said, is essentially what my issue w/ the CRB has been for years. They think they run the show, and they know what is best for the members. If the members want IT to be National-eligible, the CRB's job is to implement the wishes of the membership, not give them the finger.
Um, the CRB does run the show, Bill.

This is not a democracy. It actually is the Club Racing Board's responsibility to determine what is best for Club Racing (not for any specific member or explicit group of members) and implement that action appropriately.

The CRB's authority comes directly from the SCCA's Board of Directors, so if you disagree with their recommendations (all changes of which are explicitly approved by the BoD) then use your power as a club member and make your wishes known to your Board representative.

GA

[Bill Miller]

Um, the CRB does run the show, Bill.

This is not a democracy. It actually is the Club Racing Board's responsibility to determine what is best for Club Racing (not for any specific member or explicit group of members) and implement that action appropriately.

The CRB's authority comes directly from the SCCA's Board of Directors, so if you disagree with their recommendations (all changes of which are explicitly approved by the BoD) then use your power as a club member and make your wishes known to your Board representative.

GA

We can agree to disagree Greg. My take is that the CRB should implement the wishes of the membership in a way that is as equitable to everyone as possible. If the majority of the membership wants IT to be National-eligible, they shouldn't have to go to the extreme of changing the BoD to get that implemented. Especially in a case where the only justification is "Because that's the way we say it's going to be". And I certainly wasn't the only one that saw the CRB's comment as a big FU to the membership.

[Greg Amy]

We can agree to disagree Greg.
It's not "disagreement", Bill; it's "fact". That's how the systems works, regardless how you want to "take" it.

And you clicking your heels together three times and wishing really, really hard - or bitching about it on the Internet - ain't gonna change that.

GA

[Flyinglizard]

Member driven club? Take a dam IT Nationals poll.
Most IT guys dont/cant, spend the cash to run the 3 day waste of time that the Nationals/Majors are.

The Nationals are set up for the older, non working, rich guys.
They fly in , rent a car , run for points. Not in the IT spirit at all, IMHO.
A few build their own cars.

[lateapex911]

I've taken a number of polls over the years, some informal via the internet, and some more official. I also asked everyone I could at the tracks I visited during my tenure on the ITAC. Bottom line: ten years ago, about a third of IT drivers wanted National status. The most recent one (now a few years ago) showed a significant shift, over half wanted national status.

[RSTPerformance]

I go back and forth on this one... Leaving the CRB out of it, tonight I think if IT went National (the way it is now) it would devide the class into two groups, regional guys/gals and national guys/gals. The major issue being that we now would have 1/2 the fields split between the evens and low car counts would significantly reduce the appeal to people like me. I don't think it would draw more people to the class.

Now if SCCA was smart, everything would just be the same and all races in a region would be eligible (Not necessarily count if you had a caped # races) to earn points towards some sort of regional points champion) and the top "X" amount would be invited to 1 National championship (The Runoffs) for all classes in the GCR.

Raymond "If you think newbies have a hard time understanding the GCR you should ask them about the multiple series that overlap regions and status... I bet they don't have a clue!" Blethen

[Ron Earp]

Raymond "If you think newbies have a hard time understanding the GCR you should ask them about the multiple series that overlap regions and status... I bet they don't have a clue!" Blethen

I'm not all that new and I have no clue about all the majors, regionals, nationals, rationals, stuff. I just have a car and like to race.

[gran racing]

So what exactly is the difference between Regionals and Nationals again? I get that question, try to explain it, but in the end it's more of a that's just how they did it. For the good of the Club, maybe it's time to end this distinction. Still don't invite everyone to the ruboffs. I know there will be issues and maybe it would be time to consolidate. No simple task for sure!

[Greg Amy]

For the good of the Club, maybe it's time to end this distinction. Still don't invite everyone to the ruboffs.
Great idea! Let's get rid of divisional Nationals entirely, let people run Regionals to qualify for the Runoffs, and maybe even create a parallel semi-pro championship, and then call it, oh I dunno, maybe "The Majors Program"...?

Whadya think?

- GA

[R2 Racing]

MThe Nationals are set up for the older, non working, rich guys.
They fly in , rent a car , run for points. Not in the IT spirit at all, IMHO.
A few build their own cars.
I was sipping my coffee when I read this. You now owe me one computer screen.


<--- Not old, working, not rich, never flown into or rented a thing, build my own cars & engines in my own shop in my own backyard, and have lots of shiny medals and plaques that say "1st Place" on them. But yes, I have been quilty of running for points, so ya got me there. :023:

[gran racing]

Is that what the plan is Greg? Haven't been closely following it but do know of the majors effort.

[Greg Amy]

Is that what the plan is Greg? Haven't been closely following it but do know of the majors effort.
Aye-yup. 2013 is a transition year, so ignore it. But starting in 2014 Nationals go away and you can qualify for the Runoffs either through the Majors Tour(s) and/or through local Regional events.

http://www.scca.com/events/news.cfm?eid=5364&cid=51181

- GA

[Flyinglizard]

The National/Regional distinction is supposed to go away 2014.
The Majors will be the heavy point builders.

Sorry R 2. There are quite a few like you and I.
Ira, Fletcher, etc. I dont mean to take away from your efforts/success, at all. Being able to build and drive a car is becoming a lost art. Well done.

The 500-600$ entry fees, along with the fri schedule, reduce the market potential. IMHO.

[DavidM]

The Majors (still a horrible name) program isn't the whole solution IMO. It addresses the issue of Regions needing to have separate national and regional weekends. Theoretically there are now just race race weekends, but I'm still curious as to how the schedule plays out next year. The issue not addressed is the classes themselves. It's been discussed many times, but more is not necessarily better. If you want to be a class of one then you can race, but don't expect to go to the Runoffs. Classes for the Runoffs should be determined by participation numbers, plain and simple. Any class in the GCR should be Runoffs eligible. Coincidentally, IT is listed in the GCR. If it's a regional class, why is it in the GCR?

I still don't think IT would be a whole lot different if it we're Runoffs eligible. In 2014 there's no more such thing as National races so everybody races in the same IT races no matter if you want to go to the Runoffs or not. Maybe some of the top guys would go race at Majors weekends. Maybe more people come to race in IT and what it takes to be at the top increases some. I don't see either of those as all that bad.

As for the CRB, they have outlived their usefulness in their current guise. They should be disbanded or the charter re-written. And CRB members should be elected if it remains.

David

[Bill Miller]

The Majors (still a horrible name) program isn't the whole solution IMO. It addresses the issue of Regions needing to have separate national and regional weekends. Theoretically there are now just race race weekends, but I'm still curious as to how the schedule plays out next year. The issue not addressed is the classes themselves. It's been discussed many times, but more is not necessarily better. If you want to be a class of one then you can race, but don't expect to go to the Runoffs. Classes for the Runoffs should be determined by participation numbers, plain and simple. Any class in the GCR should be Runoffs eligible. Coincidentally, IT is listed in the GCR. If it's a regional class, why is it in the GCR?

I still don't think IT would be a whole lot different if it we're Runoffs eligible. In 2014 there's no more such thing as National races so everybody races in the same IT races no matter if you want to go to the Runoffs or not. Maybe some of the top guys would go race at Majors weekends. Maybe more people come to race in IT and what it takes to be at the top increases some. I don't see either of those as all that bad.

As for the CRB, they have outlived their usefulness in their current guise. They should be disbanded or the charter re-written. And CRB members should be elected if it remains.

David

You mean you want a group that makes decisions that affect the members to be, well, you know, accountable to those members?

Hubberbucket!

Seriously David, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

[Greg Amy]

CRB members are elected -- by the Board of Directors. And, as I pointed out, BoD are elected directly by the membership. That would be...you? Ergo, all of the above are accountable to the membership, either directly or indirectly.

All you need to do is contact your Board of Directors representative that you elected in order to make yourself heard. It's really not that difficult to understand. Seriously, it's not.

Have either of you two guys even remotely attempted to contact your BoD rep to voice your displeasure? Or is it more satisfying to stomp your feet all over the Internet bitching, hoping in some odd way that they'll chase each of you down to ask you for your valued opinion...? Their contact info is easily available on scca.com after you login with your membership credentials...need a link?

GA

[kevin22]

For the reason of getting the national contingency we should all be pushing for national status

[gran racing]

Contingency is great if you have the money to invest in the car and the talent to actually see any of it. That bar would be raised with newly added rabbits to chase.

[Bill Miller]

CRB members are elected -- by the Board of Directors. And, as I pointed out, BoD are elected directly by the membership. That would be...you? Ergo, all of the above are accountable to the membership, either directly or indirectly.

All you need to do is contact your Board of Directors representative that you elected in order to make yourself heard. It's really not that difficult to understand. Seriously, it's not.

Have either of you two guys even remotely attempted to contact your BoD rep to voice your displeasure? Or is it more satisfying to stomp your feet all over the Internet bitching, hoping in some odd way that they'll chase each of you down to ask you for your valued opinion...? Their contact info is easily available on scca.com after you login with your membership credentials...need a link?

GA

With all due respect Greg, the CRB members are appointed by the BoD, not 'elected'. I'll let Kirk speak to the dynamic of decision makers that are insulated from, and do not have direct accountability to, the group that their decisions impact, as he is infinitely more qualified than I am to speak on that topic. Not to mention that the BoD has a lot more to deal with than just Club Racing (granted, it's probably the lion's share of what they deal with).

[Greg Amy]

Ok, Bill, fine, though I'm sure the BoD takes a poll internally ("voting", e.g., "election") to decide if someone gets an appointment.

At this point, I'm done giving a rat's patootie with what you think about the whole process. It's obvious to everyone (that is still reading your posts) that you're dissatisfied. Please contact your BoD rep for further rat's patootie-giving.

- GA

[Bill Miller]

Ok, Bill, fine, though I'm sure the BoD takes a poll internally ("voting", e.g., "election") to decide if someone gets an appointment.

At this point, I'm done giving a rat's patootie with what you think about the whole process. It's obvious to everyone (that is still reading your posts) that you're dissatisfied. Please contact your BoD rep for further rat's patootie-giving.

- GA


I'm not sure why you're getting all wound up about it Greg. Maybe you need to take a step back. I've noticed that a lot of your posts in this thread (not just the ones directed at me) are a bit on the acerbic and snide side. Or maybe that's just part of your immutable charm? :p

[R2 Racing]

Contingency is great if you have the money to invest in the car and the talent to actually see any of it. That bar would be raised with newly added rabbits to chase.
So....having just the possibility of taking home some cash/stuff, and increasing the overall ability and competitiveness in your class......is a bad thing? Does not compute.

I've seen statements like this on several occasions and each time I think the following:

Current situation - insert as much time, money, and talent into your racecar as you have to offer. Maybe get a podium finish every now and then, finish where you deserve to, relative to your competition. Don't win any contingencies, because there are none. Know full well that it is possible to be faster if someone had more time, money, and/or talent than you, but these people aren't here, so I'm on the podium.

Possible new situation - Insert as much time, money, and talent into your racecar as you have to offer (same as before). Most likely finish in the 4-6th range, but occasionally get a podium finish every now and then (maybe not as high as before, but still finishing where you deserve, relative to your competition). Collect contingency when you do get on that podium, don't collect if you don't (i.e. at worst, it's no different than it was before). Confirm that it is possible to be faster if someone had more time, money, and/or talent than you (again, not really any different). Or just maybe, you surprise yourself, and learn that you still stack up pretty damn good, even against those that you thought maybe had more time, money, and/or talent than you...

When I spell it out like that, if I go with "possible new situation", I can do pretty much nothing at all differently from what I was doing, and now actually have ANY possibility of getting contingencies (verses zero), and race against a deeper and more competitive field. I just don't get how people think that's a bad thing.

But, I've also seen people CHOOSE to build/buy something like an IT7, because it pretty much guarantees that they'll finish in the top 3 at any event, and the look on their faces and the pride they feel when they pick up their 3rd place trophy, from a field of 4. Nope, I don't get that either.

[gran racing]

I think that depending up the class ($$ typically spent on racecars), that the drivers who finish towards the front are going to get even faster by winning various items. I know it has impacted me on both sides. The guys who are winning get even fresher rubber than they would have before, which makes it harder for guys a bit further back to keep up with the Joneses. Maybe this thought process is inaccurate, but at least in the levels I've looked at seems to be the case.

In classes where there are already gobs of money (SM national / Majors), the above probably doesn't come into play nearly as much.

[Flyinglizard]

As soon as money is on the table, all those little IT rules, that are overlooked when racing for fun, will be the bitch point in impound.
As it is now you race for fun, as it should be.

[lateapex911]

As soon as money is on the table, all those little IT rules, that are overlooked when racing for fun, will be the bitch point in impound.
As it is now you race for fun, as it should be.

what rules are being overlooked???

I know that I saw some bs down south in Atlanta at the ARRCs that wouldn't fly up here, but I'm interested in your examples.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As soon as money is on the table, all those little IT rules, that are overlooked when racing for fun, will be the bitch point in impound.
As it is now you race for fun, as it should be.

Which is TOTALLY fine. If you want to run the big show, then get your shit in order. No problems.

[Bill Miller]

As soon as money is on the table, all those little IT rules, that are overlooked when racing for fun, will be the bitch point in impound.
As it is now you race for fun, as it should be.

So people in IT don't care about rules? Nobody that runs Nationals has ever been DQ'd for being illegal?

Seriously, just because IT is Regional-only doesn't make it any less subject to the rules, or the people that run IT any less concerned about the rules. Your comment is disingenuous at best, and smacks of the underlying attitude that the CRB has about IT.

[Chip42]

it's common at the regional level to overlook things that are illegal but irrelevant, particularly in the FL region (south FL) where many guys run other series with slightly different rules (and some who just don't give 2 shits about all that reading and bolt on what "looks right." I'm looking at you, Mr. Mincy). The front runners in IT in FL/CFR run to the rules, but back in the pack it's not always the case.

As Andy and Jake said - you run the big show, you get your shit in order. not a problem for the guys who would actually be contending for points.

[Bill Miller]

it's common at the regional level to overlook things that are illegal but irrelevant, particularly in the FL region (south FL) where many guys run other series with slightly different rules (and some who just don't give 2 shits about all that reading and bolt on what "looks right." I'm looking at you, Mr. Mincy). The front runners in IT in FL/CFR run to the rules, but back in the pack it's not always the case.

As Andy and Jake said - you run the big show, you get your shit in order. not a problem for the guys who would actually be contending for points.

But I'd say that's probably the case w/ mid/tail pack National cars regardless. They're not going to post-race tech, and they're probably not going to the Runoffs, so nobody cares. It's really all about who is running at the pointy end of the field, regardless of where they run. Seriously when was the last time you saw an 8th place finisher protest the 7th place finisher on rules compliance of their car? And I don't think there is the time luxury to tech them for the heck of it.

[Flyinglizard]

Anti Heat sheeting, shifter bushings,weather rubber, hood fit, door fit, taping the windshield,wiper arms moved or missing, alt working, low flow water pump,.

[Chip42]

But I'd say that's probably the case w/ mid/tail pack National cars regardless. They're not going to post-race tech, and they're probably not going to the Runoffs, so nobody cares. It's really all about who is running at the pointy end of the field, regardless of where they run. Seriously when was the last time you saw an 8th place finisher protest the 7th place finisher on rules compliance of their car? And I don't think there is the time luxury to tech them for the heck of it.

Oh I agree completely, I was just trying to clarify what I thought Mike O was getting at.

[lateapex911]

Anti Heat sheeting, shifter bushings,weather rubber, hood fit, door fit, taping the windshield,wiper arms moved or missing, alt working, low flow water pump,.

Anti heat stuff I see in lots of classes where it doesn't belong, but yea, it's a "who cares" deal.
shifter bushings? Now, those are there for a reason.
weather rubber. Could go either way...innocent lapse due to unavailability or an aero trick?
taping the windshield, again, sloppy workmanship and lazy? or aero tweak?
Ditto the wiper arms...
alt working...perf advantage.
low flow water pump...same.

the last two are either borderline or clear malicious cheats.

I was bothered at the ARRC one year, as I sat in impound tearing down my car. While I'm sure my car might have some minor legal issues and might not be 100% legal, I'm not aware of what they are. The guys in my class were, well, a bit "looser". Heater core and lines? poof! Gone! Along with half the dash, the console attached to it, etc. You can debate those parts because you read the rule differently, but the core, housing and lines??:018: I mentioned it casually, and the response was, "Why have them, it's never cold here". I said, "I thought they were required?". "Its a race car" was the response. In other words, go bother somebody else, LOL.

Then there is the guys who weld U channel between the front and rear frame rails, for 'convenience'. Uh huh.

then there's the guys who walk me by 5 or more car lengths after I launch off 7 and start to pass them... yet, me and the winner traded spots in the draft on the same straight a couple times....

Stuff like that brings me to a crossroads of what to do. I KNOW the third place guy was WAY fast on the straight. But I've also been told by guys from the area that theres a 'gentlemans agreement" to make a mod that would result in what I saw. Still, he got third, so, he trophied and took the trophy away from the 4th place guy. Of course, I'm a yankee.....Hmmmm.

And that other stuff, pretty blatant.

Now, the one guy who beat me has a clean car, and drives great, and if he's cheating, he's very good at it. I have no reason to even suspect him. And I wasn't 100% on that day, so he deserved the win.


Some of you will read this, and think I was a jerk, and should have written paper, but some of you will think I'm a jerk for mentioning anything at all.

In the end, I decided that I was a guest, and the vast majority of the guys were local, and obviously didn't have issues with each other, so I kept my mouth (mostly) shut.

[Flyinglizard]

That was my point. As it is now,you all accept some of the little flaws. Racing with friends . Regional.

National , racing with " friends". The rules are much better enforced.
Just like the 10yrold go kart parents. Nice as can be in the paddock, but my kart was in boxes every mon morning.( one muffler hole failed tech in 60races.)


I really have a hard time with the verification for many of the IT cars. There are very few "cam doctor" sheets, valve spring values, etc for the cars. They are a tech nightmare IMHO.
I am not sure that the tech guys can do a good job with little actual data.


As the stakes get higher, most of us will use " all tools available " to improve our results.
Moving IT into the "National" status, will force the IT guys to look harder at the cars.
Reality is that most of the front runners are legal, in the big picture. The lessers will always look for openings and wil pass on the National level races.
2014, all races will be the same? Other than Majors.

[Greg Amy]

Final:

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-feb.pdf

[Flyinglizard]

Ask for a valid reason for denial. Maybe it is a tech issue that could be resolved by collecting data.

What does the ITAC have to say about denial? Is National status the will of the racers?

Maybe it wont matter in 2014 reality. Majors will have the current classes to ruboffs.
IT will have the current races, to a much better open qualifying ARRC.

Jake, I took my cars to prod for the same reasons.