2014 Improved Touring Participation

[Terry Hanushek]

Here are the final 2014 participation counts for Improved Touring by Division



# of Races

11

10

14

48

28

3

71

12

12

209



CLASS

CenDiv

Great
Lakes

MidDiv

NEDiv

NOR
PAC

ROCKY
MTN

SEDiv

SOPAC

SowDiv

Total
Class
Entries




IT7

0
14

30

100

0
7

99

0
0
250



ITA

20

83

29

285

178

1

456

42

12

1106



ITB

13

35

40

205

2

1

150

0
4

450



ITC

3

54


61

2

0
73

0
0
193



ITR

1

4

6

133

5

0
94

0
4

247



ITS

22

27

20

305

30

3

462

0
14

883



TOTAL ENTRIES

59

217

125

1089

217

12

1334

42

34

3129



2014 Averages

5.36

21.70

8.93

22.69

7.75

4.00

18.79

3.50

2.83

14.97





For comparison purposes, in 2013 there were 241 events with a total entry of 3782 - average of 15.69

Terry

[Greg Amy]

Looks like an East Coast series (yo!)

Nice to see IT7 included.

ITC is dead.

ITR better pick up the pace, or we'll put SIRs on them and move them to IT7.

[Matt93SE]

What's an IT car look like? I haven't seen one in years..

[Greg Amy]

You had 34 chances to see one...you need to pay attention more.

I'm recalling the strength of IT in the mid-80s in SWDiv, resulting in my building a 1983 Rabbit GTI into a stout ITA car...later an ITA Dodge Shelby Charger, which got its butt tanned by some kinda wild-sounding Alfa GTB-something...and having to jostle in the fields with dozens of cars per group...

[Peter Olivola]

Over 75% of all IT entries are in NEDiv/SEDiv.

Does the ARRC inflate the SEDiv numbers?

Is the ARRC a significant encouragement to account for the huge differential?

Would a similar event in other parts of the country encourage additional participation?

Is there something else that accounts for the huge differential?

[jwasilko]

Wow. IT and ITA are strong in the northeast!

[Greg Amy]

Wow. IT and ITA are strong in the northeast!

Thanks, (Spec) Miata!

[Matt93SE]

You had 34 chances to see one...you need to pay attention more.

I'm recalling the strength of IT in the mid-80s in SWDiv, resulting in my building a 1983 Rabbit GTI into a stout ITA car...later an ITA Dodge Shelby Charger, which got its butt tanned by some kinda wild-sounding Alfa GTB-something...and having to jostle in the fields with dozens of cars per group...

Tongue in cheek comment. Most of the IT cars I see are either double-dipping SMs (ITA) or are 'twice-a-year' cars that are running 20 seconds off the pace of a pointy-end car (ITS) and I only see them as I'm hoping they see me coming and don't turn down on me. All nice people, but they just don't show up that often and some of that's because of lack of competition... good fields breed better competition. no competition breeds an empty field. The ITB entries are a 1970-something Celica whose owner recently bought a GT-3 car and the Celica gets driven 2x/year by his son to keep his license.
The ITR entries must be the ITE car that I saw at 2-3 events last year, as I don't recall ever seeing an ITR car here. Schweitzer runs a NASA GTS-2 E46 in ITE and it's stupid fast. Another guy runs a Porsche 996 in ITE and GT2.

so yeah, I know who they all are.. only a couple of them are true IT cars; the rest are "we'll find you a place to run" cars that just want to play in traffic.

When I got involved in Club Racing via working F&C back around 2004, there were a good contingent of ITA and ITS cars- several regular Datsun Zs and RX7s in addition to a host of double-dipping Miatas. I was talking to some of the area veterans and there were several factors around here that killed IT in the region- most of it politicky stuff 10 years ago that ran everyone off. ugh. damn politics.

[dickita15]

Over 75% of all IT entries are in NEDiv/SEDiv.


Is there something else that accounts for the huge differential?
there are only three places in the country where regional racing is significantly bigger than national racing. NE Div, SE Div and San Francisco. everywhere else national racing is where the cool kids are. IT thrives where regional racing is king. (except SFR where nothing is normal) :)

[ITC69]

ITC is not dead--In may be in need of some fresh blood, or newer cars classed into ITC. regular co-driver's wifes' health problems and lack of ECR's in SEDIV did reduce my overall participation in 2014. I understand that ITC is experiencing a revival in the Great Lakes area.

[joeg]

Agreed. Big deal for ITC in Ohio, WNY and MI too.

We are more or less home-based at Nelson Ledges, so there can be a lot of bad knocks from those "not-in-the know" on account of that.

[gran racing]

Wow. IT and ITA are strong in the northeast!

Relatively speaking. Fields have been small and it sure isn't was it was like several years ago. Too bad. Hopefully this will change and IT will grow.

[Greg Amy]

ITC is not dead--In may be in need of some fresh blood, or newer cars classed into ITC.
Problem is, there are no "newer" cars of that performance level...the Toyota Yaris, Fiat 500, Mazda 2 all put out ITB power. Hell, the Hyundai Accent is ITA power!

And no one is going to want to take one of the above into ITC when they can run Spec-B (as long as it lasts). And participation in Spec-B - with all the manufacturer support - shows how little interest there is in racing cars like that.

Maybe the 84hp Chevy Spark? What else? 74hp Mitsu Mirage?

The Smart Car...?


Agreed. Big deal for ITC in Ohio, WNY and MI too.
Adds new clarity to the term "regional racing"...

[georgethefierce]

Some eye opening numbers there for sure....I had assumed IT was as popular elsewhere in the country as it is here in the NE.

Is it really dying or were the numbers never there everywhere else?

[zchris]

I have caged a large number of BMW's here in the northeast in the last few years and most are NASA youngsters that want wings and splitters and automatic paddle shifters. The rest are BMWcca guys. Increasing number of young guys do not know how to drive with a clutch pedal.
Chris

[JeffYoung]

I'd say absolutely not. The ARRC is actually pretty poorly attended in ITS and ITA. Big S and A fields at CMP, VIR, Roebling, Daytona, etc. though.


Over 75% of all IT entries are in NEDiv/SEDiv.

Does the ARRC inflate the SEDiv numbers?

Is the ARRC a significant encouragement to account for the huge differential?

Would a similar event in other parts of the country encourage additional participation?

Is there something else that accounts for the huge differential?

[dickita15]

even in the divisions it varies. for instance if you look at 100 entries for IT7 in the North East you think that is good. for those 9 tracks. truth is 96 of those were at the 3 tracks in New England.

[Knestis]

These numbers - particularly by division - do nothing but reinforce for me how asinine the "national-regional" status of IT is. If it's not a REAL region-specific category, its classes should be Majors- and RubOffs-eligible. If it's never going to happen, it should be left up to the regions to decide what they want to do.

Fish.

Cut bait.

Decide.

Then make the XX best-subscribed classes in the GCR in 2015 eligible for the RubOffs in 2016 (and so forth). Let the market work its magic and we'd have fewer "national" classes in one step. Cake.

K

[Greg Amy]

These numbers...do nothing but reinforce for me how asinine the "national-regional" status of IT is. If it's not a REAL region-specific category, its classes should be Majors- and RubOffs-eligible. If it's never going to happen, it should be left up to the regions to decide what they want to do...Then make the XX best-subscribed classes in the GCR in 2015 eligible for the RubOffs...

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

[Knestis]

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

That would indeed be one solution. Regions could emphasize what they think is important. It could be that those places where ITC is rocking, they could make it even better by getting out from under the assumption that the entire nation needs to follow the same rules. If a division wanted to form a compact among its regions to include IT classes in a divisional championship, it could, or expand for among-division standardization if it's viewed as valuable.

I have a HUGE emotional attachment to IT - as it's traditionally been framed - but under the circumstances, we should be revisiting first principles of all of our programs.

K

[MMiskoe]

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

I would really hope you simply forgot to turn on the sarcasm font. If each region can make changes to the IT rule set, having any hope that people will travel outside of their region would be foolish. I doubt I am alone when I say I don't want to have to keep track of several different regions' current rules in order to confirm that when I go to another location my car will still be legal. ITE is that way now. NER has one opinion of what is legal, WDC has a completely different idea and most NER legal cars would not cut it in WDC. I'm sure there are other similar situations, but that is the one I familiar with.

By having the IT rules in the GCR and therefore consistent across the country is one of the appeals to it. You know that you can pick an event and go to it and there will be cars that are similar to yours to race against.

[Flyinglizard]

The B Spec cars go about the same as the current ITC cars. Why not leave the car as they are in BS and allow them to enter ITC as is?
Keep the stock ECU, exhaust, and plates /weights that they now have.
Also , it is time to allow autos in new cars.
back to lurking,;MM

[Knestis]

The B Spec cars go about the same as the current ITC cars. Why not leave the car as they are in BS and allow them to enter ITC as is?
Keep the stock ECU, exhaust, and plates /weights that they now have.
Also , it is time to allow autos in new cars.
back to lurking,;MM

That's kind of the "limited prep IT" idea that Andy used to talk about. I think his point is that new cars are simply more powerful than previous generations, all other things being equal, so everything shifts up (conceptually) a level or two. There might be some lessons in WC TCA from last year, too.

K

[Greg Amy]

If each region can make changes to the IT rule set, having any hope that people will travel outside of their region would be foolish.
Which is maybe why the SCCA chose to publish the IT regs within the GCR - with a note that has always been there - that these regs were published for competitor convenience and the class would never be considered for National/Majors participation...? Right...? So why is everyone complaining that Improved Touring is not eligible for Nationals/Majors?

If the question is actually "we want IT to go into the Majors program" then the Nationals/Majors/Runoffs question for Improved Touring has been asked and answered numerous times over its 30-year history, with the same answer, and yet we continue to get our panties in a wad all over it. The Club has made that answer perfectly clear, numerous times. And given the recent trends toward reducing the number of classes by around a third, there is zero chance that the answer will be different next time you ask.

Let. It. Go.

But if the shell argument continues to be that "every class in the GCR should be considered for Nationals/Majors/Runoffs" program then my solution is simple: pull Improved Touring out of the GCR. It's the only logical answer and will clearly declare to the membership the category as the Regional-Only class it is - and always has been - and release the regions to decide their own ruleset for their regional class. Topeka can publish a common set of regs in the publications area of its web site, something that the regions can refer to if they wish to run a common ruleset. And given that the ITAC consists of volunteers and costs SCCA nothing that I can tell, I see no reason why the CRB can't allow that committee to continue to exist and use the committee forums and concall systems, and submit regs changes directly to the technical director for publication to the web site as changes are approved by the committee (it would reduce that load off the CRB and the STAC could do whatever it wanted to).

But if the community continues to try to leverage the "but we're in the GCR!" argument, it's simply setting itself up for the Club to get sick and tired of the whining and move toward that last scenario.

GA

[Ron Earp]

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

One way to solve it, but that the problem exists at all is indicative of a larger issue. Sweeping IT out the door is a band aid. It would seem logical that the club would be interested in capturing, and spreading, what the NE and SE is doing correctly with IT.

But on the other hand expelling IT from the GCR would provide a finality to the IT conundrum. Those that felt like continuing with the club could keep pockets of IT alive, or they could move into one of the national classes. The others could head off in search for green pastures elsewhere.

[Ron Earp]

Which is maybe why the SCCA chose to publish the IT regs within the GCR - with a note that has always been there

So why is everyone complaining that Improved Touring is not eligible for Nationals/Majors?

The Club has made that answer perfectly clear, numerous times.

The SCCA is a club, an association dedicated to a particular activity. Isn't a club also responsive to what said members desire? If the membership as a whole wishes for a certain thing, then it doesn't matter what note the club wrote in a manual 30 years ago because members can change the manual. Of course, that is assuming that all members have input on activities of the club. I don't think that is the case with the SCCA since "IT National" would never be decided by a popular vote - the powers that be would be too afraid of the outcome to allow the vote to occur.

[Greg Amy]

Isn't a club also responsive to what said members desire?
No. What makes you think that? What makes you think it should be so? The Club's leadership is responsive only to what it believes is within the best interest of the Club. And numerous varying leaderships over the decades have consistently rejected the idea(l) of Improved Touring being part of the Nationals/Majors program.

This question has come up at least every five years within the last thirty. And the answer has been the same, each time. The last time it came up - and was rejected - it spawned the birth of Super Touring/Light. And now we're facing a long-term plan to reduce the number of existing Nationals/Majors classes by a third.

Ron, the sooner you let this idea(l) go, the better IT will be. If we are misleading people into coming into IT with a future (misguided) expectation of this category going Majors/Runoffs, then we're doing them a significant disservice.

I can't stop you from wanting it. But I can do my best, from my perspective, to convince you it's never going to happen. And if you ever accept that then you can adjust your expectations and actions according to your needs/desires.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Greg, I know it is never going to happen. I understand that.

But it doesn't stop me from asking questions about how the club operates. Yes, I am living under the misguided notion that the SCCA is a club, by members and for members. In my SCCA club if the majority of members decide that all cars shall be painted white with black tops, then it shall be done. If the majority of members were to vote that IT becomes a National class then it would occur.

But we know that isn't how it works. A handful of people, probably sitting around in smoke filled rooms, decide what the club will and will not do. What really gets the IT racers though, is that while IT is regional only it a) still gets controlled to a large extent via the CRB and b) provides a large amount of income to the club but its racers are still essentially second rate members of the club.

[Tom Blaney]

How about just making it a whole lot simpler and dispose of regional/national status, combine the series, make all the cars eligible to run the events. I don't think now a days the Majors is all that epic, people just want to race and have a lot of cars to race against.

Perhaps have an enduro/pro series as an alternate event. I think people are double dipping just to get some track time for the weekend. Since nationals are longer, this would solve the track time issue, and perhaps we would see more cars in the same number of classes, and then there would be a jump in participation.

[gran racing]

I actually enjoy the sprint / relatively shorter races. Weekends where there are two sprint races versus one long race are more appealing to me personally.

Then again, that flying club is looking more appealing lately...

[Greg Amy]

What really gets the IT racers though, is that while IT is regional only it a) still gets controlled to a large extent via the CRB and b) provides a large amount of income to the club but its racers are still essentially second rate members of the club.

a) We can resolve that by removing it from the GCR, and thus the CRB's control. Then IT is no longer centrally-controlled and all the locals can do with it whatever they feel best.

But IT racers don't want that: they want a centralized set of rules that somehow spontaneously happen without any centralized control, all while being infinitely responsive to the needs/desire/votes of the racers competing within it.

So do you want a centrally-managed set of regs or do you want the regs to be responsive to local needs/desires/votes? Sorry, you just can't have it both ways.

b) Improved Touring does not provide a large amount of income to the Club, other than in licensing (and I suspect the overhead may exceed those revenues). Improved Touring does, however, provide a large amount of income to the regions in the form of entries.

Ergo, IT is better off being a regional-only category, responsive to the regional racers it serves and the regional leadership that benefits from it.

I've moved back and forth over the years between National/no-National. when I was competing at the top of my game in ITA I wanted to bring it to "The Show", but I have always realized (well, at least since the early 90s) that once one does that the game changes significantly. Today's winners in ITA have zero chance of consistent success at their current level against Spec Miata-level Nationally-prepped ITA efforts. That's just the way this game works.

The farther we get into these debates, the more I'm leaning toward the idea that Improved Touring and the SCCA in general are better served by removing the ITCS from the GCR. Solves all ills for everyone.

GA

[Greg Amy]

How about just making it a whole lot simpler and dispose of regional/national status, combine the series, make all the cars eligible to run the events.
Because a vote for that is a request to remove Improved Touring (and other regional-only classes) from the GCR.

Read above: you are working on the misguided assumption that because Improved Touring exists in the GCR, it has a chance to become a Majors class. That is an incorrect assumption that has been consistently affirmed over the last three decades.

GA

[Ron Earp]

b) Improved Touring does not provide a large amount of income to the Club, other than in licensing (and I suspect the overhead may exceed those revenues). Improved Touring does, however, provide a large amount of income to the regions in the form of entries.

I'm asking, doesn't the region contribute money back to HQ based on the entries? Fewer regional racers, less money back to Topeka.

I think regional racing does have an impact on national classes. The two best attended national classes, SM and SRF, are also well subscribed at the regional level. I suspect if there were fewer, or no, regional races that the participants in these classes would find other outlets for their racing. National races are fewer in number and will require participants to tow for longer distances to obtain their racing fix, and that could cause a decline in their numbers.

NASA does a lot of stuff wrong, but one thing they got right was not having a regional/national racing program. There are races and a championship. Come one, come all.



But IT racers don't want that: they want a centralized set of rules that somehow spontaneously happen without any centralized control, all while being infinitely responsive to the needs/desire/votes of the racers competing within it.

Have you polled the body of IT racers to come up with that assertion? Or is this based on the topic being discussed here six years ago?

I imagine that if you were to take a poll of current and active IT racers in the NE and SE that the majority of them would choose for IT to be a national class. Just a guess. I'd be interested in knowing the answer.

[Andy Bettencourt]

b) Improved Touring does not provide a large amount of income to the Club, other than in licensing (and I suspect the overhead may exceed those revenues). Improved Touring does, however, provide a large amount of income to the regions in the form of entries.

Ergo, IT is better off being a regional-only category, responsive to the regional racers it serves and the regional leadership that benefits from it.

But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors? What defines income for the 'Club'? If it's entries at Majors, then not allowing one of your biggest classes access to it is limiting your own income potential.




I've moved back and forth over the years between National/no-National. when I was competing at the top of my game in ITA I wanted to bring it to "The Show", but I have always realized (well, at least since the early 90s) that once one does that the game changes significantly. Today's winners in ITA have zero chance of consistent success at their current level against Spec Miata-level Nationally-prepped ITA efforts. That's just the way this game works.

So what? Is it conceivable that a guy with a top Regional effort would want to continuously up his game and have goals and targets to shoot for? The flip side to this is that guy gets bored with smacking his locals around and stops racing. Now there is lost revenue.


The farther we get into these debates, the more I'm leaning toward the idea that Improved Touring and the SCCA in general are better served by removing the ITCS from the GCR. Solves all ills for everyone.

GA

Only because you are in the 'futile' camp and you just don't want to deal with the chatter anymore. Removing IT from the GCR would ruin cross-regional series and the desire for those to travel to different tracks out of region would slump if cars were illegal race to race. Not good IMHO.

My stupid view is simple. Run all the classes at 'Majors'. Top 25 average participation classes get their own run groups at the RunOffs. The rest that meet minimum participation are in multi-class groups. Set and abide by average National minimums to be eligible for Runoffs.

I see very few reasons it can't work and why it's not the best thing for the membership as a whole. (Unless the silent majority is for regional only racing, obviously as we live in the squeaky-wheel world here)

[seckerich]

Regional racing is proven to be the backbone of the club in numbers and in revenue. Most regions would not exist without IT and other regional classes. We continue to build a club racing program around the 500-600 drivers that might go to the big show. This is proven out with the introduction of the Concord agreement. Compare that number to the number of regional entries in the Southeast alone and you see why there is such a disconnect with the membership.

One day the CRB will figure out that stable rule sets and classes not marked for death, are what draws entrants. SRF, FV, SM, Improved Touring are always at the top in Nationwide participation. This is because people like to buy the car they like and develop it over time as funds allow. The moving target is killing our club. IT provides what almost no other category in SCCA can offer with so many options to race. We can go to the track with one car and race 4 sprints on a double weekend, as well as a multitude of enduros. Similar to Chump/Lemons a few guys can share one car and cut the cost of racing way down. Majors has no such draw. We have forgotten who we were as a CLUB. Sad.

Removing IT from the GCR would be wrong. When that happens you will see my entry dollars move to some other organization that gets it. You think any other organization would not be happy to have over 4000 ITS entries alone? Our BOD has the same problem as past BOD, can't figure out if we are Pro or not.

Last I checked my post race audit, we send just as much money in per entry as Nationals did, minus the tow fund that goes to racers. This was before the Majors wine and Cheese tax to fly the national office to events to hand out tow money. Each of those entries paid the same membership and license fee so I would say regional racing is very much paying for their fair share of the National office.

[Greg Amy]

I'm asking, doesn't the region contribute money back to HQ based on the entries? Fewer regional racers, less money back to Topeka.
Don't know the exact details, but I believe there are only per-event sanctioning fees. That fee does not change based on number of entries and/or the mix of entries. So, as far as Topeka is concerned, a Formula Mazda entry is as good as an ITC entry.


I think regional racing does have an impact on national classes. The two best attended national classes, SM and SRF, are also well subscribed at the regional level. I suspect if there were fewer, or no, regional races that the participants in these classes would find other outlets for their racing.
I'm inferring you're saying that increased Regional entries increases the Majors entries. Or vice versa? I personally don't sense that. If anything, and especially with the changes in the Majors programs the last coupe years, these series tend to attract a differing group of people, based on classes offered (some prefer IT, for example) and level of prep (generally speaking, the money and time spent on prep is lower in regional racing).


NASA does a lot of stuff wrong, but one thing they got right was not having a regional/national racing program. There are races and a championship. Come one, come all.
Yes, "come one, come all" but only if you maintain the numbers. NASA is a lot more responsive to weeding out the chaff and making it go away (witness Spec SE-R, for example). SCCA doesn't do that (often) with its classes; once you're in, you typically stay in (hell, we still have A Sports Racing!) If, for example, ITC were a NASA class it would have been cut a long time ago... - GA

[Greg Amy]

But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors?
Dude, it could FLY if it had wings.

Once again, I'm arguing Reality, you're arguing you want a unicorn for Christmas. I believe you that you want a unicorn for Christmas, I'm just trying to tell you it won't happen.

But...submit a request, prove me wrong: http://crbscca.com

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not arguing that it will or won't happen. I am arguing that it COULD happen, and be successful.

[Andy Bettencourt]

One day the CRB will figure out that stable rule sets and classes not marked for death, are what draws entrants. SRF, FV, SM, Improved Touring are always at the top in Nationwide participation. This is because people like to buy the car they like and develop it over time as funds allow. The moving target is killing our club. IT provides what almost no other category in SCCA can offer with so many options to race. We can go to the track with one car and race 4 sprints on a double weekend, as well as a multitude of enduros. Similar to Chump/Lemons a few guys can share one car and cut the cost of racing way down. Majors has no such draw. We have forgotten who we were as a CLUB. Sad.



This.

[Ron Earp]

Removing IT from the GCR would be wrong. When that happens you will see my entry dollars move to some other organization that gets it.

That'd be shoving the red-head stepchild out in the cold and locking the door. I think when that happens I'll move on somewhere else as well.


But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors? What defines income for the 'Club'? If it's entries at Majors, then not allowing one of your biggest classes access to it is limiting your own income potential.

Looking at the SARRC points I count ~300 individual Southeast racers in all the classes. If only 10% of them "went national" and participated in the ruboffs then it'd be thirty extra racers at the grand ball. What percentage increase at the rubofffs would +30 be? Then consider the NE and other regions. There is a good opportunity for the SCCA to grow its national classes.

[Knestis]

As I said, I've got a real history with IT and I value that. I have also been one of the most stalwart about not effing it up, and about the value of consistency.

However, I think we crossed something of a threshold the last time the pitch for "National" status was turned down. ST came long, other classes shifted around, the economy got into a big understeer... The context in a world considering class consolidations might be different enough that it's the right time to consider new ideas - like big, first principle kinds of ideas - about what the category was, has become, and should be. Yeah, the pressure to reduce the number of classes is specifically about Majors for the moment but the same issues and questions apply to "regional" programs.

The real goal should be building a cohesive Club Racing program that can thrive. I think that assumptions about what that program is going to look like are just as bad as assumptions that being in the GCR is any guarantee of any particular outcome for the category.

K

[seckerich]

You have a point Kirk, IT took a hit with the creation of ST. As the true cost of a ST car is now getting clearer many will see IT as a better route. IT remains strong in the divisions listed in the chart because many of us actively find parked cars and get new drivers into them. Find me anything but a spec class where a car built in 1996 can still run up front? That is the real value of IT that is lost on so many people. You, and the many members of the ITAC over the years made that reality. :023: ST is a direct competitor to Production and will most likely hurt both. It was a toss up for me for next years Runoffs, but EP won out because of the level of prep involved to be fast. ST is World Challenge light and if a rule book says you can, then you must to win.

Keep in mind Florida draws more cars to a non points regional at Daytona than most regions draw to a big points race. Why, because it is fun and low key. Something many have forgotten.

[Butch Kummer]

Keep in mind Florida draws more cars to a non points regional at Daytona than most regions draw to a big points race. Why, because it is fun and low key. Something many have forgotten.

I disagree - they draw because they have a larger racer (retired folks with money) population but more importantly, because they run at Daytona and Sebring. And I don't believe I'd EVER use "low key" and "Robin Langlotz" in the same sentence...

[Flyinglizard]

If we are a member driven club, the line " out for member input" would be a lot more common. Each member gets a vote. If we want to run IT @ Rubboffs we should vote it in. But kee p in mind that there are many reasons national level tech is not easy for IT . We dont have much of the required data to enforce the rules. and more.
But if we are a club, for us, we should be able to vote for this, simple as that.

IT has driven many away for a few minor reasons. We all like a chance to podium . You have a few cars that set lap records across the country. The ITB Hondas , the Mk 3 Vws have driven the old guard to other classes. Fix this and more cars will stay. Many Mk 1 and 2 VWs have moved to Prod.

Adjust the class from the results, not some theory. Prod does this..

The PITA for SCCA protest. allows many questionable cars to continue running . The honest guys just say eff it and finds someplace else to play.

The lack of legal /stock parts for the old cars. It is illegal to update to stronger more available parts. Prod allows most of these parts.
Not wanting to keep buying the little crap like turn signal lights, headlights etc.

Solve these issues in a timely fashion to stay alive. The IT rules have taken so long to change.

SCCA also faces a huge market swing to PDX and track days. No easy way to keep racing when the new money wants to run the crap out of their street cars.
I expect we will soon have one day of PCX/TT and one day of racing over the weekend.
The well funded drivers have also tried the crapcan racing. 1500$ per and lots of racing no sitting around.

[StephF]

Oh my God.
it's only December 11th, and we're ALREADY arguing this again?
Screw Farmer's Almanac: this is the real place to tell what kind of winter we're going to have.

[StephenB]

It may offend some but in my opinion Andy and Steve are correct, and "get it". I commend them for being open minded and not so close minded. I would quote everything they have said so far.

SCCA Participation is falling, not just IT. We need some big changes and getting rid of the stupid national, regional, majors crap should be extremely high on the priority list. No one gets it other than the old timers, no one cares other than the old timers. It's time for the change... well back in the 90's was the time IMHO... yup about the same time NASA came around, and SCCA worlds challenge... Most people that ran nationals back in the 70's and 80's didn't have touring car and continental challenge to run. Let alone all the other "pro" stuff. Let's face the truth that national or not, club racing attracts the same people nowadays and the national racers of back then would have been doing the new "pro" thing. time to catch up to the changes that took place in 1990 just within our own organization.

Stephen

[gran racing]

The ITB Hondas , the Mk 3 Vws have driven the old guard to other classes.

As someone experienced this first hand, many of the old guard were complacent running on an old engine that was built many years ago, had crappy suspensions from the 80s, ran old tires, and so on. Several of these cars got the attention of people who wanted to really develop them, were willing to invest in the pretty good bits, had pro motors built, and used fresh tires. It became laughable when the old guard would approach me, complain about my car, look over and see just heat cycled tires on it, I'd ask how many cycles were on theirs and the response was either I don't know or maybe around 20?

To prove that point home, an old guard car was brought to Lime Rock several years ago where it was not a front runner. Of course because the car was aged, and didn't have the performance as others. A talented driver who hadn't driven that car in many years jumped in, and within a few laps was well under the lap record and not on fresh tires (if I recall correctly).


Is it conceivable that a guy with a top Regional effort would want to continuously up his game and have goals and targets to shoot for? The flip side to this is that guy gets bored with smacking his locals around and stops racing. Now there is lost revenue.

Yes, I'll agree that guy wants to continuously up his game, BUT not be required to significantly up the build cost. I want to race against people who have similar budgets and make it about how we spend our limited budgets, and the driver. Do I want to be racing against a bunch of guys who have $50k builds? Nope. And the same guys who have the money to constantly be getting top coaching around the U.S. and all of the other advantages money brings? Between the two, I don't see that it would be that much fun to be to a AAA ball club constantly playing against the Yankees.

Andy, there numerous times I thought that you built your car too well and as a result, it took the fun away.

[StephenB]

I love chasing the best. ITR in the northeast has the money, driver coaching, and top builds that would and could compete at a national level. I am trying to catch them... I may never do it but it's fun to try!



Stephen

[gran racing]

By all means I am not knocking the drivers in ITR or any other IT class, but sorry, it's not on the overall level that SM has. Just the way it is. I KNOW that I'd need to really, REALLY need to up my game to be towards the pointy end of the SM pack even with the right car.

[StephenB]

Oh for sure, I was just sayin I don't mind being the guy chasing those fast guys :-) kinda fun to get within a few tenths of them or keep them in my sites during the race!

I have always thought over the years that ITA has had that same level prep cars as well.

[Tom Blaney]

Dave

Part of the real enjoyment of amateur racing is that everyone who follows the rules when it comes to preparing a car has the same chance to win as the "rich guy". This does not matter if it is a GT/Prod/IT car, the rules will state that you can do only so much to the car. There is not a whole lot of performance difference between my motors and the guys down south, we all know the technical details. So a 5k difference is a motor build will not get you anything that an effective driver can't overcome. You proved that with the "old timers car" and the talented driver resetting track record.

Also part of the enjoyment of these kinds of classes is that the owner/driver/builder can sit in his garage with a can of beer and think how he can improve the car's performance with his own skills and effort. I know for a fact that when you beat a "race shop prepped" with your "home built" it is a much better victory lap then most.

So my contention (and I agree with some of the comments) that the club dispose of the national/regional would allow more people to compete in bigger fields (and against some really good "national drivers") and enjoy one of the reasons this is amateur racing.

[StephenB]

Nice post Tom! I agree!

I think we should do away with the national/regional thing and just race. I could care less if they said no IT at the runoffs, that doesn't matter to me. I just think the club is to confusing with the different "levels" if you want to call it that. To be honest I don't think IT should go to the runoffs as trying to enforce the rules on 40year old cars would be difficult and probably more of a mess than SM was. SCCA needs to be simpler so everyone gets it from the outside looking in. Consolidate classes and make them make sense so if you decide to modify your car more you can and just move up in cost and allowable modifications.

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, I'll agree that guy wants to continuously up his game, BUT not be required to significantly up the build cost. I want to race against people who have similar budgets and make it about how we spend our limited budgets, and the driver. Do I want to be racing against a bunch of guys who have $50k builds? Nope. And the same guys who have the money to constantly be getting top coaching around the U.S. and all of the other advantages money brings? Between the two, I don't see that it would be that much fun to be to a AAA ball club constantly playing against the Yankees.

Andy, there numerous times I thought that you built your car too well and as a result, it took the fun away.
As a Red Sox fan, I never blamed the Yankees. I blame MLB. You can't have a system in place where one guy has an unlimted budget and one guy can spend 1/10th of that. There is no ceiling.

Having said that, there is no form or racing where budget doesn't matter. Fresh tires every session, highest end data to learn more, private driving coaches, fresh motors way more often... All it takes is one guy to up his game and that becomes the new standard. In NER, it was Blaney and Serra that kicked off the onslaught. I can say this with fact because those were the cars I looked at when I asked myself if I wanted to jump in.

I had plenty of fun doing what I was doing...but it was time for me to go. I loved the class rules and there was no National Championship to shoot for so I was done with any 'goal's' I had. Couple that with an intense love of coaching youth sports, it all fizzled.

Track records will fall with new tires and more HP development. It's all good.

The IT rules are good and the management of said rules is good. It's when there are lots of entries. Find a car you love and build it and have fun.

[Dano77]

find a car you love and build it and have fun.


This...... And if you can convince 13 of your buddies to spend a little money and race together, more better.....


OK 14, one more may be heading this way to run in the NERRC IT7 Dinosaur Super Series.

[JeffYoung]

It's a bit sad to see the fracturing of IT. The ruleset has some sort of "magic" in it. It's stable, and it produces great racing across many marques and years of production. You would think the SCCA would see more value in that, and by that I don't mean trying to duplicate it in new classes with similar prep.

Five years ago I was happy with IT being an "outlaw" regional class and wanted nothing to do with national racing. I was wrong. Kirk and Andy were, at the time, right. Without "Full" status within the SCCA, IT is destined to die off I think. Which is a shame.

And it needn't happen, and it needn't happen at the cost of entries to ST or Prod. The answer is, I strongly believe, to take the best of three classes that are very close in prep -- LP Prod, ST and IT -- and combine them into a super production car series.

folks are nibbling at the edges of this idea, but we need to get down to it to see if it works.

If not, then I ride the IT wave until it dies and move somewhere else. Which is really not what I want to do.

[Greg Amy]

Without "Full" status within the SCCA, IT is destined to die off I think.
I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

[JeffYoung]

I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

I know. And we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I used to think you were pushing to "kill" IT with some of your ideas, but I get now you are not. Your vision for IT is what made it so popular in the 80s/90s -- regional only rules, regional only racing, "outlaw" stuff. I get that and appreciate it.

I just think that "racing" in general is so different now and that niche is really filled by the Chumpemons stuff, and DEs. IT has to find a new place. To me, that is combined with ST and LP Prod in a new "super" production type class.

But it is all a good discussino, and like I said, it took me a while, but I appreciate where you are coming from.

[seckerich]

I know. And we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I used to think you were pushing to "kill" IT with some of your ideas, but I get now you are not. Your vision for IT is what made it so popular in the 80s/90s -- regional only rules, regional only racing, "outlaw" stuff. I get that and appreciate it.

I just think that "racing" in general is so different now and that niche is really filled by the Chumpemons stuff, and DEs. IT has to find a new place. To me, that is combined with ST and LP Prod in a new "super" production type class.

But it is all a good discussino, and like I said, it took me a while, but I appreciate where you are coming from.

IT already has the draw for Chump/lemons type drivers. Cars can run long races with multiple drivers. More regions need to get on board the enduro series and help promote the cost of shared participation.

How would you like to be looking at the concord agreement with IT as one of the catagories destined to be screwed? Keep your head down and watch the sparks fly, this will be fun. I know I took note of the vote my director made and am not very happy. Hope she is ready to explain at St Simon.:023:

[Butch Kummer]

How would you like to be looking at the concord agreement with IT as one of the catagories destined to be screwed? Keep your head down and watch the sparks fly, this will be fun. I know I took note of the vote my director made and am not very happy. Hope she is ready to explain at St Simon.:023:

The motion on the Concorde Agreement was simply to instruct the CRB do a six-month study and come back with a proposal to reduce the number of Majors/Runoffs classes, nothing more. Once they've presented the plan the BoD will vote again on whether or not to adopt it. And even if they do, I fully expect it to be defeated by future BoD's when members figure out how THEIR class gets "assimilated".

That said, even excluding Spec Miata, the GCR currently has fourteen classes that all "look like" they are based on production vehicles - 4 GT, ASedan, 3 Prod, 4 Touring, and 2 Super Touring. Add in the five IT classes, and are those classes different enough that they can't be combined to create five or six classes that will provide better competition for everyone? If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper, would you really be able to explain why all of them are necessary?

Again, class consolidation (the Concorde Agreement) will never happen because SCCA is NOT starting with a clean sheet of paper. But then this is the off-season and people need something to bitch about until next spring...

[StephenB]

We should start with a clean sheet, just no one is brave enough to do it.

[lawtonglenn]

...one guy has an unlimited budget and one guy can spend 1/10th of that

∞ /10 = ∞

no comment on the current argument, I'm just being a nerd jerk :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

I agree with Greg here 100%. If it would have been under the microscope, with CRB members trying to apply comp adjustments all over the place, it would be just another class because the IT community doesn't like that BS.

IF, and only if, the CRB has the foresight to realize that it thrives BECAUSE of the lack of fiddling, they COULD not mess with it. But as Greg has pointed out numerous times, he seems to know that is simply pissing in the wind at every turn and could never be possible.

We will never know because the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

[Flyinglizard]

Not sure Andy,
I have 6 ex IT cars at the shop for conversion to HP or Chump. One customer asked about all of the Sciroccos. "Well, SCCA treats the Rabbit and Rocco the same. They run at the same weight, so why use a car that is 7in taller? " Exit Rabbits.

The 9/1 compression ,A1 cars cant run with the MK3 Golf Or Honda. So they are here to go Prod, where the 2.0 is listed in FP, and all of the 1.8 can run the same engine and weight.
The non adjustment due to the "process" pushed these cars away. Some went straight to Chump as the value of the 1.8 cars went from 5000$ to 2000$
Maybe the A1 with JH should add 150# and go to ITC?

The allowance of megasquirt for all injected cars dr0ve a few more to Prod. A simple adjustment to the CIS cars by around 100# may have left those cars in ITB and not HP. I hear" that why spend 1500$+ for a regional only class when I can move the car to Hprod spend a little more and race more cars with closer comp." The car only cost 2500$ for this guy. The MS engines are well trimmed to 7000RPM where the CIS has issues over 6500.

So I believe that the non timely corrections has run a few from IT racing to other venues. Luckily Prod is a good fit for many, but Chumpemons has taken many of my best funded customers.

Keep in mind that I dont consider the Chump racing weekend similar to SCCA. I cant talk my Chump only drivers to racing SCCA with all of the down time. That is a separate subject and problem That i can't see SCCA adjusting to. It is simply an option that did not exist a few years ago that is siphoning off cars and drivers. I now have 5of 6 Chump team drivers in SCCA.

Adjustments based upon results, bringing back outlier cars are bad for the outliers, but good for the pack. Treat the pack better. IMHO and more will stay.
IMHO, MM

[OUBob]

If Topeka is "hands off" with IT and won't let us piss in the nationals pot, why don't we improve our own pot to piss in? If people get their rocks off over an embroidered jacket, why can't we fill that vacuum ourselves?

I like the idea of the rotating Runoffs. Maybe rotate the ARRC? Atlanta, Mid-Ohio and whatever the fave is in the N-E? I know I respond well to hype machines.