Most of the folks I race with in ITS SEDiv view IT as the destination -- no thoughts of going prod.
Printable View
Most of the folks I race with in ITS SEDiv view IT as the destination -- no thoughts of going prod.
I'll skip the usual comments about "finishing position 'data' being...errr...hard to use as 'evidence', but will mention that your world is Honda front drive centric. Interestingly, there are TONS of Honda FWD cars to choose from, some newer than others. Your Del Sol, though is, what, 15 yrs old? Every car has strengths and weaknesses...but, V2.0 has handled FWD just a bit differently. If THe CRB approves it's use, FWD cars may get more, or less of a weight break, as it is now figured as a percentage of it's weight, as opposed to the flat pounds off in V1.5. The basic 'bogey' remains similar, but heavier cars were getting screwed.
Gotta stop you here.Quote:
2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. .... As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them.
There are lots of newer cars in the ITCS. The opportunity is there...but, as mentioned above, newer cars aren't 'reasonable' to run. Older cars are often simpler, the 'book' on how to race them is written, the aftermarket support is there, and built examples are available for a fraction of a new car. How is eliminating old cars going to make racing cheap? You mention IT as a 'feeder' category....isn't buying an old built car the single BEST way to get in the game? Your argument is rather conflicting, I think. Really, this one has me scratching my head.
What newer cars would you like classed? Request 'em! If they fit, we'll class them! We LOVE doing that.Quote:
I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent.
Cuz, yea, the Honda Challenge series has what, a dozen guys nationwide? (yea, an exaggeration, but...it's no Spec Miata)Quote:
But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda,
Which is TWENTY FIVE years old! What happened to newer cars atracting drivers?Quote:
944,
There are a DOZEN 3 series cars classed in IT.Quote:
3 series
I know, you mean classes for ONLY those cars. I think you want to go after a different type of diver, one that wants to ONLY race against his model car. (Heck, currently, ITR could be considered a spec class for 3 series BMWs!). That concept is a whole different kettle of fish. That type of racing is strong with the marque clubs. More classes. :blink: Not really something we, the ITAC can do much about. Spec Miata started here in SCCA, didn't it?
It's interesting you say that. nationally, it's the REGIONALS that are making money, and the NATIONALS that are losing money. National races are adding "restricted regional" classes...often IT...to bolster the bottom line. Many of the higher ups see IT as one of the healthy categories in the club, and stats suggest that IT racers are second in enrollment to SM. (I better dbl check that, but I think that's correct...if not, darn close)Quote:
Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.
I don't know for sure, but I bet some of the big head honchos have considered/pushed making IT national for purely profit driven reasons, and old guard grand poobahs have nixxed it for old guard reasons. (but that's PURE speculation)
I think Bob has a point about someone having to look out for the strategic - cross category - picture at the Club.
I think NASA has done some smart things, because they aren't a "club" as such, but equally they have done some dumb ones. They do however have an arguably clearer focus, mission, and priorities in practice than SCCA.
Your "merge with Prod" concern is well founded, Bob, but my guess it would come about because of the implosion of Production rather than fundamental failures of IT. That is precisely the kind of "anti-strategic" decision that I see our current cultural/organizational structure capable of. It's "keep the dinosaur on life support" that has had Prod hovering on the edge for the three decades I've been watching it and - not to put words in your mouth - I have a feeling it's THAT behavior that you're scared of us slipping into...
If so, I share that worry.
K
I dunno Bob, from my view they are fairly competitive....have a look at this video from near the front of the pack at VIR this year. Two VTEC FWD cars in front of me, along with a mix of other cars. Racing is pretty good.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HoTfKYxGhg[/ame]
No Vee-tAk on the one directly in front of you at the start me-thinks. ITA car? But regardless, teh process gives low torque, FWD cars a break.
Maybe not, but there is VTEC Yo! on the one just to the left of me in T1.
I think the ITAC is trying to be progressive about IT. ITR was created to class many new cars, but as I recall Bob didn't like how that turned out because I think he's "Hondacentric". The ITAC got Pony cars into ITR but again I don't think Bob liked that progressive action either as he dislikes the cars and/or how they were classed.
IT is going in the right direction and IMHO the best place to race within the SCCA or NASA. I complain about IT from time to time, as we all do, but the bottom line is that if you like racing and competitive fields IT has it. Not that it means much but for me IT is the destination - I have no intentions of going National or Prod. If the CRB still has the impression that IT is the Prod breeding ground I think they are mistaken, at least among the racers I know in the SE.
I will chime in that I have returned to IT because it is the destination. IT is where the some of the best competition exists, the classification process gives you a reasonably fair shot at selecting a variety of competitive cars and costs are reasonable. The quality of driving in IT is every bit as good as national driving - this is not a noob class but new people are always welcome, just as they are in national classes.
I don't see problems in IT - that class is healthy. Where I see issues is with the strategy of our club, specifically regarding race classes and field counts. From my perspective here in the NE the business of regional vs. national makes little sense. The reality is there are too many events so each event is a, "hold your breath and hope we don't lose our shirts" stress fest for our race planners. I've raced in a number of nationals and there is huge opportunity for consolidation of GT and Prod at national and regional events. Why that hasn't happened is a shame.
So here's my grand vision (leaving out open wheel cars) - take GT and Production and combine them in GT. Take the tube framed cars and put them in GT. Take the former world challenge cars and put them in GT. Make GT the place where the purpose built race cars run.
This statement will ruffle some feathers - take the model of the ITAC and put this group in charge of reclassing these production and GT cars. I believe there is a strong methodology that should be developed into institutional knowledge. The historical agenda which seems to slow the pace of change presents a weakness to our club. I define historical agenda as people refusing to force competitors to change their class and possibly become more or less competitive. Take a look in Sportscar National Race Results and count how many drivers are running in class - my wife was looking at the counts and remarked, "there's not enough cars in class to call that a race..."
Keep IT, Touring and Showroom Stock the same. Make some of these classes race in the same group.
Make purpose built cars race in GT. Form a “process” to class these cars – it will be the next challenge for the folks who have mostly figured out the IT “process”. Race some of these GT classes with American Sedan.
Combine the regional and national schedules, turn out big fields and lose less money. If national needs to make certain events special to qualify for the Runoffs - do that - no big thing.
IT turns out enough cars to call the event a race. That's not the case in the production and GT classes – It’s obvious to me those classes need consolidation.
The economy is not getting better for awhile and counts are not going to rise for several years – let’s not lose more money on events. Consolidate.
Ben, if I were further up the ladder, I'd be beating the drum on some of your topics loudly. Heck, I bet the CRB is tired of hearing me do it now.
I don't think people are reading the same note that I wrote, but I can't fix that. I'll leave these comments regading big picture
1) Nothing else matters if there are declining cars coming to the races. Though SCCA doesn't share participation data, I believe IT is declining based on my race participation. Even if the present formula is perfect, if it doesn't stem the reduction of participation, its irrelivant.
2) In my professional world, people are expected to make fact based business cases to support their suggestions. My utter frustration in this duscussion is that SCCA shares no facts on who runs, who wins, etc. Until somebody gets the numbers, any big picture input is subject to the next responder who dismisses it as "centric". Get data, not opinions and do everybody a favor.
3) It is my point of view that the present rules do nothing to encourage car counts, and do a lot to discourage good cars from showing up. Poor rules/classifications are something that needs addressing.
I do the executive product planning for a $600m business. If I were working for the CEO of SCCA, My guidance is based on how you are presently running the class, I'd look to cost reduce and harvest IT (and regional racing) as its a declining business. The biggest favor the ITAC committee can do for our class and SCCA is figure out a plan that increases car counts. There are many ways to do it, I've made my suggestions.
bob
Bob, maybe I'm wrong because I haven't been out to the track much this year, but as a whole IT car counts have been excellent in the Southeast over the last few years. Maybe there are issues in your region, but I "think" nationally IT counts are very healthy. Maybe somebody else with a more thorough grasp on IT participation nationwide will chime in. Are IT car counts really down significantly across the country??
Race participation in all areas of racing (SCCA, other clubs, Pro) are in a decline due to the economy. It's not improved touring specific.
If the product is better and more attractive, you better believe it goes towards attracting and retaining active membership.Quote:
Even if the present formula is perfect, if it doesn't stem the reduction of participation, its irrelivant.
I have to admit that some of your posts confuse me a bit because they contradict themselves a bit. Could be just the way they're written and/or read. You can find facts on who runs and wins, but that shouldn't tie into classification requests.Quote:
My utter frustration in this duscussion is that SCCA shares no facts on who runs, who wins, etc. Until somebody gets the numbers, any big picture input is subject to the next responder who dismisses it as "centric". Get data, not opinions and do everybody a favor.
If based on results - why are these cars winning more than others? Is it because someone built a particular car, proved it was a race winning chasis so others followed in his or her footsteps? That doesn't mean other cars don't have the capability to win. How talented was the driver(s)? I've seen first hand a car being driven by a capable racer who turned some decent lap times, then have his son get in the same exact car the next session out and kick some serious ass. If based on the father's results, one could argue some lead needs to come off the car. If based on the son's, a bunch of lead might be warrented. You can't base it off this type of stuff.
Would you really look at such a short term view? When I look at IT over the past several years, it continues to grow in popularity and participation.Quote:
If I were working for the CEO of SCCA, My guidance is based on how you are presently running the class, I'd look to cost reduce and harvest IT (and regional racing) as its a declining business. The biggest favor the ITAC committee can do for our class and SCCA is figure out a plan that increases car counts. There are many ways to do it, I've made my suggestions.
SCCA needs to figure out ways to increase active participation, membership retention (which has been a HUGE issue in the past), help regions as much as possible - not the ITAC. The club also needs people's active participation in ways one might be able to help or they believe the club could use assistance.
The take-away from Bob's message is that we just don't know. The Club doesn't know, or maybe doesn't disseminate the information internally. The ITAC has to use it's collective judgment which is just the sum of all of our individual perceptions - or misperceptions.
K
Back in the day, Sportscar used to list race results that included some regionals. It wasn't ideal- far from it- but it was a window to see some info. Now you have to dig around to see what's happening out of your own backyard. They said that regional people didn't care about things beyonsd their own region, and the regionals publication was a better place for regional results. Space in the national publication was just too valuable.
I miss the results in Fastrack, even limited as they were.
Until earlier this season, all race results were posted to the SCCA website: http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=82
However, I don't see anything since late May.
But even if we had those results for the whole season, without a lot of analysis we wouldn't know the trends year-to-year.
The Club has the numbers. It's not hidden information. I am 99% sure you can request participation numbers for any and all classes. I will look into the trends and report back.
The reason you haven't seen the numbers is that until recently, they haven't been tracked. At the end of 2007, an attempt was made to capture as much of this information as possible (I caution you not to draw too many conclusions about trends because this information is known to be incomplete). In 2008, a more concerted effort was made. Although not updated recently, the early 2009 numbers are on the SCCA web site. (Go to http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=40 and click on the link above the event listings.)
Here is what we have for the IT classes:
DaveCode:2007 2008 2009 (through 7/1/2009)
ITR 193 304 158
ITS 1093 1358 543
ITA 1817 1920 936
ITB 920 873 352
ITC 418 454 171
I was unclear earlier. I thought that Bob was talking about "competitiveness" - what cars do or don't run up front - but I did a lousy job of translating that into words. Car counts are easy but I didn't think that was the issue. Sorry for not being more specific.
K
The information given in 2007 on the Production site by a CRB member is that ALL Regional class cars & ALL National classes cars are tracked.
This has been a good thread -- much appreciated on all of the input, thanks for the effort guys.
Nice job and a shout out to Dave G for locating the IT numbers - those get posted in Sportscar almost annually if I recall. Those counts look healthy - would you be able to show Prod and GT so we can see if those classes are down?
National entries have been tracked for many years. The Regional numbers started being tracked - by class, not totals - in 2007. That's why there are no numbers available for earlier years. As I said, the 2007 numbers are "iffy" because of the way they were gathered.
Dave
I'd be curious to see what national and regional trends look like for Prod and GT - being sensitive if the request makes it harder including regionals.
I think racing in a fuller field with more passing and being passed develops better racecraft and offers more fun. I also think the regions should offer relief to the workers and rake in more $$ per event.
Here's another question - does anybody else think combining the national and regional schedules makes good sense? Jake - sounded like it did to you also.
I stated as much in my first response.
Of course then we are talking about something much larger than the 'state of IT', which is what we SHOULD be talking about. IT is healthy, could use some tweaks here and there, and always will, but we need to improve the SCCA Club Racing program from the standpoint of event financial solvency, regional organization capabilities, venue scheduling/availability, worker scheduling/availability and driver options (too many events to choose from at times).
Still not sure how to word a CRB letter on 'IT in general', but planning to write a letter to CRB and BoD on the subject of Club Racing structure....again.
yea, I'm probably with you on that boat. One aspect to that is IT's place. A central question to that is:
Why is IT successful?
Is it the ruleset? or the Regional status? Some think it's the latter. If so, changine the overall structure will affect IT. (I think it's other reasons, but...) Just something to consider....
Jake,
I think the success is due to both.
I have a question, do you think IT racers just race enough to be sharp for ARRC? I don't, I think they race (and they race more than most) because they love to race.
Put the RunOffs apple out there for IT and you will change the culture. You will get those 4 race folks that just want to qualify. And some of them will be guys that raced a large number of races the years before. Your regional type championships will lose their luster (and entrants) and the serious guys will be "saving" cars, money, and time for the "Holy ROs Grail". Of course you will also be lucky enough to pick up some crossover folks who "moonlight" in IT for 4 races, but really are into other classes. They just will want an extra shot at a RO plaque.
Not saying this is bad, it is just not what I want for IT.
That is why you just have 'races' and not Regionals and Nationals. You want to qualify for the Runoffs, you come and score points. Your top 5 in each Division get an invite.
I'd think that if you look at other National popular categories you'll get an idea for how people will treat IT. Look at SRF etc... do they race the bare minimum and pull off half way to save the car? If the category is popular, that stuff won't fly if you want to be top 5.
Isn't it us "mid-pak" guys who contribute to the "Health" of IT?
Steve Burns
'86 MR-2 ITB
As far as the 4 races to qualify deal, everyone likes to trot this out whenever national racing is discussed, and it happens. There are also folks that just run enough to have their stuff ready for the ARRC. That doesn't mean everyone does this. Aaron Stehley - 2nd place ARRC 08 in ITB, winner of the Improved Touring Triple crown in ITB - moved to T3 this year, and has run every single race in his division to secure the divisional win (and $1000 VW contingency for such). Chuck Mathis - 2nd, 1st and 2nd at the last three GP Runoffs however has run just enough to qualify for the runoffs this year - why? - because when his class was eliminated and his car moved to FP at an amazingly low weight, with an underdog motor, he had to focus ALL of his time and attention to preparing a car that could be competitive. We are two years in, and are finally now going to have a 'real' car ready for the FP runoffs. The point is that there are reasons people do what they do, I doubt that it is often that they don't like racing, and I think there is a continuom between Aaron and Chuck.
In short that is a weak argument IMO.
I agree. It does happen but it's hardly the only strategy. I personally ran 10+ national races a year when I was racing nationals. In T2 in particular in 2006, we had pretty much the same 8-10 racers at every race, despite the fact that the division is 16+ hours from the northern-most track to the southern-most.
When it does happen, IMO the reason it happens is because the divisions are laid out poorly, making people travel huge distances to run all of the races in the division ... and we're club racers, not pro racers. It takes too much time and money to do all that travel ... so people cherry-pick the races closer to them.
For those of you who believe that there should not be separate races for regional and nationals how do you propose we deal with the current format restrictions on national races? Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.
Josh the NE has some short tracks that limit group sizes to 38 cars. And they have late start (10)and early finish times which combine to make it tough to fit it all in.
I think the point trying to be made is that Aaron didn't HAVE to do that to qualify for the Runoffs. He is running in a class that Nationally sees less than 2 CAR PER EVENT. Weak sauce, yo! IT is healthy - probably the healthiest catagory in all of SCCA. Rule set? Cheap donors? Big fields? No National? You pick your reason why.
Another example is Mike Miserendino, who races in about every regional I've flagged at.
I'm of the opinion that as good as the ITCS are, they have holes in them that just aren't explored like say SM, EP, or any other national class does. If IT were to go national, we'll see a new dawn on rules creep as grey areas are explored in the name of winning the RO's. IMHO, if there is a National version of IT, it should include a small number of cars that are holomogated and are closely monitered for performance, all specs should be listed down to the shock packages that can be used, and there should be no suprises. The closest pro-series would probably be Grand-Am ST/GS cars and prep rules. In the end you'd have Touring without the specific sunset clause and stripped interiors.
We do doubles and even a triple on a two day weekend. You cannot do that with the national format. The GCR requires two practice/qualifying session with a minimum of 45 minutes and a 45 mile or 30 minute race. If I remember right the fastrack change made it worse by not allowing hardship time to count.
Meeting the national requirements would allow nothing but single long races on a two day weekend. by the way the number of double nationals is severely restricted by the current rules as well although some divisions have gotten dispensation because of local track problems.
I contend that one of the reasons that regional are much more popular in my part of the country is the varied and more enjoyable formats than nationals.