Printable View
Quote:
Originally posted by Tom Donnelly:
If we told you, we'd have to kill you! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif
I found the answer on the internet so I'm safe for now!
Tom
In more ways than one!!! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Shorts in a know (knot?)? Hardly, but I think you have a serious problem being rejected.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Mr. Johnson,
You make some wild claims, then get your shorts in a know when people ask you to substantiate them. Hmmm. And, you're right, you don't have to 'play by our rules here'. And you're also right, in that you will be dismissed as an anonymous hack that doesn't have the sack to stand up for his own beliefs.
As far as National and Regional being so different, I guess that's why there are several areas of the country where they have to run Nationals in conjunction w/ Regionals, because they can't get enough cars to the track to pay the freight on their own. And you want to talk about bogus? What's bogus is claiming that the IT community is trying to circumvent the GCR. If IT goes National, it will be something that's done w/ in the constructs of the GCR. There is a way to have rules changed, and if the rule is changed, it will be done by the book. But since you brought up circumventing the GCR, how about the National classes that were still allowed to run as National classes, even though they didn't meet their required participation numbers when they were on probation? Or did you conveniently forget about that?
As far as my earlier comment, if the jimmy hat, err, I mean 'shoe' fits, wear it!
yep...thread took a wierd turn...
http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
Evan Darling
ITA Integra
2 Cents. Remember what happend to time when Miata`s came onto the scene. Less track time. So that being said if you include more classes you don`t get longer days. And yes if you want to run Nat. Then get a car to do so. IT is IT and is were it is.
Just my thoughts.
Scott CRX si NER ITA.
And exactly what's been 'rejected'?Quote:
Originally posted by rjohnson999:
Shorts in a know (knot?)? Hardly, but I think you have a serious problem being rejected.
The whole Regional/National thing and branding a category as 'Regional forever' are Draconian and arbitrary. Why should poorly subscribed classes get a 'free pass'? Why are the rules thrown out the window to protect these classes?
I stand by my original proposal, do away w/ the Regional/National license distinction, make all classes that have their specifications defined in the GCR eligible to run in any Club Racing event. Change Regional / National races to Non-Qualifying / Qualifying races (for purposes of earning points towards a Runoffs invitation), and take the top XX classes for any given year, and give them the invitations to the Runoffs. If you want, keep the ARRC, and let those classes that don't get invited to the Runoffs run there. Someone made the analogy to the NCCA basketball tournament, and the NIT. I think it's a valid analogy, if you want to go to the 'big show', you have to earn the right (as a class, not just as a driver). Make the cutoff a month before the Runoffs, and that's how you determine the classes that go.
And yes, if the IT classes become eligible to race at the Runoffs, it will cost more to win. But I don't know if it will cost more than it does to win the ARRC. But that's what a National Championship should be about, the best driver in the best car. You want to win, you better have both the driver and the car very well developed.
And I still contend that this will NOT drive up the cost for the people that just want to go out and race for 'fun'. To say that top-level IT cars/drivers will show up at the Non-qualifying races, just to dominate, is not really valid. There are too many examples that indicate that this won't happen. All you have to do is look at all the other National classes that run Regionals. When it's a Regional-only weekend, you just don't see that many people that run Nationals showing up. In the Prod races I've run at Regionals, there are usually never any National-level cars there. There's just really no reason for them to come. It costs more money, puts more wear and tear on the car, exposes the car to more chances of an incident, and it doesn't get them any closer to the Runoffs. I really feel that you'll see the same thing w/ IT.
It also doesn't change anything significant about how races are currently run. The Qualifying races would still have to meet the current standards for National races (in terms of time, distance, etc.) Entry fees for Qualifying races will probably still be higher than those for Non-qualifying races, so that doesn't change either. And for those that are going to complain that it will cost more if you want to run the Qualifying races, that's true, but you also make that choice yourself, and, what you're getting for that extra $$$, is the opportunity to go to the Runoffs, and take your shot at the National Championship.
And for those areas of the country, where you have combined Regional/National races, in the same weekend, you wouldn't necessarily need to keep it that way. Sure, keep the run groups for the classes that don't have their specs defined in the GCR (e.g. ITE, SRX7, IT7, etc.), but let everyone else run it as a Qualifying race. Or, don't change anything, and it becomes a dual Qualifying / Non-qualifying race weekend. The only thing that would need to be done, would be to add the IT classes to run groups on the Qualifying side.
I've talked to other drivers that like this idea, and think it's good for the overall health and growth of the club. We will be working on putting a formal proposal together to send to the CRB and BoD. Anybody that's interested, you're welcome to get involved.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
IIRC, your argument about there being no need to maintain the difference between national and regional licenses was rejected in the original discussion because it ignored the need to separate novice from more experienced drivers for the sake of both.
And there is nothing arbitrary about IT being regional. Or at least not to anyone with any memory of how IT came about.
That's kind of the point. The question at hand is sort of, "by what criteria do we decide what classes get the attention currently afforded 'National' classes?"
Could it be possible that "It's the best subscribed" or "It has the closest competition" are better standards than "It's been that way since IT was born to forever-Regional status?"
K
Hi it`s Mr 2 cents. I was talking to Ray Leechee about this thread and commented to him about it. He came back to me with a though, if he does not mind. "How about a national IT class. racing On it`s own." Then I gues bring it to the "Big Show" Run it on Friday`s 5 classes lots of track time and some stiff comp. Yes Hard rules. Water bottles. I would like to see stiffer pentalies on cheater`s with round top pistons who take points away from others and set track records while cheating and letting those records stand. You know Base A Ball. I`ve started spending more money to be able to stay in the top 10 of the feild because thats where I want to be. I would like to have some kind of IT Nat. In this manor. or something close. But as we know SCCA. I`ll be 80 before anything changes. But Time is an important thing. I don`t like paying tons of money to run 30mins because we have to many classes in a day of or 8 hours on track time.
Scott who probaly isn`t making any sence but this is an open format Haven. CRXsi ITA NER.
If IT went national (or what ever you want to call it), would the racing events be even more subscribed to? It is not uncommon to have a 300 car regional weekend. People have said that many national drivers don't show at the regional race weekends. So what happens to these car count numbers now?
I totally understand the desire for SCCA to give attention to the groups that are well subscribed to, but am still not convinced that lumping all classes together is the best solution.
I also agree that I would like to see IT get more exposure. There are some things that could be done as short term goals such as getting more coverage of the ARRC. Have FasTrak provide more indepth coverage of the event; GrassRoots Motorsports does some but figure out a way for them to do even more; what about other magazines? I don't think we have to wait till SCCA re-writes the bible to obtain some of the things we're looking for. The idea of running IT with a WC race would be awesome. And not the 9th race out of 9 during the day. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/frown.gif
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
Mr. Johnson,Quote:
Originally posted by rjohnson999:
IIRC, your argument about there being no need to maintain the difference between national and regional licenses was rejected in the original discussion because it ignored the need to separate novice from more experienced drivers for the sake of both.
And there is nothing arbitrary about IT being regional. Or at least not to anyone with any memory of how IT came about.
Your arguement just doesn't hold water. You're claiming that National drivers are more experienced than Regional drivers, and need to be 'protected' from one another. As I stated before, it's ok to turn Joe Richboy loose w/ his GT1 or FA at a Regional on only a Novice book, but he needs so much more 'experience' to run Nationals? Just get over yourself already. But, to make you happy, you restrict people that don't run at least 3 or 4 races a year, to running only Non-qualifying races (yeah, I know, it's essentially a Regional / National distinction). Or better yet, you keep them on Novice status (Non-qualifying races only), until they've run 4 or 6 races.
And as far as things that happened when "IT came about", let's look at that. At that time, Prod prep rules weren't much different than where IT is today (weren't they still running on DOT tires?), there were no tube-frame, sihlouette (sp?) cars in GT, IT car were only required to have roll bars, and oh yeah, they were still considered dual-purpose (street / track) cars (anybody remember if they still had do to be licensed / registred for street use?), etc., etc.
Times change Mr. Johnson, that's a fact of life. How many of the other car categories are saddled w/ restrictions from 20 - 25 years ago?
And you still haven't offered up anything other than "That's what they decided 25 years ago" as to why IT shouldn't be given the opportunity to run Nationals. Which, BTW, was when a lot of the IT racers weren't even born yet, or were just taking the training wheels off their bicycles.
Just what are you afraid of Mr. Johnson? Is it that you may not get any easy path to 'The Big Show'? BTW, what kind of car DO you race? I know you don't have the sack to tell us who you are, but maybe you'll tell us about your car.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
At the risk of adding fuel to this fire I have a question. If the top 12 Production drivers & top 12 IT drivers were driving equally prepared cars within the same race which cream do you think would rise to the top ?
Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David
ps: Please tap on my head stone when IT becomes National. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif
More like the argument you're trying to claim is mine doesn't hold water. My argument is that there needs to be a separation in club racing so that drivers can decide where they want to race and to provide a reasonable progression opportunity following driver's school. Ending that separation would have the effect of raising the barrier to SCCA participation and provide NASA, et al, with more opportunity.
There are drivers in SCCA who won't do Nationals and others who won't do Regionals. If we eliminate the separation we seriously risk alienating both. I don't think we need to be alienating any of our existing drivers.
As for the rest of your comments, anyone who thinks Prod cars were running DOT tires when IT was created has a serious problem with overall credibility. Engine prep rules for Prod were much more liberal than IT then or now.
What this reveals more than anything else, Bill, is your entirely self centered view of SCCA competition. Fine for a driver, but hopeless for creating and administering rules.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Mr. Johnson,
Your arguement just doesn't hold water. You're claiming that National drivers are more experienced than Regional drivers, and need to be 'protected' from one another. As I stated before, it's ok to turn Joe Richboy loose w/ his GT1 or FA at a Regional on only a Novice book, but he needs so much more 'experience' to run Nationals? Just get over yourself already. But, to make you happy, you restrict people that don't run at least 3 or 4 races a year, to running only Non-qualifying races (yeah, I know, it's essentially a Regional / National distinction). Or better yet, you keep them on Novice status (Non-qualifying races only), until they've run 4 or 6 races.
And as far as things that happened when "IT came about", let's look at that. At that time, Prod prep rules weren't much different than where IT is today (weren't they still running on DOT tires?), there were no tube-frame, sihlouette (sp?) cars in GT, IT car were only required to have roll bars, and oh yeah, they were still considered dual-purpose (street / track) cars (anybody remember if they still had do to be licensed / registred for street use?), etc., etc.
Times change Mr. Johnson, that's a fact of life. How many of the other car categories are saddled w/ restrictions from 20 - 25 years ago?
And you still haven't offered up anything other than "That's what they decided 25 years ago" as to why IT shouldn't be given the opportunity to run Nationals. Which, BTW, was when a lot of the IT racers weren't even born yet, or were just taking the training wheels off their bicycles.
Just what are you afraid of Mr. Johnson? Is it that you may not get any easy path to 'The Big Show'? BTW, what kind of car DO you race? I know you don't have the sack to tell us who you are, but maybe you'll tell us about your car.
Quote:
Originally posted by rjohnson999:
More like the argument you're trying to claim is mine doesn't hold water. My argument is that there needs to be a separation in club racing so that drivers can decide where they want to race and to provide a reasonable progression opportunity following driver's school. Ending that separation would have the effect of raising the barrier to SCCA participation and provide NASA, et al, with more opportunity.
There are drivers in SCCA who won't do Nationals and others who won't do Regionals. If we eliminate the separation we seriously risk alienating both. I don't think we need to be alienating any of our existing drivers.
As for the rest of your comments, anyone who thinks Prod cars were running DOT tires when IT was created has a serious problem with overall credibility. Engine prep rules for Prod were much more liberal than IT then or now.
What this reveals more than anything else, Bill, is your entirely self centered view of SCCA competition. Fine for a driver, but hopeless for creating and administering rules.
Johnson,
Do you even read, or are you so blinded by your position that you just can't see? My proposal provides a choice for people. You can run Qualifying races, or you can run Non-Qualifying races, or you can run both. It's the same opportunity that's given to all the other categories listed in the GCR, EXCEPT IT.
And, as I said, if you're really worried about 'throwing novice drivers to the wolves', restrict them to Non-qualifying races until they have 4-6 races under their belt. You talk about protecting the novice and experienced drivers from one another, which is why you don't want people to be able to race Nationals right away. Burried in that comment, is a disdain and disrespect for Regional racers as a whole, and IT races specifically. It's ok to throw some rookie on a Novice book into an ITS race w/ track record-holding, ARRC-winning drivers, but it's not ok to do it at a Naional? You really need to get over yourself and your bigoted attitude that Regional racers are 'inferior' to National racers.
As far as Prod cars racing on DOT tires 25 years ago, I did pose it as a question. And believe me, I'll be talking to people regarding the engine prep rules for Prod 25 years ago.
And, you still haven't told us what kind of car you race.
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 25, 2005).]
As I said before, your attitude is fine for a driver because you don't have to reconcile the diffrerent situations in different parts of the country and with different classes. CENDiv is contemplating splitting in part because the division wide regional championship series was more costly to run than trying to qualify for the runoffs and regional entries were falling. Area 5 created their own regional series and Area 4 took that as a green light to start the process.
That's strong refutation of your contention and strong support for my position.
That you would equate the ARRC to the Runoffs is an indication of just how parochial you are. SCCA has an excellent balance within the Club Racing program. That regional racing is something different from division to division is exactly what the rules envision. What regional racing has become in your neck of the woods isn't the way it's working everywhere.
Your argument is a bit like the early days of the IRL when its fans claimed their drivers were every bit as good as CART's by comparing the bottom of the CART grid to the top of the IRL grid.
If you want IT to become National, try another tack. This one will be resisted by a wide range of people from drivers to region officials to stewards and the more broadly based their experience within the club the more resistant they will be.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Johnson,
Do you even read, or are you so blinded by your position that you just can't see? My proposal provides a choice for people. You can run Qualifying races, or you can run Non-Qualifying races, or you can run both. It's the same opportunity that's given to all the other categories listed in the GCR, EXCEPT IT.
And, as I said, if you're really worried about 'throwing novice drivers to the wolves', restrict them to Non-qualifying races until they have 4-6 races under their belt. You talk about protecting the novice and experienced drivers from one another, which is why you don't want people to be able to race Nationals right away. Burried in that comment, is a disdain and disrespect for Regional racers as a whole, and IT races specifically. It's ok to throw some rookie on a Novice book into an ITS race w/ track record-holding, ARRC-winning drivers, but it's not ok to do it at a Naional? You really need to get over yourself and your bigoted attitude that Regional racers are 'inferior' to National racers.
As far as Prod cars racing on DOT tires 25 years ago, I did pose it as a question. And believe me, I'll be talking to people regarding the engine prep rules for Prod 25 years ago.
And, you still haven't told us what kind of car you race.
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 25, 2005).]
The premise that IT racers aren't as good as 'National' drivers is bogus. In the national fields, you have many drivers who get exactly four starts and a few finishes and qualify for the Runoffs, and go there to be dog slow. Then you have people who race 10-20 (or more) races a year in IT who you deem not worthy of National status. What a crock.
Both regional and national classes have their good drivers, the guys/gals out to have fun, and the ones who are always at the edge of being a danger to others. But don't try to say that the danger zoners are all in the IT ranks, but most of us have seen evidence to the contrary.
The wall between National and Regional may make a nice line in the sand, and it probably is a good idea so that the folks that don't want to put forth the National effort can still have a good time. But don't disparage a CLASS (or 4 or 5) because you fear that a current national class might get bumped from the Runoffs due to a lack of participation. The last time I checked, most classes at the Runoffs were nowhere near over the track limit for participation.
------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
Well, David, without a bunch of research...(not gonna happen until next winter!), I can't oblige your request.Quote:
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
At the risk of adding fuel to this fire I have a question. If the top 12 Production drivers & top 12 IT drivers were driving equally prepared cars within the same race which cream do you think would rise to the top ?
Have Fun ;)
David
ps: Please tap on my head stone when IT becomes National. :rolleyes:
But let's look at an example or two. The ITA class has soome pretty good shoes...a guy who drives an Acura has won the Valvoline Cup (I think that's the proper name...it's pretty presitgious) for two or three years now, and recently won the ARRCs. Anthony Serra is his name. To win the ARRCs, he had to catch and pass a Bob Stretch...who seems to mix it up very well with the Auberlins and Kleinubings in SWC.
And of course we see Stretch running in IT ...not at the Runoffs though...
Eric Curran has had some (a lot) of pro rides, and has run near the front in SWC this year...a former ITB standout. But not a huge Runoffs competitor, but had some success when he tested the waters in Ohio, as I remember.
Do the guys at the Runoffs compare?? They sure do! The front guys are very very good. But you know, the fields aren't very deep in many classes. I don't think that you can look at a 15 car National Championship grid with over 7 seconds seperating 1st to even 12th, and automatically say that the talent runs very deep in National racing.
I dare say, that if IT were a category that could run at the Runoffs, there would be no doubt that ITS, ITA, probably B and maybe C would make the cut. AND, in two years time, you would see the IT races as being in the top 6 or so "races to watch", due to close competition and full fields.
Quote:
Originally posted by rjohnson999:
As I said before, your attitude is fine for a driver because
So Mr. Johnson, I wonder if it's safe to assume that you're not a driver??? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gifQuote:
CENDiv is contemplating splitting in part because the division wide regional championship series was more costly to run than trying to qualify for the runoffs and regional entries were falling. Area 5 created their own regional series and Area 4 took that as a green light to start the process.
That's strong refutation of your contention and strong support for my position.
Not really sure what that has to do w/ the issue at hand, nor do I see how it refutes anything I've said. At best, it may be an indication of a poorly run series. I'd wager that it probably costs more to run the MARRS series, hosted by the WDCR, (9 - 10 races, top 7 - 8 count towards the championship) than it does to qualify for the Runoffs (4 Starts, 3 Finishes), yet they don't seem to have a problem getting IT drivers to the track (even w/ a Regional SRX7 class, as well as SM and SSM). I've done the math before (and I'll happily do it again), but IIRC, the average class field size was between 15 and 20 cars. That's per IT class. When and where, other than the Runoffs, were there 15 - 20 EP cars in a field?Quote:
That you would equate the ARRC to the Runoffs is an indication of just how parochial you are.
And exactly where did I do that? Now you're just plain making things up.Quote:
Your argument is a bit like the early days of the IRL when its fans claimed their drivers were every bit as good as CART's by comparing the bottom of the CART grid to the top of the IRL grid.
There you go again, insulting Regional racers (especially the IT racers). Do you actually go to Regional races? I'm sure you have lots of friends there. Or do you not go because you feel that the quality of drivers/cars/racing is not up to your standards???
It really doesn't matter what the Region officials or the stewards think, they're not the ones racing. It's their job to implement the rules and policies that come from the CRB and BoD. Who it matters to, are the drivers, CRB, and BoD.Quote:
If you want IT to become National, try another tack. This one will be resisted by a wide range of people from drivers to region officials to stewards and the more broadly based their experience within the club the more resistant they will be.
Oh, still waiting to here what kind of car you race.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I guess you really need to do some work on your SCCA history. Anyone who thinks region officials don't matter reveals a gross misunderstanding of the club structure.
Regions, not Topeka or the CRB or the BOD, put on races. That's where the real power is in the club.
Your view of how the driver progression should be structured has been suggested before. It fails the fundamental test of scheduling. Unless, of course, you're looking to kill off a bunch of classes and get down to about four run groups. Other clubs doing this, like EMRA, have much smaller entries that are clustered much differently than the SCCA region in the same market.
Many tracks, and therefore regions, are bound by local use limitations. Those restrictions are getting tighter, not loser. Let's see how you'd do a complete event schedule that gives all classes fair and meaningful track time. Let's see how you'd do a schedule that allows events at Lime Rock to support an entry with sub 40 car/group limits. Let's see how you'd safely group cars at a track that supports 100 car/group limits. Oh, and throw in some sponsor requirements for big events like the Rose Cup and June Sprints.
Just the CRB and BOD? You don't have a clue.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
It really doesn't matter what the Region officials or the stewards think, they're not the ones racing. It's their job to implement the rules and policies that come from the CRB and BoD. Who it matters to, are the drivers, CRB, and BoD.
With respect, your choice of words - "driver progression" - reveals your bias: You believe the notion that "Regional" drivers are somehow less than "National" drivers.
The reality is that just about any of us could qualify for a National ticket with just a minimal commitment. I got mine after fitting two schools and the requisite Regionals into my first season. I then ran two Nationals and qualified for my Pro license. Whee! I'm a PRO after doing, what - 6 whole races?
Any drivers out there who have never had anything "higher" than a Regional, who might have been better drivers than me?
As far as your scheduling argument? That's pretty funny - IT shouldn't be a National category because it's too well subscribed? The fields would be too big? I love it!
This whole conversation moves forward from the question, "What might it be like?" That same question presumest that it would look exactly like it does now.
K
The problem for those putting your position forward is that it uses oversimplification in order to demonize my position. I've said several things here. One, that new drivers progress, two, that drivers make choices on where they want to race, three that different parts of the country have different needs and four, IT is not representative of all classes.
Each situation is served by separating Regional and National racing.
As to the issue of IT being over subscribed, how about sticking to a little intellectual honesty here and working to overcome the designation of Regional only if that's what you want to accomplish. Back door attempts to effect this kind of change will be resisted by forces strong enough to scuttle the effort and you won't even feel the knife.
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
With respect, your choice of words - "driver progression" - reveals your bias: You believe the notion that "Regional" drivers are somehow less than "National" drivers.
The reality is that just about any of us could qualify for a National ticket with just a minimal commitment. I got mine after fitting two schools and the requisite Regionals into my first season. I then ran two Nationals and qualified for my Pro license. Whee! I'm a PRO after doing, what - 6 whole races?
Any drivers out there who have never had anything "higher" than a Regional, who might have been better drivers than me?
As far as your scheduling argument? That's pretty funny - IT shouldn't be a National category because it's too well subscribed? The fields would be too big? I love it!
This whole conversation moves forward from the question, "What might it be like?" That same question presumest that it would look exactly like it does now.
K