On the nature of rules and racing

[Scooter]

------------
Come race with us in Xsanctiong_bodyX. You can run whatever size wheels you want, and you can convert to a Mass Air Sensor. Starting in 2004, all of our classes will be based on power to weight ratios. You can run a jet engine* if you want.
------------

So I see a lot of people complaining about the complexity of the rules and regs in the SCCA. Especially compared with other, newer, sanctioning bodies. (This is fine, of course, people can have their opinions about whatever they want.) However, it seems to me that what happens a lot of the time is that sanctioning bodies want to start racing with a wide-open, run what ya brung kind of style. Which is really cool for a little while. Nobody's car is really prepared to the extent of whatever few rules there are, and everybody is just out there having a good time. Great. (Probably like the SCCA in the early 60's?) Then what happens is that someone with a little extra money to spend, and a little more time on their hands builds something that dominates the class and everyone agress that whatever "that" is, it should be outlawed immediately. This leads to more and more rules as time passes, that everyone mostly agrees are in everyone's best interest.

Then the next thing ya know, you have a mature rules set that actually tries very hard to make racing fair for everyone. This is where the SCCA is now. (The good sign of this, btw, is when there starts to be 100 classes of racing in a day.)

Import drag racing started up just like that. Few rules or classes, just kids off the street goofing off. Cool. Now everyone has to have helmets and everything.

So, all I'm saying is that I'd really rather build a car to a very solid, if very complicated rules set, than to one that is not mature, and will undoubtedly change very quickly and expensively. Many, many hours have been spent trying to make good rules in our club, and I appreciate that. That's why I'm an SCCA guy. And I'm not even old.

*Original post did not say 'jet engine.' It said, 'feeblefetzer.' No, wait. '100mpg carburetor.'

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Scooter:
------------
I see a lot of people complaining about the complexity of the rules and regs in the SCCA. Especially compared with other, newer, sanctioning bodies.

Just curious. Any "other, newer" sanctioning bodies in the NW that you are being less than specific about? Or is this post directed, in general, at the "other" national for profit sanctioning body?

Rick

[Knestis]

To be fair, Rick, he COULD be talking about the Conference RS rules - even if I don't think that he is.

I'm in the unique position of having been at the table - literally, over pizza and beer - when the RS rules were originally drafted for NW Region. The most recent angst re: rotary equivalents and back seats(?) is a natural progression in this game.

The same dynamic is at work as the NASA Honda Challenge prepares to run its first season as a "national" category. Or it could be the PCA appropriation of the ITE rules in NW Region, if you want an example within SCCA...

K

[Scooter]

I'm really just talking about the nature of rules in general. I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone. I think that almost all sanctioning bodies have this happen. The only exception being contests that never get very popular, or rules that are copied directly from a mature sanctioning body.

I think that the SCCA and the NHRA are examples of sanctioning bodies that sort of successfully managed the transition from wide-open to restricted classes. For instance, in the NHRA there are classes where you drag race someone to beat them, but you can't go faster than some set time. What the hell is that? Well, it's a popular class...

I can think of 5 or 6 younger sanctioning bodies right now off the top of my head that might fit the description. And I'm not really trying to discourage them, I just think that if people understand what's really going on, they might be more willing to put up with a bunch of rules that we know work. (Generally speaking, of course.)

Also along those lines, I think that one of the most important things the SCCA can do in IT is guard against rules creep. You should always be able to drive your IT car on the street. For one thing, you HAVE to have an entry-level street car kind of class. HAVE to. For another, if the rules keep changing, and the class keeps getting more expensive, then you're just like the young sanctioning bodies, and people will eventually leave and go race where the rules are *stricter.* (Like spec Miata!)

[Scooter]

-------
I'm in the unique position of having been at the table - literally, over pizza and beer - when the RS rules were originally drafted for NW Region.
-------

Wow, really? Are both you guys from NWR? I thought I was the only one from around here who read this stuff!

My first car, that I bought from Dave Gaylord, ran in RS as a secondary class. I think that there is always room for a class that's really open, rules-wise.

[Knestis]

I lived in Seattle until four years ago when I came to the east coast to go to graduate school. I ran regionals and Conference races in a variety of stuff back in the late '80s and early '90s, before co-driving in rally cars for a bunch of years. I actually got in a rally car about the time Rick got out...

K

[Turfer]

Originally posted by Scooter:
-------
Wow, really? Are both you guys from NWR? I thought I was the only one from around here who read this stuff!

Kirk was originally but now he resides on the "other" coast. I like to lurk around mostly.

I agree your feelings regarding the stability of rules, especially regardign safety. I often wonder if our high insurance rates reflect the local dirt/paved short tracks having an incredibly low regard for basic safety equipment and an incident rate that I perceive to much higher than RR.

Conference RS rules??? That could be thread hijack type talk.

Rick

[zracer22]

Here's my $0.02 since Scooter started this thread by referencing one of my posts in another thread. http://forums.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum...TML/000610.html

Here are the reasons behind our (GTS Challenge) run what ya brung rules.

1. Many racers enjoy making their cars faster but most rules won't allow it.

2. It works. GTS Challenge has managed to take cars from 40+ different classes in several different clubs and put them into 5 very competitive GTS classes.

3. How can you cheat with "run what ya brung" rules? All it takes is a set of scales and a n occassional dyno run to 100% police the rules.

4. Do I even have to list all the stupid rules in SCCA that no longer apply under our rules? (passenger door glass, no more then 8 point cage, 13 and 14" wheels, etc...)

"Then the next thing ya know, you have a mature rules set that actually tries very hard to make racing fair for everyone. This is where the SCCA is now." That was meant as a joke, right?

"So, all I'm saying is that I'd really rather build a car to a very solid, if very complicated rules set, than to one that is not mature, and will undoubtedly change very quickly and expensively." On what factual evidence do you base that statement? Our open end rules give everyone the chance to win in class. Those who aren't competitive will be those that decided not to alter their car so that they can still run in PCA, BMWCCA or SCCA. Or they can't drive.

[Knestis]

Whether it's desirable or not, "factual evidence" is neither necessary nor available, where it comes to supporting the thesis advanced in the original post: Historical evidence supports it but, in fairness, only time will tell if the same thing will happen to the GTS Challenge.

I would argue that, despite evidence to the contrary, the DESIRE to make the IT rules fair and enforcable is indeed behind the muddle that we're currently in. The fact that the system "tries hard to make racing fair for everyone" has led to a process grounded in the assumption that any member can ask for something, and that any change that DOES take place is incremental: The GCR and ITCS grow and morph literally line by line, without any strategic planning.

A brand new concept like GTS has the luxury of being the brainchild of a few like-minded individuals (or even a czar) and reflect NOTHING but strategic planning. The rules set doesn't have to reflect the narrow desires of a lot of members - a great place to be in but not one that has to accommodate tactical changes...

Out of curiousity, are there any rules tweaks planned for Year 2 of the GTS Challenge?

K

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by zracer22:
Our open end rules give everyone the chance to win in class. Those who aren't competitive will be those that decided not to alter their car so that they can still run in PCA, BMWCCA or SCCA.

Just like drag racing - the guy with the biggest wallet wins.

[zracer22]

Originally posted by JohnRW:
Just like drag racing - the guy with the biggest wallet wins.

Not exactly. The big wallet will buy you more HP or lighter parts, which will continue to move you to another class until you finally reach GTSU. GTSU is the class that has Porsche GT3 Cup cars, BMW B-C Mods, etc and everyone there has a big wallet. Classes GTS1-4 have weight/power restrictions that will keep cars competitive.

[Peter Olivola]

How long before someone cares enough to figure out the best combination of power to weight ratio, frontal area/drag, etc., and you're reduced to a single car winning everything? Followed by new rules to try to equalize all the disadvantaged cars. Thus proving the point.

Originally posted by zracer22:
Not exactly. The big wallet will buy you more HP or lighter parts, which will continue to move you to another class until you finally reach GTSU. GTSU is the class that has Porsche GT3 Cup cars, BMW B-C Mods, etc and everyone there has a big wallet. Classes GTS1-4 have weight/power restrictions that will keep cars competitive.

[Dyno]

What if I showed up with, say, an SCCA GT3 or 4 tube frame car with coilovers, big brakes, and slicks, and bolted some lead to the floor. Would I race against showroom stock Honda Accords?

Would a shifter kart be in the same class, assuming similar power-to-weight ratio?

[zracer22]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola:
How long before someone cares enough to figure out the best combination of power to weight ratio, frontal area/drag, etc., and you're reduced to a single car winning everything? Followed by new rules to try to equalize all the disadvantaged cars. Thus proving the point.

This isn't pro racing. No body will be putting their car in a wind tunnel. No set of rules can ever totally cancel big wallet factor. But what our rules prevents is the problem that plagues IT racing, where an E36 with minimal prep can kick the crap out of a 944 or E30 prepped to the max. You can spend all day thinking of exceptions to the rule, but the truth is, that 99.9% of the cars that race are not exceptions to the rule. In GTS Challenge, there is no "car to beat". Instead our focus is on driver and car tuning skills.

[zracer22]

Originally posted by Dyno:
What if I showed up with, say, an SCCA GT3 or 4 tube frame car with coilovers, big brakes, and slicks, and bolted some lead to the floor. Would I race against showroom stock Honda Accords?

Good question..... We have in our rules, that slicks are an automatic class bump. It's up to the entrant to choose. BTW, no Hondas allowed. German makes only, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche. This also eliminates another variable; FWD.

Originally posted by Dyno:

Would a shifter kart be in the same class, assuming similar power-to-weight ratio?

Stupid question.....All cars must meet NASA/SCCA safety regulations.

[Knestis]

Sorry - again, are the GTS Challenge rules for 2004 the same as last year?

K

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by zracer22:
Those who aren't competitive will be those that decided not to alter their car so that they can still run in PCA, BMWCCA or SCCA.

If you want to be competitive, you must prep your car to GTS limits, which will probably knock you out of ITnormal and dump you in ITE or SP if you want to race SCCA. Similar impact on the other sanctioning bodies. How is that a positive ? Much of the criticism of IT is that the prep levels don't match those of other series, so those affected people either: 1. Can't build the cars they would like to build or 2. End up in a class where they aren't competitive if they do make those mods. GTS is, is seems, in the same boat. The logic, if not circular, is at least an oblate spheroid.

Originally posted by zracer22:
In GTS Challenge, there is no "car to beat". Instead our focus is on driver and car tuning skills.

Strong disagreement here. Unless everybody is driving Miatas or SRF's, and cars are classed solely by weight and hp, then there CERTAINLY will be a "killer car" in each class.

I just don't see how this is any different that what we have in IT today, albeit in a larval stage.

Edit: Not just being gratuitously argumentative here...in the last year I've raced with SCCA, SCCA Pro, EMRA, NASA and Midwest Council.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited February 03, 2004).]

[zracer22]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Sorry - again, are the GTS Challenge rules for 2004 the same as last year?

K

Kirk, No. We are putting the final touches to them and then they will be posted on the website. Last year we just classed cars according to their Club (PCA or BMW) classes. Our goal was to see if there was enough interest in series like GTS Challenge. And there was.

[zracer22]

Originally posted by JohnRW:
[B]
I just don't see how this is any different that what we have in IT today, albeit in a larval stage.
B]

In SCCA IT, the CRXsi made the 1st gen Rx7 obsolete, the E36 325i made the E30, 944 and others obsolete.

This can't happen in our rules. An E30 would only be in class with an E36 if there was an appropriate weight difference to account for the huge HP difference.

If anyone dominates in GTS, you can bet that the human factor will have much more to do with it than the mechanical factors.

You'll never enter a GTS race, look at the entry sheet and say "looks like I'm racing for 7th this weekend", because six E36 BMWs are listed. (extreme, but you get the point)

example:
http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.c...ndex.htm?030202




[This message has been edited by zracer22 (edited February 03, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I liked the simplicity of just translating the NASA/PCA/BMWCCA/SCCA rules straight to the GTS classes. It looks like you're going to a straight weight/power formula - what was the thinking behind that?

I still wish that VWs were fancy enough for the series.

K