IT National Issues Survey

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracer22:
This survey is the equivelant of a survey of hungry people about food. The results would be much different if taken by all IT racers, including those that would rather spend time with their kids than on line filling out surveys.

I'll ignore the insinuation (as I did spend the whopping 45 seconds mouse clicking the survey), but who cares if the all the racers, who you imply don't really care, take the survey? If they don't care, I feel no need to validate thir response.

Let's face it, 90% of the racers aren't in the top 10% of the field, and would have no interest in higher entry fees, less track time and even a lesser chance of a good finish.

I absolutely disagree with your assumption that 90% having no interest. First, I finish outside the top 2 in a 20 car field all too regularly, and I do indeed care.
Secondly, where do you get your facts? Less track time? Lesser chance of a good finish?

No logic there. Please explain.

Keep in mind there are some with integrity who would rather finish well against solid competiton that win in an empty field.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Knestis]

You aren't being a problem at all, Adam - because you aren't telling me anything that I don't already know. You are, however, wrong about one thing: Posting the results to date don't do anything to hurt instrumental validity - because it already sucks like a four-horse shop vac. Those initials that Mr. Jefferson's university gave me are for a program in education policy and evaluation and I have enough instrument design and statistics understanding that I harbor absolutely NO illusions about the validity or reliability of the instrument or process.

When this idea first came up, my initial thought was that it was too much like work and that I should just ignore it. I gave it a few more minutes of noodle time and changed my mind figuring that Walt P. probably wouldn't let his expectations of quality stand in the way of stick welding someone's fence back together, and Bertil Roos wouldn't let a lack of parts balanced to a gnat's ass keep him from helping someone in need replace a water pump belt on a crappy old Chevy. This is a hobby for me - racing and talking about racing - and I figured that the value (the ONLY value) of this thing was in its ability to generate discourse.

If the SCCA wants to undertake a study to gather valid, reliable data it can do so. Heck, it could hire my unit to do so and we could do a good job of it but I wouldn't take 20 minutes to whip something out on Zoomerang. I suppose that someone might try to misrepresent the findings of this thing but I'm figuring that the opinion that I'll post when it poops out, regarding the issues that you bring up, should scuttle anything like that.

I hadn't thought about doing a comparison between this dataset and that of a valid sample of informants fitting an appropriate profile. That would indeed be interesting and probably wouldn't do anything to improve my belief of the quality of information gathered from or presented on the Internet. The fact that I play in this medium does NOT mean that I don't understand its limitations. I taught a university course a few years back that included a unit titled, "Thinking Critically About Internet Content."

I'll also post it here because frankly, anyone who looks at old posts on IT.com will know that I personally think that the idea of trying to restructure ANY rules to allow IT cars to run in an existing National class is a phenomenally bad idea. I'm completely satisfied with being permanently "regional," having done the National and "pro" thing years ago. (I did it badly but did it enough to know that there's nothing inherently magical about "moving up" in racing.)

I'm less negative about the idea of the IT classes being eligible for consideration as National classes but that's more about the current National classes being stupid to me than about IT being treated as a red-headed step child (with apologies to any red-headed stepchildren who might be reading this). Seems to me like we need to decide what the big picture rules are going to be (like minimum participation levels) and stick with them. The issues there align with my belief about what national competitors would say about IT becoming a National class: They would lobby like hell against it to protect their current interests, just like proponents of classes like H Production manage to wield enough power to keep it from dying the sad little death that it should.

I have nothing but good things to say about the regional events that I've attended and run in WDC, NCR, and Buccaneer regions. I've seen TransAm weekends that didn't go nearly as smoothly. We have multiple series options - SARRC, CCPS, ERC - reasonable entry fees, good track time, and nice people. Far from getting treated like taxed serfs supporting the National lords and ladies, I think.

I DO strongly agree that the club and the IT program would benefit from an SCCA national office initiative to do an ARRC-like thing for IT and the other regional-only classes. My preference would be to have THREE of them - one on each end of the country and one in the middle since it's so damn big - so people who wanted to could do a high profile gig at the end of the season, maybe earn a contingency award, and feel like stars for a couple of days.

There you go - for what it's (not) worth.

K

[zracer22]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
I absolutely disagree with your assumption that 90% having no interest. First, I finish outside the top 2 in a 20 car field all too regularly, and I do indeed care.
Secondly, where do you get your facts? Less track time? Lesser chance of a good finish?

No logic there. Please explain.

Where did I get my facts? Lighten up, I just picked a number out of thin air. Change it to 60% if it makes you feel better.

Less track time? Just add 50-100 IT cars to an already busy National weekend. Another group may be needed in some regions.

Lesser chance of a good finish? Wouldn't a middle of the pack IT car do even worse in big $$$ Prod racing. If you can't win in IT, how would you win in Prod with the same car?

The next time your at a regional, take a look around the paddock. You will see an obvious seperation between the big budget guys and the guys that are already pushing the ceiling of their race budgets.

Besides, if IT racers start running at Nationals, the regionals will really be hurt. next step in the progression would be to save your stuff for the Nationals, followed by not running the regionals at all. Without big IT fields, regionals would be dead in the water.

If you want to race in Prod, then make the changes or buy a new car and go race in Prod. Why should SCCA be different than any other venue.
"Hey, let me run my Indy Light in CART!"
"Hey, let me run my Craftsmen Truck in the Busch series!"
"Hey, let me put my oranges in the apple barrel!"
"Hey, let me run my IT car in Prod!"

It seems that everybody (generalization) wants it both ways. First you want CAs so your 30 (generalization) year old car remains competitive in IT, AND you want to compete with your 30 (generalization) year old car Prod.

This whole debate about IT going national has morphed into IT going Prod. IT already has enough issues to deal with, and now adding the IT/Prod hybrids into the mix will only make it worse.

Seriously, look beyond the initial thoughts of how cool, fun or whatever it would be to run in Prod, and look at the possible long term effects it would have on IT, Prod, the club, and you.

This wouldn't even be an issue had the SCCA managed IT well. Without the past 15 years of rules creep, IT cars would be lightyears apart from Prod cars. What used to be a huge gap is now just a thin blurred line between IT and Prod.

[IPRESS]

Good luck on getting national recognition. I am all for you, even though I see a long hard fight for that "equality status". My Butt still burns occasionally from last years SM Class vs. The Comp / BOD fight! Old SCCA ways are very hard to change, but the more racers you have in your group the more influence you can use as a hammer.
Mac

[Knestis]

Here's what the results showed, with 201 respondents submitting. There was one partial response - someone who did not complete the instrument.

Please note the comments above regarding the purpose of this survey and see the notes at the end of this post for additional limitations that must be kept in mind regarding any inferences made from these data. Also, while I'm only reporting the percentage that selected "Agree" or "Strongly Agree," this should not be interpreted as my endorsement of any particular point of view. You all can subtract from 100 to determine what percentage selected "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree."

I've included comments in italics - methodological notes, low-level inferences about respondents' thinking, or my personal responses. If no mention is made otherwise, it can be safely assumed that the "Strongly" and less-strong options are somewhat evenly split.

75% Strongly Agree or Agree that the “Regional only” rule in the ITCS puts the Improved Touring classes in a position of lower status than National classes

A majority of respondents[1] agree that IT holds a "position of lower status" than National classes. In hindsight, this item is pretty weak since "status" is not operationalized - people may have differing interpretations of the word. It may also simply be a reflection of the culture of SCCA that regional classes are "lower status" than nationals: It would have required a couple of additional items to chase out the influence of regional status vs. that inherent to the category being IT. I should also have been more specific about "regional only" and "forever regional only" - the clause prohibiting IT from being considered for national status.

90% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes are currently treated with respect IN THEIR REGION, in terms of track time, scheduling, and other issues

By any stretch of the imagination, this suggests that respondents are largely happy with the way they are treated at the regional level. It would have been a good idea to use the term "respect" in the first item so that, even if it was unclear what construct respondents had in mind when they responded, it would be the same for both items.

58% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes are currently treated with respect BY THE SCCA NATIONAL OFFICE, in terms of rules enforcement and other issues

It might be noteworthy that, in addition to respondents being essentially split on this question, there were very few Strongly Agree (7%) and Strongly Disagree (8%) responses - folks were relatively abivalent on the issue. Note here that the four-option Likert scale didn't allow for a fence sitter position, instead forcing people to commit to one position or the other. The lack of strong positions on this question suggest that we would have received a large number of "Whatever" responses were that option available. It might also be that most members have little direct contact with SCCA national offices.

63% Strongly Agree or Agree that owners of Improved Touring cars should be able to run them somewhere in the existing National Club Racing class structure

The item should have been more specific in that the question that comes up in conversation is whether IT cars should be allowed to run AS IS in some current national class - typically LP Production. As odd as this sounds to me personally, the idea has some fans but the construct validity of this item is weak enough that it's hard to tell what respondents intended - run LP Prod or whatever without changing their car, have their existing car classified in Production if it isn't already, or...?? Thsi would require several items to chase out the separate issues.

74% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally run National events if they were allowed to do so within the existing Club Racing class structure

The same problems exist with this item. It would be interesting to find out from those who want to run their IT car in Nationals WHY they want to. I find that a little baffling but maybe it is about "status," however it was defined for item 1. Should also have had an "I don't have an IT car" response but that would have made it necessary to get WAY more scientific about the entire instrument.

63% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes should be considered for National status under the existing participation requirements

This item stands on pretty solid theoretical ground since it's realtively hard to come up with alternate interpretations. The number doesn't surprise me but again, I'd be interested to know why. Personally, I just think that the same set of rules ought to be applied to all of the categories, in terms of participation levels and national eligibility - if the regional/national separation is going to continue. That said, I haven't heard any recent, well presented rationale for even making that distinction...

78% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally run National events if their Improved Touring class achieved National status

Again, a fairly solid question that might actually be informative if applied to a valid sample of SCCA member/IT entrants. Here, it suffers from the validity issues described below.

82% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes should have a “RunOffs” style national championship event, organized by the SCCA national office

There were very few (6%) respondents marking "Strongly Disagree" on this item, suggesting that the move would be favorably received by this group. This doesn't take into consideration the practical issues involved in this type of event.

75% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally work toward earning points to qualify for an Improved Touring national championship event

It's interesting that fewer respondents would actually worry about qualifying for a RunOffs thing than think having one is a good idea, suggesting that some just want to see it happen. Regarding the location of said championship - and assuming that respondents figured there would be only one - the options shook out as follows:

West - 11% SA, 20% A, 38% D, 30%SD

East - 27% SA, 42% A, 19% D, 12% SD

Central - 24% SA, 49% A, 17% D, 10% SD

I'm glad I don't have to decide where to run it but the questions here would mirror those that used to swirl around having the National RubOffs in Atlanta.

[1] Respondents - as Adam alluded to above, there are issues with the validity of the sample in this survey. Because the respondents were not randomly selected from a specific target population, it is NOT appropriate to make from these data any inferences about "what SCCA members think" or "what changes IT drivers want." There is no way to know whether respondents are members of either group.

This is setting aside the question of "Whose opinion counts?" on this topic, which is a policy issue as well. I think this goes to the heart of Walt's concerns: Should only IT drivers make decisions about the direction of the category? Some would obviously believe so. How about all SCCA members? It's likely that most stakeholders would agree that non-members' opinions don't count but what about those who are patronizing "the competition?" Members of the pool of potential, pre-qualified SCCA members (e.g., HPDE or club track day participants)?

There are processes in place that ask for SCCA member input and historically, the number of people willing to write to comment on a proposed rule change are low. There are, in essence, surveys with somewhat fewer validity concerns conducted every time a proposed item is posted in FasTrack: If 201 people responded to any of those, it would be considered a landslide...

K

[dickita15]

thanks kirk, it is thought provoking. it is good to see respondents think the regions treat IT with respect. i am curious in the number of folks who say that national treats them with respect would have been any lower before the last fastrack.
dick

[ddewhurst]

Thanks to Kirk & ALL those involved.

Have Fun
David

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

Thanks for your efforts in constructing this, and in digesting the data.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[gsbaker]

Dittos. Good job Kirk.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

[Banzai240]

Yes... I know I Definately Appreciate you taking the time to do this Kirk! Thanks for putting in the effort...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Knestis]

Well, don't be afraid to discuss among yourselves - even if this won't be on the test Friday. I'm actually a little surprised at how luke-warm most of the commentary has been vis-a-vis these issues...

Kirk