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