Concerned about IT's Future

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 12:28 PM

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

Well, lets talk about this. I think the "Big picture" needs to be agreed upon before we can move forward. I think half the people I talk to want us to do anything we can to keep ITB/ITC alive (from full revamps of weights to allowing lexan winshields and aftermarket parts due to availability) while the other half wants to invoke some sort of age rule killing cars off.

I like the on-the-fence approach. I think we can do our best to class and reclass cars into these classes keeping things SORT of fresh, while creating a class above ITS for the newer stuff. We have a list of cars, have a target performance envelope and are ready to continue moving forward...but we also need to 'fix' what is here first. If that happens, we can move forward with a vision in a proactive manner instead of being reactionary all the time.

AB

[zooracer]

well I have read pages and pages of discussion on the difficulty in getting a new car classed competitively. But no need to bring that pile back up...
I think having new cars competing against older cars would be pretty cool. What is the problem with that? Why would anyone want to phase out older cars?
SCCA should class the cars, not wait for some 19 yr old, who doesnt know anything about the club, to request a new car for classification.
Start with the most popular ones out there and make it so.

When looking at the other ITB cars in the GCR it took me about 30 minutes to figure out that the swift would be competitive. This isnt rocket science.
I mean, the SCCA doesnt have to buy and build the car. They just have to write it down in the GCR as eligible in whichever class.

[Knestis]

...half the people I talk to want us to do anything we can to keep ITB/ITC alive (from full revamps of weights to allowing lexan winshields and aftermarket parts due to availability) while the other half wants to invoke some sort of age rule killing cars off.

I have a sneaking suspicion that both of those extreme positions are the product of individual racers protecting - or trying to bolster - their relative competitive advantage. One camp argues to have allowances for their old cars, while the other wants to make room for faster cars at the top of the class - both arguing disingenuously for "the good of the category." Bah.

Instead, some possible *strategic* first principles for helping ITB and ITC survive:

** It is desireable to offer options to potential entrants, to the degree that those options are attractive to them

** Current (relatively) low nation-wide participation suggests that the current options are not attractive enough

** Therefore, it seems like it would be helpful to list some additional cars


Along another train of thought...

** Many currently listed cars are getting old and parts are becoming scarce

** Absent this reality, there is no real reason to "unlist" a particular make/model of car

** Unless, that is, it has been available as an option for years and nobody has run one

** Given the above, it doesn't make any sense to keep an old car on the list, if nobody is currently running one and allowing someone to do so now will only create an entrant with a parts supply problem

** In itself, that is a problem because, in an effort to avoid alienating people who are already commited to older cars, it is often suggested that special allowances be made to mitigate parts scarcity - many of which are contrary to the evident first principles of the IT category in the first place (e.g., plastic body panels, different engines, Lexan windshields)

** It should be taken as a given that, if a rule needs to be addressed for the entire category, it should be based on the needs of the entire category - as opposed to the needs of owners of a specific car or group of cars

** Therefore, while it should not be a goal, in and of itself, to obsolete old IT cars, efforts to preserve the eligibility/competitiveness/whatever should equally not compromise other first principles of the category


Combining the above...

** It would therefore seem likely that the additional cars listed be as new as possible (ie. just within the eligibility age window), to allow them maximum life in the IT category before the age/parts availability problem sets in

** However, since those cars - particularly if they are popular with the driving public - may retain their resale value too well to make them attractive $$ options for racing.

** This suggests that there is a theoretical "sweet spot" age, at which point the cars are not too new to be expensive, but still a useful racing life away from looking "vintage"


On makes and models...

** It is NOT good for the category for new cars to be substantially better than already listed cars - creating a car-of-the-year is a bad thing

** It WOULD be good if the new cars listed were perceived as being close enough in potential that they are worth developing

** New cars listed should make some sense, in terms of dealer and aftermarket OE parts support, availability of donor chassis and parts, and popularity in the aftermarket perfomance sector

** Further, since people sometimes make their race car choices for irrational reasons, they should have some intangible attractiveness, to the extent possible, catering to brand loyalty, coolness, or other emotional factor


Note here that arguments for or against particular cars being listed are by definition NOT strategic. Nor are cases presented to allow individual models particular allowances.

Discuss.

K

Edit (to zooracer) - I didnt' get that out of this strand at all, by the way.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 12:28 PM

There are disincentives to growth of the classes here, in terms of getting new cars - and therefore new people? - into the IT classes. In the name of "being reponsive" or being "member driven," a big piece of what should be strategic thinking for the future of the category is neglected.

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

It's a good point...

I'm not sure the ITAC should be trying to fill the classes, but perhaps some of the obvious choices could be done, but not a whole bunch.

A better idea is to try to open the process up. I think that streamlining the processes could go a long way. Perhaps the web site could have a section dedicated to the wanna be racer where things like the breakdown of classes was explained, and as a sub point, how anyone can request a car be added to the IT ranks.

That is a section the ITAC would be happy to write, I am sure.

[Knestis]

If nothing else, revisit the VTS form. It clearly has more info than is really necessary - that makes it into the ITCS - and may not have all of the info needed by the ITAC to classify under the new system?

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer@Oct 17 2005, 03:12 PM
From everything I've read on here, it is difficult to get a new car classed, or classed competitively, No?

[snapback]62808[/snapback]

Don't take all the stuff here as gospel. The only requests we have turned down are cars that either slushbox only, AWD, or clearly too powerful for classification (Z32). We have NOT turned down a car that even remotely fits IT.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 04:28 PM
The problem is NOT there, however. It's simply that CURRENT racers are not likely to go to a bunch of trouble to attract more competition against themselves in different (and perhaps newer, higher-tech, more threatening) makes and models. NEW potential racers don't know how to go about it, or even that they are allowed to request new listings.

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

Hogwash. First of all, we've received requests for classifications from pure newbies and have classified the cars. If we did not have enough info, we've asked for more. If necessary we have pretty much guided folks thorugh the process.

Secondly, are there really that many cars out there that would be a fit for IT that someone might actually build that are not classified? Perhaps they are not classified because nobody wants to build one. I'm sorry Kirk, but this is totally a tempest in a teapot claiming something on a "what if." Doesn't wash.

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 04:28 PM
There are disincentives to growth of the classes here, in terms of getting new cars - and therefore new people? - into the IT classes. In the name of "being reponsive" or being "member driven," a big piece of what should be strategic thinking for the future of the category is neglected.

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

See above.

If you want to build a unclassified Cyclops Special, send in the request. But until then, don't suggest that we're clueless or that there is some conspiracy to keep out the young hotshoes in their Cyclops Specials.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 18 2005, 01:18 AM
If nothing else, revisit the VTS form. It clearly has more info than is really necessary - that makes it into the ITCS - and may not have all of the info needed by the ITAC to classify under the new system?

K

[snapback]62860[/snapback]

I am in 100% in agreement.

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer+Oct 17 2005, 06:07 PM-->

well I have read pages and pages of discussion on the difficulty in getting a new car classed competitively. But no need to bring that pile back up...

[snapback]62824[/snapback]

[/b]

Steamy and smelly that it may be. It's a canard.

Originally posted by zooracer@Oct 17 2005, 06:07 PM
I think having new cars competing against older cars would be pretty cool. What is the problem with that?

[snapback]62824[/snapback]

Once again, there is no real issue there. Last year at the ARRC a 240Z was running up front with the E36s in ITS. There were early VWs racing with late model Honduhs in ITC. ITB was a bit vintage, but no more so than my car. ITA is a hell of a class these days although it mostly favors the newer cars. I'd love to see the RX-7 catch a break there.

<!--QuoteBegin-zooracer@Oct 17 2005, 06:07 PM
Why would anyone want to phase out older cars?
SCCA should class the cars, not wait for some 19 yr old, who doesnt know anything about the club, to request a new car for classification.
Start with the most popular ones out there and make it so.

[snapback]62824[/snapback]

I think the most popular cars get classified by the members pretty regularly by definition.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 18 2005, 12:15 AM

Instead, some possible *strategic* first principles for helping ITB and ITC survive:

** It is desireable to offer options to potential entrants, to the degree that those options are attractive to them

** Current (relatively) low nation-wide participation suggests that the current options are not attractive enough

[snapback]62851[/snapback]

Not to diss anyone in ITB/ITC, but most of the youngsters drive street cars WAY faster than ITB/ITC cars. I&#39;d suggest this is more of an issue with getting the youngsters to run these classes. I&#39;m NOT anti-ITB/ITC, but this is a very real issue. It&#39;s the same sort of reason I wouldn&#39;t in a million years consider buying/building a car for HP for instance.

[Knestis]

Ooch. Geo came back cranky.

I&#39;m afraid that someone&#39;s taken my suggestion to hyperbole level, turning "disincentive" into "conspiracy." That is NOT what I said. This isn&#39;t black helicopter talk but instead is about organizational motivation for doing - or not doing - things.

I&#39;ve had people at races - and not just "kids" - ask me if they can race their...

** Mid-90s Geo Prizm - in a parking lot here in Greensboro
** Toyota Tercel of about the same vintage - at a rallycross in Southern VA
** Mitsubishi Mirage, also probably a &#39;93 or so - VIR paddock, son of a turn worker I think

I don&#39;t know the specs of all of these, obviously they are all either B or C cars, but these three people all had the same WTF look on their face when I explained that they couldn&#39;t race anything that wasn&#39;t in the rules, and that someone would have to request that they be listed.

I&#39;m afaid that it&#39;s too easy to equate "nobody has asked to list them" with "nobody will race them" but I might be completely wrong. It might be that nobody wants to race something that doesn&#39;t have a turbo and AWD, or that isn&#39;t a Miata. And suggesting that these were just random people off the street and not "serious" about going racing really sells short the possibility that we could reach out to some people who aren&#39;t already members. There was a time for each of us when we weren&#39;t.

K

EDIT - Can anyone tell me how many new cars were classified for 2005? Over the last three years? I know of one for sure.

EDIT EDIT - If I filled out requests and VTS forms for four of these common econoboxes a month for the next three months, would they all get listed? They all come with 5-speed &#39;boxes, are all 2wd, and clearly - none is too powerful for IT. Hmm?

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 08:35 PM

It might be that nobody wants to race something that doesn&#39;t have a turbo and AWD, or that isn&#39;t a Miata.

K

EDIT EDIT - If I filled out requests and VTS forms for four of these common econoboxes a month for the next three months, would they all get listed? They all come with 5-speed &#39;boxes, are all 2wd, and clearly - none is too powerful for IT. Hmm?

[snapback]62876[/snapback]

I might be just the crazy one; but, I have no desire to:

1) Race a turbo car

2) Race an AWD car and

3) Race a Miata.

It&#39;d be neat if the 2.5l Z3 could get classed, I can think of a couple of track-a-holics that might want to race theirs and may pave the way for the 2.5l Z4 first introduced in &#39;03. Where the 2.8l BMW&#39;s have all been bypassed. Then what about the 3litre camp who&#39;ll want to race with 231hp from the factory? There&#39;ll be a few Performance Pack guys to join in. BTW, sign up as many eco-box 5 speed cars as you can think of Toyota Tercel/Echo, Mitsu Mirage, Chevy Cavalier....

James

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 18 2005, 03:35 AM
Ooch. Geo came back cranky.

[snapback]62876[/snapback]

Sorry Kirk, didn&#39;t mean to be cranky. But, I do get a little cranky about the talk of red tape and how difficult it is to get a car classified. THIS is pure hyperbole. The reality is it&#39;s pretty easy as long as the car is a pretty reasonable fit in IT.

Now, to turn things around a bit on you, I&#39;ll bet when the folks with the Prizm, Tercel, Mirage had the WTF look you didn&#39;t say "don&#39;t worry, all you have to do is fill out a simple form and submit it with a request." That sort of response would help put at ease the mind of someone who really wanted to come play.

I agree that there are things on the VTS that are not needed, but we take incomplete VTS all the time. If they are complete enough we take action on the request. If they are missing data we need, we contact the person making the request. Truly no big deal.

Too many people make this process out to be dark and mysterious and too many others with no direct knowledge of the subject believe it and repeat it and it becomes a "pit legend" (as oppossed to urgan legend ).

As for how many new classifications in the last couple of years it&#39;s been a handful. But I can say the only requests I remember turning down are for cars with slushboxes or too powerful for ITS.

[Bill Miller]

George,

What&#39;s the status of my request to classify the Mk IV VW 2.0 Golf/Jetta in IT? I sent this in several months ago, followed up by a VTS. Haven&#39;t heard anything since. BTW, this is the same chassis/engine/driveline as the New Beetle.

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Oct 18 2005, 04:58 AM
I might be just the crazy one; but, I have no desire to:

1) Race a turbo car

2) Race an AWD car and

3) Race a Miata.

It&#39;d be neat if the 2.5l Z3 could get classed, I can think of a couple of track-a-holics that might want to race theirs and may pave the way for the 2.5l Z4 first introduced in &#39;03. Where the 2.8l BMW&#39;s have all been bypassed. Then what about the 3litre camp who&#39;ll want to race with 231hp from the factory? There&#39;ll be a few Performance Pack guys to join in. BTW, sign up as many eco-box 5 speed cars as you can think of Toyota Tercel/Echo, Mitsu Mirage, Chevy Cavalier....

James

[snapback]62881[/snapback]

The Z3 is classified in ITA with the 1.9l. If you want the 2.5l classed you have to write in and request it. Is it a Z3 with a 2.5l or a Z4 with a 2.5l?
Don&#39;t forget the car has to be 5years or older to be considered for IT

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 18 2005, 11:18 AM
George,

What&#39;s the status of my request to classify the Mk IV VW 2.0 Golf/Jetta in IT? I sent this in several months ago, followed up by a VTS. Haven&#39;t heard anything since. BTW, this is the same chassis/engine/driveline as the New Beetle.

[snapback]62887[/snapback]

No record of it. Did you use the Twilightzone Zip Code?

Seriously, John Bauer has no record of it. Can you resubmit it?

Sorry about that Bill.

[Knestis]

Uh, oh.



K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 18 2005, 11:17 PM
Uh, oh.



K

[snapback]62961[/snapback]

We drew straws to see who would break the news...Geo lost, LOL

[Geo]

Hey, I didn&#39;t lose it. I even asked that it be resent. My sincere apologizes though.

That&#39;s just a human error. Things get lost all the time. I&#39;ve been looking for my mind for a few years.

[Bill Miller]

Dear Bill,

We received your letter on March 7, 2005, and forwarded it to the Club
Racing Board and the appropriate advisory committee for their
consideration.

Your input will be placed on the next available Club Racing Board
agenda. The CRB generally meets once a month, however some issues
require additional consideration that may include a request for more
information from you, the advisory committee, a manufacturer, and/or
the
membership at large. An official response to your inquiry will be
published in Fastrack News, which you receive with your SportsCar
magazine. A PDF version of the Fastrack News is also posted on
www.scca.com for your convenience.

As a member-driven organization, we appreciate your interest and
involvement.

Sincerely,

John


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 5:37 PM
To: Club Racing Board
Subject: New car classification request


Please classify the &#39;99 - &#39;00 VW Golf 2.0 in Improved
Touring

Bill Miller
279608

There&#39;s the letter and the acknowledgement guys (and it looks like I only asked for the Golf, not the Golf and the Jetta). I got an acknowledgement from John. I guess I can resend it. One of the things that bothers me about this, is that the Mk IV Golf and Jetta 2.0 8v came up in the conversation about classing the New Bettle in ITC. I had asked if they were going to be classified, since they were the same chassis/engine/driveline as the NB. IIRC, someone made the comment to &#39;write the letter&#39;.