Beat me, hurt me - I think I'll go run NASA PT

[RSTPerformance]

Just another point of view to look at, not necessaraly my opinion, but certainly a view I would look at when thinking about IT (SCCA) and its good/bad status and/or future.

Why has IT become so expensive to win??? Because arguably it is the best series for Road Racing in the US with exception to possibly the Speed Touring and GT series.. and possibly the Rolex series.

Why do I say this? look at actual class participation numbers and the competitiveness in those classes, its amaizing considering the veriety of years, makes and model cars. Also look at the real value of what you are getting... you are getting REAL racing just like someone spending millions in some other series that has FAR FAR less competition.

For whatever reason over the last decade IT has grown leaps and bounds and attracted wealthy "investors" who are willing to pay the extra buck to win because they feel that this IS the best series where they can actualy "race" wheel to wheel. I think that everyone here on this site as well as those who don't read "ImprovedTouring.com" but are part of making IT what it is, should be proud of what they "created."

I will also say though that I agree it is a bit of a bummer that it is getting so expensive, but unfortunatly it costs lots of money to push the edge, and the more rules we add sometimes the more expensive it will get... and remember you don't need some $6,000 IT motor to win, that gives you what? a few hp... and driving can certainly compensate for that!!!

Good Luck...

Raymond Blethen

[gran racing]

Because arguably it is the best series for Road Racing in the US with exception to possibly the Speed Touring and GT series.. and possibly the Rolex series. [/b]

Let’s say I agree with this statement (not that I’m biased). Should it be? If so, it seems to contradict the original philosophy of IT, no?

I do think there could be a happy medium between IT and what NASA is trying to accomplish. How cool is it that a person could run a car with a stock engine AND have a shot of winning their class? REAL grassroots racing! Maybe SCCA needs to add a Po' Man class? I don’t know.

Ray, I agree with you that having the best car isn’t everything. Too many people skimp out on developing their skills and think spending cash on a car is automatically make them fast.

[turboICE]

If someone is spending a lot of money and not running up front why should anyone care - its their disposed of wealth.

If someone is spending a lot of money up front, but the driving is still what is more important in getting there - then maybe they are getting there by their driving - again its their wealth that was disposed of.

Given a competitor of equal driving ability how much are you going to spend on car prep to make your driving ability provide a better result than your competitors?

I doubt that there is someplace that you can run up front that costs less in car prep than IT does or many would be there instead of here. Heck running upfront in a 125 shifter can run a lot more than running up front in ITA.

Any region where PT does become popular (as in IT car count entry levels) is going to cost a lot more to run up front than it does in IT, at least in the PTD and above ranks. Which will likely result in a quick reversal in the popularity.

As expensive as it seems to run up front in IT, where is an example of road racing where it costs less to run up front.

[wbp]

I think the good thing about racing Improved Touring is the choice it presents. Spend a lot of money to have a chance to win ITS, or spend a relative little and have a chance to win ITC. Gareth Rebstock has won the ARRC five times in ITC and he doesn't spend much money. Visa Silegren, who finished one foot off Gareth's bumper in 2005 doesn't (and will not) spend lots of money. Both do spend time working on their car. Both can drive. And you get to choose, with ITA and ITB in between in speed and money.

[Jake]

The point is: PTE, G, F, etc. To run in these classes you can't do much to your car. I had a quick look through the rules, and my MR2 w/o a header and a stock junkyard motor appears to fit nicely into PTF. So a chance to be competitive and even run at Nationals at Mid Ohio in a car that cost less to build than most IT racers put into their engines? Sounds pretty freaking good to me.

[RSTPerformance]

Jake-

Just my observation in the racing world would be that even in NASA if you want to win then you are still going to have to spend $900.00 a weekend on tires, have all brand new parts that work perfectly right down to every suspension bushing as well as new/rebuilt shocks/struts for every race, etc. etc. etc.

Oh and to rebuild a "stock," "junkyard" motor probably costs as much crazy money as a rebuilt fully prepped IT motor that I could never afford... If you don't believe me look at the cost of a new SM motor, that is stock from mazda, then rebuilt by "the best" tuner. Oh and don't forget no matter how much molney you have that tuner tunes 20 motors and will still give the "sponsored car" the best motor in the bunch.

and on side note... If NASA doesn't cost as much as described above to go win the national championship then I have to wonder is anyone is pushing the limits and to me if they are not then it probably wouldn't be worth as much to me to win thier national championship over a regional championship here in SCCA in the Northeast. (Worth meaning, the achievment I would get from the lower challenge in the NASA championship). This statement DOES NOT say that NASA is less of a challenge, I have not been to an event to see what they have brought to "the table," It is simply my opinion based on what everyone that supports NASA seems to say.

Raymond "unfortunatly everyone is richer than I am so no matter wher I play they have an advantage... Looks like I will have to use my talent behind the wheel to go kick some..." Blethen

[Knestis]

Harsh reality review: There is no way to regulate spending in racing except for a claim rule. I don't remember seeing that in the PT regs but NASA DOES use one in other classes, like the new Spec Focus, where the race organizers can buy your engine from you for a portion of what a new crate motor costs from Ford.

It might seem like affordable racing right now - because there's no competition driving up quality, YET - but the PT category could turn into a massively expensive proposition - assuming that enough people car and you want to run up front. A $50K PTF car is pretty much always going to have an edge over a $3000 one, driven with the same skill. And don't for a minute think that it's not possible to build one. It might be EASIER to spend big dough, in fact, since there are an infinite number of possible formulae that one could use to get there.

K

[Jake]

(I know I'm on the wrong board to try to make my point but here goes...)

1. Unlike IT, the PT rules inherently penalize you for spending money on your car.

2. If you do want to make your car go faster, the PT rules allow you cheaper ways to do it than IT. For instance, for much less than the price (and points) of a IT build, I can drop a set of cams in my car now.

3. PT attempts to class stock older cars competitively. Put some tires and brake pads on and you can race! Think of it this way, pretend that instead of building up your ITB cars, you could have raced them in ITC if you didn't do X,Y, or Z on them.

4. PT allows you to run what you want to build, not based on some arbitrary class structure. When was the last time you saw a Honda in a magazine with 14" wheels? And a rear wing puts you in SPO??!

While not an asset for people with cars optimized to the IT rules, PT will make amateur racing more more accessible, affordable, and attractive to people wanting to get into the sport. You don't have to convince me that people who spend more and, in general take winning more seriously, will still have an advantage - I know this. But this is a HUGE move in the right direction.

[Bill Miller]

PT reminds me of EMRA's ST category, except gone horribly wrong. EMRA somewhat embraces the concept of modifying your car beyond what SCCA IT allows (to the point of allowing aftermarket turbos, etc.). They use a concept of 'exceptions. Certain things count as exceptions, and depending on the number of exceptions you have, you can move up 1 or more classes. But it's no where near what NASA has done w/ the PT category. I think that once PT gets ramped up, and really gets going, people are going to find that it's a policing and enforcing nightmare. To me, they way they've set it up, it's probably actually going to encourage cheating. Way too many things are allowed (pretty much ANYTHING is allowed), and plenty of them are really easy to hide.

I think one of the reasons that the EMRA model works for them, is because they're a small, regional group, that's pretty laid back. If NASA is going to do this Nationally, and have people compete for National Championships, the ante is going to go way up.

[charrbq]

I occasionally crew for a couple of guys who have had some really notable success in HP over the last twenty some odd years, and they occasssionally crew for me in IT. They used to say that IT was just a bunch of guys running old, illegal, beat up cars, that enjoyed smashing into one another during a race. For a while, for the most part, at least in Texas, they were right.
Recently, I showed them the IT rule book, gave them a couple of brands of cars now kicking butt in each of the classes, and quoted some dollar figures for those cars. They changed their minds. They now don't understand why anyone would want to race in a class so full of confusion and expense.
I suppose that one of the reasons I don't go to GP is the need for constant maintenance on drive train to be competitive. Currently, the rules allow me to add the proper safety equipment to my ITC car to be able to run GP, just really slow.
I don't plan on it, I like the concept behind IT, but not what it's becoming. The limits on Production are more in accordance with my banker than some ambiquous, confusing rules that are attempting to plug the dyke after the flood or reinforce the levee where there's only a dry creek.

2 cents

[ShelbyRacer]

A coupla things

#1- when I suggested a rewrite about a year ago, I was crucified much more intensely than this...

#2- the "cost" of SCCA races (entry fees) has little to do with ANYTHING related to National or the decisions made there. Entry fees are set by the prevailing costs, and sanction fees are a VERY small part of that.

#3- car prep cost CANNOT be controlled by rules. It is simply an application of basic economics. The more at stake, the more will be spent to achieve a goal. Prep costs will climb directly in proportion to participation levels. The only way to control costs is to make a truely "spec" car where every single part is sealed and threadlocked and wearable parts are distributed at the beginning of the weekend... The ECU rule is a PRIME expample of this- make it fit into a stock box to restrict things from going off the deep end, and now it costs twice as much to implement a mod that is essentially required to have a "fully-prepped" car.

And again I'll use the analogy of the rulebook being like a house with 50 additions. Sooner or later it comes to the point that you just need to tear down and start fresh.

Oh, and when they start taking volunteers for the rewrite, I'll be at the front of the line.

[Bill Miller]

I occasionally crew for a couple of guys who have had some really notable success in HP over the last twenty some odd years, and they occasssionally crew for me in IT. They used to say that IT was just a bunch of guys running old, illegal, beat up cars, that enjoyed smashing into one another during a race. For a while, for the most part, at least in Texas, they were right.
Recently, I showed them the IT rule book, gave them a couple of brands of cars now kicking butt in each of the classes, and quoted some dollar figures for those cars. They changed their minds. They now don't understand why anyone would want to race in a class so full of confusion and expense.
I suppose that one of the reasons I don't go to GP is the need for constant maintenance on drive train to be competitive. Currently, the rules allow me to add the proper safety equipment to my ITC car to be able to run GP, just really slow.
I don't plan on it, I like the concept behind IT, but not what it's becoming. The limits on Production are more in accordance with my banker than some ambiquous, confusing rules that are attempting to plug the dyke after the flood or reinforce the levee where there's only a dry creek.

2 cents
[/b]

This comming from a couple of Prod guys? That's pretty damn funny!!

Prod has become a category w/ 5 or 6 different prep levels. You've got full-prep cars, you've got some limited-prep EP cars, that have a different set of rules than most of the other limited-prep cars, you've got Caterhams, which are essentially spec cars, you've got full-prep cars w/ limited-prep engines, and I think there's a limited-prep car w/ a full-prep engine (one of the EP Miata configurations, IIRC). Yeah, IT is full of confusion and expense!

[turboICE]

Glad you responded Bill I was too busy scratching my head as to what other sanctioning body's production they were running to be able to respond - it just couldn't have been SCCA Production.

I still want one example of where it costs less to run up front in another class group than IT that is even half the participation and competition of IT.

Does it cost less to run in the front of SM than ITA? Does it cost less to run in front of H5 than ITB?

As much as the cost is complained about I still haven't seen a class with as much participation and good competition that costs less to run up front than IT.

[pgipson]

(I know I'm on the wrong board to try to make my point but here goes...)[/b]

Actually, the IT forum seems to be the only place one can discuss PT since anything that smells like criticism on the NASA forums gets smacked pretty quickly.

1. Unlike IT, the PT rules inherently penalize you for spending money on your car.[/b]

Only to the extent that you should go faster but could move up in class if you spend money. In IT you spend money to go faster and remain in a class. Don't really see the difference.

2. If you do want to make your car go faster, the PT rules allow you cheaper ways to do it than IT. For instance, for much less than the price (and points) of a IT build, I can drop a set of cams in my car now. [/b]

But unless you make other changes to optimize those new cams how much faster will you really go? That looks like a way to spend money and NOT go faster. As with any perf mod, it's the combination that counts. Just adding sticky tires will not make much difference without other changes to allow you to take advantage of the sticky.

3. PT attempts to class stock older cars competitively. Put some tires and brake pads on and you can race! Think of it this way, pretend that instead of building up your ITB cars, you could have raced them in ITC if you didn't do X,Y, or Z on them.[/b]

Attempts, but not proven to work. Again, tires and pads (plus a roll cage, seat, safety gear, etc) do not ensure you are able to race. There is a level of mods that pretty much must be done to make a car responsive enough to be fun to drive that hard. Unless you are starting with a Z06.

4. PT allows you to run what you want to build, not based on some arbitrary class structure. When was the last time you saw a Honda in a magazine with 14" wheels? And a rear wing puts you in SPO??![/b]

Granted, this is true. So for the one - off car that nobody else wants to get involved with (Subaru Legacy? Toyota Yaris???) PT is a way to get that car on track. But I fall back on the mantra, do you want to race THAT car -- or do you want to race?

While not an asset for people with cars optimized to the IT rules[/b]

I am not convinced yet that PT rules are a deteriment to all IT - type cars. A mildly modified car (like a Spec RX7) might do alright.

PT will make amateur racing more more accessible, affordable, and attractive[/b]

It's only more accessible if you assume that people racing the Subaru Legacy or Toyota Yaris (what the heck is that anyway?) would never race anything else. But nothing makes racing more affordable. It is only more affordable than some other from. And when people start putting roll cages in their street cars (bad idea) and writing them off on a concrete wall, then affordability takes on a whole new meaning. As to more attractive -- I don't understand the implications of attractiveness. Explain some more.

You don't have to convince me that people who spend more and, in general take winning more seriously, will still have an advantage[/b]

It's not so much taking the winning seriously, as it is taking the racing seriously. I've seen to many people make a transition from track days to racing only to realize they don't like being side by side 3 inches apart in a corner at 60 mph.

this is a HUGE move in the right direction.[/b]

It's a move in a direction, but only time will tell if this is the right direction. I'm not smart enough to predict the future, but it seems like fewer classes with more people racing each other would be more fun.

But more classes with lots of winners trophies could appeal to some segment of the motorsports population.

[Jake]

I don't have the patience to parse - so this may be hard to understand without reading the other posts...

1- Only to the extent that you should go faster but could move up in class if you spend money. In IT you spend money to go faster and remain in a class. Don't really see the difference.

2- But unless you make other changes to optimize those new cams how much faster will you really go? That looks like a way to spend money and NOT go faster. As with any perf mod, it's the combination that counts. J

3- There is a level of mods that pretty much must be done to make a car responsive enough to be fun to drive that hard. Unless you are starting with a Z06.

4- for the one - off car that nobody else wants to get involved[/b]

1 - Yes there is a difference. If a tube frame chassis was legal in ITA, it would make racing ITA competitively more expensive. Fortunately it bumps you out of IT.

2 - There are much cheaper and easier ways to make HP. You could easily do motor swaps for cheaper than typical IT builds. Add the same points, get the same hp, and have something more reliable.

3 - Showroom stock and Touring don't have many mods - and thats some very good racing. If you want to do the mods you can still do them.

4 - Not quite my point. 14"wheels and no wings allowed, but Motech and $4K shocks ok?! Let people mod the cars HOW they want - not just how they are in the rule book. Allowing people to race cars that they want to build, or to tart their cars up like Speed Touring cars does increase the attraction to spectators and competitors.

[turboICE]

2 - There are much cheaper and easier ways to make HP. You could easily do motor swaps for cheaper than typical IT builds. Add the same points, get the same hp, and have something more reliable.[/b]

Not sure if I misunderstand what you are saying or if you misunderstand the PT rules.

If I read what you are saying right then you misunderstand the rules. Motor swaps do not get points. You take the motor numbers (OEM as from the manufacturer) and the chasis numbers and you get a hybrid vehicle that they will put in a base class for you. The idea being that no advantage would be gained from the swap you would be put in a class with the same competitive potential - then you start adding points for changes to the swapped motor from OEM or changes to the chasis from OEM.

For instance I don't think you are going to get a SR20DET swapped into a 240SX chasis on the track any cheaper or more reliabily than any other PTE** car. I actually would think that it would be cheaper and more reliable to get more HP by building the KA24 than swapping an OEM SR20DET and still be lower than PTE with 15 points.

However, if that is what you want to race, you can do it at least. I don't think that car would be permitted in any SCCA race, except maybe a very open and liberal ITE region.

[pgipson]

don't have the patience to parse [/b]

And I don't have the desire (or the need) to debate the issue. In the end; Speed Costs Money, How Fast Do You Want To Go? will still rule the day. Spend it on IT cars or PT cars, you're still spending it. My experience is that a 0.1 sec lap time car improvement costs proportionally the same no matter the class.

Oh, and tube frame cars are legal for PT.

[Jake]

And I don't have the desire (or the need) to debate the issue.[/b]

Ahh - that's something we both agree on. But I refuse to let at least one point die:

Going by the assumption that a good IT build will get you about 20% power increase and cost $4-5K, you would have to be on drugs (or not know anything about cars) to think that there aren't more cost effective ways to make that power. (engine swap, bolt on blower, port and polish, cams, etc. etc. etc.) Heck you could do a Jackson racing Supercharger on a Miata for less than the cost of a Sunbelt Motor. The philosophy of PT is to allow you to do whatever you like, and then find the appropriate class for the car after the mods. So in theory, if a motor swap puts reclasses your car up one class, an IT build with equiv hp to the motor swap should "point" you up one class as well. Only difference is the motor swap is cheaper and more reliable.

[Catch22]

Just a few thoughts...

- I agree. I'd love to see the current ITAC clean up the IT rules. Not really change anything, just get rid of things like this.

- 88-91 CRX and Civic Si models came without radios... FYI. I bought one that way brand new in 1991.

- As mentioned on the previous page... NASA?
Please. If SCCA rule writing and procedure frustrates and confuses you its a good idea to stay FAR away from NASA. Look closely at the supps for their upcoming enduro at VIR and you'll see that they are running a sprint within an enduro. Thats right, 30 minutes into the enduro a checkered flag will wave for *some* of the cars on the track. They will then be on a cool down while enduro entrants are still racing.
Of course, it also says in the supps, basically "don't crash into each other during the sprint checkered."
I'm of the opinion that if you feel you need to write "don't crash into each other" in the supps... Well...

- NASA's claim rules???
There is a guy in Atlanta that would love to talk to you about NASA's engine claim rule in SM. He tried to use it last summer and was told there wasn't time for that. When he pressed the issue he was kicked out of the event and had his membership revoked.
The entire story is in the Atlanta Region SCCA's newsletter for December (I think, maybe January).

So, at the end of the day, IT is like the good old US of A.
It might not be perfect, but there really isn't anywhere else I want to move to.

Kirk, buddy, stop stressing about the rules and build to the intent (which is typically pretty obvious). Race your car, win some trophies, and have a beer.
Anybody that would protest because speaker wires have been removed needs to be kicked square in the nuts anyway. JMVHO.

[lateapex911]

The thing about the PT category that nobody has mentioned is that it's really a nightmare from a legality point of view. It seems like the changes can result in a myriad of combinations that can yield a plethora of performance levels...all for one car! You think it's tough to tell when a guy in IT is cheating?? HA! You will NEVER be able to make even a WAG in PT! The same car could be in how many different classes when the points add up?? The onus is on the competitor to list completely what is, and what isn't in his or her car. It seems too easy to have the system fooled.

It also turns the entire concept into a bit of an excel spreadsheet effort. I mean, how realistic are the "points adders"? Is a cam on car A going to have the same performance increase as a cam on car B? Doubt it...at least not for every car across the board. But it carries the same "points'. So it behooves the future competitor to read the rules very carefully and do some very careful analysis before choosing a car.

It does create an easy intro for guys running Drivers ed events who haven't given much thought to a future in racing....it puts them in a class in a fair manner. That is a powerful tool for the club.