Should IT be Regional???

[lateapex911]

In another thread in the BMW section, I saw this post, in response to a question posed. A bit off topic there, but wothy of discussion at this time I think.

Raymond,

IT is Regional-only for several reasons. Mostly it's due to a long-held view by some in our club that IT cars are not 'real' race cars. Couple that w/ groups of low-participation cars trying to protect their turf. You've also got some IT folks that feel that having IT go National will make them spend more money to keep up w/ those that have the money, and want to 'go to the show'. But, I'm not going to hijack this thread to deal w/ the Regional-only nature of IT.
[/b]

So..........

We have a new President, Jim Julow, who seems to think that we need to wake up and smell the coffee, so to speak. He's pretty open minded about the racing program.

We have a new class for IT proposed, and initial reports are that it is getting lots of favorable feedback.

Times are a changing in SCCA, so...........

Should IT be a category that has a right to run at the runoffs?

Open discussion here...lets not limit our answers too much by thinking that the current system (Regionals and Nationals has to remain as is forever...)

And a bit of current 'history'. The Runoffs has been, for years now, a 24 National class event. Well, SM is now National, which makes the event a 25 class deal. Thats a situation that is beeing solved as we speak. But it also means that any solution can be applied to more classes than just one. In other words, there is less reason now to have "national' classes limited to 24.

Thoughts???? Just blue skying it here....

[JeffYoung]

I like the fact that we are the outlaw regional class that keeps the SCCA afloat. Stay regional in my view.

[ITANorm]

Ditto.

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

Thanks for stating a new thread on this. I was going to do it, but have been out of the office all day, and just got back. I'll re-cap my earlier proposal on this. Let me preface what I'm about to say with this. My proposal will not change the number of races that are currently held, be they currently labeled as National or Regional. Here's my proposal, in a nut shell.

First off, get rid of the Regional and National distinction. Any category that has a seperate Category Specification section in the GCR, should be eligilbe to go to the Runoffs. That means all classes in those categories should have a chance at going. If there is going to be a limit on the number of classes that can attend, then participation numbers will dictate which classes go. But, that eligibility should be determined at the class level, not at the category level.

Now, how do you determine which cars get to go. As I said in my prefacing statement, nothing would change, in terms of the number of races, or if they used to be called 'National' or 'Regiona'. They would receive new designations. 'National' races would now be referred to as 'Qualifying' races (i.e. qualifying for the Runoffs). 'Regional' races would be referred to as 'non-Qualifying' races (i.e. you can't get points towards going to the Runoffs). The only thing that would change w/ 'Qualifying' races, over the current 'National' races, is that any car that is in a class w/ a seperate CS section in the GCR would be eligible to run. In other words, all IT cars could run at 'Qualifying' races, in their respective categories, but something like GTPinto or SRX7 would not be eligible to run. 'non-Qualifying' races would look no different than current 'Regional' races, all the classes listed in the GCR could run, as well as any Region-specific classes like GTPinto, ITE, and SRX7.

One of the concerns that's been raised, is the issue of license level and driver experience. I don't think much would have to change, in that regard. Anyone w/ a valid comp. license could run a 'non-Qualifying' race, and you would need a 'Qualifying race' endorsement, if you wanted to run 'Qualifying' races. There would be no need to change any of the current licensing requirements, just simply re-name them.

One of the concerns about IT going 'National' is, that it will make it more expensive for everyone to run, as those that want to 'go to the show' will spend more. Actually, I think just the opposite will happen. I think it will actually make it 'easier' on the folks that opt to run 'non-Qualifying' races, as those that want to 'go to the show' will focus on the 'Qualifying' races, and spend their time and money there. If you don't think that's the case, just look at how many current, serious, National racers run Regionals w/ their cars. I don't even think you many of the SM folks running both.

If ITR gets approved (and I sure hope it does), I think it will really take off, and will be even more popular than ITS and ITR. Couple that w/ the fact that several of the ITR cars will be faster than EP cars, and I think you'll see a lot of people wanting to run ITR. Give those people the opportunity to run for a true National Championship, and I think you'll see some really good racing and a lot of very interested participants.

Another opposing view doesn't want to lose 'their spot' at the Runoffs. Point is, if you've got a class that can put 30 - 40 cars on the track and a class that can only put 10 - 15 cars on the track, it may be harsh, but the lower numbers should stay home. It's a better show for the fans, and better shows are what attract interest, both from a participation level (read: more members), but from a support level (read: sponsorship).

I don't really see a whole lot needing to change to implement something like this, other than some long-held, deep-seated views.

Thoughts?

[CDS]

Why not just have SCCA national office officially recognize the ARRC as the national championship event for IT and the other regional classes? It already unofficially holds that status. No need to try to fit all the IT classes into the Runoffs week, with the attendent problems of bumping poorly subscribed classes, etc. Maintain the ARRC (wherever it may be held) as a separate event, but give it official national championship recognition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why not just have SCCA national office officially recognize the ARRC as the national championship event for IT and the other regional classes? It already unofficially holds that status. No need to try to fit all the IT classes into the Runoffs week, with the attendent problems of bumping poorly subscribed classes, etc. Maintain the ARRC (wherever it may be held) as a separate event, but give it official national championship recognition. [/b]

Maybe because it's crazy-inconvienent for 3/4 of the country to get to? If you did hold it someplace that made sense, then the SCCA might as well just add another week of racing at the Runoffs.

I wonder if Mid-Ohio would like a 'IT-Festival' to fill the space that was occupied by the Runoffs...

AB

<mucho post deleted for space reasons>
Thoughts? [/b]

I am with you 100%.

[CDS]

[quote]
Maybe because it&#39;s crazy-inconvienent for 3/4 of the country to get to?

I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that the ARRC would be moving to Topeka in a few years anyway when the contract with Atlanta region is up. Is this not correct?

[Greg Amy]

I wonder if Mid-Ohio would like a &#39;IT-Festival&#39; to fill the space that was occupied by the Runoffs...[/b]

They already got it: http://nasachampionships.com/

Bill, I wasn&#39;t responding to your points, simply writing extemporaneously. - GA

[backformore]

Stay regional only. If you want to go to the runoffs, you&#39;ve got 25 classes to choose from.

[Greg Amy]

The "ARRC" is not an SCCA Club Racing event, it&#39;s an event put on by the Atlanta Region (or is it the Southeast Division?) and they own the rights to the name "American Road Race of Champions". Thus, it will always be at Road Atlanta.

I say "Go National". Been there, done that, got the medal. I&#39;m in IT &#39;cause I like the prep level and the competition; trust me when I tell you the level of competition and preparation in National racing is no more or less intense or serious than what I&#39;ve experienced in Improved Touring. The only difference is the letters on the side of the car.

Experience level? Bah. It takes, what?, 6 races to be eligible for a National license? The drivers are just as good (and bad) as there as they are in IT.

Level of prepration? Hah! Do you really think that the level of prep we&#39;re seeing in IT, especially in A and S and soon-to-be in B, is any less than that in, say, Touring or Showroom Stock? If you think that, you&#39;re kidding yourself (or you&#39;re blind).

The only difference you&#39;ll see is the participation numbers. You make IT a National category and it will attract more competitors. They cream will still rise to the top, and those that are currently mid- and back-markers will continue to be so, just a bit farther down the list (but they can still participate).

[CDS]

The "ARRC" is not an SCCA Club Racing event, it&#39;s an event put on by the Atlanta Region (or is it the Southeast Division?) and they own the rights to the name "American Road Race of Champions". Thus, it will always be at Road Atlanta.[/b]

I thought SCCA national owned the ARRC name and Atlanta region contacted to use it. I stand corrected.

[Bill Miller]

Greg,

I was simply echoing some of the issues I&#39;ve heard people raise. Some I think are legit, some I think are BS.

Andy,



Whadayathink, try for a double?

[Speed Raycer]

I was just getting ready to pose the same question....

Without reading any of the replies thus far.... my thought was that ITR, or any of the classes above S (including ITE) should be a National class. That gets the BIG money spenders a place to go and keep upping the ante, gets the big power cars off the track (mostly) with the ITC guys and most importantly to me, gives me back anywhere from 12-20 laps worth of track time per weekend.

[ddewhurst]

If IT were National the car count at the National leve & at the Regional level will be less that the Regional count is today. The cost level will escallate at the National level the same as the cost level has increased for the Spec Miata folks. Using Spec Miata as an example there have been approx 800 plus suspensions sold. It would appear that the car counts to date for National Spec Miata is 15 to 20 cars. Sure the Milwaukee Cup in the past has had 60 plus cars but that is only one race. IIRC there are 50 plus Spec Miata for the HPT event this weekend. Practice for the Runoffs.

If ya want to go to the Runoffs, pick an existing class & go or have your car classed within one of the existing 25 classes. This everyone going to the Runoffs is not the original meaning/purpose of the Runoffs. Have any of you been to the Runoffs in the last 10 years with your friends tellling them that these cars/drivers are the best of the best ?

Nuff said................

[lateapex911]

If ya want to go to the Runoffs, pick an existing class & go or have your car classed within one of the existing 25 classes. This everyone going to the Runoffs is not the original meaning/purpose of the Runoffs. Have any of you been to the Runoffs in the last 10 years with your friends tellling them that these cars/drivers are the best of the best ?

Nuff said................
[/b]

But what if you don&#39;t like the categories offered at the Runoffs?? I can think of issues with each. Prod? Puleeezz..thats a snakepit of conflicting regulations, backstabbing politica movements and arcane rules.. SS? Nice way to buy a 30K car and turn it into...well, next to nothing. And so on. Fact is, IT is a great Prep level for a club racer.

Another question/thought.:

What would be best for the club??? I submit that a class of 21 cars running around with over 7 seconds seperating the pack over one lap in qualifying isn&#39;t a real "Championship" race...it&#39;s actually a bit of a joke....not a great way to market SCCA in their one big TV showcase. And thats not just one class either! There are a lot like that! I think certain IT classes would put on a MUCH better show.


Also, who said anything about having to add time to the Runoffs? Why not just let the top 24 subscribed classes run? Your class has low car counts? Sorry, adapt and prosper, or choose another class. Darwinism has it&#39;s advantages. This whole turf protection thing has gotten crazy. The current system allows car counts as low as what, 3.5, in 5 of the 8 divisions in order to remain a National class? 3.5 cars?? c&#39;mon..thats just silly! A "Top 24" method will weed out the weak and let thestrong flourish. Right now it&#39;s a lot of guys who go for the party protecting their turf....

Bill has given this a lot of thought, and he has some solid ideas. Gregs been there, he knows what he&#39;s talking about. More money to go racing? Depends...as always, how fast do you want to go. Look at the top guys at the ARRC..most of the top cars there put tons of National class cars to shame in respect to build quality and program.

But...what do we do about certain cars? Like cars that have different cams installed on Tuesdays than they do on Thursdays? Line item exclusions?

[Eric Parham]

I used to be against IT as national classes. Thanks in part to this discussion, I think I&#39;ve changed my mind. I probably wouldn&#39;t push for such broad and sweeping changes as mentioned above, though. I think it would be enough to recognize that any class that is present and follows the same rules among all regions really is a de-facto national class already. Bill&#39;s non-IT regional examples (SRX7, etc.) don&#39;t have nationally recognized rules that are accepted by all regions (and I guess that&#39;s why they&#39;re not in the GCR). If a national class is still to be defined by participation numbers, I think it&#39;s time for us all to accept that the IT classes in the GCR are ready for that consideration, and more specifically a chance to compete at the Runoffs.

Bill has given this a lot of thought, and he has some solid ideas. Gregs been there, he knows what he&#39;s talking about. More money to go racing? Depends...as always, how fast do you want to go. Look at the top guys at the ARRC..most of the top cars there put tons of National class cars to shame in respect to build quality and program. [/b]

Ditto

But...what do we do about certain cars? Like cars that have different cams installed on Tuesdays than they do on Thursdays? Line item exclusions?
[/b]

I&#39;ll assume that you don&#39;t mean by the factory. I don&#39;t know if this is as much of an issue as it used to be. If it is, I think "going national" with IT can only help. In fact, I see one significant benefit of going national with IT to be helping with self-enforcement and/or willingness to protest tech stuff, at least at the "national" events. There would also be a filter-down to the regional events, based on both lap times and on the known-quantity national cars at least occasionally showing up at regional events. In the past, this may have been the biggest drawback of "regional-only" IT.

[lateapex911]

Ditto
I&#39;ll assume that you don&#39;t mean by the factory. I don&#39;t know if this is as much of an issue as it used to be. If it is, I think "going national" with IT can only help. In fact, I see one significant benefit of going national with IT to be helping with self-enforcement and/or willingness to protest tech stuff, at least at the "national" events. There would also be a filter-down to the regional events, based on both lap times and on the known-quantity national cars at least occasionally showing up at regional events. In the past, this may have been the biggest drawback of "regional-only" IT.
[/b]

I agree, that any legal scrutiny would help the category as a whole, at any and all levels.

But, the issue in making categorical policy changes is what to do about the exception.

IF there is a car like, lets call it a Jenorchmobile S999R, which was produced by a firm in the late 60s thru the 70s. Firm is now pretty much gone. Their documentation was sketchy, and it is known that as they were a small firm, they pretty much installed items in the car (pre emission days remember) as they could get them from suppiers on a random basis. This cam that day, that carb that month, whatever.

Now, that car is classed, and lo and behold, a cagey competitior starts dominating in that car. Tech throws up their hands...can&#39;t prove he&#39;s NOT legal, can&#39;t prove he IS!

Uh oh...Now we&#39;ve created something even worse than a one model calss...we&#39;ve created a one GUY class, LOL, as those cars are rare as hens teeth. Nobody can even change their program and buy one, LOL.

What do you do? Add weight to HIS car? Hmmm...kinda sounds like Prod...certainly not consistant with IT philosophy.

Well, the idea is to establish acceptabel documentation before allowing such cars to compete. As it stands now, such cars exist. They slipped thru the cracks 20 years ago. Those cars need to be dealt with in some way, either by line item exclusion (sorry guys), or thru age cutoffs (sorry more guys).


The age thing worries me as you eliminate cars in the middle of model runs. Like if we go 15 years back, and car that was produced from 89 to 93 now has half the models eliminated, but not all. If thats a good car for the class, the VIN rule makes the later models more desirable, and drives up the cost of aquiring one.

I&#39;ll add another factor: I bet the Top Brass likes the idea of more modern cars being raced. (I know that locally, Lime Rock thinks IT makes for great racing and likes tapping the locals for support races on their Pro weekends, but has decided against any more such events due to the older shaggy nature of IT.)

One thing Greg mentioned is 100% correct. No matter what, everyone won&#39;t be pleased. But then...is everyone pleased now???

One more thought on the money thing:

Racing is as expensive as the category/class is popular..

The Fathers of the category can&#39;t control that, but must attempt to make the money spent yeild diminishing returns.

[Ron Earp]

IF there is a car like, lets call it a Jenorchmobile S999R, which was produced by a firm in the late 60s thru the 70s. Firm is now pretty much gone. Their documentation was sketchy, and it is known that as they were a small firm, they pretty much installed items in the car (pre emission days remember) as they could get them from suppiers on a random basis. This cam that day, that carb that month, whatever.

Now, that car is classed, and lo and behold, a cagey competitior starts dominating in that car. Tech throws up their hands...can&#39;t prove he&#39;s NOT legal, can&#39;t prove he IS!
[/b]

Hmmm, sounds like a Jensen Healey - except that part about dominating!

[TimM ITB]

I agree 100% with Bill Miller&#39;s concept, and with Greg&#39;s observation about money spent and the level of prep currently happening in IT.

Using Bill&#39;s outline, if you want to "get to" the Runoffs, as an IT racer, you would have to find the Qualifying (ex-National) races and commit to the travel and dollars required to run them. If you don&#39;t want to get to the Runoffs (due to constraints in budget, time or for whatever reason) - you simply run whatever Non-Qualifying (ex-Regional) races that you want - and I am assuming that these would still have "Regional" points (NARRC, NERRC, MARRS, etc) implications. What&#39;s not to like?

If this were to happen, how many new races would the SCCA folks need to add to the Runoffs? 4 or 5? Isn&#39;t the program now run over 5 days? I would think that there must be a way to squeeze in these races. Or, as was suggested earlier, if necessary, the lowest subscribed car classes prioritized by total Qualifying points would not get a "spot" at the Runoffs. I would hate to see that happen, but as a CLUB, isn&#39;t the SCCA supposed to be working toward the greatest good for the largest numbers of its members?

Anyway, I think Bill Miller&#39;s approach is right on. If people want to "go for it" they can. They can spend whatever dollars that they want to on prep, etc. While others can still do as they do NOW, and run regionally, with whatever level of dollars / committment that they currently run.

It would be good if we could start identifying issues here in this forum that may need to be addressed if this concept ever becomes more than a "glint" in the eye. Such as - A)"Qualifying race" length and the issues with adding 4 more races per weekend Regional series (NARRC, etc) and any potential negative implications, etc

Thanks for listening.

Tim M

[ddewhurst]

***If this were to happen, how many new races would the SCCA folks need to add to the Runoffs? 4 or 5? Isn&#39;t the program now run over 5 days? I would think that there must be a way to squeeze in these***

Runoffs qualifying & races require 8 days today for 24/25 classes.

As I&#39;m reading these posts wasn&#39;t there a thread last year & the majority of IT people who posted had zero desire to run National.