Should IT be Regional???

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

I have no idea what you are talking about. My statement was paraphrasing myself. When did I twist your words? You said 'some things are better left unsaid'...I am still not sure what I said to get your panties in a bunch. Just making the point that if any class in IT ain't gonna make the numbers, it's ITC. Simple, accurate and non-combative.

[charrbq]

Andy, I'm done with you on this matter at this time. Your standards seem to be as adjustable as your words. I'm waisting my time trying to help you to understand what you say is taken as gospel by many people as a result of your position in our club...at least on this site.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I'm done with you on this matter at this time. Your standards seem to be as adjustable as your words. I'm waisting my time trying to help you to understand what you say is taken as gospel by many people as a result of your position in our club...at least on this site. [/b]

Well, since you refuse to be specific about your issue, so I can defend/explain, I will agree to be done.

[charrbq]

well not yet.

Chris, i don't understand your problem either. ITC is in trouble. I admit that the three or four that show up around here do put on some great races but the class is not growing. I think your time would be better spent try to attract more cars than pretending the problem does not exist.
[/b]

I never said the problem didn't exist, only that someone in Andy's position doesn't need to pronounce it as dead. Trying to attract more cars is tough when our leaders grab a shovel and through dirt over us. What Andy failed to include in his numbers was that there were 9 cars in C in May, not 7...only 7 finishers. Actually, there were 10, as one withdrew. In late May, there were only 2 B cars and the overall entry for a R/N weekend was surprisingly low (105 entries). He also failed to include that some of his ITA numbers were inclusive of SM running ITA for track time. He also failed to mention that there were only 4 ITA cars in April and one ITB and two ITS. SOWDIV is a very week division in anything other than SM or SRF. The southern end of MIDDIV is weak in many areas other that production. To date, I've only run one race in SEDIV, where I'm a member.
I run there for two reasons, one is the competition (admittedly), and the other is the two IT series that they have.
Andy doesn't seem to take the time to research everything as well as he needs, but doesn't hesitate to pick out the facts that support his point and leave out the facts that make his point mute.

Sorry to talk behind your back, Andy, but you made me really, really mad.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I never said the problem didn't exist, only that someone in Andy's position doesn't need to pronounce it as dead. Trying to attract more cars is tough when our leaders grab a shovel and through dirt over us. What Andy failed to include in his numbers was that there were 9 cars in C in May, not 7...only 7 finishers. Actually, there were 10, as one withdrew. In late May, there were only 2 B cars and the overall entry for a R/N weekend was surprisingly low (105 entries). He also failed to include that some of his ITA numbers were inclusive of SM running ITA for track time. He also failed to mention that there were only 4 ITA cars in April and one ITB and two ITS. SOWDIV is a very week division in anything other than SM or SRF. The southern end of MIDDIV is weak in many areas other that production. To date, I've only run one race in SEDIV, where I'm a member.
I run there for two reasons, one is the competition (admittedly), and the other is the two IT series that they have.
Andy doesn't seem to take the time to research everything as well as he needs, but doesn't hesitate to pick out the facts that support his point and leave out the facts that make his point mute.

Sorry to talk behind your back, Andy, but you made me really, really mad. [/b]

Chris,

No problem, here on the BB is hardly behind my back. Some major flaws with your post however. I never quoted ITA numbers - actually, never talked about ITA numbers specifically if I recall. Help me out there.

I also never (in this thread) proclaimed ITC dead. You are recalling a thread from over a year ago in which you seemingly can't let go of. Help me out there too.

The only thing I said was that I doubted ITC could make the numbers to attend the Runoffs in a 'top 24 classes go' scenario - BUT that other classes had poor subsciption as well so I would look over the numbers. See post #43.

You have corrected me on the May event. I actually thought I was being careful on including DNF's. And it is 9 cars not 10 - DNS's don't count for squat. That brings your average to 3.0 per event you ran. Still 1.6 taking out the statistical high and low, but let's call it 3.0.

So, you are wrong about me quoting ITA numbers, you are wrong about me saying ITC is dead...other than my miss of the DNF and the DQ, what other 'research' do you want me to do for you to keep my point from going MOOT? I never presented a 'complete' set of data for review.

Let's agree again to let it drop - I guess this is an old issue clouding your read on my posts.

We all love IT and all it's classes - S to C. And frankly I hope that all 4 classes would kick the crap out of some of the Prod, GT and 'Wings and Things' that stroke around National events with little competition...

[lateapex911]

Chris, relax...nobody's trying to kill ITC, and certainly not through a smear campaign. Fact is, ITC is a class that really doesn't have a lot of followers it seems these days, and is a class that is very difficult to add cars to, as they don't make many cars that fit that people also want to race.

I'm on the con calls with Andy, and he's not running around with a noose trying to finish off ITC.

It's a common opinion that C and B are the IT classes that are least subscribed overall, and that A and S are better subscribed.

IF this whole deal goes National, I would vote that all IT classes are afforded the same chances, and let the chips fall where they may.

But, rest assured, nobody's trying to kill the class, and nobody's selling their ITC cars because Andy say its numbers are low. He's not exactly making headlines with that, now is he?

[charrbq]

Jake, I followed with you up until the last absurd question...it sounds like something Andy would say to sound innocent. I'm sorry to have hijacked this thread...it wasn't my intention, I just get tired of such statements coming from sources such as Andy.

True, if IT went national, ITB and ITC would be kicked out for lack of participation and that would be their death...final and permanent...just like SSA. Everyone that wants a well subscribed regional class to go national should study the history of the Shelby Can Am, all of the showroom stock classes, and F440's.

Leave it regional, just recognize it as a viable alternative to spending heavy change to race. The club and its leadership has been leaning toward making club racing a professional sport for quite a while. That would leave out IT and just about every production class and several of the GT classes. How would we handle that? I suppose we could all sit around and talk/write about how we used to race in a fun and relatively low budget class called "Improved Touring".

[gprodracer]

Just so everyone is playing in the same ballpark...
The May Daytona results that are "posted" are still provisional, as the results were protested because, quite frankly, they were terribly wrong. The DQ has been overturned, and a DNF was discovered to be a podium finisher. Please don't believe everything you read, as there are 3 sides to every story. This won't change the participation #'s listed, just wanted to bring up the idea that posted "facts" may not always be correct.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Mark Larson
CFR #164010

[Bill Miller]

I haven't look at any MARRS results for ITC this year, but last year they averaged over 10 cars per race, for the races at Summit Point. I understand that this is probably the exception, rather than the rule. The question is, why? I think ITC might have a tough road, if they had to make enough numbers to get into the Top 24. But, they should have the same chance as the other classes to make their numbers.

[Knestis]

It's not the posts that make the participation numbers low: It's the participation numbers being low that make the topic post-worthy.

With respect, Chris - your response to the suggestion that ITC might be in trouble is a perfect example of what the club has to deal with, in terms of maintaining healthy classes. One reason there's been a general "no new classes" mandate in place for years is the difficulty making classes go away.

Setting aside the IT-national question for a moment, if the RubOffs schedule were changed to allow only the 20 classes with the greatest participation to compete for medals, there might be some disincentive to participation in those undersubscribed national classes.

But all twenty GP entrants in the nation would shriek, and their futures would be assured.

K

[charrbq]

Andy,

I never said that you had declared ITC dead. Once again, you've put words in my post that I didn't write. You seem to be good at that...again, very rude and very unprofessional. The post you made several months ago (not more than a year) was along the same line as your statement here. As to not saying or including the ITA results, I made mention of them as you had not included them in your post. Rather, you included only ITC and caused it to appear, by your omission, that the fields were full of other cars in other classes. As I pointed out, that was not the case. You accuse me of not having all the information, yet you don't understand why I become upset when you use that method to prove your point.
As for the DNS not counting for squat, I'm sure that the driver and his crew would disagree with that statement. They made the trip, paid the bucks, and broke in practice. That, in my book, counts for something other than a statement that they don't count for squat.
Your spewing of partial information to shore up your statements is shallow, but ever flowing when you want to prove your point.
I disagree with you on many accounts, as is my right and yours. You frustrate me in many of your statements and accusations. I don't doubt or question you dedication to our group in IT. I do feel that you use your status in the club as an authority. You are quite skilled at seeming innocent and wronged when some one takes a different stand.
I never meant to attack you personally, only your methods. If you wish to launch a campaign against me and my racing class, feel free. I'm sure you do...and will. Your attempt at innocence is really shameful.

I repeat, I'm sorry to have hijacked this thread. It was not my intent. I only wanted to point out an ongoing flaw in the leadership and its reasoning. Also, in my opinion, based on my experience, the club's history, and my own feelings, I think it would be a mistake to take IT to a national level.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I never said that you had declared ITC dead. Once again, you've put words in my post that I didn't write. You seem to be good at that...again, very rude and very unprofessional. [/b]

Then I read this wrong from your post #65:

I never said the problem didn't exist, only that someone in Andy's position doesn't need to pronounce it as dead.[/b]

See the confusion?

The post you made several months ago (not more than a year) was along the same line as your statement here. As to not saying or including the ITA results, I made mention of them as you had not included them in your post. Rather, you included only ITC and caused it to appear, by your omission, that the fields were full of other cars in other classes. As I pointed out, that was not the case. You accuse me of not having all the information, yet you don't understand why I become upset when you use that method to prove your point.[/b]

You will notice that I also didn't cherry-pick numbers from ITS (31 cars to ITC's 9) or ITA (19 or 20 without SM duplication) to secure my point. All I did was post ITC numbers as I saw them. If you want me to roll you with national IT figures, I can get 'em.

As for the DNS not counting for squat, I'm sure that the driver and his crew would disagree with that statement. They made the trip, paid the bucks, and broke in practice. That, in my book, counts for something other than a statement that they don't count for squat.[/b]

Stay on point. They don't count for participation level measurement. Same rules apply to S, A and B of which there should be the same amount of instances I am sure. It's happened to everyone.

Your spewing of partial information to shore up your statements is shallow, but ever flowing when you want to prove your point.
I disagree with you on many accounts, as is my right and yours. You frustrate me in many of your statements and accusations. I don't doubt or question you dedication to our group in IT. I do feel that you use your status in the club as an authority. You are quite skilled at seeming innocent and wronged when some one takes a different stand.
I never meant to attack you personally, only your methods.[/b]

All I said was: "I am a believer that the top classes should go to the Runoffs...does anyone actually think that ITC (or to a lesser extent IT could actually make the numbers to get into the show? Although I am always surprised how FEW cars actually populate National race-grids, I would doubt ITC could make it - but some of the other classes put up crap for numbers. I will crunch some tonight..."

And, NEWSFLASH! It was a preface to THIS IDEA right after it in the post:

"Not that I am in favor of this idea but:

What if only ITR, ITS and ITA were eligible for Nationals? That leaves B and C alone and kills the perception that there is no 'affordable' place within IT. You could even 'grow' within your own category instead of having to move altogether. It's exclusionary but it does solve some problems."

Good Grief.

If you wish to launch a campaign against me and my racing class, feel free. I'm sure you do...and will. Your attempt at innocence is really shameful.[/b]

This is where I realize you and I aren't on the same planet. All done.

[lateapex911]

Andy,

........ If you wish to launch a campaign against me and my racing class, feel free. I'm sure you do...and will. Your attempt at innocence is really shameful........
.......... I only wanted to point out an ongoing flaw in the leadership and its reasoning.......
[/b]

Chris, honestly, you're getting carried away here. Nobody, Andy included, is launching a campaign against you, or ITC.

Andy's comment about excluding ITB and C, or their possible inability to "make the top 24", is not in any way an "Ongoing flaw in leadership and reasoning". That's reeeaaaally stretching I think. His comments regarding subscription levels were merely pointing out the obvious.

Honest question. Overall, (nationally) which is the best subscribed IT class? Which is the worst?? I bet the latter is easier for most folks to answer.

Remember, this is a conceptual discussion, not a campaign by anybody. I decided to bring it up again, because I feel that now, more than any time in the past decade, is the time of the greatest "flux" in SCCAs club racing progam, due to a variety of large picture changes. These outside, and inside events are significant, and provide windows of opportunity. They may also result in challenges for our program, and it's a good idea to know what and where the constituents want the program to go.

[Bill Miller]

Chris,

You complain that Andy is putting words in your mouth, and then you turn around and accuse him of starting a campaign to eliminate ITC. Talk about double standards!! Seriously, I haven&#39;t gotten any of the stuff you claim, out of Andy&#39;s posts. Point of fact is, the available pool of cars that would fit in ITC has steadily decreased over the last 15 or so years. Even most of the <10 year-old econo-boxes make too much power to fit. Look at the hoops that had to be jumped through to get the New Beetle classed in ITC. Look around and see how many cars that have been produced since &#39;95 that would fit in ITC.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

You complain that Andy is putting words in your mouth, and then you turn around and accuse him of starting a campaign to eliminate ITC. [/b]

Not so fast Bill!!!

He said he is sure I wanted to launch a campaign against him and his class and he is sure I will (future) - not that I had already! Don&#39;t put words in his mouth!!! :P

[eprodrx7]

Great thread and near and dear to my heart. Short history, Started in ITC and have raced in every IT class over the last 15 years except ITA, moved to Prod and now SM and SRF. I think I have a pretty good base of knowlage on the subject and have been on the pro IT national soap box for a long time. One of the reasons that I built the Prod car was because I wanted more then IT could offer. Competition, longer races, National recognition all worked into the decision. But if IT were a national class at the time I would have stayed in ITS. If IT does become a national class I might consider coming back (some might use this as reason alone to appose the idea!) and I think that there are alot of guys that would do the same. Most would come from the Prod ranks and I think you might see a resurgence in B & C. But we have some fundamental problems to deal with first.

We have too many classes
Participation number have been fudged for way too long to protect turf.
We the racers have let the control of the club fall into the hands of the nonracers.

So Mom always said "if you want to complain about what is wrong then you better be able to suggest a way to fix it..."

Too many classes-
Our participation number are calculated from the top 5 divisions of national racing. Why not all divisions and toss the top and the bottom to give a true picture of what is going on. Classes that go on probation for not making #&#39;s one year drag a bunch of shit out of barns the next to make numbers and get off probation. Like the one Bill talked about with the bad motor. They get thier #&#39;s up to 3.6 and they are safe again for another two years before they need to go to the barn again. Raise to number to 4.5 and put a nonperforming class on probation for three years. (BTW I sent this idea to the CRB over a year ago with no responce) If we impliment these rules then in a couple of years there will be plenty of room for IT at the runoffs.

Controll-
Andy and Jake and others are to be commended for there efforts on the IT adhoc. It is a shitty job, BTW I was on the prod adhoc for two years, I don&#39;t agree with all of their Ideas but they are willing to listen to what big mouthed jerks like me have to say and that goes a long way. We need more current racers in positions of power in the club. On the BOD and in the Stewards program. Good job Blethems... But the fact that I can&#39;t be a stew at an event that I&#39;m racing at will keep me out of the program. write your BOD members. Do we need to impliment a manditory work requirement for drivers? Should the commitee that rules on the conduct of racers at an event be three people that may have never even sat in a race car?

Will these changes help or hurt? Well if we never try we will never know. Can we agree that things are not all rosey as they are? As (I hope) future National racers or whatever we call it we owe it to the club and it&#39;s future to become more involved.

[RSTPerformance]

See, Raymond, therein lies one of the major problems with this (and really any) rule change: everyone thinks in terms of how it will affect THEM as an individual, not what how it would affect the collective good. Is this proposal good for the category and club as a whole? Of course some people will be unhappy, and some will be very happy, but it would be very shortsighted for any individual to support or oppose anything based on how it would affect them alone. Don&#39;t forget, my car&#39;s a 1992, so it wouldn&#39;t be eligible for that much longer either!

Also don&#39;t forget that if you support this rule as a good idea and it passes, then for you then nothing would change: you&#39;ll still be racing Regionals only. If you oppose this rule because you wouldn&#39;t be eligible and it&#39;s shot down, then nothing changes: you&#39;ll still be racing Regionals only. So, for you, it&#39;s irrelevant: I would thereofre expect you will think of this in terms of the big picture and decide whether it&#39;s a good idea for the category long-term.
And, right there Charlie, is another problem: not everyone can be satisfied. A few posts above some folks were opposed to going National because it would cause an influx of a lot of people into the class; you&#39;re concerned because it might dilute the class! Sooo, which is it (Rhetorical question)? And, whichever way it turns out, will everyone be pleased?

Nope.
[/b]

Greg-

My comical comment about my car not fiting your suggested model with a 20yr age cut off wasn&#39;t seriose (I try not to think about myself only, however it is common nature to do so for all of us) but looking back maybe it should have been??? After reading your post I got to thinking... what would be the best for all of IT? I think that having an age limit would NOT benefit the class.

A) 1/2 of the fields (especially a lot of the unique cars) would be eliminated. (1/2 is not a documented fact, simply my observation... especially in IT

Many of the cars you say should be eliminated are cars that would be compeating for the championship... Look again at ITB... Volvo 142 is 30 years old and still winning!!!

While car companies don&#39;t like to see old cars winnng (it doesn&#39;t show that they have made any progress over the past 20 years of development), many grassroot races love it, and we still need to keep them in mind as a grassroot member driven organization!!!

C) Having an age limit would contribute to the ongoing increases in cost to compete at a winning level.

D) Having an age limit will certainly make a 20year old car "obsolete" as it will no longer be a concern of SCCA and most people would start to argue that the car is to old to be competitive... currently we do not view things that way, or do we?


On a final thought,

I am not much of a supporter of National and Reginal events. I think making IT a national class would only get my support if they did away with this Regional/National event concept all together. I support making every class in the GCR as a National level class. Regional only classes such as ITE can stay at the reginal level. Run "SCCA Events" (both National (GCR) and Regional classes) with National and Regional championships. It would take some major reorganization and will probably never happen, but I do think that it is how we should hold events especially with the increasingly more diffucult task of finding "dates" to run events. oh and this concept would not take away the "SCCA NAtional Championship Runoffs... Keep that for the National (GCR) Classes (which would include IT as it is in the GCR).

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

We have too many classes
Participation number have been fudged for way too long to protect turf.
We the racers have let the control of the club fall into the hands of the nonracers.
[/b]

Another reason NOT to have IT at a National level... we (the IT guys) always complain about the numbers of other classes, and the lack of participation... however, we need to realize our own comments can hurt us!!!

If IT were to go National then like many have said would go "back" to IT. This is wonderfull for IT as the numbers would continue to rise, however it would probably kill other classes.

The current way that SCCA is designed all the classes are co-existing. Yes that is arguable, but they are and if you ever go to the SCCA National Runoffs I don&#39;t think you will see one boring race... they all Rock!!! so SCCA is achieving its goals in that aspect of things.

If we think that SCCA has to many classes why not work on getting production and IT closer together. We have LP now in production, and with a few small changes maybe we could have more crossover for those that want to go to the Runoffs??? oh but wait, you want to go and win!!! If IT becomes a National class you will spend just as much to win in IT as you would in Production so why not just go full production?

Raymond "just some devils advocate" Blethen

If IT becomes a National class you will spend just as much to win in IT as you would in Production so why not just go full production?

Raymond "just some devils advocate" Blethen
[/b]

Already I have my own responce...
Because IT has more competition at a local level

and the devil:
Are you trying to win a National Championship or a Regional Championship?


Raymond "I am now talking to myself" Blethen

[orlando_wrx]

Just another tangent to look at as far as "National IT" is concerned...

If people are concerned about negative impact on existing IT structure, a possibility of giving the high $$ guys a place to race nationally in IT prepped cars, and at the same time lowering costs for future IT subscribers is to classify eligible SS cars prepped to the IT ruleset (new cars built to IT specs). I know, I know....yet another class(es)? It would bolster manufacturer and aftermarket support, and after a few years these cars would be forced to trickle down into IT as they would be too "old" for the National IT program. Then these cars would become affordable options for people looking into "newly eligible" IT cars. I could go on, and on...

[Knestis]

I might be wrong but I think Raymond is arguing against a proposition that hasn&#39;t been put forward here - a true age cutoff for IT cars.

The Amy/Mushnick proposal suggested an drop-out age for NATIONAL competition, with cars remaining eligible for Regional events. I think there&#39;s some merit there. That could be handled within the ITCS if a broader initiative was put into place, to select classes for the RubOffs based on participation.

On the numbers question, I tried to explain to a NASCAR "touring" series competitor once that an SCCA road racing class can maintain national eligibility with an average of something like 4 cars per race, nationwide. He laughed so hard he cried. Step back and think about that fact, and what acceptance of that standard suggests for the health of our game.

K