IT Festival at MO

[Bob Burns]

You are going to have a QUALIFYING race and then an actual RACE. You set the grid by season-to date points, random draw - whatever. Then you 'race'. Finishing positions determine the grid for the RACE. This is only ONE RACE in the eyes of the SCCA. You have to have one qualifier tied to each race - PER SANCTION NUMBER.[/b]

For purposes of this event, I disagree.

The SCCA rules for determining qualifying positions at a National race are pretty well cast in stone and at a Double National, there must be separate qualifying sessions for each race (GCR 3.1.2.A.). But those rules don't apply to Regional racing. Also, since this event will not be part of the Great Lakes Regional Championship Series (because not all series classes are eligible for the event), then those series rules do not apply. Additionally, I see no reason for the region to apply for more than one sanction number for the event. In other words, this is one event and I believe that the region is free to establish whatever qualifying and race format they choose, subject to approval by SCCA Club Racing.

Also, take note of GCR 6.1.2.B. "Cars shall be positioned at the start in order of their official qualifying times without regard to engine displacement or class, with the fastest cars nearest the starting line, unless the Supplementary Regulations specify a different method." For this event, as long as the grid for a race is determined in some sort of fair and clearly-defined fashion spelled out in the Supps, I see no need to have a specific qualifier tied to a race.

Bob...

[Bob Burns]

Well I guess the question of the day is.... running classes of similar speeds safer or not? Or do certain classes run similar lap times at Mid-Ohio that wouldn't at Road Atlanta.[/b]

Todd, the lap records for Mid Ohio can be found on the Great Lakes web site. The ITS and ITA lap records are only 0.06 sec apart.

The philosophy used for a long time by San Francisco Region was that similar classes should not be in the same group because they will interfere with each other. That resulted in them running ITS and ITB in a group and ITA and ITC in a group. But that's just one philosophy. There may be as many opinions about race groupings as there are drivers.

You may see some crossover between ITA and IT7 if an IT7 guy is interested in more track time and wants to pay for another entry.

I didn't notice Spec Neon on your list of classes. I know there was a contingent around Detroit who was trying to build interest in Spec Neon, so you may want to think about listing them as separate class.

Bob...

[Andy Bettencourt]

But Bob, this is a Double event for the local guys IIRC. That is why we are operating under the assumption there will be two sanctions.

Todd,

Having S and B together and A and C together IMHO makes the racing much better. The speed differential is there so as not to screw with the races while not being so much that a class loses 2-3 laps. If S and A are grouped together, and the top 5 in each class run similar times, I hate to say it but attendence will suffer IMHO. Why? Because the top cars in each run group need a fairly clean shot if this is to be a top event.

A quick look at the top 10-15 posts in this thread should give you an idea.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=8832

[greendot]

I have to agree. Why not start out more similar to the ARRC right off the bat?

ITA, IT7
TCC, ITR, ITS, ITE
ITB, ITC
SM
SRF

Or if I were God for a day, this is what I would do:

ITA, ITC. IT7
ITR, ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE
SM
SRF

or

ITA, ITC, IT7
ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE, ITR
SM
SRF
[/b]

Option 1, mimicking this years ARRC was terrible for the ITS and TCC/ITE guys. Talk about making your times in different ways.
PLEASE don't make that mistake. See the ARRC thread.

[924Guy]

Indeed, Spec Neon is alive up here! We usually run it with Spec Pinata at Waterford, but if we're looking to spread them out a little...

Otherwise, option #3 above seems like a decent spread to me...

[Eagle7]

Please do not put ITA and ITS together at Mid Ohio. [/b]

I totally agree. I do NOT want to be lapped by Ruck. :P

[lateapex911]

To me, this makes the most sense, froma safety, subscription and raceability point of view:

ITA, ITC. IT7
ITR, ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE
SM
SRF

ITA and ITC race well together, as there is enough differential, same for B and S, but not enough to create any kind of safety concern. And for the first year, the ITR times will not be dramatically faster than S, nor will there be a huge contingent, so treating R as if they are a fast few ITS cars probably makes sense.

ITE and the TCC are a much more natural grouping as well.

[RSTPerformance]

I don't agree for putting ITR with ITB. The spread in HP is big enough with ITS & ITB. It will be hard enough winning the ITB race when dealing with the Mid-Pack ITS cars/drivers whome excell on the streights but tend to have trouble getting through the turns (no comment). At Mid Ohio is is imperative to cary speed through the turns, and it is hard to run 2 wide or outbreak someone, especialy those faster HP cars that are mid pack. I really don't want to bitch about the ITS guys, as most are fine but some really are bad... adding ITR to the mix with new drivers and cars will really cause a problem with these higher HP cars holding us up in the corners... It will probably be worse than the ITS TCC drama's at the ARRC.

IT7 can also run ITA correct? Why not allow the opportunity to run both IT7 and ITA and see how the cars stack up against the ITB cars, and put ITB and IT7 in the same group? maximizing entires is key...

ITE TCC and ITR will likely all have a HUGE verity of cars, driver capabilities and speed differentials... keep those unpredictable groupes together and get a full track, not only will all the cars have similar power but also each level of driver and car development will likely find someone else to RACE with.... wich in reality will be best for them.

SM should stay seperated from ITA, so they also could run either (BOTH) classes.

With all that rant.... my suggestion

Group 1: ITA, ITC
Group 2: TCC, ITE, ITR
Group 3: ITS, ITB, IT7
Group 4: SM
Group 5: SRF

As for the worries bout 1 or 2 sanctions... why not just make the entire event just 1 sanction??? Seems silly to be worrying about all this other stuff just so that drivers can have "more sanctioned events" (like it is a bragging right or something?) or worrying about drivers only attend 1 weekend and renew thier licence...

Raymond

[dj10]

To me, this makes the most sense, froma safety, subscription and raceability point of view:

ITA, ITC. IT7
ITR, ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE
SM
SRF

ITA and ITC race well together, as there is enough differential, same for B and S, but not enough to create any kind of safety concern. And for the first year, the ITR times will not be dramatically faster than S, nor will there be a huge contingent, so treating R as if they are a fast few ITS cars probably makes sense.

ITE and the TCC are a much more natural grouping as well.
[/b]

ITR with ITS will be like ITS with ITA. The first 1/3 of each field will be mixing it up. I don't have a chrystal ball so I'd be pissing in the wind if I guested how many ITR car were going to be there. The top ITS cars should be in the 1:42 to 1:43 range for fast laps depending on track conditions & weather, ITA 1:43 to 1:44, I'm thinking ITR 1:40 + to 1:42. This is club course times, substract 2 seconds for the pro course. But what the hell do I know.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So most everyone is looking at something like this:

ITA, ITC, IT7
ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE, ITR
SM
SRF

It is my favorite. No ITR representation yet on this but TCC and ITE should be much quicker and ITR should be small.

[RSTPerformance]

Can't IT7 run in ITA also??? Don't those drivers and don't we the regions want to encourage running in both classes to increase numbers? Why not put them with ITB?

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

Can't IT7 run in ITA also??? Don't those drivers and don't we the regions want to encourage running in both classes to increase numbers? Why not put them with ITB?

Raymond [/b]

Because they are ITA cars. They fit well. In the ARRC Schedule thread, you wanted SSM and SM in the same run group - why didn't you care about double entries then?

Personally I like the SM idea, I thikn it is great to work into the weekend, however thier race groupe is with SSM correct? I don't see any need for them to have thier own race groupe... start the 67 cars for the sprint race if need be.[/b]

[Bob Burns]

As for the worries bout 1 or 2 sanctions... why not just make the entire event just 1 sanction?[/b]

I tend to agree.

What justification is there for two sanction numbers? This event most likely won't be part of any series, so getting two finishes or double points won't apply. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of guys who run Double Regionals just to get two finishes to count towards their license or they share a car with someone who wants to run, too.

But if this is to be a premier, championship-caliber event, ala ARRC, should the event cater towards drivers who just want finishes?

Bob...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I tend to agree.

What justification is there for two sanction numbers? This event most likely won't be part of any series, so getting two finishes or double points won't apply. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of guys who run Double Regionals just to get two finishes to count towards their license or they share a car with someone who wants to run, too.

But if this is to be a premier, championship-caliber event, ala ARRC, should the event cater towards drivers who just want finishes?

Bob...

[/b]

The ARRC is part of a series. It has always been a glorified Regional. But what GLORY it is!!! This one will be too I am pretty sure.

[dj10]

The ARRC is part of a series. It has always been a glorified Regional. But what GLORY it is!!! This one will be too I am pretty sure.

[/b]

Andy, we need one of these Special IT races @ WGI, VIR & Daytona too!!!

I tend to agree.

What justification is there for two sanction numbers? This event most likely won't be part of any series, so getting two finishes or double points won't apply. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of guys who run Double Regionals just to get two finishes to count towards their license or they share a car with someone who wants to run, too.

But if this is to be a premier, championship-caliber event, ala ARRC, should the event cater towards drivers who just want finishes?

Bob...

[/b]

Can you save money by have only one sanction number? If not then it makes no difference at all on how many sanction numbers the event gets does? If I do finish twice I'd like to get credit for doing so, with one number you only get a single finish even if you run 5 races in the same weekend. So unless we can save some $, it makes no difference.

[gran racing]

The difference it makes (even if it doesn't save much money) is the flexibility to run the weekend differently (for example using the previous day's race results for the next day's starting position).

[Butch Kummer]

Yes, the host region saves money by making it one sanctioned event rather than two. We get some serious grief about it (mainly from guys wanting to get credit for four races toward keep their National license), but the ARRC is one sanction number regardless of how many races you enter.

Also, the ARRC is not part of any series. All the divisional series (SARRC, NARRC, MARRS, Mid-AM, etc.) are over by then so we are a stand-alone event (sort of like Notre Dame football? - but I don't want to get started on that).

When the doo-doo hit the fan earlier this year over our original proposed groupings (mainly ITA & ITS), I floated the idea of ITB/ITS and ITC/ITA. The ITB & ITC guys really preferred running together rather than having to watch their mirrors, so we ended up with ITB/ITC, ITA/IT7, and ITS/TCC (we'll replace TCC with ITR for 2007). I understand that Todd needs to put all the IT cars into three groups rather than four plus M-O is a vastly different animal than Road Atlanta, so maybe the slow/fast combination can work better there. For the forseeable future, however, the ARRC will continue to group classes of similar speeds together.

Butch Kummer

[R2 Racing]

As for my opinion of putting ITS and TCC together, all you need to do is watch Rob Huffmaster's in-car camera from the '06 ARRC to see it's a bad idea (I know it was a last second decission that was deemed necessary at the time and will be changed in the future, so that's a done issue). Although it really was funny to watch all of the "gesturing" Rob was doing to his TCC competition.

I guess I support the groupings Andy listed of:
ITA, ITC, IT7
ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE, ITR
SM
SRF

If we're limited to only five groups, I think that's the best compromise to ensure the best racing all around. I use to race ITC for several years and dealing with slow ITA cars wasn't much different than dealing with slow ITB cars. I would think the same could be said for an ITB car dealing with ITS cars versus ITA cars, but I've never raced there. Plus I think you'll be getting less overlap anyways.

I know that the ITC and the ITB guys aren't going to want to hear it, but ITS and ITA are going to have the two biggest IT fields, no matter what. So yes, I do think that both of them should be put into groups where they'll be the fastest cars on the track and be able to show off why they're the two most exciting classes out there right now.

[dj10]

As for my opinion of putting ITS and TCC together, all you need to do is watch Rob Huffmaster's in-car camera from the '06 ARRC to see it's a bad idea (I know it was a last second decission that was deemed necessary at the time and will be changed in the future, so that's a done issue). Although it really was funny to watch all of the "gesturing" Rob was doing to his TCC competition.

I guess I support the groupings Andy listed of:
ITA, ITC, IT7
ITS, ITB
TCC, ITE, ITR
SM
SRF

If we're limited to only five groups, I think that's the best compromise to ensure the best racing all around. I use to race ITC for several years and dealing with slow ITA cars wasn't much different than dealing with slow ITB cars. I would think the same could be said for an ITB car dealing with ITS cars versus ITA cars, but I've never raced there. Plus I think you'll be getting less overlap anyways.

I know that the ITC and the ITB guys aren't going to want to hear it, but ITS and ITA are going to have the two biggest IT fields, no matter what. So yes, I do think that both of them should be put into groups where they'll be the fastest cars on the track and be able to show off why they're the two most exciting classes out there right now. [/b]

I'll agree with Kevin on this since it seems to be the lesser of any evils. Looking at this from a ITR aspect this won't be any different then being with AS cars. The front cars will be 5 to 10 seconds faster than us and we'll be jesturing at the slower TCC & ITE cars that will making our lives miserable throught the twisty parts. I will say, it will be the same for everyone out there.

[TAC]

Well,

To say the thread expanded is an exaggeration. Thank you all for the advice, it is greatly appreciated. Butch is correct about our talk and the idea of pairing classes of similar speed together. The traditional class groupings for double regionals tend to be chaotic to say the least with IT, So I value the input. ARRC looks like this for Saturday 2007:

ITB, ITC
ITA, IT7
ITS, ITR
TCC, ITO

The suggestion that seems to be winning out for Mid-O 2007 is:

ITA, IT7, ITC
ITS, ITB
ITE, ITR, TCC ( * ITO at ARRC incorporates ITR and ITE)

Todd