What would it take for you to go Production car racing

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is what you do:

1. Eliminate all the requirements and allowances that cost huge money to be competitive (like you have suggested with trannies, etc). Most everyone in IT likes the IT ruleset. It provides enough to be creative yet not so much that it will kill you trying to get to the top (and even that is relative). In order to phase in 'success', I do think you will have to embrace two seperate levels of prep. You need an 'entry' level of prep and you can keep what you have - but BOTH must be competitive. Tough job but its the only way to open the doors to new drivers/builders while keeping your current mebership somewhat happy.

2. Stop the moving target. Steve's example is CRITICAL to the understanding when none of us build these cars.

So the question is how 'entry' is your new 'entry level'. Allowing IT cars 'as is', is not the answer. These are two different classes and they should remain as such. Simple (and maybe 'reversable&#39 changes are what should be considered. I don't think fuel cells are needed. Make me take my lights out - no problem. Allow me to run DOT tires - who cares? I suppose a weight penality (or allowance, depending on how you look at it) for the big tranny, relocated suspension pick up points, big motors, etc is the way to go. THAT will take a lot of work.

Limited Prep Prod had/has SO MUCH potential. You just have to look at it from the outside looking in, instead of the inside looking out.

[cherokee]

I want to try to make my position a little more clear.

I think that you should be able to take your IT car and run it in Production with the safety stuff taken care of.
Have the fire system (it is a good idea anyway and I would bet not too far off from being a requriement in IT) Have the fuel cell (same deal) The cage is a different deal, I think there is a reason for the difference in the cages, in IT you can keep things like bumpers, side impact door protection and so on. In production that stuff can be removed. So you need a stronger cage. My IT cage was built with prod in mind, and I would bet that there are more then a few custom, welded, whatever you want to call them type cages that should be ok in production.

Other then the safety stuff I think that your IT car should go right into production (loose the remove lights and such) rules. IT can loose the door glass now if the cage is designed in a specific way, so I see no real blocks there.

Take a few moments and check out what is going on the thread on the prod site. Send in your input, I want to make the move less of a shock from IT to Prod.

But I agree STABLE RULES are something that keeps comming up. The more input we give to the powers at be the better chance something will get done. And some of those powers are checking that thread.

[RSTPerformance]

I am glad to see that you suppor tthe idea of us keeping our headlights 1 Step closer.

A fuel safe is probably not as safe as as my current Stock tank not to mention it is an expensive conversion. probably $1000+. I can't afford that right now.

I don't see a need for NASCAR door bars, and can't afford that either at this point. As for the windows, even if I were to put in NASCAR door bars I am going to do everything possible to keep my power windows. Call me lazy, but I want windows to keep dry without making up some lexan thing. I can't tell you how many times I have put up my windows on grid from a passing sprinkle and or grid workers with squirt guns. To me the door glass isn't going to go anywhere it is self contained in the door, so the rule is pointless to remove them. If the "PROD" world is so stuck on making sure that the class has different rules, then so be it, I don't want to race with a bunch of people whom thing that because they took thier windows out of the doors they are now in "real race cars" and not some junker that I picked up for a few houndred bucks. I really don't understand the big deal. I don't mean to harp on this but I only STRONGLY recomend the change of the door glass because MOST IT cars don't have NASCAR bars on both sides.

The rules are SOOOOOO friggen close to each other, why can't they at least have a the smallest little bit of overlap? Realize that by allowing a small amount of overlap DOESN'T make the classes the same. Prod has a bazilion different things you can do in addition to IT. All it would do is simply allows cars to enter into a dying class that otherwise can't.

Raymond

[RacerBill]

I think that Andy has the answer. I can't think of any better solution. Having joined SCCA originally in 1966, I remember very well what 'Production' was back then, and it was very much like IT is today.

One of the reasons I purchased the car I did is the fact that it is classed in IT, Prod and GT, so even if I don't have the resources today, I still had options for the future or racing where I think the grass is greener.

There is one question that sticks in the back of my mind as I read these posts. There are references to a 'level of preparation'. That term brings two things to mind: 1) level of preparation - as in the number of modifications you can make on a car ie $15,000 transmissions, 14:1 motors, relocated suspension points, etc. and 2) the level of care and planning you put into your car and all the stuff that goes along with it (do you have a $3000 paint job, or $30 worth of Home Depot's Best, open trailer or 50' transporter).

Level of prep (modifications and safety) we can control. Level of prep (appearance) we have less control over.

[Greg Amy]

Anyone besides me see the obvious parallel between this discussion and our recent "SM into ITA" fracas?

Keep that - and your feelings about it - in mind as you debate changing Production rules to shoehorn-in IT cars... - GA

[RSTPerformance]

Greg-

I see the similarities, however a big difference in what happened before was illigal cars got "special treatment" to run in a already popular class. Production is looking to make changes to bring in new drivers. Changes to me means that they will need to making changes in rules. Allowing already built and compeating race cars to run is going to attract a heck of a lot more people to try it than will simply making new rules that still require a "risk" on the driver to also make changes to thier car in hopes that the class succeeds.

Raymond "Good point though greg" Blethen

[Knestis]

...Other then the safety stuff I think that your IT car should go right into production (loose the remove lights and such) rules. ...[/b]

Yeah - what Greg said. If all current Prod entrants want to band together and propose this, that's their how-do-you-do. I STILL think it's stupid to put cars prepared to one set of rules straight into another category, but I tend to believe that members should have control over the direction their category goes, to some degree.

The point at which Andy's vision comes true and real parity is achieved between two levels of preparation, an interesting thing should happen - the more expensive route to competitiveness in a given class will become extinct.

I know why he proposes the "two-state solution" but it's only really valid as a transition. Except, I suppose for the fact that some SCCA racers will continue to do ANYTHING for ever. Why would you spend the coin to build a full-prep (something) to turn an X:XX.XX when you can build an LP (something else) to do the same thing, for less dough?

K

[cherokee]

What I am suggesting for prod is indeed "another level of prep" I liked the term Very Limited Prep Or what I like to say what LP should have been.

The deal with the cages is, I think that if a sedan type car has a legal cage in it then it is a legal cage. I understand stronger cages in cars that have plastic doors and such and if you decide to to that to your cross over car I think you should have to be open to having a stronger cage mandated for your car. But if you leave your body of your IT car alone it should be good.

I will admit I am on the fence on the fuel cell deal, for the same reason, also I drove a MR2, there is not much better place to put gas in a car IMHO. Putting a cell in the frunk or wherever is less safe, again IMHO. But on the Opel, it needed some help in the gas tank department. Some can do better others can't, thats why I am on the fence.

A fire system, sorry but I think every race car should have this.

What I am trying to get support for is this general idea:

You take your IT car and go run in production as is. You will not be competitive. Now you can take your same car and put some big ole brakes on it. You will do a little better. Now you put a bigger cam and TB on the car....You are getting faster, Bolt on the slicks, I can do corners faster now.... and so on.

This is what I am trying to get to, and I see this as no different the IT is now. You can take a street car, put the cage in and run. My MR2 still has the carpet and radio in it. It is 100% street legal, (I have to change the belts because race belts are not DOT approved) My car was legal could have been faster but there was a lot of things that could have been done that I did not do. It would be the same as saying a SS car should go into IT and be competitive right off the bat. I doubt anyone would agree that should be the case. In IT you can do things you can't do in SS. You have a higher level of prep, more things to tinker with.

Will that IT car that has had the bare basics done to it be competitive? Nope, I doubt it. But the point is he can get out there and run and have fun. That is what I think the move from IT to Prod should be. He can upgrade his car a little at a time and not kill his bank account and risk divorce from the wife. Production has gotten to be too much of....everything.

I am also suggesting a foundation of what prod cars should be and set this foundation in stone. Make the core rule set very stable. New cars will be limited in what they can do, I am not suggesting killing of existing levels of prep just adding a new one with some limits that can not be changed. These limits will still give you the production experence (cams, brakes, TB...things you can't do in IT) but put a cap on how far you can go.



I never explain my self well on while typing, I hope this cleared things up.

[JoshS]

To answer the original question, one would have to ask: "What is more attractive about Production racing than IT racing?" or more to the point, "What would have to change about Production racing to make it more attractive than IT racing?"

This question, being posed to IT racers, implies that Production would like to change to attract IT racers to switch over from IT racing to Production racing. I wonder if that's the best place to try to attract drivers from?

Assuming that this is a desired source of new Production blood, Production needs to find a way to capitalize on the things that IT drivers don't like about IT.

My personal feeling is a lot like Andy's ... IT gives engineers some wiggling room, without breaking the bank. Yet the cars are close enough to stock to be cheap to get started with, and to maintain reliability. Seems to be that the IT drivers that want to go to the next level of car modification are only going to be serious engineers -- engine builders, chassis technicians, etc.

Personally, I think an IT car should be able to be raced in Production, provided it is even listed there, with minimal mods, just like an SS car can run in IT with minimal mods. Off the top of my head, the only required mod to move from SS to IT is a kill switch, and that's optional in SS. Should be similar to move from IT to P. But to be competitive in P, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have to go past a point of no return.

[cherokee]

I don't think it is "what I don't like about IT" it is more of I want to do more things to my car then IT allows, but prod is scarry. The attraction would be getting to do more to your car then you can in IT, and have a light at the end of the tunnel. Know you are going to get somewhere.

What I am suggesting production offer the it racers is things you can't do in IT. Most IT racers are "tinkers" most have some basic mechanical knowlage. And some would like a little more but don't see a place to get that. What I am suggesting in a nut shell is:

Limit the CR to X over stock, 2 points for example
Factory susp attach points
Factory valve sizes
Open cams
Open carbs, TB
Open brakes
A "factory" type trans.
My ideas are all over on the prod site. The things I suggest are aimed at cost control, and reliability all the while giving you room "tinker" a little more

Offer something inbetween full prep, heck even LP and what IT offers. You would end up with a faster car, some very common "bolt on" and "tuner/hot rod" type mods.

A car that you could take to 10/10's and not break the bank in both time and money. More $$ then IT but then you are doing more to the car. Those 4 piston brembo calipers might cost more then oem calipers. But they would work better with those new rotors.

I think that there are some IT racers, and other "car guys" that would be intrested in a class like this.
Would you be intrested?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point at which Andy's vision comes true and real parity is achieved between two levels of preparation, an interesting thing should happen - the more expensive route to competitiveness in a given class will become extinct.

I know why he proposes the "two-state solution" but it's only really valid as a transition. Except, I suppose for the fact that some SCCA racers will continue to do ANYTHING for ever. Why would you spend the coin to build a full-prep (something) to turn an X:XX.XX when you can build an LP (something else) to do the same thing, for less dough?

K [/b]

EXACTLY. I believe this is a way to get new people IN the door AND bring the rules back to some sort of sanity. Hell, if IT were National - I bet Prod would disappear completely.

[dickita15]

The easy target for you is the cars that are popular but not competitive in IT. If it was a pretty easy transition then it might be attractive, of course that was the idea with the not ported Rx7 in G Prod. I have extra caged rx7s sitting around because they are not worth much in ITA trim. If you had a rule set that was a little less crazy that full prep E prod I would put one together and score some ashtrays. Of course I would still race IT because you cannot guarantee me someone to race with in prod.
I have enough stuff sitting around to build a prod rx7 from the piles of stuff but it would be woefully underprepared.
I really am amused at the statements on the prod board over the years about what they think IT want and do not want and I applaud your asking here because many of those guys have no idea what anyone from outside their small world think of them or their rules or culture.

[shwah]

If/when I go production racing it will not be by changing stickers on my IT car and 'trying it out'. I guess I can see why some would do this, but for me - I will decide where I want to compete and build my car to COMPETE there for wins.

A few years ago I thought that was LP GP. After watching some more, I asked my car to be moved from EP to FP in full prep form. This is where I figured I would be going. Now that there is a process being developed to classify cars and set weights, and now that the G cars will likely be moved up or down, I will wait and see what shakes out. Then I will build the car to the prep/class that I think it can be most competitive in.

IF Improved Touring were to become a National class before that time, I may very well just keep doing what I am doing. At the end of the day we have some pretty damn good racing in IT, even better than I imagined when I started this. I simply am looking ahead to the time when I want a new challenge. A Runoffs championship would certainly present such a challenge.

What does all this mean to the question at hand? Above all else - get a stable rule set. This is the primary stopper for me. They have lost who knows how many current or potential competitors because we never see the target stop moving for the fast guys.

[Knestis]

...You take your IT car and go run in production as is. You will not be competitive. Now you can take your same car and put some big ole brakes on it. You will do a little better. Now you put a bigger cam and TB on the car....You are getting faster, Bolt on the slicks, I can do corners faster now.... and so on.

This is what I am trying to get to, and I see this as no different the IT is now. ...[/b]

You can do this now - almost. Build the safety stuff so it fits, spend a weekend on details, and knock yourself out running around way off the pace. Hell, at a typical National, you could podium.

But you don't want to do just that. You want to actually be competitive with a lower-specification build. If you didn't want to be competitive, you'd already have built a "Production Minus" car and be improving the car count but a significant amount!

The problem is that - with due respect - your logic is terribly flawed. Your argument moves from the assumption that "lower spec" (fewer rules allowances) will allow you to be competitive for less money. It's been demonstrated over and over that rules restrictions do NOT limit spending. The amount of money someone is willing to chuck at a race car depends on lots of things - desire to be competitive (which is influence by perceived value to running up front, a la "pro" racing or high profile events like the ARRC), competition (if you are the only guy in your class and can win with a half-assed effort, you don't feel pressured to spend more $$, the amount of discretionary income laying about, etc.

Heck - right now, even though you CAN spend $6000 on a Honda gearbox in LP Prod, few people have decided to because they just don't care enough. Taking that option off the table might (1) not change a damned thing for some entrants, or (2) free up money to spend on other things that really matter like testing, dyno time, tires, or driver coaching. No magic cost savings.

K

[Chris Wire]

Anyone besides me see the obvious parallel between this discussion and our recent "SM into ITA" fracas?

Keep that - and your feelings about it - in mind as you debate changing Production rules to shoehorn-in IT cars... - GA
[/b]

I'm with you GA - I had that very same thought. Of course, we were concerned about rules stability in IT, and that's out the window with Prod anyway!

[John Herman]

I've actually thought about this and I agree with Raymond and Cherokee, but let's look at the whole racing progression process. If you look at how a person could advance through SCCA with their car building skills, I see the process of SS->IT->Production->Prepared->World Challenge. Theoretically, I'd like to see the rules allow a car to progress from one level to the next, though from a vehicle's age, this likely wouldn't (shouldn't) happen. I could see safety stuff as being additive, but should not involve a huge tearup of a vehicle if it were to move up a class. Ideally, any true safety items it a higher class should be legal in a lower class, but I understand this could get bastardized with seam welding, more attachment points... So for example on the cage, items could always be added, but it should not require items to be cutout and redone. Cars prepared to SS rules would still fit (be legal in) the IT rules, IT prep would fit Production, Production into Prepared, Prepared into WC,but the converse is not true It should not be expected that IT cars would be competitive with well built production cars any more than we would expect an SS car to be competitive with a well built IT car. The rules should allow/encourage the natural transition from class to class. To expect most people with no experience to jump in and build a Prepared car is not realistic in my opinion, but the rules should make sense such that a person sees the natural growth potential so they can dream/strive to "someday I'll drive World Challenge." (Yes I know some individuals have made the jump from IT to Pro, but it's not in most people's pocket books.) So in general, my thoughts are SS is a stock class with little engineering/tinkering to be had. IT allows basic suspension upgrades. Production allows more suspension and restricted engine/transmission upgrades. Prepared is high level of suspension, engine/transmission upgrades. World Challenge is considered the top of the rung, everything goes. This process needs A LOT more thought, but I really think a vision needs to be put in place and worked towards. Currently it seems to me that there are a lot of individual classes working independently trying to serve there own good. (I'd like to throw GT into this process/progression as well, but I do need to get back to work. )

[JeffYoung]

I am fairly new to the SCCA. I can't speak for others of my "ilk" (say those who started racing in 2000 and later, I began in 2003) but I can say the following:

1. When I looked at the rule sets, I IMMEDIATELY had no interest in the complicated mess that is Production.

2. When I went to races to work corner stations and figure out what was going on prior to building a car, I IMMEDIATELY saw that IT and SRF and then SM fields were way larger than production fields.

3. When I looked at an IT car, I thought, that is somethign I can build.

4. When I looked at a prod car, I thought, that is something my dad would have liked.

5. When I thought about "advancing" through the SCCA ranks, I saw prod as a dead end, not part of the chain of progression. I see many top flight IT and SM drivers making the jump to a pro series without ever touching production.

And that is where I think a lot of this thread is just wrong. Production is no longer the "big leagues" (in my view) for regional racers. Honestly? We just don't care about it. Most of us. Going to the nationals -- so what? Not what I am interested in. An ARRC win would be just as satisfying (and just as unobtainable for most of us).

Production, to me, is now just a dead end "branch" off the SCCA tree. It's interesting, I like watching the cars, and certainly don't advocate killing it, but I just think a vast majority of the SCCA regional club level membership in IT, SM and SRF simply has no desire to go down that path.

[dickita15]

Years ago during the announcement of some rule realignment Brian Holtz then CRB Chairman said “Touring, Improved Touring, Grand Touring, Pick a car and just keep pouring money into it.

[cherokee]

The problem is that - with due respect - your logic is terribly flawed. Your argument moves from the assumption that "lower spec" (fewer rules allowances) will allow you to be competitive for less money. It's been demonstrated over and over that rules restrictions do NOT limit spending. The amount of money someone is willing to chuck at a race car depends on lots of things - desire to be competitive (which is influence by perceived value to running up front, a la "pro" racing or high profile events like the ARRC), competition (if you are the only guy in your class and can win with a half-assed effort, you don't feel pressured to spend more $$, the amount of discretionary income laying about, etc.
K
[/b]

I would say you are right and wrong at the same time. The lower spec I am suggesting would go a long way at making the cars more reliable, and if it is less "high strung" stressed, whatever then it should last longer and that would be cheaper. I don't like the idea of 10k trans. and moving susp pickup points, these are very expensive for not a good return, outlaw them and save money, And the trans should last as the cars will make less power. People are going to spend what they are going to spend there is no way around that. There are some VERY expensive programs in IT, the rules have not limited spending. I think the logic is sound if the lower spec limits the amount of time rebuilding things because they have just been pushed too far, it will be cheaper.

I also think that the limits I suggest will get a car on track at a high level of prep for less of a time investment, they is currently available. The average IT racer I think could do the things I am suggesting. I think if production offered a product that was below what LP is now but past what IT is it would intrest many racers. If the rules where VERY STABLE.

I think it would be of intrest to folks like Jeff, would you not love to put some real brakes under that car. What would a couple of points of CR and a cam cost you over a normal IT build. Same goes for any car, You build that CRX, or Golf, is it going to cost that much more and you will be faster,and stop faster.
What I suggest is things you can't do to an IT car but are so far below the prep of a full prep or even a LP car.

I do agree with one thing if IT was national prod would be dead. Much of the IT racers do not want to go national, but I think if they could get their existing IT car in prod with a couple of fairly inexpensive mods not 100,000 hrs in the shop, and do well there would be converts.

[JeffYoung]

Honestly Cherokee? I'd rather spend the time to get these brakes to work (they are almost there) and run under the IT ruleset than fool with the production mess. While for my brakes it may be cheaper to bolt on a solution than engineer one within the limiations of the rules, that changes significantly once we start talking about motor and tranny.

Plus, I then don't want to get into a 4 hour debate over how much weight I need to add to the car because of the great brakes I now have.

Cherokee, this is well intentioned and I appreciate your thoughts and efforts on this. I'm just saying, from my perspective as an SEDiv ITS driver looking at 15-20 car ITS fields every race this year, I see no reason other than to continue doing what I am doing. Prod has no appeal in comparison.