Strategic Planning and "The Problem with IT"

[Matt Rowe]

I'd love to hear from someone that had a lot of experience w/ Solo I. Did anybody ever do an analysis as to why it failed?[/b]

Who said it failed? It and the ruleset it was based on was used as one of the cornerstones of the Time Trials program of which those events continue to grow. The success of the Solo I program (and TT level 3&4 events they have become) are highly regional though due to the efforts of people within those regions to grow the programs. At heart the ruleset isn't a problem and neither is the PDX rules that are also part of the time trials program. Yes there can be improvements made in the ease of implementation and those are ongoing but the single biggest thing holding us back are getting more people to organize and staff these events.

The customers are out there. Dates can be hard to get but they can be found. Initial profitability is an issue, you have to have a region that afford to lose a little at first while they establish that customer base and their reputation. But ultimately it comes down to having a core group of people that decide to put together these events and target that market.

There are a couple strong Solo I programs (now TT) that continue to bring in new drivers and they exist primarily through the efforts of a few core people. As an example in my own area we have a pool of roughly 300-400 drivers entered in TT events over the last 5 years and out of that group I can think of at least 15 that have gone on to participate in club racing, myself included. Meanwhile the other drivers are still generating revenue for the club and more importantly increasing exposure to SCCA among the automtive savvy public.

My point is the tools are there. They need polishing but there is no need to reinvent the wheel. What we need is people who will pick those tools rather than stand back and say the work needs to be done. That is not directed at anyone in particular but you can't expect national to put on events. Even the regions don't put together events, it is people that spearhead them and without people stepping up to make this happen it doesn't matter what the plan is, it is not going to succeed

[shwah]

To the discussion about T ->IT progression.

Does it really matter if ST, T1 and T2 don't fit well into IT? At the budget required to run those cars, I don't see nearly as many folks looking to move to IT when they age out. They will just build current cars and keep going. Further down the food chain T3 (and maybe a feed T2) could feed ITR, T4 (and maybe a few T3) could feed ITS, T5 (and maybe a few T4 could feed ITA), maybe a few T5 could feed ITB.

It would not have to be a class Tx=class ITx deal. Just run them through the process and class them automatically 1 year before they age out if they are in the top 5 of T class car counts.

[JoshS]

A couple of points about SS/T:

It's the SS competitors, not the manufacturers, who didn't want to see SS rules merged with T (i.e., they don't want SSB/SSC to become T4/T5). That's because it'll raise costs -- whereas people must run stock shocks now, under the T rules, they would have to go out and buy expensive aftermarket shocks. So it was the members who put the kibosh on that idea.

What the manufacturers didn't like was the proposal that along with the abovementioned plan, SSB and T3 were to merge ... in other words, SSB cars would be slotted into T3, and SSC would be T4. The manufacturers wrote a letter to the CRB/BOD stating that they didn't want their SSB cars competiting with their T3 cars (i.e., SSB MX-5s competiting against T3 RX-8s, SSB Civic Sis competiting against T3 S2000s, etc.)

On the topic of progression from SS/T to IT, aged out cars, and cars too fast for ITR: it is getting cheaper and cheaper to campaign a 10-year-old C5 Corvette Z06. These are getting relatively inexpensive (not by SSC standards, for sure, but not bad compared with newish T3 cars), and are getting slowly less competitive, and aged out, of T1. While I agree that most of those drivers are likely to move on to bigger & badder T1 cars, there is about to be a glut of Z06 Corvettes in race trim on the market with nowhere to race them. Why *not* IT? In the larger sense of a club-wide classing system, it's only appropriate that all aged-out SS/T cars have an appropriate place to play in the same club, and I can't imagine why we IT people wouldn't want to welcome them with open arms.

[Bill Miller]

A couple of points about SS/T:

It's the SS competitors, not the manufacturers, who didn't want to see SS rules merged with T (i.e., they don't want SSB/SSC to become T4/T5). That's because it'll raise costs -- whereas people must run stock shocks now, under the T rules, they would have to go out and buy expensive aftermarket shocks. So it was the members who put the kibosh on that idea.

What the manufacturers didn't like was the proposal that along with the abovementioned plan, SSB and T3 were to merge ... in other words, SSB cars would be slotted into T3, and SSC would be T4. The manufacturers wrote a letter to the CRB/BOD stating that they didn't want their SSB cars competiting with their T3 cars (i.e., SSB MX-5s competiting against T3 RX-8s, SSB Civic Sis competiting against T3 S2000s, etc.)

On the topic of progression from SS/T to IT, aged out cars, and cars too fast for ITR: it is getting cheaper and cheaper to campaign a 10-year-old C5 Corvette Z06. These are getting relatively inexpensive (not by SSC standards, for sure, but not bad compared with newish T3 cars), and are getting slowly less competitive, and aged out, of T1. While I agree that most of those drivers are likely to move on to bigger & badder T1 cars, there is about to be a glut of Z06 Corvettes in race trim on the market with nowhere to race them. Why *not* IT? In the larger sense of a club-wide classing system, it's only appropriate that all aged-out SS/T cars have an appropriate place to play in the same club, and I can't imagine why we IT people wouldn't want to welcome them with open arms.
[/b]

And that's what killed the plan. The mfg's held the club hostage. They threatened to withhold support for racers. In essence, they were going to take their ball and go home.

[pgipson]

I think we can just leave IT alone and help the CRB with some ideas on how to get the REST of the house in order.[/b]

In the thread on the Strategic Vision for IT, that has to be the defining quote.

My perspective on NASA is a bit different I guess, and is certainly colored by own experiences over the years. My experiences tell me that NASA cares not one whit about racers. Their bread and butter is HPDE. They will cut racer track time and run groups in order to make their HPDE schedules and make room for outside (paying) groups. Try running every closed wheel class at once on a 1.5 mile roval track. Out here racecars are about 15 % of the NASA entrants.

The other thing that often goes unnoticed is their scheduling plan. Track time starts when the prior group's checker falls. So if takes 5 minutes to get everyone off and on the track, and you have 20 minutes guess what you get?

[Dave Zaslow]

Recruiting new members, whatever age they might be, is always needed.

The NASA HPDE's I've been to had a TT attached to them. No separate TT practice, just the last runs of the day were the TT. Any signed-off driver doing the HPDE could sign up for the TT. This kept things interesting at the end of the day when the HPDE drivers were getting a bit tired. That is one way to 'add value' to a PDX day. Another might be a restricted regional where only one or two race groups were sent out to put on a show for the PDX'ers.

The new members may want a wider/different choice in the cars they want to race. We should be proactive in looking at the cars aging into IT availability and classing those cars as it is a big hurdle to a newbie. Faster may not be better as it will require the IT ruleset to look at the safety requirements that go with those faster cars. I would look at taking a wide spectrum of cars within the existing classes


DZ

[flaboy]

I hate hearing all this talk about ITC being all but dead....it's still pretty strong in the south east. I quess we'll always be "red headed stepchild" to the other IT classes.

Tim

[tnord]

i don't think i've seen an ITC car all year Tim. it's not the read headed stepchild, it really is dying a natural death. if it can survive in your area for another 20 years, more power to you, but it's pretty much gone around here.

[gran racing]

Here's a little project for you guys. Create a VTS for Improved Touring cars or at least define the fields that are required on the existing VTS. Based on previous discussions, there are a several fields on that darn thing that you do not need when classifying a new car. Having been through the VTS process myself, it is a bit intimidating and even more challenging trying to locate this information (even with a factory shop manual, a Honda dealership willing to assist in providing the information).

[Chris Wire]

I'd hate to see an age limitation on cars. I actually think it's pretty cool to see the mix of cars and ages out there all racing against each other. As others have said, I don't think older cars should be thrown a bone for various parts allowances but don't ban them from the category.
[/b]

+1 - Well said.

[jlinfert]

I hate hearing all this talk about ITC being all but dead....it's still pretty strong in the south east. I quess we'll always be "red headed stepchild" to the other IT classes.

Tim
[/b]

Tim,
As you well know ITC is NOT dead or even dying here in Central Florida. I mean 11 cars and 14 drivers signed up for Daytona next week! It's a pity that it seems to be dying elsewhere. Our slow little momentum cars are fantastic trainers for good driving skills.

[Ed Funk]

ITC isn't dead in the Northeast either, except where being forced to run with the Spec Pinatas!
8 ITC's at Watkins Glen last weekend in a 4 class field of 27 cars. ITB had 15.

[Stan]

Point / Counterpoint

1. NASA now has 14 and still growing. I do agree that 3 min per race is simply not too much to ask.

2. In big regions this works VERY well. We couldn't have an all in one here in the NE. Simply not enough time.

3. Bids were submitted, Topeka was chosen. It hasn't worked well and I bet they learn from their mistake.

4. NASA is no different. Competitors police their own patch. You see something wrong, fix it.

5. Consolodation could certainly happen in some areas. Those regions need to make a business decision.

6. You don't HAVE to go for two weeks. It IS the National Championship after all.

7. Prepared? PERFECT for NASA types. Check out the rules. Motor swaps, wings etc.

IT has no real problems on the grand scale. The problems are in other classes and the lack of participation. The old gaurd hangs on with a white-knuckle grip which really prevents new cars being built. Trying to listen to the legacy customers while creating opportuinty for newbs is tough. NASA doesn't have this problem - YET.
[/b]

Well said, Andy. I especially like your conclusions, where I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.

I had a good chat with Bryan Cohn about the NASA Championships the other day. Bryan is NASA's National Competition Director...sort of Terry Ozment, Jeremy Thoennes and the CRB all rolled into one. Anyway, NASA has 39 nation-wide classes (compared to 36 IIRC for SCCA), and like us they are struggling with consolidation and the proliferation of local-Regional classes.

In SCCA only 2 of the 26 classes competing for a spot in the 2008 Runoffs failed to hit 3 entries per race, and GT3 was at 2.9. Even if we winnow down to 24 classes we are right back to where we were before, with several classes perennially squeaking by at the minimum participation level to retain their National status. That "complacency" is why I think all GCR-recognized classes should have the opportunity to run Nationals and compete for a spot at the Runoffs. IMO it is simply not in the best interest of the Club to have classes with 50 or fewer active members holding the Runoffs hostage to their dreams of a National Championship.

Stan

[Stan]

While we are not talking about IT, get rid of the 8,000 open wheel classes with 1 entry each.[/b]

It's not the formula classes you should be worried about, Jeremy. Here is a list of all Runoffs eligible classes and the total number of individual drivers who entered a National race in 2007. As you can see, only the brand new FB class is down near the bottom. The other 8000 formula classes are all relatively healthy compared to a number of sedan classes.

Formula classes in BOLD.

SM 460
SRF 364
FV 140
GT1 122
FA 114
FC 114
EP 113
FF 109
FP 99
FM 94
DSR 88
GT2 81
F5 79
AS 78
CSR 71
S2 70
FE 70
GTL 65
HP 64
T2 64
SSB 61
SSC 57
GT3 53
T3 46
T1 45
GP 37
BP 19
DP 14
FB 9
ST 9

[planet6racing]

And, FB is a very new class and I know many people (myself included) are waiting to see how these things run. My interest is definitely picqued by this class...

[gran racing]

Those number surprised me a bit. What are the participation numbers for IT?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Stan may have them but understand there are WAY more Regional races than National so the comparison may not be apples to apples.

BUT, having said that, in the 13 NARRC races this year, ITA has had 208 entrants. IN JUST THE NARRC. I laugh at national participation numbers...but then again, IT is the best ruleset for me.

[tnord]

wtf is FB?

i consider myself pretty in tune with this stuff, and i don't even know what FB is. is that the new F1000? why do they keep changing the names? FSCCA became FE, and F1000 into FB?

[lateapex911]

That "complacency" is why I think all GCR-recognized classes should have the opportunity to run Nationals and compete for a spot at the Runoffs. IMO it is simply not in the best interest of the Club to have classes with 50 or fewer active members holding the Runoffs hostage to their dreams of a National Championship.

Stan [/b]

You hit the nail on the head there Stan...

It can be argued whether adding IT to the Runoffs eligible mix would be good for IT or not, but this current path of protecting the ever decreasing numbers is clearly not going to end well.

Now, IF IT became eligible, would you see good IT fields and races at the Runoffs? In Kansas? I dunno.... At Mid Ohio? Abso- freakin-lutely.

On one hand, in the big picture, the club would be well served by allowing the market to decide. But, on the other, the club needs to accurately address the larger issues and resolve those, because it needs to understand why things are the way they are, and rulesets are just part of the equation.

[Stan]

Bill, about 30 FBs have been homologated so far (most in the last half of the season), with a number of others in the works. I predict that by the end of 2008 we will have near 50 folks running FBs.

Dave, the Club only started counting Regional entries last year, and we do not yet have good numbers on individual Regional classes...of which the Club tracks 72 plus Vintage.

Andy, I am interested in where you find that 208 number for the NARRC ITA championships. The NARRC points page lists 73 competitors through 13 races (congrats on your Numero Uno spot!). Am I missing something?

That said, I count 300 ITA competitors in just the SARRC, MARRS, NARRC and San Francisco Region. Based on that there must be at least 500-600 ITA drivers nation-wide. If a quarter of them were interested in running Nationals (about the ratio of SM drivers who run Nationals) then ITA could rank in the top 3 or 4 classes if the current GCR Regional-only classes could run Nationals.

Travis, FB and FE are the GCR 9.3.28 required identification markings for their respective classes.

Stan