Strategic Planning and "The Problem with IT"

[tnord]

Are we even on topic? How about 'the problem with IT'?

Strategic planning for IT.........
[/b]

i'll let ya know after a couple years with the ECU rule.

the only thing i could see, would be to create an ITX class. AWD & Turbo.

Evo, WRX, STi, Talon TSi, Eclipse GSX, Renault 5 Turbo :P , Galant VR-4, Celica STX (or whatever it was), whatever else there was. i doubt there's really THAT much of a demand for it. but if you're looking for ideas......this is the only way i can see integrating AWD and Turbo cars, put them all in their own little sandbox.

make sure to put something in the ruleset about "you blowing up countless transmissions and differentials is not our problem."

[Doc Bro]

The best way to align vision and a measurable result is consistency in the message. Make sure the tongue in the mouth and the tongue in the shoe are both heading in the same direction. I think there are some things we do in the IT rules that are quite good; create a class for a higher speed car and (dare I say) opening up the ECU issue. However, there are somethings in my opinion that don't align with this forward thinking. I question whether we debate minutiae for something to do at work, while missing the larger 10 year out picture. I'd love to see a straw pole for some topics like washer bottles, short shifters, wider wheels etc.. While I'm not necessarily advocating their in/exclusion I'm more interested in the alignment and the consistency of the message. IMO the ECU thing is progressive and the washer bottle thing is a blue law.

R

[tnord]

I question whether we debate minutiae for something to do at work, while missing the larger 10 year out picture.

R
[/b]

[pgipson]

I hate to post this, but here goes

Everybody wants to do strategic planning. But the first question should always be "what is the vision"? What do you see in 5, 10, 15 yrs for IT? What do you WANT IT to look like in 2022?

If you see 40 yr old cars (my RX7 will only be 38 yrs old then) at the end of that vision running around a track trying to keep up with the technology of 2015 then might I suggest we turn to the prod forum for answers?

If, on the other hand, the vision for IT is a class full of cars that reflect the interests of the membership, that are raced with minimal modifications, and that represent a full value of fun for the dollar invested, then maybe some radical thinking might be in order.

If you are willing to think about the class not as it is, but as it could be then how about making the first rule change to be this:

A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.

Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible. No car older than a 1968 model of any listed vehicle will be accepted for Improved Touring competition. Turbocharged/Supercharged cars are not eligible for Improved Touring competition. Cars need not be eligible for state license or registration.


A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.

Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible. Cars more than 25 model years old will not be accepted for Improved Touring competition. Turbocharged/Supercharged cars are not eligible for Improved Touring competition. Cars need not be eligible for state license or registration.
================================================== ===================

I know this would obsolete cars that people have a lot of development money in. And cars that people have a special attaction to. Hell, it would eliminate my car in 2 yrs. But I don't know if the category can survive long term if there isn't a way found to make the cars we do race closer to cars we drive.

The question isn't the competitiveness of a single type of car or even a class. The real question is what sort of changes (if any) are needed to help IT continue to be a viable part of the SCCA race program. And the time to ask and answer that question is now. Not when we are busy looking for other old race cars from other classes we can add to our dwindling numbers.

flame on

[JoshS]

IMO the ECU thing is progressive and the washer bottle thing is a blue law.[/b]

That's a really nice, simple statement ... I like the message.

[Zneed4speed]

OK you ITAC guys asked, but you really don't get paid enough...

Be proactive about classing cars. If it's a sporty car, class it.
Plan a schedule to analyze each IT rule in order, with an attitude of bringing it "up to date". Probably take a whole year, do it every 5 five years, at minimum.
Use SCCA resources to compose a survey just for IT drivers. Find the demographic if you don't already know it and target it. Prepare an IT "brochure".
SCCA sells mailing lists, maybe we need to buy some from other sources.
Get SCCA to help publicize IT. The results in SportsCar if any, seldom have write-ups or pictures. If they don't pay for event write-ups already, propose they do.
How about an IT report in SportsCar? Or a least an IT "state of the union" report. Since Fastrack is only online now, IT exposure has been reduced.
The Divisional reports have too much to cover. IT needs it's own report/reporters.
I know IT is a regional class but a little national attention could increase entrys.

The wing question may be kind of off topic but, I think wheel size would discourage a young driver more than no wings.

[shwah]

I see no reason to exclude older cars. I also see no reason to make sure that they can compete with newer cars. Proactive classing is on my list, and I like the idea of an Ad Hoc doing this because I would hate the workload to bog down the ITAC.

The CRB could certainly stand to look at IT, T, P, GT and form some semblance of a plan to 'grow' cars through the system. T being reigned in to IT spec or less makes a lot of sense to me, then create space for T cars in IT as they age out, even if this means we create faster IT classes. If we have a path for cars from T>IT>P>GT then people can take their old T cars and go into any of 3 other classes, depending on the level of prep they want to embark on.

Speaking of faster IT classes. It does not take much looking to see that there are a lot of cars that are too fast for ITR already. Once ITR has a foothold, the ITAC should seriously look at what the next fast class would look like.

I like the idea of an awd/turbo class, but don't know if that can work well within the IT ruleset. Maybe we finally found a reason for Prepared to exist...

[ddewhurst]

*****Sorry DAvid, don't mean to be crass, but have to point out -- this from someone who believes you can replace the four links on the RX7 with custom rods and heim rod ends? I agree with you on the latter, but this is starting to look a little meish.

How do you reconcile this? Not picking at you, just interested.*******


Who added this to my post #8 ?

This is not good when someone is allowed to make changes to another members post.

[Knestis]

...
Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible. Cars more than 25 model years old will not be accepted for Improved Touring competition. Turbocharged/Supercharged cars are not eligible for Improved Touring competition. Cars need not be eligible for state license or registration. ...
[/b]

We go on at length every once in a while about what the "founding fathers" intended and the fact that the "1968" rule has been on the books since Day One is indeed a suggestion of intent. (Given when the national IT rules were first published, 25 years is just about right on, BTW.)

On the other hand, if we don't take "extraordinary measures" to keep old cars on IT life support, then they will wither naturally. We just have to defend the basic substance of the rules by standing fast against the tactic of, "I can't find (whatever) for my car, so may I please use (whatever) instead?"

On the washer bottle issue: Understand that threats to the category exist in two very general terms - failure to change and TOO RAPID change. Right at this point in IT history, we are on the back side of the biggest changes the category has seen in its life. Many of you weren't even involved WAY back in 2002 when the Neon was still an ITS car and concept of using a repeatable process to establish IT race weights was pretty much roundly condemned as "impossible..."

Given this, it is probably too easy to go with the organizational momentum and "fix" all of those stoopid blue laws - unless you understand that a major reason that IT is even still around TO fix, is that those rules (no guarantee, regional only, etc.) prevented any meddling. IT came out of its stasis less than 5 years ago but to that point, it hadn't suffered the death that plagues most club racing classes - the gradual eroding of the category by incremental changes to little rules. Coined "rules creep" (someone needs to look in the archives and find the first use of that term), this is the gradual "nibbling to death by ducks" that naturally occurs with rules-making processes and constituencies like ours.

Bob gets the board to vote out washer bottles.

Carol lobbies successfully to get rid of the wipers, because the washer bottle logic worked.

Ted makes a convincing argument for removal of the HVAC unit.

Alice wants to use the area previously occupied by the now-empty rain tray/behind dash area for cage bars, to make her car safer...

If you think I'm being alarmist because I see a straight line from that to tube chassis, you - with all due respect - don't understand the history of this game. Or you don't understand that IT dodged this bullet by the same forces that require you to have a washer bottle...

...and but shutting off those forces, you kill the constraints that have worked (completely accidentally, I'm convinced) until just recently.

BUT, hey. Whatever y'all want. Just don't say that you weren't warned. 2012 seems like a long way off but it's only as many years as it was ago, that Amy was fighting for the right to race against Acuras and the like in ITA.

K

[bldn10]

"The whole wing thing to attract the younger tuner age is redicilous in my mind, as far as for IT. If them putting a wing on their car makes the difference of them being a part of IT or not, I think they are the wrong crowd to be searching for because they have a completely different mind set."



We got off on wings but that was just a part of the "total package" that I mentioned. I also included bigger wheels, perhaps some side aero, lower ground clearance - i.e. DTM lite. I am 57 years old and I'll tell you right now that I have no interest in a showroom stock type class because I want my car to look like a friggin race car! The more it looks like what I think are the coolest races cars, the better. I'm talking just one minor aspect of the solution, not the be-all end-all so don't make me sound so stupid as to think that wings alone would change everything. Again, think total package.

[Doc Bro]

We go on at length every once in a while about what the "founding fathers" intended and the fact that the "1968" rule has been on the books since Day One is indeed a suggestion of intent. (Given when the national IT rules were first published, 25 years is just about right on, BTW.)

On the other hand, if we don't take "extraordinary measures" to keep old cars on IT life support, then they will wither naturally. We just have to defend the basic substance of the rules by standing fast against the tactic of, "I can't find (whatever) for my car, so may I please use (whatever) instead?"

On the washer bottle issue: Understand that threats to the category exist in two very general terms - failure to change and TOO RAPID change. Right at this point in IT history, we are on the back side of the biggest changes the category has seen in its life. Many of you weren't even involved WAY back in 2002 when the Neon was still an ITS car and concept of using a repeatable process to establish IT race weights was pretty much roundly condemned as "impossible..."

Given this, it is probably too easy to go with the organizational momentum and "fix" all of those stoopid blue laws - unless you understand that a major reason that IT is even still around TO fix, is that those rules (no guarantee, regional only, etc.) prevented any meddling. IT came out of its stasis less than 5 years ago but to that point, it hadn't suffered the death that plagues most club racing classes - the gradual eroding of the category by incremental changes to little rules. Coined "rules creep" (someone needs to look in the archives and find the first use of that term), this is the gradual "nibbling to death by ducks" that naturally occurs with rules-making processes and constituencies like ours.

Bob gets the board to vote out washer bottles.

Carol lobbies successfully to get rid of the wipers, because the washer bottle logic worked.

Ted makes a convincing argument for removal of the HVAC unit.

Alice wants to use the area previously occupied by the now-empty rain tray/behind dash area for cage bars, to make her car safer...

If you think I'm being alarmist because I see a straight line from that to tube chassis, you - with all due respect - don't understand the history of this game. Or you don't understand that IT dodged this bullet by the same forces that require you to have a washer bottle...

...and but shutting off those forces, you kill the constraints that have worked (completely accidentally, I'm convinced) until just recently.

BUT, hey. Whatever y'all want. Just don't say that you weren't warned. 2012 seems like a long way off but it's only as many years as it was ago, that Amy was fighting for the right to race against Acuras and the like in ITA.

K
[/b]

Kirk,
I totally agree that stability of the ruleset is of major importance. The consistency in the message is the crux of my issue. As I stated I'm not pro/con on any of these issues, but there is a huge inconsistency in front of us. A progressive ECU rule standing toe to toe with many blue laws on the books. That's the real issue. Sure someone makes arguments about being allowed to do X because the washer bottle is gone.....while someone else is using traction control because of the totally "free" ECU rule. What about the newly classed ITB car that comes with a short throw totally tight gearbox and shifter while my buddy with the Wolwo 142 has the shifter coming out of the firewall and responds like a 67 F250? The juxtaposition of new against old is the major part of the debate.


R

[Greg Amy]

We got off on wings but that was just a part of the "total package" that I mentioned. I also included bigger wheels, perhaps some side aero, lower ground clearance - i.e. DTM lite.[/b]

Kirk's brought it up before, but is it time for me to update my "MT2" rules set from a few years ago?

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/intro.php3
http://www.it2.evaluand.com/mtcs.pdf

I'll be glad to do that, and glad to assist in building interest in a new class. But, don't puck with Improved Touring; it's worked well for all these years, graphically illustrated by its success, popularity, and its very existence. If you truly believe that a modified IT ruleset would be more popular, then create and promote this MT. You can run the class within the existing class structure (we proved that with IT2) and we'll let the open market decide who's right.

But, fer krists sake, leave IT alone.

[lateapex911]

Day three has brought some great stuff!

One comment regarding the "Aging out" concept. If the basic premise of IT is to provide low cost racing, it would fly in the face of that premise to arbitrarily tell people that they must throw away their, for example, 2nd place ARRC finishing 1973 Datsun 240Z....to buy the first place winning 1996 BMW E36......

I suggest the trouble Prod got into was that they changed the entire foundational rules package in attempts to molify owners of older cars that could no longer compete due to the inability of the old parts to survive the stresses of racing, or the parts sources dried up.

In any case, I can assure you as an ITAC member, I have learned from the mistakes of the past (And yes, I know many will argue that they weren't mistakes, LOL) and our basic foundational ruleset won't be modified to allow alternate billet cranks to keep older cars on life support. It's one thing to make rules changes to mold the category to the needs of the current/future cars and racers, but quite another to go backwards. In other words, I favor the "natural death" method, and I won't sponsor or back any "life support" rules.

[shwah]

Rob,

I think you just provided an excellent example of how, little by little, older cars will naturally "age out" of IT competition. The shifter alone won't do it, but parts availability, better brakes, better drivelines, stiffer chassis, will gradually push many old cars out of favor. A few will keep going because the drivers just love them, but those looking for the path of least resistance to victory will choose newer cars.

The last thing I want to see is rules changes specifically to allow me to take my 21 year old IT car and make it more like a 5 year old one. This is counter to the whole class philosophy. You run what you have, warts and all.

My Golf 2 will not live forever in IT, but IT will still be there for me when I am ready to upgrade to a newer car.

And regarding the ECU issue. We were all asleep at the wheel 3-4 years ago when this really took place. The recent proposed change, simply makes the same thing that was available to a few, available to many. It does not add any, not one single, additional gain or capability than what was already offered under the current rule. I wish it never happend, but like the new wording more than the old. I also think that we would have eventually ended up here as newer cars with more complex oem systems became IT eligible.

[BlueStreak]

Cars more than 25 model years old will not be accepted for Improved Touring competition. Turbocharged/Supercharged cars are not eligible for Improved Touring competition. Cars need not be eligible for state license or registration.
[/b]

My Rabbit GTI is 24 - Is it time to start running with the vintage guys?

[Knestis]

My Rabbit GTI is 24 - Is it time to start running with the vintage guys?
[/b]

A very poignant example. When the IT rules were invented, that car was brand new and the framers of the category didn't want cars that were only 17 YEARS OLD running.

K

[Dave Ebersole]

..............

Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible. Cars more than 25 model years old will not be accepted for Improved Touring competition. ........
[/b]

That's brilliant. I'm looking at registration for the final MARRS race this weekend and guess what? This rule would reduce ITB entries from 16 to 4. I'm sure you're thinking that those guys would build a newer ITB car but I don't think so. Those guys like racing rear wheel drive cars. Most would either go to Spec Miata or Production. That won't help IT.

[zracre]

I guess that would work if they said no cars older than 25 year will be eligible. Cars with log books issued before the 25 year anniversary date of manufacture may compete.

this will keep the people with investments still in the game and prevent new old cars from appearing.

[flaboy]

With the 25yr rule you could say good bye to ITC.And thats a decent sized group of cars.

Hell i think theres like 11 cars at daytona in 2 weeks in itc.

Tim

[seckerich]

Just why would you have a discussion about the health of a class and worry about stopping someone from building a new car? What would it hurt to have a brand new 30 year old car? Don't bend the rules to make them competitive but let them race. At some point down the road either ITC will die or the target for all the classes will get moved again and the older cars will be less competitive. Darwin strikes again. I do not see that newer classes need to be added unless something goes away. As C dies (sorry guys it is going to happen) we will be back to 4 classes and have room to up the window of performance to take in the new cars. We are missing the boat bigtime not finding a home for the turbo crowd. Give them a class and assume boost on kill in classing and let them go at it. That class would grow fast.

We need to grow ITR now if it is going to fly long term. People will not build cars if there is nobody to race with. Myself and many others would build an RX8 now if it would get classed. None of the other offerings make sense for the rotary guys. We need something current and it is the only choice. It was sold in very early 03 but is considered a late 04 by the ITAC so you loose all those potential drivers. It is really 5 years old next year so whats the holdup?