Strategic Planning and "The Problem with 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?

[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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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?

[/b]

I was quoting the total number of starts. I had 12. Isn't that what you guys count in participation numbers? ITA in the NARRC had a 13 starter per event this year.

[Stan]

Thanks Andy. Yes, for many purposes the Club counts entrants as you use the term. However, that number can be deceiving about how deep the pool of talent is in a class. For instance, GP had 162 total National entries this year, but those were accounted for by only 37 drivers nation-wide. Add in Regional-only drivers and we are at maybe 50. ITA has ten times that many drivers, but we might not know that if we only had access to the total number of entries. That's why I am trying to actually count the drivers.

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.[/b]

Exactly, Jake. While many National racers argue passionately that the Club should stop adding new National classes, it is only by adding classes that the National program remains viable at all. This graphic illustrates where we'd be had the BoD not added new National classes over the years. BTW, the lines point to the END of the first year of National eligibility for the class in question. As you can see, most of the time adding in a new class adds to the total without a corresponding drop in other classes. In other words, adding new National classes brings in new drivers, not just steals drivers from existing National classes.

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.[/b]

It's not just IT guys, Jake. The overwhelming input I see from National racers is that they'd like to see the Runoffs move to someplace further east towards the center of gravity of the membership. I like to use this graphic to illustrate the point. This map shows population density by county. The darker the color the denser the population. Topeka may be near the geographic center, but clearly just lengthens nearly everyone's tow.



And yes, there are larger issues at play than just some rule sets, but that's a good place to start. To me it is axiomatic that a healthy Runoffs emerges from a robust National racing program. In turn a healthy National program has to have a healthy Regional program or it cannot last. And finally, adding in the currently Regional-only classes is the long term fix that I believe the Club needs to assure a healthy Regional to National to Runoffs paradigm.

Stan

[Z3_GoCar]

...
It's not just IT guys, Jake. The overwhelming input I see from National racers is that they'd like to see the Runoffs move to someplace further east towards the center of gravity of the membership. I like to use this graphic to illustrate the point. This map shows population density by county. The darker the color the denser the population. Topeka may be near the geographic center, but clearly just lengthens nearly everyone's tow.



And yes, there are larger issues at play than just some rule sets, but that's a good place to start. To me it is axiomatic that a healthy Runoffs emerges from a robust National racing program. In turn a healthy National program has to have a healthy Regional program or it cannot last. And finally, adding in the currently Regional-only classes is the long term fix that I believe the Club needs to assure a healthy Regional to National to Runoffs paradigm.

Stan
[/b]

I think you're dealing with a chicken-egg situation concerning national class racing and moving the run-off East. Do more national class racers live East of the Mississippi because the run-off's, with the exception of the last few years, have always been there? Or would moving the run-offs further West encourage even more participation from West-coast members? What I do know is that there's more Cal-club members going to Toepeka this year than last; probably more then ever attended than when it was at Road Atlanta. I like the split traveling run-off idea. Imagine the a run-off at Laguna-Seca, Infineon, or Miller. Miller's full course would make an awesome run-off track, too bad it's not East of the Mississippi though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think you're dealing with a chicken-egg situation concerning national class racing and moving the run-off East. Do more national class racers live East of the Mississippi because the run-off's, with the exception of the last few years, have always been there? Or would moving the run-offs further West encourage even more participation from West-coast members? What I do know is that there's more Cal-club members going to Toepeka this year than last; probably more then ever attended than when it was at Road Atlanta. I like the split traveling run-off idea. Imagine the a run-off at Laguna-Seca, Infineon, or Miller. Miller's full course would make an awesome run-off track, too bad it's not East of the Mississippi though. [/b]

James,

That map is not representative of drivers who attend the runoffs, but of pure population density. Would more Left-Coasters attend if it was at Laguna? Sure - but at what cost to the vast majority of members?

It's a tough call. Indy baby!

[lateapex911]

I think you're dealing with a chicken-egg situation concerning national class racing and moving the run-off East. Do more national class racers live East of the Mississippi because the run-off's, ...........[/b]

I doubt that people are moving east because of National racing, but, I do think that the national racing crowd has been nurtured more in the east due to the long standing Road Atlanta, then Mid Ohio Runoffs location.

Or would moving the run-offs further West encourage even more participation from West-coast members? What I do know is that there's more Cal-club members going to Toepeka this year than last; probably more then ever attended than when it was at Road Atlanta
[/b]

As Andy points out though, the net/ net might not be positive, if comparatively less East coasters go. The Rockies make the miles count as double, as well.

I like the split traveling run-off idea. Imagine the a run-off at Laguna-Seca, Infineon, or Miller. Miller's full course would make an awesome run-off track, too bad it's not East of the Mississippi though. [/b]

That brings up an interesting and difficult to estimate factor. Desirability. IF I were a Runoffs candidate, (A guy in a class that went, I qualified, and I had the money and time) would I drag myslef out to Topeka? Maybe. That track looks crappy, and there's no "Pull" getting me there other than the event itself. Road America? You betcha. Mid Ohio? In a second. Road Atlanta? I tow nearly the same distance to do the ARRCs now, so sure! Miller? Doubtful, even if I were in California. That place looks boring. Flat and featureless. One corner after another sterile corner. Barber? yes sir. And VIR too. Laguna? I'd try to wrangle some kind of deal.You get the idea...

In my mind, these factors would make the Runoffs much more successful:

• Classes of cars that want to race. That means well subscribed classes.
• A desireable desination. (Desireable to the racer, not the National staff)
• Less time. It's too darn long for me now. Taking 10 days off in a row? Are you f-ing kidding me? Who can do that? (Retired and really rich people)
• If the time factor is controlled, then so too is the money factor, to a degree, all else being equal.

-

[Zneed4speed]

Wow great graphics Stan!
A West coast guy that hears the East coasters too.

[JoshS]

Wow, great stuff, Stan! That first chart is pretty telling.

BTW, I just wanted to say that a couple of months ago, we were able to count at least 25 ITR drivers so far this year, halfway into the class' first season. Seems to be good compared to the national drivers in the other new 2007 classes you counted, but I'm not sure if it's reasonable to compare regional drivers to national. Any feeling for that?

[Stan]

Well, I'm pleased you guys appreciated the graphics. As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.

WRT moving the Runoffs further east, I don't know that I "get it" so much as I understand and agree with the larger issues. After all, HPT is a day's drive closer for me each direction. That said, it makes sense to me that the Club should place the event so as to attract as many racers as possible, and HPT just isn't that place IMO.

Josh, IIRC I've counted up at least 30 ITR drivers so far, and that's with the season still underway. ITR may never rival ITA for total numbers, but I'm guessing it'll be a solid class.

Stan

[RX3]

Stan

Why don't we just drop National racing all together? National races for the most part do not make money and come with lots of baggage that makes them harder to put on. And we could let the classes with the most cars in them go to a championship race. If IT cars are is not eligible so be it. But get ride of the national racing program. The tail should not wag the dog.

[gran racing]

One issue with that is how would regions handle race weekends? In some areas, this would cause scheduling issues.

[Stan]

Whether Nationals make money for the hosting Region is highly variable. In some parts of the country they do not, while in other parts of the country Regions vie for National races to make any money at all, as on average Nationals attract about 25 more entries than do Regionals (~150 versus ~125). That said, Regional races are the bread-n-butter for most Regions, as there are more than three times as many Regional races held each year than there are National races. In the end, the National racing program has been the focus of the Club for 60 years, and I think you will find stiff resistance to doing away with it.

To get back to Jake's original question, "...what ARE the problems facing IT?", I agree with Andy's assessment that there really aren't any immediate major problems facing the category. ITC is struggling due to a couple of factors, but not because there is any real flaw to the class. THE growth in new IT cars is with guys picking up a 4-6 year old used street car to built to run in ITA or ITS, while there is a perceived lack of attractive cars like that for ITC. Every class in the Club that does not have a ready and affordable supply of new cars it is potentially facing the same challenge.

IMO the one thing that I think puts a cap on IT's ultimate potential is not being able to go to the Runoffs. Judging from the ARRC, there is clearly interest among a strong contingent in each IT class in a National Championship, yet the category is arbitrarily kept on the second string, at least so far as the prestige of its championship is concerned. Contrary to some fears, permitting SM to go National has not damaged the class. Folks are still building and racing them in great numbers. The rules have tightened up from when it was Regional-only. And Regions have to figure out ways to fit them all in ... a delightful problem to have! If all GCR-recognized classes were eligible to contest the Runoffs, there would still be a dozen that don't make the cut, and just as today, those could go to the ARRC.

Stan

[Andy Bettencourt]

there would still be a dozen that don't make the cut, and just as today, those could go to the ARRC.

Stan [/b]

...or the Mid-Ohio IT-Fest...or something we may be cooking up at WGI....

[tnord]

Contrary to some fears, permitting SM to go National has not damaged the class. Folks are still building and racing them in great numbers. The rules have tightened up from when it was Regional-only. And Regions have to figure out ways to fit them all in ... a delightful problem to have! If all GCR-recognized classes were eligible to contest the Runoffs, there would still be a dozen that don't make the cut, and just as today, those could go to the ARRC.

Stan
[/b]

as someone who has very closely watched SM for the last 4-5yrs, i think you're way off. ever since SM went national, we've seen participation fall off by about 30% in this division. overall participation numbers may be steady or slightly falling, but look at the #'s for the first to the second year of nationals, i don't think it's good. i tried to find it on SCCA.com, but it appears the link has been taken down. i do know the runoffs entries are about 30% lower this year.

even the rules adjustments that in and of themselves were positive moves (cam clarification, clutch rule) have ended up hurting the class because they've all been against the bread and butter 1.6 car and put it at an overall disadvantage. the cost to be competitive has tripled for the car itself, and around 7x for consumables like tires.

the regional classes like SSM have maintained the 'spirit' of the initial SM class better than the national ruleset, and i think is very much like the current IT crowd, thus their strong numbers. still very competitive, but national SM is whole nother prep level above, which i don't think even most of the big names on the national IT scene quite understand.

just like going national i don't think was healthy for SM, i don't think it would be for IT either. but, taking every class in the GCR and taking the top 25 to the big show would be healthy for the club overall, and that i would support.

I have over 250 cars for my regional race this weekend. I will most likely have 300 in October and 400 car in November. I never see that many car at a national. And i have been doing this for some time now. A 150 field is no a good turn out, but will most likely get the bill payed if you charge enought.
[/b]

and if it wasn't for national racing in the kansas, nebraska, iowa, missouri, oklahoma, tennessee, and arkansas quadrant, we wouldn't have racing at all.

we would LOVE it if we could get 150 entrants for every national event, and even 100 for every regional. as it is now, we probably stand at an average of 130 per national, and 75 per regional event (which lose lots of money, subsidized by the nationals).

[Stan]

as someone who has very closely watched SM for the last 4-5yrs, i think you're way off. ever since SM went national, we've seen participation fall off by about 30% in this division. overall participation numbers may be steady or slightly falling, but look at the #'s for the first to the second year of nationals, i don't think it's good. i tried to find it on SCCA.com, but it appears the link has been taken down. i do know the runoffs entries are about 30% lower this year. [/b]

Yes, SM National entries are off 30% in MWDiv this year, down from 250 in '06 to 174, but your experience is not typical. Overall National SM entries are down less than 15%. As Andy notes, there has been some churning in the National SM ranks as guys figure out where their racing program really belongs. That's perfectly normal IMO, and I expect it to take another year or two to settle down. OTOH, Runoffs entries are down 8.6% from last year, not 30% (713 in '06 vs. 652 this year). Even with the expected drop-outs we won't come anywhere close to a 30% decline.

even the rules adjustments that in and of themselves were positive moves (cam clarification, clutch rule) have ended up hurting the class because they've all been against the bread and butter 1.6 car and put it at an overall disadvantage. the cost to be competitive has tripled for the car itself, and around 7x for consumables like tires. [/b]

How does tightening up the damper, cam and clutch rules put the 1.6 cars at a disadvantage? We didn't apply them to just those cars. Are you saying that we should give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to those cars?

Yes, it costs more to compete for a Runoffs win than it does to be a purely local Regional guy. No surprise there.

the regional classes like SSM have maintained the 'spirit' of the initial SM class better than the national ruleset, and i think is very much like the current IT crowd, thus their strong numbers. still very competitive, but national SM is whole nother prep level above, which i don't think even most of the big names on the national IT scene quite understand. [/b]

There are very large differences of opinion about SSM vs SM, Travis, and I'll take you statement of your opinion as just that. I do agree that competitive National racing is more expensive than hanging mid-pack in one's local Regionals, and that's part of the reason we're seeing some churning of the National SM ranks. It will play out as everyone figures out where they belong.

just like going national i don't think was healthy for SM, i don't think it would be for IT either. but, taking every class in the GCR and taking the top 25 to the big show would be healthy for the club overall, and that i would support. [/b]

I see a dichotomy here, Travis. How do we let all classes compete for a spot at the Runoffs without letting them all run Nationals?

we would LOVE it if we could get 150 entrants for every national event, and even 100 for every regional. as it is now, we probably stand at an average of 130 per national, and 75 per regional event (which lose lots of money, subsidized by the nationals).[/b]

I can't help you there, except to cheer you up the news that Colorado Region would love to average 75 entrants at a race...ANY race!

Stan

[Andy Bettencourt]

How does tightening up the damper, cam and clutch rules put the 1.6 cars at a disadvantage? We didn't apply them to just those cars. Are you saying that we should give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to those cars?

[/b]

No effect on the shocks, but the 'cheater' cams were only in the 1.6's and the $1200 lightweight clutch was also only available for the 1.6. Not to say the others wouldn't have evolved but on-track performance was being measured and recorded with those 'advantages', then they were taken away.

Small stuff, yes but perception was hurt. Just wish the 99 had never entered the mix. Trying to equalize 4 different cars in a Spec class is tough.

The beauty of it all? IT doesn't have these issues.

[RX3]

I have over 250 cars for my regional race this weekend. I will most likely have 300 in October and 400 car in November. I never see that many car at a national. And i have been doing this for some time now. A 150 field is no a good turn out, but will most likely get the bill payed if you charge enought.

[Stan]

Yep...I was using ARRC in a generic sense.