IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?

[shwah]

So we finally brushed the frost off and got our race cars out here in Cen-Div (although snow flakes ARE falling outside right now) over the past weekend.

The Quad-Region double driver school and road race took place at Blackhawk Farms. It was supposed to be 40s and raining, but instead it was sunny and crisp for most of Sunday, which made for great racing. I had quite possibly the most exciting race of my life with Aaron Stehly (congrats on a hard fought win).

But something interesting happened before the racing started on Sunday afternoon. At the end of the driver's meeting all of the IT drivers were asked to stay behind, and the CenDiv director asked us one question. "If the SCCA were to make Improved Touring classes national classes, and include them in the Runoffs, would you participate at a national level?". About half of the drivers said they would. He went on to say that the CRB was taking a closer look at this as possible future move, but that they were wary of doing so without feedback from IT racers, as they caught some flak from SM racers when it went National. I think they are also worried about what such a move would do to regional race attendance.

I discussed the issue with a few other drivers as we walked back to our paddock spaces, and we agreed on a few things.
1. This would probably not make a huge change for those already running at the very front of any class (in a competitive division).
2. It would probably increase the overall number of IT drivers, as folks that like the class, but want to run nationals would join the fray.
3. It would probably reduce the number of regional IT drivers, as some that are here now would decide to run at the nationa level (at least for a while).
4. The casual racers in IT now would probably stay regional, and would probably move up in finishing position as a result.

I'm not sure yet what I think would be best, and I know this group isn't after the debates we have had in the past, but if it happens I would go national, because it would be a lot easier than my current plan of going Prod racing down the road.

What do you guys think?

[Knestis]

Very interesting. There's been mumblings but this seems like the first and most official (or at least most public) consideration of the question.

It's going to be a ball of worms. One suggestion: Be prepared to describe your racing goals - your reasons for participating in IT racing in the first place - as a way to help clarify motives and interests in the category.

K

[JeffYoung]

Simple for me. No national. I like my outlaw regional class. I think we have some of the best drivers, coolest cars and best competition in SCCA racing. I think "going national" would dilute some of that as the original poster mentioned with the faster guys running national events and the more casual racers staying regional.

[Ron Earp]

Ditto Jeff's comments.

Get the CRB to folks concentrated on the many IT proposals in front of them, aka RX8s, Pony Cars in ITR, and get them away from trying to break something that doesn't need fixing.

Topeka sees something that works and wants to use it to fix their ailing Prod classes, FV, and all those other under subscribed classes. Leave IT as it is - it is healthy, fun, and doesn't have the drama of the National Classes.

No thanks.

Ron

[shwah]

Well. With all due respect, if you want to keep racing in regionals, you are free to do so under either arrangement. Why then would you desire to keep those that would like to run nationals from doing so?

The only reason I can think of is being afraid of a shrinking grid.

Of course the real answer is to get rid of the Regional / National 'distinction' alltogether IMO.

[JeffYoung]

No problem, not picking a fight.

You hit on my big concern. You called it shrinking fields, I called it dilution. Same thing. Why spread the same number of IT racers across two "series" of racing?

I would be in favor of ending the national/regional distinction with the top 24 classes going to the runoffs. In that format, the "traditional" regional races would still count towards "national" points and folks would have an incentive to show up.

[Ron Earp]

I would be in favor of ending the national/regional distinction with the top 24 classes going to the runoffs.

I don't think that is gonna happen. That would eliminate many of National Classes that are darlings of the Old Guard. Put a metric on them and a bunch of the current Runoffs classes would be prevented from participating in lieu of IT classes.

[erlrich]

Put a metric on them and a bunch of the current Runoffs classes would be prevented from participating in lieu of IT classes.

You say that like it's a bad thing

[924Guy]

I just don't see anything broke about IT that this would fix.

What's broke that needs fixing about the Club Racing program, well, I think everyone here sees it, though there are differing views about how to address it!

So you gotta ask yourself, why is this coming up now, and is it something you wish to get on board with.

IMO, I think that eliminating the National/Regional distinction is long overdue, and the appropriate plan of action (to address the problem). That said, I agree with the other camp - I just don't believe this is something that is going to improve my racing experience in any way. Every year, as it is, I'm on the fence about re-upping and committing to a "full" season - this might make it even harder to pursue. God knows I'd love to put together a program to get to the National Championship, but last year gave an insight as to how expensive that can be; having to run a whole mess of "away games" to even qualify would only make it worse...

[jjjanos]

Well. With all due respect, if you want to keep racing in regionals, you are free to do so under either arrangement. Why then would you desire to keep those that would like to run nationals from doing so?

Those who would like to run nationals already are free to do so. They just cannot do it in an a class that was not intended to be subject to the entire cluster fornication that accompanies a non-spec, non-sealed, national class.

Those that would like to run nationals already are free to do so. They just cannot do it in this category; a category that was not intended to be subject to the massive cost inflation associated with being a national category.

Those that have newer cars and would like to run nationals are free to do so. They simply must run their cars as BP and DP.

The only reason I can think of is being afraid of a shrinking grid.

Cost: The relative cost of building, prepping and maintaining an IT category car is going to go up dramatically. The distribution of the cost bell curve will shift to the expensive end - and that's just to maintain your relative position.

Time constraints: DC Region's National typically has 225+ cars over 8 groups. Where are we going to fit the extra cars? Run ITC in small bore with an 11+second/lap difference between ITC and EP and a 9+ second difference between B and EP? That's more than the ITC/ITS gap and we've already realized that it doesn't work for a decently subscribed sprint race group. remember, National track sessions are longer and must be adhered to. No shorting sessions because the day is running long.

Dander: Topeka wants to suckle at the teat of the ARRC and ITFest. Having treated IT like a bastard step-child, unfit to associate with the gentry, I see no reason to recognize Topeka's attempt to invite us in to sit with civilized society since the only reason they are doing it is because they see us as a cash cow. Having completely fubared the Runoffs (tm) by allowing so many National classes to wither and then putting the patient into shock through Startline Steve's ramming Heartland Park down the club's throat, Topeka wants one thing and one thing only - our money. As it now stands, IT has its own "championships" and Topeka has got its panties in a knot because they aren't getting their blood money.

And, yes, moving IT to National will dilute car counts. Budgets are limited. If I've got enough money to run 6 weekends, then increasing my options doesn't add more money to that pot.

[JoshS]

Time constraints: DC Region's National typically has 225+ cars over 8 groups. Where are we going to fit the extra cars? Run ITC in small bore with an 11+second/lap difference between ITC and EP and a 9+ second difference between B and EP? That's more than the ITC/ITS gap and we've already realized that it doesn't work for a decently subscribed sprint race group. remember, National track sessions are longer and must be adhered to. No shorting sessions because the day is running long.

I understand the concern about fitting extra cars into an existing well-subscribed national. If your track isn't long enough to handle the additional cars in your existing race groups, I can see that you might have a problem. But if there's room on the track, then go for it.

I don't understand the concern about the lap time differences. Yes, the slower cars in a group might get fewer laps than the faster cars (because they get lapped), but guess what? Apparently that's okay, because this routinely happens at the west coast Nationals. We have huge speed differentials, and guess what? The drivers are smart enough to handle it. Even in our REGIONALS, we run *all* of the IT classes together, including ITR. No problem. This isn't spec racing. This isn't the Runoffs. We run multiple classes together. We live with it. We even like it.

So I think this whole speed differential thing is a red herring. It's not a big deal. We do it all the time out here, at both regionals and nationals. And yes, we have very full fields, with 50-60 cars on track together at pretty much every race.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's assume that the National/Regional thing goes away and every GCR-recognized class is eligible for the Runoffs - here is what I would do:

'Reward' the top 10-15 classes in average participation with their own Runoffs run-group. The bottom 'half' still get a chance to run for the gold, but they must do so by sharing a track with someone else. Split starts a must...but until numbers warrant it, you pay the price of getting invited by having to share the track with another class or classs.

This way you can fit the Runoffs into a more compact time frame, which is a common complaint.

[jjjanos]

What is broken that I see this fixing? My desire to build, maintain and race a car with the ruleset and cars I think are the best fit for me - for a SCCA National Championship. Yes, I can go National racing in Prod, GT, SM, SRF, etc...but those classes don't interest me as much. I like to upgrade - but not to the tune of Prod, so IT is perfect for me.

And your IT vehicle, with a minimum of 3 minor safety modifications - cell, tabs, system - is capable of contesting an SCCA National Championship - Production and Prepared. It might not be competitive, but that would be consistent with the philosophy of the ruleset and cars that you think are the best for you. "not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car.."

I would like to compete for an SCCA National Championship in a prototype equipped with unlimited boost, full ground effects including skirts and traction control. Yes, I can go National racing in S2, CSR, DSR etc.... but those classes don't to interest me as much. I like to upgrade.

I understand the concern about fitting extra cars into an existing well-subscribed national. If your track isn't long enough to handle the additional cars in your existing race groups, I can see that you might have a problem. But if there's room on the track, then go for it.

There isn't room on the track for that mix of classes.

I don't understand the concern about the lap time differences. Yes, the slower cars in a group might get fewer laps than the faster cars (because they get lapped), but guess what? Apparently that's okay, because this routinely happens at the west coast Nationals. We have huge speed differentials, and guess what? The drivers are smart enough to handle it. Even in our REGIONALS, we run *all* of the IT classes together, including ITR. No problem. This isn't spec racing. This isn't the Runoffs. We run multiple classes together. We live with it. We even like it.

And having perused the results at SFR, it is clear why there is no problem - the slower IT classes effectively do not exist. 2 ITC cars, 2/3 ITB cars. We regularly put more ITC cars on track for a Regional than SFR's combined ITB+ITC count.

In short, the problem doesn't exist because the solution created a new problem. This is the equivalent of people saying 'we' don't have a 'problem' combining all of the Formula classes. Of course it isn't a problem! The Vees just stop showing up and instead of having 12 to 15 of them at a race, you get 3. Shoot, I could put a single ITC in a field of Grand-Am Bash'em DPs and the ITC wouldn't be a problem, but get enough ITC cars out there to have a field and their own race and it does become a problem.

So I think this whole speed differential thing is a red herring. It's not a big deal. We do it all the time out here, at both regionals and nationals. And yes, we have very full fields, with 50-60 cars on track together at pretty much every race.

And GT1 on course with GT5 use to be viewed as safe too.

[gpbmw]

Wouldn't matter to me one way or the other. My concern is that as a national class it may thin out the regional level competitors. Worse case is I'll have a great solo I car.

I suppose that's all moot once gas gets above 7.00/8.00 a gal. At that point I'll go back to playing tennis.

G. Potts

[bobfv2]

I want to thank all of you for putting input into this thread, As I said this was just a feeler question to see if people were interested in going National racing if and when the CRB ever brings it to us. I personally do not want to do anything to damage the regional series of these classes. I just want to make sure I can vote the direction my members wish to go. I personally believe that going National Racing could hurt the classes involved. Some areas are very strong and the ARRC proves this year after year. Some of our areas are weak in attendance and maybe this would make them stronger. The CenDiv TRO series is going strong and if you want to continue it, I am all for it.
Once again thanks for your input and I will continue to watch the thread and let you know if anything new comes up.
Bob Lybarger
Director Area 5