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

[RedMisted]

I thought I heard that national cars have to have special safety mods and maybe some other stuff...

[JoshS]

I thought I heard that national cars have to have special safety mods and maybe some other stuff...

Not sure what you heard. There need not be any changes to the car prep rules to allow IT classes at national races.

[RedMisted]

Well, I hope I'm wrong about my assumptions. Let's keep IT basically the way it is.... If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[Knestis]

I'm trying to preserve the other thread's integrity as a poll, so I've cut this out and transplanted it here:

>>Q: So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

>> A: ...What we hear a great deal when someone questions an IT rule is, "If you want to do that there a re plenty of other classes that you can race in." That comeback really fits this subject to a capital T.

Is this consistent? Not just in terms of this one post, but looking across the arguments involved...?

It sounds like some are arguing (out of one side of their mouths) that they are afraid that National status is going to result in increased costs, but (out of the other) they aren't willing to condemn changes to the current IT rule set that enable current IT drivers to push incrementally to the same end. I've got to admit that I'm a little bothered by that - again, as one of those anti-creep "jihadists" - if this is the case.

K

[tnord]

Don't over-analyze the things Mac says Kirk. He's a straight-shootin Texan who means just what he says. also one of my favorite people of all time at the track.

"if you want to race nationals there are plenty of classes that allow you to do that." that's all he means, nothing more nothing less.

but are you trying to relate this comment to changes like RR shocks and the ECU change? if so.....for the record....i've voted against both of those items and going national.

[lateapex911]

One thing I see in these posts time and again is that the person posting cites "The screwed up mess" that "The BoD and the CRB have gotten XX category in".

Interestingly, they feel IT is fine, I guess. (A stark contrast to opinions of many just a few years ago)

I have to come to the conclusion that the masses feel that we (the ITAC) can do whatever we want, because "They", (Topeka? and I guess that means the dark lords of the BoD and the CRB? ) don't care and let us run about willy nilly....

BUT, if IT goes National, the ITAC will cease to have control of, or a role in the running and rules-guarding of the category?

That's what I think I'm hearing, but I don't understand the mechanism behind the logic. Somebody help me see how it's going to go down.

[Knestis]

So anyone willing to say that to a person wanting to run Nationals with an IT car will say the same thing when someone asks for a new rule allowance? I'm fine with that kind of consistency.

That isn't the tone I took out of the quote so maybe I am looking for something that isn't there. It just seems like it came from the other direction, as a rhetorical device. I might be very wrong...

K

EDIT - ...and to elaborate on a point Jake has touched on: Make no mistake - the BoD/CRB/PTB did NOT get Production et al. where they are today. The racers in those categories did that to them own selves. They begged for it.

[ddewhurst]

***EDIT - ...and to elaborate on a point Jake has touched on: Make no mistake - the BoD/CRB/PTB did NOT get Production et al. where they are today. The racers in those categories did that to them own selves. They begged for it.***

K this ^ statement is just like saying that WE were ALL in favor of the Spherical bearing deal. WRONG, the CRB/BoD made the change for there most for their personal agenda. Granted there is way more politics than I could handle. Who manages the prisions in the U.S. the inmates, who manages professional ball sports teams, who manages whatever.

Dam, I said I wouldn't post again in this thread.


Oh, & to who ever said sometiong about the CRB & or the BoD straightening out the Production L.P. rules, to late the L.P. rules have allready slid to hell & then some thanks to the CRB/BoD.:cool:

[jjjanos]

One thing I see in these posts time and again is that the person posting cites "The screwed up mess" that "The BoD and the CRB have gotten XX category in".

Interestingly, they feel IT is fine, I guess. (A stark contrast to opinions of many just a few years ago)

I have to come to the conclusion that the masses feel that we (the ITAC) can do whatever we want, because "They", (Topeka? and I guess that means the dark lords of the BoD and the CRB? ) don't care and let us run about willy nilly....

BUT, if IT goes National, the ITAC will cease to have control of, or a role in the running and rules-guarding of the category?

That's what I think I'm hearing, but I don't understand the mechanism behind the logic. Somebody help me see how it's going to go down.

Topeka doesn't intervene with our affairs because, for the most part, our entries don't impact their bottom line.

The Runoffs (tm) and the National program are a significant money maker for Topeka. There is the $ they get from the host, the entry fee and the significant chunk of change they collect from any company that has an official SCCA-approved contingency program. IT? They get a regional sanction fee. Higher exposure and involvement with that program means the BoD has more directly at stake and therefore has a greater incentive to meddle.

Now add in pressure to pull ProRacing's butt out of the fire. Studebaker is heavily involved in ProRacing and sees the exposure at the Runoffs for IT. They really would like to see their current model showcased at the Runoffs because 8-year old cars don't sell new cars. "We (Studebaker) pump wads of cash into your organization. We would like to see that continue. We would like to open IT to our cars, but we think our car should be allowed to run this optional carbon-fiber roof rack. We really would hate it if we needed to reevaluate the racing programs we support..." I have no faith that the BoD wouldn't cave.

[zchris]

I need to say, many of you feel the cost of a Prod car is high. I have in recent years seen both IT an SM cars sell new for in the 40k range. Now these are front row builds. I recently finished a FP limited prep Miata, with Dog ring tranny that went out the door for around 40k. This also is a front row car. I think the cost is not as different as some may think. The change over cost to go Prod is not that high for a front row car. I am not trying to convince anyone to change classes. Just trying to open the eyes of those that like to bash other classes. If you wanted to say that there is not any competition in Prod at the regional level, correctomundo. You would have to travel more and you would no longer be the big fish in the little pond(A. For those fast guys, try being the big fish in the big pond. Its harder than you might think. Look at how the Northeast SM guys get totally beat up in the national scene come the runoffs. You IT guys will share the same fate.
Chris Howard

[ddewhurst]

No to going National.............

Last year when this poll was taken it received a loud & clear NO.

***So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?***

Yes ^, including Andy. I have just as large an issue with an ITAC person pushing this IT to National issue as I do or would with a CRB person pushing his/her personal agenda.

[JeffYoung]

The poll has 76 respondents. How many IT cars are there out there? Like 800 or 1000?

So we have somwhere between 7 and 10% of the total number of IT "cars" responding to the poll.

That to me is pretty significant. And the results of the poll are about what I would expect, about 2 to 1 against.

[tnord]

Look at how the Northeast SM guys get totally beat up in the national scene come the runoffs. You IT guys will share the same fate.

this is funny to me for a lot of reasons.

[IPRESS]

Basically I just repeated what I have heard here when a rules change or the like has been thrown out.... not every time, but on occasion.

And Kirk I can be persueded to change my mind....as example I was as loud and as obnoxious as most anybody when SM was being written into the GCR. I claimed the whole SCCA structure was trying to backroom SM. Black Helicopters were small potatoes, I suspected a "Three Days of the Condor" type SCCA operation. I thought that keeping SM from being considered for National Classification being put into the original rules was wrong and bad. Twenty / Twenty hindsight tells me I might have been wrong ( I was surely wrong about the SCCA side). Jason Saini probably thinks I was right, a bunch of guys that bought in on the ads that said "Go SM Racing for less then $10k", may think the opposite.

My feelings that IT is great like it is will be hard to change as, I think that SCCA needs a class that is what IT is now. If they change IT to a Runoffs class, they (we) need to create another non Runoffs class to provide that less "cut throat' side of club racing. IT is plenty serious and plenty fun now.

[jjjanos]

From the poll thread...

"The move could make sense for the longevity of club racing."

If you equate Club Racing to National Racing. We are Club Racing. I could make a strong case that if National program went poof tomorrow and Club Racing would actually be stronger because many of those drivers would return to Regionals and because the weaker races in a division, typically the Nationals, would flip to the better attended Regionals.

One reason National drivers don't compete at Regionals is because the car prep/talent isn't there. No Nationals and those prepped cars/drivers return. Sucks for the guy who was winning Prod, but you get more cars/race.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes ^, including Andy. I have just as large an issue with an ITAC person pushing this IT to National issue as I do or would with a CRB person pushing his/her personal agenda.

Come on David. Nobody is pushing a personal agenda. We were all asked what we thought of IT going National. I believe I was VERY clear in multiple posts that this is NOT something that is before the ITAC. It's a CRB thing - and it's not a cingular item, it's part of a much bigger look at whats wrong with events, classes, the overall structure of Club Racing etc.

[jjjanos]

From the poll thread...

Come on David. Nobody is pushing a personal agenda. We were all asked what we thought of IT going National. I believe I was VERY clear in multiple posts that this is NOT something that is before the ITAC. It's a CRB thing - and it's not a cingular item, it's part of a much bigger look at whats wrong with events, classes, the overall structure of Club Racing etc.

Hey, I thought this was just for the poll! Personal agendas...

Of the 6 members on the CRB, how many race primarily in Nationals/appeared at the Runoffs during the last 2 years?

Why is this "bigger look" not being conducted out in the open since it affects us all and smacks of presenting the membership with a fiat accompli? The way this is starting to play out, there's going to be a lot of peeved drivers across the board who will walk simply because of the process and to hell with the actual outcome. If we don't have our say during the entire process, I'll probably be one of them. I like to race, but what I enjoy more is getting the season off to a good start and just driving the bloody car.

Why are the complete calendar year participation numbers including regionals such a closely held secret?

How many times has Topeka "realigned" the same national categories as part of a plan to save it? How come we are doing it again? Why should we believe that this attempt won't turn into another National Office CF?

This isn't being done to help IT and it isn't being done to help Club Racing. It's being done to help the National program and the Runoffs. The Runoffs/Nationals are not the entire Club Racing program and Topeka frequently forgets that.

[Matt Rowe]

I believe I was VERY clear in multiple posts that this is NOT something that is before the ITAC. It's a CRB thing - and it's not a cingular item, it's part of a much bigger look at whats wrong with events, classes, the overall structure of Club Racing etc.

Maybe it isn't in front of the ITAC, but it certainly should be prior to any decision being made. It would be foolish to turn a class upside without obtaining buy in from the ITAC and their opinion should weigh heavily in the decision making process.

But keep in mind the ITAC should be tasked with what is best for the category. The CRB can and will evaluate what is best for club racing and the BOD can weigh what is best for the club but I would ask the ITAC members to be very clear what their charter is. They are advisors for the interests of IT. It would be improper to recommend a course that jeopardizes the future of IT because the club may benefit just as it would be improper to vote for national status because someone is personally interested in a runoffs medal.

Oh, and I voted no (because there are wholesale changes that need to be made to club racing BEFORE IT is changed) and I race ITA (and maybe ITB )

[shwah]

Matt,

Lets not forget that the whole reason that I brought this discussion in here is because the club asked for input, not only from the ITAC, but directly from IT racers like you and me. That is a really good approach, and a really good sign.

I still can't quite wrap my mind around what's driving the phobia of having a national class. Some say it's because they don't want to become SM. Where I race there are dozens of SM cars at Nationals and Regionals. They are not all uber money rides, especially at the regionals where a hand full finish in front of me and most behind my low budget ITB car. Others seem to think that IT would be 'used' as a solution for what ever is wrong with National racing. There are a few things wrong with National racing - 1. is that the runoffs is at the wrong track, because less folks are deciding to race there, 2. is that there are too many classes (of course we have even more classes in Regional racing - which I think is a problem here as well).

I totally understand the logic behind wishing to continue racing regionals, and to continue to have full fields at regionals (which don't exist everywhere btw - I have literally never taken a green with an ITC car in the field in CenDiv, and may have seen 3 ITS cars one time), but honestly if enough people feel this way, there will be plenty of regional competition.

The other x factor for me it the IT Triple Crown. I think this is an awesome development, and it presents a 'higher level goal' for me to strive for. I will enjoy doing my best in it as much, or more than I would running my car at the runoffs. But at some point I do want to go race at the runoffs - not drive, race - which means competitively, so don't give me that line that I can do that now. In the current system I will build a P car and go play, if IT went national I would just give the car a good twice over and go play.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with you Matt, but I also may not share the view that if IT goes National it will start the demise of the class. There are so many things different about IT than other classes that I really believe it would thrive...but that is neither here nor there.

If you want the ITAC involved in the decision, tell the CRB that too.

(Edit: To be clear on my position as of today, I would like IT to be a National class but really don't have a strong feeling either way. I love the rules and the cars but certainly have no delusions that I can be the next Joe-Pro to come out of SCCA with a hand-full of Gold Medals. I just think it would be nice to have a real Nat Champ in IT...simple as that. My job as an ITAC member is to make sure the CRB knows what the community wants. BTW: Where are all the "why is IT always a second class citizen" people? )