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

[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.

[JoshS]

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.

I'm not just talking about the region's IT group, I'm talking about lots of different groups at lots of different races, including nationals hosted by different regions with different race groupings. We routinely see lap time differentials of 10+ seconds between the LEADERS of different classes on track together. When I was in SSC doing nationals, we were grouped with T1 at nearly every race. We're talking about 160hp FWD cars on track with 400hp monsters. I just don't see the issue. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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 don't think you understand my position. I like the EXTENT of the IT rules. I like to upgrade (over SS, SM) to the stuff that I think makes IT cool. Shocks, bars, limited engine prep - but some, etc.

Your definition of 'contesting a National Championship' must be different than mine. Having a car that has the potential to WIN is what I want. The IT rules provide me with the best solution for my situation (budget, desire, etc). I can run in DP RIGHT NOW without changing a thing but there is difference in 'no comp adjustments' and 'not a chance in freaking hell'.

Bottom line? I like the IT rules the best of any class. I want that class to be able to run for a Gold Medal.

[Ron Earp]

Get rid of National and Regional status.
Run all races as Club Races.
Top 24 make the runoffs.

Now that makes good logical sense.

Let the most raced classes in the SCCA have a runoffs position. No more "regional vs national".

[shwah]

In Cen-Div we run with ITR, ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, SSB, SSC, T2, T3, SMT in one group.

We don't really have any ITC guys, but have a range of ITB cars, and it seems to work just fine. It does get difficult when you have a race after a school and some of the slow cars are extra slow, but otherwise it works out just fine, wether on 4 miles at Road America or 1.9 at Blackhawk.

Our biggest regional classes are SM and SRF.

I'm with Andy on the why go national. I would like to race for a championship (which is why I like the ITCC - it is closer to a championship than we have been in the past), and really like the IT rule set. However I am willing to build a Prod car if I need to. It will just be a few years down the road, while I would run nationals right now in my IT car.

[fiat124girl]

My opinion is this:

Get rid of National and Regional status.
Run all races as Club Races.
Top 24 make the runoffs.

This makes the most sense. Simply allow everyone to race at the same level and the highly subscribed classes make it to the championship.

The cost argument is not a valid argument. We spend as much on our IT cars as we do on our AS cars. It is a matter of what each individual is willing to spend on their hobby.

The whole point behind this organization is for all of us to have a place to spend our extra income and have a good time with our cars and this just opens up the venues for us to race more if we chose.

[ddewhurst]

***IT cars ARE 70% of ALL entries for Club racing.***
***Per Stan Clayton during year 2007. FWIW, Regional race entries account for about 75% of all entries over the year. ***

Sorry, my mistake folks. Sometimes I get when I don't look back at data info. It still makes a VERY large point being tha IT cars are a LARGE part of Regional racing.

For those playing with numbers, here are some to look at. From 2006/2007 ???

SM 2031 SRF 1407 FV 610 ITA 535 EP 384 FF 355 ITS 355 FA 339 FC 303 FM 293 GT1 280 ITB 268 DSR 265 FP 243 FE 241 AS 225 ITE 197 F5 196 CSR 195 GT2 193 SSB 189 VINTAGE 189 T3 178 SSM 177 ----------------- 24th class GT3 172SRX7 172 T2 172 GTL 163 T1 162 SSC 160ITC 155 S2 152 HP 140-ish (est.)SMT 123 GP 122IT7 121 PRO-7 110 SPO 103 SP 77 CF 68 S944 60 ITR 52 SPU 50 GTA 45 CFC 36 FST 32 CFF 25 DP 23 ITX 23 ST 23 FB 21 NCF 21 CC 20 GTP 19 RS 18 BP 15 PCA2 13 PCA1 12 FSR 9 PCA3 9 ASR 6 ITM 6 SPM 5 SRS 4 ITT 3 SF 3 BG 2 CP1 2 HC 2 SG-2 2 ITU 1

[JeffYoung]

A fair position to take. On my side, I wouldn't (personally) sacrifice the large fields and good racing we are seeing right now for a shot at a Gold Medal.

However, I think getting rid of the National/Regional distinction and going with the top 12 classes single run group, others mixed, at the BoreOffs is a great idea. With my limited knowledge of Topeka though, I think the chances of that happening are far less than just IT becoming "national" which on its own I don't support.

I don't think you understand my position. I like the EXTENT of the IT rules. I like to upgrade (over SS, SM) to the stuff that I think makes IT cool. Shocks, bars, limited engine prep - but some, etc.

Your definition of 'contesting a National Championship' must be different than mine. Having a car that has the potential to WIN is what I want. The IT rules provide me with the best solution for my situation (budget, desire, etc). I can run in DP RIGHT NOW without changing a thing but there is difference in 'no comp adjustments' and 'not a chance in freaking hell'.

Bottom line? I like the IT rules the best of any class. I want that class to be able to run for a Gold Medal.

[jjjanos]

This makes the most sense. Simply allow everyone to race at the same level and the highly subscribed classes make it to the championship.

Random observations:
There's going to be a huge amount of push back from long established classes that have withered through their own stupidity or changes in taste. There will be a huge production if/when this were to happen. Everyone's favorite whipping boy - open-wheel - however seems to be in the clear for the most part.

2. I'd be real interested in seeing the specifics for how one would qualify for the Runoffs when every race awards points. Are drivers limited in the number of races they can use? Are they required to run away from their "home" track? DC Region holds 9 races per year at Summit Point. Are the time requirements going away? etc. Devil is in the details.

[Andy Bettencourt]

2. I'd be real interested in seeing the specifics for how one would qualify for the Runoffs when every race awards points. Are drivers limited in the number of races they can use? Are they required to run away from their "home" track? DC Region holds 9 races per year at Summit Point. Are the time requirements going away? etc. Devil is in the details.

EXCELLENT observation. I had a discussion with a CRB member about this exact thing. Here is how we could do it:

1. Don't eliminate National - Regional. If IT were to make National status, the meaning of the words would just change. National races would become 'Runoff Qualifiers' and Regionals would be what they are now.

If you wanted to eliminate National races and start from scratch, you would put the responsibility of each Division to create and manage a qualifying system in which they would send invites to the top X performers in each class to the Runoffs. You could create a way to determine those that get invites in a wide variety of ways...the possiblilities and combinations are almost endless. Weighted Regionally, Division-wide, really anything. The object being - sending your best performers to the Dance.

[JeffYoung]

Dilution though. Will hurt the traditional regional races.

[jjjanos]

For those playing with numbers, here are some to look at. From 2006/2007 ???

GTP 19

Me thinks your data are incomplete. MARRS is the only series that runs GTPinto (GTP) and I can all but guarantee that there were more than 19 cars for GTP in every year of the last 10.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dilution though. Will hurt the traditional regional races.

Your definition of delution is someone elses definition of having a chance to win...

If you have 10 regulars in ITS now in a Regional-only scenario, I bet that IT going National would have this effect:

7 National and 8 Regional.

5 go National and now because IT is National, you have 3 of your regulars and add 2 who like the rules better.

7 of your regulars stay and 1 or 2 come because the big-money/uber-talented guys have left.

Less Regional competitors? Yes, but more OVERALL. (Assuming the ruleset is popular). If you combine Regional and National SM counts, I bet you see a net gain over when it was just regional.

Just a hunch..

[shwah]

If regional / national distinction were dropped, the number of races should drop. We no longer need duplicity of events to serve both groups (which is what some regions already do to make ends meet), and can have more races than current national schedules, with enough competitors to fill them.

For instance, we have 10 regional races in CenDiv, and 1 or 2 nationals are 'restricted regionals' that allow IT cars. We have 5 nationals. A total of 15 races over 11 weekends (8 of the regionals take place over 4 double weekends). In a non-segregated world we could have 10 good nationals, save one weekend of track rental (well probably use that weekend for driver school) and have larger, more competitive fields at every one. Not to mention actual practice, qualify and race sessions, rather than a 2 session race day (I love racing, but hate not having 2 sessions before race time at a double event).

Seems to me the workers would get less burned out, and the events would draw enough racers to reduce entry fees.

The number of classes is another kettle of fish. I also think that part of eliminating the national / regional distinction would be eliminating the classes without national rule sets - either by creating national rule sets, or eliminating the classes, and where it makes sense - making provisions for the affected cars to compete in existing classes: welcome back to ITA/or welcome to ITB - RX7s, weclome to BP or DP - ITE, welcome to FF - CF, welcome to SM - SMT, SSM, etc

[1stGenBoy]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

[jjjanos]

If you have 10 regulars in ITS now in a Regional-only scenario, I bet that IT going National would have this effect:

7 National and 8 Regional.

5 go National and now because IT is National, you have 3 of your regulars and add 2 who like the rules better.

7 of your regulars stay and 1 or 2 come because the big-money/uber-talented guys have left.

Less Regional competitors? Yes, but more OVERALL. (Assuming the ruleset is popular). If you combine Regional and National SM counts, I bet you see a net gain over when it was just regional.

Just a hunch..

And the 2 "new" competitors you are adding are not new - they are poached from another class, so the net effect is 3 diluted classes - The "new" National IT class, the regional IT run group and whichever class those 2 poached drivers were running.

Your proposal doesn't add entrants. It simply shuffles them into more boxes and that is the definition of dilution.

You want to add more drivers, then look at what those who would race with us but currently do not would like. The pool of people who are sitting out racing because 5-year old cars with limited mods cannot run at Topeka is about as shallow as the gene pool in Appalachia.

The proposal to move IT to National doesn't cure the disease. It treats the symptoms and masks the problem. National racing is suffering because the Runoffs (tm) are in a terrible location for both coasts, because a significant number of national competitors would rather have a colostomy than go to the circuit where the Runoffs (tm) are being held, because the respective rules setting bodies keep jerking drivers around like a detainee at Guantanamo, because the cost of building and prepping a National-level car is more than a B-2 bomber and because the travel expenses/demands to qualify for Runoffs are ridiculous.

Simply moving IT to National does nothing for location, venue, rules, cost or travel. In fact, odds are that once the cat is out of the Regional-only box, the IT rules will be about as stable as Brittney Spiers grasp of reality. So what we got here is no benefits and a likely big negative.

Those who stand fast the hardest about rules creep should be manning the ramparts about this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1st: this has nothing to do with RULES, so the creep issue is moot, no?

2nd: You are just assuming the new drivers are poached. They may be FORMER members who have not renewed, they may be FORMER members who now run with NASA because they like a National Championship, they might be NEW members who were considering NASA for it's National Championship, they could be members who were THINKING about not renewing because they can't deal with the constant turmoil that is Prod and GT...and yes, they could be members who are migrating from other classes...members whom we might have lost should they have not found a home they like.

The possibilities are endless.

We can design a better way to qualify for the Runoffs - especially is the Nat/Reg designation goes away.

We can (and will) have the RO at a better location in another year.

The IT Rules are what they are. That is why the class is popular. To change that would be a sin. I doubt it would. The CRB members thinking about this fully understand why IT is popular and other classes are broken. Figuring out how to fix the other classes is the issue. Too many people who won't let go of their old stuff/ideals/perceptions.

[shwah]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

Bill - I think some of these rules should be changed in the event of a single 'level' system. Why not allow more nationals per track, and while your at it, have the top finishers in the Division series period - no best 6 finishes. Make it so you have to compete in your series to be invited, not just do a few 'formality' events.

Oh and on the cost thing. I agree that you can spend as much as you like on the way to a national title, but my only 1st hand experience proves that a smart, capable team can also take the gold spending 1/2-1/3 of the 'norm'.

[dickita15]

I have no problem with IT becoming a national class but I am very much against losing the national/regional race distinction. The national racers make a big deal about format. Intrinsic to nationals is that they race on more than their home track(s). Nationals require 45 minutes of practice and qualifying and 30 minute races. Regional races use a varied format that does a better job of allowing the regions to cater to what the racers want. The doubles and triples that give us so much racing would go away under a national only format.

[tom_sprecher]

when I spend the day at DynoLab.

I "read" this whole thread and many of you made some excellent observations and suggestions and here is my take and please use a grain of salt or two.

1. It’s all about the Benjamin’s. From what I have been told but have not confirmed is that the national office's biggest revenue generator is the Runoffs which have seen declining entries after Mr. Johnson’s “sea gull” management style moved them to “Holy Topeka!” National has addressed this with emails to Runoffs drivers that did not show for the second race held there asking “why?” and the response basically was “if you move the race to a track that is more appealing and shorten the time required to do my thing only then will I return”. Well now they have a 10# bag and only 5# of entrants. Sounds like time to get us some more entrants.

2. National has seen and heard of the success of the IT*Spectaular and the ARRC and I would imagine they saw dollar signs. Don’t get me wrong, National office runs a tight ship and they should be given credit for that, but at the same time it has to be wearing them thin and relief in the form of more $ for a larger workforce is something they have got to have on their minds.

3. Popularity makes the price of racing go up. In the racing world the larger the demographic the better the odds are there will be more people with more money than you. Look at SM. Of course the demographic can work both ways. I was crew chief for a club FC team that almost spent more money on beer than developing the car and we were the SARRC champs twice. Why? Little or no competition. However, to make it up to ourselves we changed our goal and proceeded to set 2 track records.

4. I’m not convinced either way that IT going National would reduce grid size. In this time of rising fuel costs I could do more races close to home and not spend 1/3 of my weekend budget on diesel. Let the market dictate what the grid size should be. I do know that we as a region make by far more money on our regional races than on national events that have higher entry fees. We have more time to put on more groups due to race time/distance restraints dictated by the GCR but it does not seem to attract any more addition cars just the same guys entering multiple races but it sure makes paying the bills a whole lot easier.

5. Eliminating the regional designation AND reducing the number of races held would help with reduced grids, reduced revenues, reduced worker numbers, etc. We are trying to continue on the wrong side of the supply and demand curve and it can only go on for so long due to the fixed costs of hosting a race.

6. This post has gone on long enough but I’m sure I’ll come up with some more short sighted, base-less comments so stay tuned…