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

[fiat124girl]

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.

I still content that the cost argument is not a valid point. How much do you think we spend to get to ARRC or to run for the MiDiv championship? It is just as much as the Runoffs. In order to win in IT, you need to spend the same money that you would spend nationally. This is an expensive hobby, if you don't want to spend the money you cannot expect to be competitive.

The way that we qualify now for the runoff would still work with some minor adjustment. Say you have to start 4 races, one of which needs to be out of division. Finish three and finish in the top 10 in division in points. If you go to the runoffs you may not participate in that car in any of the regional championships.

I am not sure why this is being made to be complicated. If you choose to run on a national level you may with any car that is SCCA compliant. If you choose to run regionally you may with any car that is SCCA compliant.

You could begin to combine classes at the runoffs to utilize the track space so that everyone who wishes to attend may. This may take some creative organization but it is not an impossible feat.

I just want to be able to race any of our cars at the runoffs if we choose, not just the AS car.

[1stGenBoy]

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'.

The problem here in Cen-Div is when and where do you run more than 6 nationals?
Who would develop a Division series? There would have to be a group in charge of something like that I would think.
A lot of rules in the GCR would have to change. There is a minumum amount of practice,qualifiying and race distance to contend with too at a national race.
It used to be that you had to be in the top 10 of your divison to be invited to the Runoffs.
Not saying you can't do well on a limited budget at the Runoffs but.... the odds are against you. I like to have the odds in my favor. I know that a new set of intermiediates, a new set of tire warmers=The national championship for us in 06. That was a quick 3k. Was it worth it? You bet. The other drivers were demorilized on the grid and we had a 35 second lead by lap 6.
Next time you see me at the track ask me about it and I'll tell you the whole story about that.
Just thinking out loud so flame away.

Bob

[jjjanos]

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

Wrong. See Section 9, Sporting Regs. The issue of rules creep is ALWAYS there. IT was conceived as a Regional Class. Change something that ingrained in the foundation of the class and you'll be sleeping with camels - or so I have been told by the rules creep jihadists. The same people who think that allowing an allowance for a single car thrown down a class to keep the wheels they already purchased would have us racing full-blown GT cars in IT before next Tuesday.

Given the history of rules creep with virtually every national class, I find that it strains creditability for you to maintain that the rest of the IT philosophy will remain as pure as the driven snow. Those that have already succumbed to Runoffs (tm) Envy will develop a full blown case of Rule Creep Influenza as sure as the sun rises tomorrow.

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.

Pot, I would like you to meet the kettle.

You also have assumed that a de jure championship will attract new competitors or preserve old competitors. IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige. In fact, the "outlaw" aspect of the ARRC adds to its mystique, IMO. That meaningless stamp, however, will allow Topeka to take its cut, stick its fumbled fingers into the IT philosophy and generally turn a successful class into another SM cluster or Production/GT/Sports Racer wasteland.

I'll contribute $20 to buy ayou a gold medal if you win the ARRC this year.

Before you go mucking around with something that works very well and makes a LARGE number of SCCA members happy, I would suggest that you do some market research as to whether it will add new competitors to the club and find a way to prevent the poaching of competitors from many succesful Regional racing programs for the benefit of Topeka and the National System it allowed to rot.

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

Then give the specifics as part of this proposal and make it indivisible because as sure as night follows day, Topeka will cherry pick IT and keep Regionals and Nationals.

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

Topeka already has a verifiable record of screwing up the location of the Runoffs both in terms of member input and in making its input-less decision. Should the Runoffs move to a better location, it still addresses only one of the issues I raised. The rest of the rot with the National program remains.

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.

You mean the same decision-making body that gave us tube-framed less expensive GT cars? The same decision-making body that created the $10K Spec Miata motor? The same decision-making body that gave us the Shelby Can-Am? The same decision-making body that let in a Neon racecar into Showroom Stock and fixed the problem with Trunk kits? The same decision-making body that added even more open-wheel classes to a diluted open-wheel set of competitors? The same decision-making body that allowed the hard top solistice to compete in violation of the category's rules/philosophy? The same decision-making body that wouldn't allow racing seats into SS for decades?

How could I ever doubt the decision making abilities of that august body when it comes the National racing program and please forgive me my hesitancy for considering what will happen to IT when the same Runoffs attitude and mindset develops.

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.

If that is the issue, please explain how adding IT to the Runoffs addresses that issue. Don't "solve" the Runoffs problem on the back of IT. Fix the problems there before asking us to join that cesspool.

[JoshS]

IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige. In fact, the "outlaw" aspect of the ARRC adds to its mystique, IMO.

The people I talk to (people pissed off at poor decision making in SS/T, but like the IT ruleset) say otherwise. They just won't even give the thought of switching to IT the time of day, simply because it's not a National class and there's no official national championship to strive for.

Some people might be drawn to the ARRC "outlaw mystique," but I personally know several people who are clearly more drawn to the Runoffs. Obviously, people in both camps exist and to say, flat out, that national class "officialdom" is meaningless and that it flat-out "won't add to that prestige" are strong statements with no backing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ,

We will agree to disagree on MANY points. Bottom line? It's a hot debate with MANY different angles.

[ddewhurst]

jjjanos & others, the combined Regional/National event entries was posted by CRB member Stan Clayton on June 14, 2007 therefore they were 2006 numbers. It shows which classes would move up the chart with one level of classes with 24 classes making the Runoffs.

[Knestis]

>> IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige ...

As an ARRC-winning owner, I feel differently. That was a great accomplishment but partially because it's the only IT game in town. Even more so, if the racing at an IT National championship were as good as it is likely it COULD be, it would be even sweeter. But OK - you can just PayPal me the $20.

And janos - you've got to decide if you want to flip the jihadists crap or thank them for standing in defense of the threats you perceive exist to the category.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that IT might well poach a lot of drivers from current National classes, perhaps hastening their demise. About the only thing the category does NOT have going for it is a championship.

...and arguments about cost? The best way to spend less money is to spend less money. Asking a category to be less competitive than it might so individuals can maintain their current relative competitive positions is a little counterproductive to the big picture, I think. Want to win because there isn't much competition? There are National classes where that's totally possible now.

K

[shwah]

Bill - I would love to hear that story some time.

As far as CenDiv nationals - I will run 4 races at Blackhawk, 4 at Road America, 2 at Milwaukee in CenDiv this year (and Mid-O and the other RA). Why can't we run 4,4,2 at RA, BHF, AB (which has 3 tracks). Get Brainerd back on line - which is close from the info I have, and thats another place to move some racing to. I'm just thinking outside the box.

What is really interesting about the conversation, is that there seems to be almost universal support for eliminating the national/regional distinction. Why don't we write some letters and see if fellow club members share this opinion...

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is the point of getting rid of the Nat/Reg distinction if you (the collective you) don't want IT to go National?

[jjjanos]

>> As an ARRC-winning owner, I feel differently. That was a great accomplishment but partially because it's the only IT game in town. Even more so, if the racing at an IT National championship were as good as it is likely it COULD be, it would be even sweeter. But OK - you can just PayPal me the $20.

I said this year.

And janos - you've got to decide if you want to flip the jihadists crap or thank them for standing in defense of the threats you perceive exist to the category.

Yeah, it was an easy shot, but as long as some of the guards at the gate are flopping back and forth about the intent of the class philosophy, I'll keep doing it. I just think it is silly to throw down the gauntlet and force people to buy new wheels because of the class philosophy and at the same time throw away what, IMO, has been a major part of the same philosophy in terms of Regional-only.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that IT might well poach a lot of drivers from current National classes, perhaps hastening their demise. About the only thing the category does NOT have going for it is a championship.

I repeat with minor changes...

Before anyone goes mucking around with something that works very well and makes a LARGE number of SCCA members happy, I would suggest that they do some market research as to whether it will add new competitors to the club and find a way to prevent the poaching of competitors from many succesful Regional racing programs for the benefit of Topeka and the National System it allowed to rot.

Demonstrate that the club, as a whole, benefits through increased participation. Moving drivers from Prod to IT just squeezes the water balloon. It doesn't make it bigger and it risks popping it.

[JeffYoung]

Maintaining the attractiveness of formerly "regional" events -- and car counts -- to "National" drivers.

What is the point of getting rid of the Nat/Reg distinction if you (the collective you) don't want IT to go National?

[jjjanos]

What is the point of getting rid of the Nat/Reg distinction if you (the collective you) don't want IT to go National?

Reduced travel budget for those who want to go to the Runoffs is one reason. In NEDIV, a driver in a well subscribed class is all but required to go to Summit Point, NHIS, Pocono, Beaver Run, Nelson, WGI. In SEDIV, a driver looking for tow fund money might have to go from Homestead to VIR and everywhere in between.

Regional-Only essentially means cannot qualify for the Runoffs, particularly since many regions run restricted regionals to make ends meet.

Drop the distinction and a driver could do their 6 races at their home track.

Time constraints. 45 minutes of practice required. 45 minutes of racing. Shoot, at most Nationals I've flagged, 90% of the field has paddocked and gone back to the hotel by the half-way mark of the 2nd session. They don't want to use up the car. Get rid of the time requirements and regions can either add more groups (w/o being forced to pay for a second sanction) or save on worker burnout by letting them go home earlier.

Problem is that most plans are going to have certain regionals be designated as paying points for the Runoffs and the entire travel thing goes out the window and we have the same system we have now, but one less name. Runoff drivers aren't going to run in non points races and those drivers who aren't going to the Runoffs will either run or not. Status quo. If you allow every event to post points, then travel budgets will go sky high because you'll have to run everywhere, multiple times.

I doubt this is workable, but

1. Keep the distinction and let every SCCA-wide class go. The classes with the greatest number of Runoff entrants get their own races. Low entrants share track time. Screw participation numbers - its whether you deserve your own race at the Big Show. Don't go, you share.

2. Points - you've got to beat someone to earn points, period. Points are awarded based on the formula X - 1 s.t. X <= 10 or 12 places where X equals the number of cars that turned a wheel on course that weekend. I.e. If you are the only ESR at the track, you don't get points.

3. Track time is the same as in a regional.

[planet6racing]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Don't we just end up in the same place?

Oh, Chris, one slight correction - 1stgenboy is actually Bob. Sure, he's with Team Shanty, a division of Billy-Bob Racing, so I understand the mis-understanding...

[IPRESS]

Is IT broken?

If yes, then pushing the "national" designation is the drum you should beat.
If no, then be very careful of what you wish.

I hate to argue with Andy as he usually can best anything I come up with (easily). But I can tell you that once SM went national the rules did change. People went crazy looking for every edge known to man. Don't think that IT won't have some of the same type problems. Along with those problems the $$$ go up due to popularity, development, and all the other RUNOFFS related needs. The $36/gal fuel wars in SM will come right to the IT doorstep. SM is a great place if that is what you like, but it is not anything like it was before going national.
Right now IT is just about right. Serious enough to make you try, but not so serious that you want to do / spend everything to win. It is more fun then other classes.
I can understand the thought that "I want to take my car to the RUNOFFS" is appealing to some. But as often gets used here in explaining why some folks wants don't get approved..... There are plenty of classes (too many in fact) to compete in for a place at the RUNOFFS. IT is not one of those and is a great place to race (maybe because it isn't ) without the RUNOFFS being part of the class.
It would be much easier (& safer for the class) for the guys that are interested in the RUNOFFS to change the class they compete in, then for the whole class to have to change it's basic premise.
The ITTC and the building stature of the bigtime regional races are a much better approach then getting national involvment in what we have now.

Not Broke Don't Fix.

[TAC]

Granted its not the Run-offs....but its a start on a National Championship idea.

Todd


Over the winter an I.T. Advisory Committee made up of drivers from SCCA divisions across the country was formed to explore the idea of having an I.T. National Championship. This idea morphed into the Improved Touring Triple Crown (ITTC). The ITTC is a point series developed to recognize the nation’s best IT drivers. One option to qualify is to combine the best results from your local or divisional series which are listed in the rules and participation in a minimum of two of the following race weekends.

The I.T. West Fest at Thunderhill July 26th-27th

The I.T.SPEC*tacular at Mid Ohio Sports Car Course August 9th-10th

American Road Race of Champions by Grassroots Motorsports November 7th-9th at Road Atlanta

The second option to qualify is to run all three major race weekends.

Points will be awarded for 1st – 18th at each event (Local and Divisional series will be awarded on final season standings) so you don't need to win every segment. Current plans include trophies that will be presented at the ARRC banquet for a podium finish in the ITA, ITB, ITC, ITS, and ITR classes.

A copy of the rules is available on http://www.improvedtouring.com in the IT Championship events forum and at http://www.cincyscca.com. The program has started for the 2008 racing season but you really don’t have to do anything at this time. Entry into the ITTC is free. Since all the events conclude with the ARRC in November and we automatically track your results we only ask that you participate in the events listed above and spread the word.

We're also looking for sponsors to provide contingency prizes so if you're interested in that aspect or know someone who is please let us know.

Best Regards,


Tom Sprecher ITTC Administrator
[email protected]

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I can tell you that once SM went national the rules did change. People went crazy looking for every edge known to man.

When you say the 'rules'...do you mean the ACTUAL rules or 'how the game had to be played in order to win'?

Because if you mean the latter, it's already being played that way in a lot of spots.

If you mean the former, help me remember what rules changed when SM went National...not when SM got picked up officially by the SCCA, but when it went National...

The only thing I see 'broken' with IT is that we can't run for a National Championship...and I would like that chance. Understand that I fully know that nothing would change in my program to do so as I run in an area where you have to be on your A-game, with A-prep and A-equipment to win. Heck, 2 of the last 4 ARRC winning cars in ITA are cars I have raced against week in and week out. Understand that I fully understand it WOULD effect other areas in a much different way.

[shwah]

Haven't we had this discussion before? Don't we just end up in the same place?

Oh, Chris, one slight correction - 1stgenboy is actually Bob. Sure, he's with Team Shanty, a division of Billy-Bob Racing, so I understand the mis-understanding...

I think I have done that twice now.

Sorry Bob. I really don't have anything against that name.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We have had this discussion multiple times...but the difference here is that it doesn't seem simply conceptual at the moment. There seems to be a greater 're-alignment' going on in which IT becoming a 'normal' part of the SCCA culture is a product of.

[ddewhurst]

***The only thing I see 'broken' with IT is that we can't run for a National Championship...and I would like that chance. ***

***It would be much easier (& safer for the class) for the guys that are interested in the RUNOFFS to change the class they compete in, then for the whole class to have to change it's basic premise.***


BUT, some people are getting greedy while pushing their personal envelope & Topeka wants to support their National program.


Seperate subject

To those who created the SECOND Triple Crown (ITTC), are you not aware the CenDiv has had a Triple Crown for National level drivers for several years. Win your Division, win the Sprints & win a National Championship.

[Knestis]

>> I said this year.

Guess you'll probably be keeping your money since I am all to aware of the fact that it was Bowie Gray that won last fall and not the car. I'll be driving this year and we're already planning the "Honda needs more weight" campaign, to be kicked off the minute I get squashed like a bug.

We have a cause-effect issue with the SM argument. National status did NOT cause the price tag of pointy-end cars to go up. Popularity and competitiveness (both real and perceived) did that. National status and popularity went hand-in-hand, and if anything it was the obvious appeal of the class that fast-tracked it to National status. As Andy points out, there will be different effects in different places, should IT become more popular and/or competitive:

** Driver who wants to be regionally competitive in a weak to medium-level region - Might get more competition so the cost to keep up with Mr. Jones goes up

** Driver motivated in the same way, in a very competitive region - Might see some $$ increase but not relative to the dough already being spent

** Driver who "just wants to have fun" in Regionals, in a competitive region - Nothing is likely to change for him

** Driver who wants "just wants to have fun" in a couple of local Nationals in addition to Regionals - Ditto. She can spend pretty much what she would for a Regional (ignoring travel).

** Driver wants to go to the RubOffs - Will spend what it costs to be competitive in their division, which is going to vary depending on competitiveness. NPDiv is weak so you could go without making the kind of commitment necessary in SEDiv or in the NE, for example. The price of doing this can't be compared to spending now because the option currently doesn't exist.

Lots of variation but they all start with GOALS. What you spend is determined by what you want to accomplish.

K