Super Touring is IT

[seckerich]

You know I was just giving you a hard time Peter. I understand as people come and go on boards they have to live with decisions of past groups. You are stuck with the class for the promised 5 years (not that a promise ever stopped the BOD, or CRB in the past) and you are working for the best solution. A group of influential Pro guys sold you all a bill of goods to try to prop up the value of their old cars--period. I would have gladly gone National with an IT car because of the stable rules but saw it was best for the catagory not to be used as a prop for a failing system. There are plenty of places to easily cross over and be a field filler as any IT car will be in this new ruleset. If it brings in new cars and members great, but all I see is a further dilution of current classes.

Keep up those meetings.:026:

It's also cool we can now give Robin the "insider" hard time here too.

[Knestis]

I'll grant you Peter, that there's been no consistent process applied but that's largely (over years, not just recently) the result of people either ignoring or changing the rules to suit immediate agenda - that's "expedience."

There was a time when, broadly speaking, the philosophy SEEMED TO BE that regional status served as an incubator of sorts, to test whether classes had what it took to "go national." That's the reason the "regional forever" clause was included in the original IT rule set: It would otherwise have been presumed that those classes would be considered for national status if they met the participation requirements. And someone didn't want that to happen.

It would be interesting to search back through past GCRs to see when/how the language around "National Status" has changed. In the 2008 book it says...

C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring

That's kind of how I remember it being. Subsection D is where the silliness begins, including the clause that allows for "manufacturer input." So, "based on member input" (how many again?), the board OK'd the prepared classes. I'd venture that far more than that many members have come out in support of IT gaining national status, but it hasn't.

That's politics, just like the way a coal executive can ask favors of the Governor of WV, that I'd never even get a chance to present...

K

[pkeane2]

Full disclosure, I have just purchased a ’01 Prelude for ITR or STU, I do not know. I will probably run it in both classes in the beginning.

Scott: send the questions to CRB @SCCA.com

Personally, this just me as a future competitor talking, I believe the rules trend will be to go away from the advantage of changing suspension pick points. Similar to the new WC Touring car rules that have been announced.

[Knestis]

Oh, you get NO arguments from me on that point, Peter. That's like, real engineering or something, to start moving stuff around. I've got no interest in going that far and to me, that's representative of a whole 'nother step in preparation.

K

[Butch Kummer]

I've been silent on this so far, but as a Race Organizer I am VERY pumped up about STU (and STO) being the "run whatcha brung and hopes ya brung enough" category of the street-tired, tub-chassied bunch. Add in the NASA Nationals moving to Utah for the next two years and I see a HUGE opportunity to attract folks that haven't run with us before. The downside, of course, is that one big-budget driver with a moderate amount of talent can pretty much ruin things for the average racer.

I'm anxious to see how these two classes work out. I'm hoping they won't be TOO successful at a National level real soon because I want to keep them as part of the ARRC as long as possible.

Oh yeah - and we WILL split STU from the other IT classes so guys can double-dip or share the ride at the 2009 ARRC by GRM.

[xr4racer]

Peter, the only drawback ( if safety could be considered a drawback) is that as I read the rules, every car needs a fuel cell if the stock tank is not between the axles. Obviously IT does not require cells, can you run a legal IT car in STU without a cell?

matt

[xr4racer]

I was also wondering if anyone knows how many IT racers there were in the country last year. I would imagine the national office knows or they should.

matt

[1stGenBoy]

Peter, the only drawback ( if safety could be considered a drawback) is that as I read the rules, every car needs a fuel cell if the stock tank is not between the axles. Obviously IT does not require cells, can you run a legal IT car in STU without a cell?

matt

Yes you can. The STO/STU rules state that if you run a IT car it has to run in IT trim. A 89 CRX Si ITA car won the Cen-Div national points championship in DP the last 2 years I believe.