Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Z3_GoCar]

How strong is NASA in So CA? Just a query to see if the strength of a competing organization might have something to do with low SCCA turnout. Other than that I'm not sure - economy bad in So CA? I go there fairly frequently on business and I know our sector (academic research/biotech/pharma) is hurting.

I noticed a drop in the numbers at VARA, and I know that BMCCA-CR had to cancelled a couple of races in So-Cal. So, I think it's pretty much covering everyone. I know Cal-Club's been like this for the past couple of years, it seems like it wasn't that full of a padock the weekend that I had my incident, but not this bad.

[Z3_GoCar]

Is it just me or atleast on this page the big promoters for the national expansion run BMW Z3's in IT? just messin.

.... IMHO, if there is a National version of IT, it should include a small number of cars that are holomogated and are closely monitered for performance, all specs should be listed down to the shock packages that can be used, and there should be no suprises. The closest pro-series would probably be Grand-Am ST/GS cars and prep rules. In the end you'd have Touring without the specific sunset clause and stripped interiors.

I used to advocate a National IT change, but have become more conservative the more I think about it.

[shwah]

Same here. I no longer advocate a National IT, but a single tier Club Racing program. If we cannot have the latter though, I prefer the former over the current situation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I know I am being a broken record, but if SCCA eliminates the National/Regional designation and everyone is on the same playing field there is no dolution, no lower prepped cars, its bring your A game and a well prepped car. If you don't then you will loose and have to be ok with that.

First off Jeremy, that is a HUGE 'if'. Secondly, if they do, are we to assume that IT would be eligible to go to the Runoffs? If they are, *I* believe, that due to the ruleset, IT would explode...it won't make SCCA more popular but it would cannabalize from other classes. top builders everywhere would dive in. That may not be great for some racers ego's.

[Bill Miller]

Well guys, I haven't been around for a bit, but I did read this whole thread. Lots of stuff to cover, and I'm sure I'll miss some points. Interesting stuff, that's for sure. Kirk is to be applauded for starting this. I'll try and hit this stuff in the order it was in the thread. But it will probably start to ramble and be all inter-twined and what not.

To Kirk's original request (at least I think that's what he was asking). In my opinion, IT is a MUCH better place to race today, than it was 10 years ago when I started in it. To those that weren't around then, trust me, it's a LOT better. This kind of open discussion w/ folks that were involved in the policy / rules process just didn't happen.

Ok, here goes. Kirk states that the CRB is sitting on action items that were sent up a while ago. He also states that the ITAC is being called in for a formal 'sit down'. To me, throwing the CRB under the bus like that can't be a good thing for the ITAC. I'm all for openness in the rules making process, but it's usually not a good idea to publicly tell people that your boss isn't doing their job. It makes them look bad, and nobody likes to be made out like that in public. Kirk, I applaud you for what you did, but it was a gutsy play, and I'm just saying that you shouldn't be surprised if there are consequences.

As far as the ITAC having to defend and justify what they're doing, I'm confident that they've got that one covered. That's not to say that the PtB haven't already formulated opinions and made decisions, and this may be a mere 'formality', but I sure hope that's not the case.

If on thing is evident in this thread, is that some things will never change. You will ALWAYS have people out there that are 'me-centric'. Do whatever you want, but don't do anything that may have a potential negative impact on me. Doesn't matter if it's better for the overall good or not.

Process v2.0. At the beginning of all this, many years ago, that's something I always figured would happen. It would be an itterative, evolving process, getting better and more refined w/ each itteration. That's exactly what looks to be happening, and that's a good thing, IMHO.

That being said, I never supported the "w/in 100# is close enough" approach. I understand that there were some valid reasons behind it (less changes having a greater potential for approval over changing everything, etc.). And it's easy to say in hindsight that the safe approach is now catching up w/ them (ITAC). Who knows, the whole thing may have been dead in the water if they (ITAC) tried to set every car at process weight from the outset. I would have liked to have seen that done, but it's not fair to, in hindsight, say they made the wrong decision at the time. I'll continue to believe that what was done, was really done w/ the best interests of the category at heart. And it's not a bad thing to now admit that maybe it should have been done that way. It's a learning process. Unfortunately the me-centric folks won't care about objectivity and repeatability, if it means they get lead. But I think these folks (ITAC) have tough skins and are up to the task.

One of the things I'm really surprised that no one has brought up in this whole discussion is the 'no guarantee' clause. To the ITAC folks, don't be surprised if that isn't raised by the BoD / CRB in your meeting. I personally think that the time has come for that language to be removed from the ITCS. At this point, it's just an easy 'out' for not wanting to deal w/ individual issues.

I like the 'rules season' idea. Fix legit mistakes at any time during the year, but rules evolutions should happen at one time in the year, and the end of the season (for most folks) is probably the best time to do it.

Andy, to your question about that car that came out of the woodwork, I'd say you go w/ what the process says. If the car is that good, others will build them. If all of the examples show to be top dogs, a closer look will be needed. There are cars now that get 'special treatment' because they're greater than the sum of the parts, this may be just one more example. I don't think you can toss out a process that you've put so much time into, and seems to work pretty well, just because you've got one unknown car out there that nobody even knows if it is legal or not.

The whole IT National thing. I advocated years ago that the whole National / Regional distinction needed to go away. If you want to maintain National and Regional races (for whatever reason), you re-label them 'Qualifying' and 'Non-Qualifying' (for purposes of going to the Runoffs) races. Other than the names, and the former National races having to slot the IT classes into their schedule, I really don't see anything else changing.

For those that say the cost for every IT racer will go up, I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. As Kirk pointed out, look at the commitment levels of Regional Prod guys vs. National Prod guys. The same pretty much holds true for all of the National classes that run at Regionals today. Sure, you may get some folks that 'cross-polinate', but it's not going to raise the price of poker for everyone. And as Kirk (at least I think it was him) pointed out, pulling the top dogs out of the Non-Qualifying races, may make those events more palatable to people just starting out.

And for those that say that if IT goes National, you'll have guys only running 4 races, and waiting around for the RO. Do you really think that's going to happen? Maybe in ITC, but if you run an ITA car, and decide to only run 4 races, you're not going to qualify for the RO, you won't be high enough on the points list.

I honestly thinking having Process v2.0 in place actually facilitates IT's move to a RO-eligible category. The NG clause goes away, you've got a defined, objective process for classifying cars, and established 'rules season', off you go w/ a very stable category.

For the folks that say people would spend more to have a shot at that RO trophy, think about what's hidden in that statement. What is implied by that statement, if it is indeed true, is that an ARRC/IT-fest/TC championship really doesn't carry the weight of an RO championship. Sure, those things are nice, but they're really not the same as having that RO trophy. Another thing that is implied in that statement, is that even though those ARRC/IT-fest/TC champions have good programs, they're not spending as much as the would if it were for a RO trophy. As Greg and some of the other top IT folks if they feel that's the case. As someone else mentioned, I think you'll find that a lot of the top IT programs are more comitted than some of the top National programs, just because these guys run more races. And in many cases, because the competition is better, and deeper. And let's not even bring up the folks that go to the RO just becasue it is a big social event. They bring cars that wouldn't see the pointy end of the grid at a Regional.

To the ITAC, hang in there, you guys 'get it' probably more than most in your position (and above).

Hope I didn't miss anything, but I'm not going back and reading 9 pages again.

[ddewhurst]

*** *I* believe, that due to the ruleset, IT would explode...it won't make SCCA more popular but it would cannabalize from other classes. top builders everywhere would dive in. That may not be great for some racers ego's.***

Very similar to Spec Miata going National except there would be no where else for cars to go in SCCA. That will be a sad day. Midwester Council here I come.

[RSTPerformance]

First off Jeremy, that is a HUGE 'if'. Secondly, if they do, are we to assume that IT would be eligible to go to the Runoffs? If they are, *I* believe, that due to the ruleset, IT would explode...it won't make SCCA more popular but it would cannabalize from other classes. top builders everywhere would dive in. That may not be great for some racers ego's.

Andy-

We are getting off topic but I think you are right... IT should not be runoffs eligable however regional/National weekends need to be combined to make our club more stable by increasing car counts and decreasing entry fees...

Raymond

[Bill Miller]

Raymond,

How do you know that having IT become RO-eligible wouldn't increase car counts and hopefully, lower entry fees? There just may be people out there that would jump at the chance to run for a RO trophy in a car that's prep'd to the IT rules. I'm sure there will be some cannibalization, but you'll probably get new racers as well. I also think one of the best ways to increase car counts is to have the SCCA market its product better.

[JeffYoung]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

[IPRESS]

There are several factors at play here that probably help form the differing opinions we see here.
Size and activity of IT in different DIVs.
Level of competition
History, Expectations, Money, ex......

With that in mind, we should all be aware of where others thoughts are coming from.
Up in the NE, the IT fields tend to be larger and therefore more expensive to be at the pointy end of the grid. Same is true for the SE. Throughout the rest of the country there are pockets of IT areas that have well developed cars and can run with anybody. (For instance the Midwest IT guys are really stepping up their game at this time.) On the other side there are plenty of places in the country where cheap builds are competitive. I sort of think I have a little bit of grasp on this aspect having raced in a lot of different areas of the country, but still it is hard to say what the average IT guy wants or needs.
The question is what is or what should IT be? Who is it for? Why is IT one of the most raced groups of SCCA? What is important to the IT racer?
The answers to these questions (and several others I haven't put here) vary from racer to racer. IT is one thing to to the "dead serious must win" racer and it is another thing to the "hey lets have some fun" racer. It is even different to the guy in the middle who "races to win", but doesn't sacrifice the fun part to do it.
So how do we decide what IT should be? Do we leave it up to the PTB and hope they pick the right path? Do we try to organize a ground swell of public opinion and blast the BOD with what we want? Do we do nothing? What is it?

After reading this thread, (and considering that this is only a small group of IT) I am less sure than ever about how or where IT should go....or if it should go anyplace at all. As much work as the ITAC does, (and I appreciate that work) the group needs a more varied input to tackle "the deeper meaning of IT". If the direction of IT is to change or not, a lot more voices from a lot more areas need to be heard.
I know it is hard to get feedback and it is easy to do nothing, but a big change in IT will impact all club racing areas, so every effort should be made to get opinions from as many areas as possible. (The IT racer from say ..... Albuquergue needs his ideas heard as much as the ideas of the IT racer from Atlanta.)

[Jeremy Billiel]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

Jeff - After watching the runoffs for years, I think that it is less attractive than IT Fest, The ARRC, etc as some classes/races could be won with the less prep level as IT cars!! There are still people who get all goo goo eyed when they think about running nationals, but to be frank (I am from NE) the IT competition is better than most Nationals. I have no problem leaving IT the same olde', but for the sake of SCCA, I think the BOD needs to take a good solid look at the National/Regional distinction again. I don't get all fearful of the rules changing if the class goes to the Runoffs.

[IPRESS]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

Jeff I definitly qualify as an "old guy" and having long time SM experience I can tell you going national hurt an helped in that it kept the SM name in the public eye. SM was a media darling back at the start (my car was in three or four national magazines) but was losing a little of the hot class luster. Going national (which I was one of the loudest proponents for) kept the SM name in the public eye. Great for MAZDA, was nice for SCCA, good and bad for the class itself. SM has become somewhat fragmented and I expect it to continue to do so. MAZDA has a big stake in SM and therefore I see SM doing fine for a good while. Would IT benefit from strong mfg. support? That part I would like. Not sure if it would happen. As I have staed I think the cons out way the pros.
Oh numbers, I think numbers are probably down overall in SM, but is it because of going national? Maybe some, but it could be, economy too. All I know is IT miata numbers are going up.......for now (as long as they don't get too fat!

[RSTPerformance]

Did Runoffs eligibility increase overall SM participation or not? I don't know, just asking the question, but my guess is it did not.

It's interesting to me that the newer guys seem more opposed to "going National" -- I wonder if that is based on the older guys seeing the Runoffs as being the big leagues, whereas the newer guys see it as, frankly, sort of irrelevant? Not making any value judgments, just wondering on this.

I am not a newer guy but my thoughts are... Runoffs are "Big league" and they need (IMO) to stay that way... We do get a lot of exposure as a club in that one event... It is probably one of he largest affordable club racing events in the world.

SCCA needs a feeder class. For some like me it may be a dam good destination and for others a steping stone.

How many people have been to a local National and watched the races??? I have to admit the racing is great in most of the classes in our region! Combining the weekends but keeping IT non runoffs eligible would bring IT back to it's original goal of being the intro class. I wonder if the success of IT has caused it to loose it's original goal?

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does SCCA need a feeder CLASS or a feeder SYSTEM? Like has been said, IT is a destination for me. IMHO, it has the best and most stable ruleset that isn't a 'spec' class.

That may be were National / Regional seperation is needed.

[JeffYoung]

To me, IT was both a feeder and a destination.

I started as a newbie with an underprepped car, but because of the class system, I always had someone to race -- a fast B car, another slow S car, or an IT7.

As I got faster, I moved closer to my destination -- the front of the ITS field.

In that regard, doing it all in one car with one development arc (and I've seen this with nearly all my friends in ITS), IT has been perfect for me.

IT is REALLY good now, and I share the concerns of those who think that continuing to try to improve it all the time, even if well-intentioned, might lead us astray.

We got in trouble iwth the old weight classing system and overdogs, but that has been fixed....maybe we let the pot settle a bit for a few years, see how Process 2.0 shakes out, get ITR up to speed, and then see what other "big picture" changes might be needed?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff,

If IT went National, how does your entry and development curve change? I subnit in only the smallest of ways...you do what you did, then once you conquered the 'regional' foe, you went after the 'national' foe.

[JeffYoung]

Probably initially it would not have changed, since I knew nothing about the difference between National and Regional even after I finished the car and went to my first race weekend.

Looking at it now, I know I would seek out a class that:

(a) has the most stable rule set;

(b) the highest car counts; and

(c) the widest variety of marques available for me to choose from to race.

I see "going National" as potentially hurting (a) and (b). I'm concerned that if we go National, some of the IT culture we have about less rule change the better might get tossed as high dollar teams and more politics have more influence on our direction.

On (b), I still continue to believe, based on my experience in the SEDiv, that we wouldn't necessarily increase IT participation by going National, we'd dilute it by splitting essentially the same "universe" of cars into two camps. Of the 10-12 guys in ITS I normally run with, I suspect we'd have 3-4 go run Nationals and the remaining 7-8 stay Regional.

Just guessing, but I think the example helps you see the dilution I am fairly certain would occur.

[dickita15]

Andy-

We are getting off topic but I think you are right... IT should not be runoffs eligable however regional/National weekends need to be combined to make our club more stable by increasing car counts and decreasing entry fees...

Raymond

Raymond,
I just do not see where you get the conclusion that eliminating the distinction between regionals and nationals would lower entry fees. The division has almost 50 regionals and about 8 nationals, I am not sure how eliminating the nationals would lower your entry fee or make the club more stable.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just guessing, but I think the example helps you see the dilution I am fairly certain would occur.

What if IT going National brings in people who didn't race IT before? Bet it would....

[JeffYoung]

That's where we disagree. I just don't think it would, much. Maybe a few, but I think we are still pretty much divvying up the same pie.