Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[seckerich]

Dave, see my private email. Steve, I like your points. Please also forward them, today (!) to the CRB/BoD. Thanks. And that goes for all of you!

Letter written and sent tonight. Is there a direct email address that goes to all ITAC members?

[Knestis]

Any IT item sent to the CRB is supposed to go on our agenda, so far as I know.

K

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I didn't get the Z PAST your tail pipe, so clearly it needs a non cross flow head weight break.

Helpful thread though, Kirk thanks for starting this.

I will say one that thing that seems crystal clear: the majority of those offering input want the process published, and a limited "rules season." I agree strongly with both of those points, personally.

[JoshS]

Does the "rules season" most people want include weight changes, or just modification allowance changes?

What about clarifications to the modification allowances (vs. all-out changes?)

[Knestis]

Good point there, Josh. Real rule changes (a la the VIN requirement going away) and new car listings already have to wait for Board approval and publication in the follow year's Fastrack.

We do weight fixes through technical bulletins, among "Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments [bleah!], Clarifications, and Classifications." I would be VERY surprised if folks wanted us to have to wait a year to fix things that we find to be in error.

And to be clear about something - ITAC practices, including the math that is the core of the process used to classify and specify cars, are not "rules." We have chosen to codify what we do in an effort to make it as repeatable as possible but there's absolutely no requirement for any ad hoc committee to do such a thing. We could totally pull classes and weights out of our butts if we decided to...



K

[lateapex911]

And To Be Clear About Something - Itac Practices, Including The Math That Is The Core Of The Process Used To Classify And Specify Cars, Are Not "rules." We Have Chosen To Codify What We Do In An Effort To Make It As Repeatable As Possible But There's Absolutely No Requirement For Any Ad Hoc Committee To Do Such A Thing. We Could Totally Pull Classes And Weights Out Of Our Butts If We Decided To...



K

Pooma!

[Bob Roth]

To respond to some prior comments/questions on my note;

1) The reason I think that race results, entry counts and times are important is that it seems to me that results are the most compelling basis for adjustment and classification discussions. As an example, I commented that VTEC cars are getting a sort shrift. If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars, I would reconsider that and arguement. As it is today, I can only comment based on the handfull of tracks I see. Without data, its pretty easy to argue that the process is right and that anybody who questions is is just isn't trying hard enough....

The second need for class results is I think its time to be worried about entry and participation trends. Again, I can only judge based on the fields I see but I see a 10 year trend of declining fields (other than spec miata.) and I believe unless the concept of IT is changed, there could be problems sustaining regional racing. Again without data its just an opinion.

2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. (Speaking as a feeder class, why is it that used Showroom stock cars don't have a competitive place to run in IT) As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them. I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent. But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda, 944, 3 series etc challenges. For the all time great IT cars, if there are the participation numbers, we want them to have a place.

Here is my big picture, the ITAC needs to come up with a plan that grows IT fields by 50% in 5 years. Otherwise, we may not have a regional series to compete in. Its going to be a crap economy for a while so keep it cheap, simple, rely on both spec classes and classes with similar cars with limited prep to discourage the cheaters. Who knows, you might end up with something, Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.

[seckerich]

I won't quote Bobs post because it is so long but a few comments.

You see IT as a feeder class where many of us see it as a destination. I have run at a National level and the racing is better in IT for the most part. Drivers going to just enough races to get a "finish" and pulling in. Then they hide until the runoffs and don't support the National race series. That is why Nationals are in trouble everywhere except Road America. Damn, thats where I want to race. Many IT drivers run 10 plus races in the Southeast. Why does everyone think you have to be moving to a different class in SCCA to be growing?

You talk about cost of IT compared to production and then say we need places for newer cars and SS cars to go. Newer = higher cost for inital investment as well as replacement parts. No cheap parts cars. Get this process ironed out so the newer cars WE WANT TO RACE get classed correctly. That will grow the fields more than some BS about a home for Showroom stock. Much like the home for World Challenge we created. How is that big snafu working out?

Not personal towards you Bob, but you bring up the usual points that assume IT racers are just Noobs that are passing through. IT goes from $5000-$30,000 and has a place for just about any budget.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bob,

I am pretty confident that you are overestimating the field size of some of the NASA classes you quote and vastly underestimate the size of the IT fields across the country. IT is the single largest category SCCA has (keeping in mind it has 5 classes within)...but it certainly requires tracking.

It would be stupid to ignore NASA. They are a for-profit dictatorship that has done some things that the SCCA should takes notes on...but ask the Honda-Challenge guys what they do wrong. You will get an earful.

The bottom line is that new OR old, no matter what marque you like, IT has some real solid options for you.

[jimmyc]

It would be stupid to ignore NASA. They are a for-profit dictatorship that has done some things that the SCCA should takes notes on...but ask the Honda-Challenge guys what they do wrong. You will get an earful.

Sounds like some IT guys are giving the ITAC an earful about what they are doing wrong too..

No sanctioning body is prefect, no rules group is. And not every competitor is going to be happy.

[JeffYoung]

Most of the folks I race with in ITS SEDiv view IT as the destination -- no thoughts of going prod.

[lateapex911]

...If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars, I would reconsider that and arguement. .......

I'll skip the usual comments about "finishing position 'data' being...errr...hard to use as 'evidence', but will mention that your world is Honda front drive centric. Interestingly, there are TONS of Honda FWD cars to choose from, some newer than others. Your Del Sol, though is, what, 15 yrs old? Every car has strengths and weaknesses...but, V2.0 has handled FWD just a bit differently. If THe CRB approves it's use, FWD cars may get more, or less of a weight break, as it is now figured as a percentage of it's weight, as opposed to the flat pounds off in V1.5. The basic 'bogey' remains similar, but heavier cars were getting screwed.

2) To clarify the question regarding why I recommend that the class focus on reasonable cost and lots of competitive cars, I believe we need to get the participation numbers up in IT. At this point of time, I don't see a lot of difference in cost between a front running IT and a front running Prod car which I think is wrong if IT is supposed to be SCCA's feeder class. .... As I see it, its a problem to grow IT if half the cars in the race are 20 years old. Nobody can find those cars, knows how to work on them, or is particularialy excited by them.

Gotta stop you here.

There are lots of newer cars in the ITCS. The opportunity is there...but, as mentioned above, newer cars aren't 'reasonable' to run. Older cars are often simpler, the 'book' on how to race them is written, the aftermarket support is there, and built examples are available for a fraction of a new car. How is eliminating old cars going to make racing cheap? You mention IT as a 'feeder' category....isn't buying an old built car the single BEST way to get in the game? Your argument is rather conflicting, I think. Really, this one has me scratching my head.

I may be naive, but I think that SCCA is more likely to get new cars and new racers if it focuses on cars that are recent.

What newer cars would you like classed? Request 'em! If they fit, we'll class them! We LOVE doing that.

But as I also mentioned, to hedge the bet, I also think SCCA should focus like NASA on some classes where there are sizeable participation likely like a Honda,

Cuz, yea, the Honda Challenge series has what, a dozen guys nationwide? (yea, an exaggeration, but...it's no Spec Miata)

944,

Which is TWENTY FIVE years old! What happened to newer cars atracting drivers?

3 series

There are a DOZEN 3 series cars classed in IT.

I know, you mean classes for ONLY those cars. I think you want to go after a different type of diver, one that wants to ONLY race against his model car. (Heck, currently, ITR could be considered a spec class for 3 series BMWs!). That concept is a whole different kettle of fish. That type of racing is strong with the marque clubs. More classes. Not really something we, the ITAC can do much about. Spec Miata started here in SCCA, didn't it?

Do nothing, my feeling is with declining workers and fields, SCCA will take a hard look and eliminating regionals and morphing IT with prod.

It's interesting you say that. nationally, it's the REGIONALS that are making money, and the NATIONALS that are losing money. National races are adding "restricted regional" classes...often IT...to bolster the bottom line. Many of the higher ups see IT as one of the healthy categories in the club, and stats suggest that IT racers are second in enrollment to SM. (I better dbl check that, but I think that's correct...if not, darn close)

I don't know for sure, but I bet some of the big head honchos have considered/pushed making IT national for purely profit driven reasons, and old guard grand poobahs have nixxed it for old guard reasons. (but that's PURE speculation)

[Knestis]

I think Bob has a point about someone having to look out for the strategic - cross category - picture at the Club.

I think NASA has done some smart things, because they aren't a "club" as such, but equally they have done some dumb ones. They do however have an arguably clearer focus, mission, and priorities in practice than SCCA.

Your "merge with Prod" concern is well founded, Bob, but my guess it would come about because of the implosion of Production rather than fundamental failures of IT. That is precisely the kind of "anti-strategic" decision that I see our current cultural/organizational structure capable of. It's "keep the dinosaur on life support" that has had Prod hovering on the edge for the three decades I've been watching it and - not to put words in your mouth - I have a feeling it's THAT behavior that you're scared of us slipping into...

If so, I share that worry.

K

[Ron Earp]

1) The reason I think that race results, entry counts and times are important is that it seems to me that results are the most compelling basis for adjustment and classification discussions. As an example, I commented that VTEC cars are getting a sort shrift. If I have race results showing for example that even the best prepped ITS Civics and Del Sols can't run against midpack ITS cars

I dunno Bob, from my view they are fairly competitive....have a look at this video from near the front of the pack at VIR this year. Two VTEC FWD cars in front of me, along with a mix of other cars. Racing is pretty good.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HoTfKYxGhg[/ame]

[Andy Bettencourt]

No Vee-tAk on the one directly in front of you at the start me-thinks. ITA car? But regardless, teh process gives low torque, FWD cars a break.

[Ron Earp]

No Vee-tAk on the one directly in front of you me-thinks. ITA car? But regardless, teh process gives low torque, FWD cars a break.

Maybe not, but there is VTEC Yo! on the one just to the left of me in T1.

I think the ITAC is trying to be progressive about IT. ITR was created to class many new cars, but as I recall Bob didn't like how that turned out because I think he's "Hondacentric". The ITAC got Pony cars into ITR but again I don't think Bob liked that progressive action either as he dislikes the cars and/or how they were classed.

IT is going in the right direction and IMHO the best place to race within the SCCA or NASA. I complain about IT from time to time, as we all do, but the bottom line is that if you like racing and competitive fields IT has it. Not that it means much but for me IT is the destination - I have no intentions of going National or Prod. If the CRB still has the impression that IT is the Prod breeding ground I think they are mistaken, at least among the racers I know in the SE.

[benspeed]

I will chime in that I have returned to IT because it is the destination. IT is where the some of the best competition exists, the classification process gives you a reasonably fair shot at selecting a variety of competitive cars and costs are reasonable. The quality of driving in IT is every bit as good as national driving - this is not a noob class but new people are always welcome, just as they are in national classes.

I don't see problems in IT - that class is healthy. Where I see issues is with the strategy of our club, specifically regarding race classes and field counts. From my perspective here in the NE the business of regional vs. national makes little sense. The reality is there are too many events so each event is a, "hold your breath and hope we don't lose our shirts" stress fest for our race planners. I've raced in a number of nationals and there is huge opportunity for consolidation of GT and Prod at national and regional events. Why that hasn't happened is a shame.

So here's my grand vision (leaving out open wheel cars) - take GT and Production and combine them in GT. Take the tube framed cars and put them in GT. Take the former world challenge cars and put them in GT. Make GT the place where the purpose built race cars run.

This statement will ruffle some feathers - take the model of the ITAC and put this group in charge of reclassing these production and GT cars. I believe there is a strong methodology that should be developed into institutional knowledge. The historical agenda which seems to slow the pace of change presents a weakness to our club. I define historical agenda as people refusing to force competitors to change their class and possibly become more or less competitive. Take a look in Sportscar National Race Results and count how many drivers are running in class - my wife was looking at the counts and remarked, "there's not enough cars in class to call that a race..."

Keep IT, Touring and Showroom Stock the same. Make some of these classes race in the same group.

Make purpose built cars race in GT. Form a “process” to class these cars – it will be the next challenge for the folks who have mostly figured out the IT “process”. Race some of these GT classes with American Sedan.

Combine the regional and national schedules, turn out big fields and lose less money. If national needs to make certain events special to qualify for the Runoffs - do that - no big thing.

IT turns out enough cars to call the event a race. That's not the case in the production and GT classes – It’s obvious to me those classes need consolidation.
The economy is not getting better for awhile and counts are not going to rise for several years – let’s not lose more money on events. Consolidate.

[lateapex911]

Ben, if I were further up the ladder, I'd be beating the drum on some of your topics loudly. Heck, I bet the CRB is tired of hearing me do it now.

[Bob Roth]

I don't think people are reading the same note that I wrote, but I can't fix that. I'll leave these comments regading big picture

1) Nothing else matters if there are declining cars coming to the races. Though SCCA doesn't share participation data, I believe IT is declining based on my race participation. Even if the present formula is perfect, if it doesn't stem the reduction of participation, its irrelivant.

2) In my professional world, people are expected to make fact based business cases to support their suggestions. My utter frustration in this duscussion is that SCCA shares no facts on who runs, who wins, etc. Until somebody gets the numbers, any big picture input is subject to the next responder who dismisses it as "centric". Get data, not opinions and do everybody a favor.

3) It is my point of view that the present rules do nothing to encourage car counts, and do a lot to discourage good cars from showing up. Poor rules/classifications are something that needs addressing.

I do the executive product planning for a $600m business. If I were working for the CEO of SCCA, My guidance is based on how you are presently running the class, I'd look to cost reduce and harvest IT (and regional racing) as its a declining business. The biggest favor the ITAC committee can do for our class and SCCA is figure out a plan that increases car counts. There are many ways to do it, I've made my suggestions.

bob