Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[tnord]

You're making even less sense than usual.

and there's the problem. you can't figure out that we basically agree.

[Bill Miller]

and there's the problem. you can't figure out that we basically agree.

You and I agree? Ok, who are you, and how did you hack Travis' account? Seriously, just so I'm clear on this, I think that IT being a RO-eligible category would be a good thing for the club in general, and IT specifically. And you agree w/ this? If that's the case, why have you been running your mouth and insulting me?

[tnord]

You and I agree? Ok, who are you, and how did you hack Travis' account? Seriously, just so I'm clear on this, I think that IT being a RO-eligible category would be a good thing for the club in general, and IT specifically. And you agree w/ this? If that's the case, why have you been running your mouth and insulting me?

[in my best 5yo voice]
you started it
[/5yo voice]

i don't agree that going national is a good idea, we're just looking at the same set of circumstances from completely different perspectives and end up at different conclusions.

PS - i still think you're a douche.

[Bill Miller]

[in my best 5yo voice]
you started it
[/5yo voice]

i don't agree that going national is a good idea, we're just looking at the same set of circumstances from completely different perspectives and end up at different conclusions.

I guess you missed that day in school. Different conclusions != agreeing.

PS - i still think you're a douche.

And here I thought you didn't care anymore.

[tnord]

good one Bill.

ya know what I see? and this is just a theory......

I see a guy who like to complain that people aren't seing the "big picture" and are being "me-centric" when saying that going national is bad for the class because of increased levels in time, money, and effort (as you outlined yourself).....when really it's YOU who is the selfish one. I see a "mid-pack" guy who is excited at the prospect of the front-runners leaving for nationals so he can maybe go "win" a regional against half as many cars as he used to run against so he can feel special.

but maybe i'm wrong.....it's just a guess. i admit i haven't a clue who you are, and haven't received an answer when i asked.

it actually IS possible for two people to look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. I'm fine with that, it happens all the time. agree to disagree, whatever. you apparantly struggle with it.

[quadzjr]

Where I'm going with this is, if you want to run at the front, for a championship where there is a high competition density, you better be prepared to spend some money. Or as others have put it, bring your 'A' game.

Well writen bill, and you are RIGHT, however still, no one seems to answer my question.

-We can agree that going national should see an increased effort by more teams to win an RO trophy.
-So we all know that you have to bring you 'A' game now to be up front of a very dense front running group.

My question-> So why purposely force the group to have to bring there A+ game?

If you want to go national "budget" racing with good competition and compete for a RO trophy, go build/race a SS or SM, and leave IT alone. (not saying that either one of these are cheap, just assuming that it should cheaper than probably any open wheel or GT-x car)

[Bill Miller]

I'll give you credit Travis, you sure do have a vivid imagination. As far as what I see, it's a guy that doesn't have the intellectual capacity to debate an issue on its merits, and has to resort to playground name-calling and foul language. I also see a guy that likes to shoot his mouth off, but doesn't have the integrity to admit he was wrong when he has been clearly called on something. You've shown that you've got nothing constructive to add to this discussion, and as a courtesy to the other forum members (who I assume are beyond tired of this by this point), I'm done with you.

/edit

Steve,

I'm not sure I follow you. I feel comfortable in saying that there are some IT efforts out there that would probably not see much (if any) increase in their budgets were they shooting for a RO trophy. Possibly some increased travel expenses because of the silly out of Division requirements.

One of the other things that has occurred to me while reading some of the responses, is that some people just don't want to deal w/ the things that come along w/ increased competition (or to be consistent w/ my earlier post, higher competition density). They want to only spend as much, and run as hard, as they have to, to be at the front, in their own little world. Maybe their egos can't deal w/ the possible reality that they're not as good a driver as they think they are, or their car isn't as close to a 10/10ths build as they think it is.

As someone said, for a lot of folks this is a fun hobby. But others are very serious about their programs (see earlier comments about racers being competitive). Why should those that are serious about their programs have to pick a different category if they'd really like to measure themselves against the best in their class? If you're like that guy from the PNW that was winning w/ a poorly prepared car, against marginal competition, and you think that you're really a champion because you won your own Regional title, and never ventured out to see what else was out there, you're just kidding yourself. In my mind, it's really no different than the guys that immediately think that they guy that beat them is cheating.

Every other category listed in the GCR gives people an option of where they want to race, why should IT be any different? I think people are attracted to IT because of the package that it offers. You've got a pretty wide choice of cars in each class that have the potential to run at the front (provided that you're willing to dedicate the resources to get there). That's due largely to the efforts of the ITAC. You've got some development opportunity, but don't have to go as far as building 14:1 hand-grenade motors and developing custom suspensions, and you can still get in the game for not a whole lot of money (but probably won't be at the front). My personal feeling is that were IT to be RO-eligible, it would be the most popular, and successful sedan class in the SCCA. Many people have talked about IT as a destination. I think that's a good thing. To tell them (IT racers) that if they want to really measure themselves against the cream of the crop, that they need to go elsewhere, is in my mind, truly selfish and me-centric.

[tnord]

doesn't have the integrity to admit he was wrong when he has been clearly called on something..

and what exactly have you "called" me on?

I also find it quite amusing that I'M the one who said i basically agree with your assertation of how the change would play out, I just don't agree with your conclusion that going National is a good thing....yet YOU are the one who just won't give it up.....then says something like the above quote.

[PSherm]

Well Travis,

The only thing (and I've already stated this) that concerns me about having IT become RO-eligible, is the increased possibility that the PtB may want to dork w/ the rules based on results. And honestly, the only reason that they (Pt don't give IT a second thought now, is because they don't see it as 'real' racing. Get the right (or wrong, as the case may be) person in a position of power and infulence that wants things changed, and watch how hard it is to stop.

^ THIS ^

Is what I fear most if IT goes National. And I have been on the side of removing the Nat/Reg distinctions and letting the top 24 classes go to the Runoffs. After seeing how the CRB adds/removes allowances in the T/SS ranks seemingly at will, it gives me NO confidence in their ability to balance a class. And if they are giving our ITAC group resistance to the changes that will keep IT healthy and competitive, it doesn't bode well.

I am of the opinion that the ITAC should focus on fixing cars that have been left out of tGR, run requested cars thru tP2.0, and call it a year (or 2) and let the rules settle in for awhile...

[IPRESS]

Bill,
Why is SM not a good thing to bring up? It is a very close example of what changing to a national class does as far as makeup of the class and where the numbers change.
IT is not exactly like SM, but they are closer than anything else to IT.
Lots of cars, somewhat close in track performance and originally based on low budget racing. Sounds like they are kin. In fact they are as I ran ITA in my first SM before there was an SM to run in.
Here is the deal. Many SM drivers like SM fine as a National Class. Many would rather it be closer to it's original IT like roots. Because of this split you see many different SM tagged regional classes. It has become very fragmented. Shannon McMasters who invented the class warned that once SM became a national class this type stuff would crop up. (He was involved with SRX7 and saw where a class that had many rule sets almost died out.)
IT is too good a racing class as it is to let national stuff screw it up.
The best thing that IT could see would be: no Nat / no Reg designation and No ROs.
You have what you have now and get on all race cards. (except the ROs...but the RO eligible cars can't go to ARRC.)

[shwah]

And if they are giving our ITAC group resistance to the changes that will keep IT healthy and competitive, it doesn't bode well.

Of course that is the unknown. The ITAC over the past few years have done an excellent job of keeping IT healthy and competitive. That is not a guarantee that whatever new process, excuse me 'codification' of the old process that appears to produce different results, we may have now is in fact what will keep IT healthy and competitive.

I actually think it can, but that remains to be seen.

Beating the dead horse, it will have a lot to do with how non-standard factors are identified, recognized and accounted for, or not (with danger lurking in either direction). This is precisely why we NEED the ITAC, and need it to be diverse, but the individuals that make up that entity must be empowered to rely on their subjective instincts as well. Otherwise we just have a spreadsheet and will be right where we were in the old days of smoke and mirrors, and the famous 'back room dealings', with overdogs and weaklings throughout the ITCS, but with a crystal clear view of how they came to be. Of course with every single dyno sheet submitted as data showing a 14% or 21% or - gasp - 27% gain, we will all wonder how those cars are so darn fast, but won't have any hard data to adjust them.

Or at least that would be a worst case scenario.

The people on the ITAC are smart, know the class, and want to protect it. I just hope you realize that you are part of that protection - not just a formula that you transcribe for future members to plug into.

[tnord]

Many people have talked about IT as a destination. I think that's a good thing. To tell them (IT racers) that if they want to really measure themselves against the cream of the crop, that they need to go elsewhere, is in my mind, truly selfish and me-centric.

it says right there in the rules that IT is a REGIONAL ONLY class. and it seems to me that a significant majority of competitors want it to stay that way. to change it for a minority who knew what they were getting into in the first place is the truly selfish act.

[Bill Miller]

Mac,

I think the reason that SM is not a valid example of what could happen to IT, were it to go National, is all in the name. It's a 'Spec' class. That's a significant dynamic that doesn't exist in IT. And while I know Shannon M. was the guy that really got the ball rolling w/ SM, it was my understanding that the concept was born of the fact that, at the time, SSB was essentially Spec Miata. Pretty easy reach to get to a spec class. You've already got a bunch of the cars out there, and drivers that are racing them.

[tnord]

2 different generations of car
4 different engines
5 different ECUs
2 different gear ratios
2 different LSD types
4 different brake packages
4 different min weights
2 different suspension geometries
2 different steering geometries
3 different restrictor plate sizes

it is not a spec class, and practically nobody that actually runs in the class will tell you that it is. the concept was born because there were a lot of old SSB cars that had nowhere race as they were not competitively classed in IT.

what does go on in SM is something that doesn't explicitly happen in IT....yet. they do make an effort to balance all the different cars "on the tip of a pin." the ITAC and the process isn't designed to do that, but when it becomes clear that there are two or three different favorable cars to run at the RO track, i'd bet money all the other guys will be crying foul and looking for an adjustment. or i guess you could just let national IT become a 3 car class if you want.

[IPRESS]

Bill,
I know it is called a "Spec" class. And the leaders of it try to make it a "Spec" class. But in reality it is a "Hybrid". With that in mind, it is a close cousin of IT with the two different generations of SMs classed in two different IT classes.
Some of the warts that came to SM when it became a national class should be a concern when broaching the subject of IT being a ROs class. No I can't tell you without a doubt that those negatives will happen, but the money escalation has happened with both SM and AS when they moved to racing at the ROs. That is a fact.
The idea that the regional races would get "easier" or cheaper to win is probably false in most cases. In SM we have seen some national hotshoes use the regionals for testing. But most still race the regionals. Lots of former SM racers got frustrated with the price of poker and are doing something else. Yes some of the drop out is just natural flow of numbers, but the ROs war fueled the numbers going down.
The NE is such a hotbed of racing that I am sure (without my SM experience) that if I was racing up there my viewpoint on the subject would be somewhat different. The SE is IT heavy and might not suffer from a National IT, although I think it would. The rest of the country might struggle ITwise. Try to look at it this way.......If IT went National and became RunOffs eligible it would be no different than the other 20 something classes. SCCA needs a class division that IS different and IT is the answer.
You almost never hear someone say "You know ITX is really screwed up." But you do hear that about most of the other classes from time to time. It is something to keep in mind.

[quadzjr]

Why should those that are serious about their programs have to pick a different category if they'd really like to measure themselves against the best in their class?

To tell them (IT racers) that if they want to really measure themselves against the cream of the crop, that they need to go elsewhere, is in my mind, truly selfish and me-centric.

When we won the regional championship in ITA in 2003, we went to the ARRC, and qualified something like 5/6th? and had an on track accident that ended our day early. Even without the accident we weren't going to win. We know that, our car wasn't prepped enough, and never being on the track had it's role as well. no ego bruised, no biggie, try again next year (or when new car gets done .

The point that you made that that we need another championship to measure if your the cream of the crop. I believe is somewhat redudent. I think that your argument holds a bit of weight for the fact that the ARRC is tailored for the east coast, and for people on the west coast, it is not as fessible of an event to attend due to the increased travel.

Nationals have June Sprints and the Run Offs

ItT has ITfest, and the ARRC.

[Bill Miller]

When we won the regional championship in ITA in 2003, we went to the ARRC, and qualified something like 5/6th? and had an on track accident that ended our day early. Even without the accident we weren't going to win. We know that, our car wasn't prepped enough, and never being on the track had it's role as well. no ego bruised, no biggie, try again next year (or when new car gets done .

The point that you made that that we need another championship to measure if your the cream of the crop. I believe is somewhat redudent. I think that your argument holds a bit of weight for the fact that the ARRC is tailored for the east coast, and for people on the west coast, it is not as fessible of an event to attend due to the increased travel.

Nationals have June Sprints and the Run Offs

ItT has ITfest, and the ARRC.

Steven,

I hear what you're saying, but please read the rest of my comment in the long post on Page 14. I'd buy your argument about the ARRC, except for the fact that the Runoffs were held at the same track for years. Travel considerations may have influenced people's decisions to go or not, but you still got lots of folks from all over the country.

If the folks in Topeka would get off their butts and officially sanction the ARRC as the IT National Championship, I think you'd see participation go up. But that puts them in a real tough spot. How do you award official National Championships in a category when you have a policy statement that says that you don't know if it's the car or the driver?

That single policy statement speaks volumes for the overall attitude of the PtB towards IT. In fact, one could argue that as long as that policy statement is in place, there's really no need for any kind of codified, objective classification process, or any of the PCA language. You want IT to stay Regional? Fine. The more I've thought through that whole issue, and looked at IT in general, I realize that the issue I'm really trying to resolve is the elimination of that policy statement. Make IT RO-eligible, and the PtB have to step up and do something w/ that policy. And it's not about going to Topeka, or Road America, or Mid-Ohio, or Atlanta. People have talked for years about splitting the RO because they take too much time. To many, the RO is a big social event (which is not a bad thing), but I think there would be no less value placed on a RO trophy, were they to be split up into a couple of groups, and run at different times, and maybe different venues. Get an official sanction from the SCCA that the ARRC is the IT National Championship, and it doesn't matter when and where the event is run, or who else (Category-wise) is coming. It will carry the same weight as a RO trophy, but it will require a change in policy. And maybe that's what the folks that are against RO-eligibility for IT are really against. They don't want to see that policy changed, as they feel that it will be the end of IT, as we currently know it. Don't know if that's the case, but I do feel that IT will change.

Having a well developed, codified model to spec cars goes a long way towards minimizing that change. But what goes hand in hand w/ that, for things to be successful and equitable to all concerned, is the ability to take a pragmatic approach to cars that demonstrate that they are outliers to the model. Part of the PCA language partially addresses this. Probably needs some more teeth though. As they say, the devil is in the details. The current Audi example is a textbook case.

And if there are people that don't want this to happen, for whatever reason (they feel that it's bad for IT, could possibly have a negative impact on their program, etc.), they need to accept the fact that they'll never have an officially recognized National Championship that they can hold up as the equal of any RO trophy. It's all about trade offs.

A big thanks to Dr. K. for his education over the years, about policy. He's gotten me to look at things a bit differently, and to drill down to try and find the real drivers (no pun intended) behind why things are done.

Sorry about another long ramble.

[quadzjr]

Can SCCA declare the ARRC as a national champtionship without being a national class? If they could that would be awesome, however, I don't think they would want to steal any thunder away from the RO's.

I also think that the Run Offs would benefit from being held at different tracks. That way there isn't a home track advantage. Even though currently it is kinda centrally located.

[lateapex911]

Can SCCA declare the ARRC as a national champtionship without being a national class? If they could that would be awesome, however, I don't think they would want to steal any thunder away from the RO's.

I also think that the Run Offs would benefit from being held at different tracks. That way there isn't a home track advantage. Even though currently it is kinda centrally located.

The Improved Touring Category is a nationally regulated category. In other words, all IT cars operate under the same set of rules, nationwide.

It is not, however, eligible for acceptance to National races, and therefor it can not appear in the National Championship Runoffs event.

I'd think that SCCA club racing, and the Runoffs, need IT there. THey'd get fuller fields, and tighter racing that what they have in many current classes. Whether IT as a category would be better off though, is more debatable. However, assuming the former,

....it begs the question: Does the IT category owe it to the club to become a Nationally eligible category for the better of the club? Or should it defend it's own health first and foremost?

[jjjanos]

....it begs the question: Does the IT category owe it to the club to become a Nationally eligible category for the better of the club? Or should it defend it's own health first and foremost?

And that begs the question of why people equate the health of the Runoffs to the health of the club. National races, as long as I can remember - and that goes back to 1973 - have always been a minority of the participants in the Club Racing Program. If we subtract those running their "home" National(s) to get only those participating in the National "Program", the importance of the program gets even smaller.

I would argue that defending a healthy Regional program is in the best interest of the Club and the IT Category.

Since the Pandora's Box of IT going national has been raised - I suggest we look at how the last Sacred Messiahs for the Runoffs and the National Program faired...

Let's see, Sacred Messiah came in to hosannas and then the Romans crucified it. Net result - no salvation for the Runoffs and a less healthy class at the Regional level. This year at the Summit Point National, we had six (6!) of the Sacred Messiahs run.

So, I'm having great doubts at how such a move will do anything but move water from one pot to another and spill most of that in addition.

Eliminate Nationals entirely. SCCA holds club races, period. The Runoffs are open to any and everyone who wishes to compete and who has finished at least 6 races during the past 12 months at a minimum of 3 different tracks. No tow fund for anyone other than the top X finishers from the previous year.

Eligible classes will be the top 24 classes in terms of participating from the previous calendar year.

Drivers will be required to meet the 107% or the 105% rule. Those not meeting speed will need approval of the 80% of the drivers in their race to compete.