Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Z3_GoCar]

....The current "top programs" will migrate to National races, and their finite budgets will allow only limited Regional dipping. (All things are finite, to some degree). This means that the lesser desirable Regional events will be less 'competitive', which would encourage mid packers and newbies......

Speaking of finite, I had a short talk with Oli Thordarson who runs a C-5 in T1. He told me about the efforts of a certain Ferrari racer who ran test laps with C-5's C-6's, and Vipers as well as his own car. He paid to have one of the official FIA drivers come to Road America and drive all these cars and let him know how to set up his and figure out how to take advantage of the weakness of each. Maybe this is only an arguement for keeping any Ferrari's out of IT as they're the only ones that are this limited. I think this is the same racer who showed up last year with a double decker semi with spare cars and a full team of Ferrari trained technicians.

Sorry Jake, I don't mean to be picking on you today

[lateapex911]

Speaking of finite, I had a short talk with Oli Thordarson who runs a C-5 in T1. He told me about the efforts of a certain Ferrari racer who ran test laps with C-5's C-6's, and Vipers as well as his own car. He paid to have one of the official FIA drivers come to Road America and drive all these cars and let him know how to set up his and figure out how to take advantage of the weakness of each. Maybe this is only an arguement for keeping any Ferrari's out of IT as they're the only ones that are this limited. I think this is the same racer who showed up last year with a double decker semi with spare cars and a full team of Ferrari trained technicians.

Sorry Jake, I don't mean to be picking on you today

I agree, there will be those who decide to go whole hog. But the point of the above paragraph was that those whole hoggers, the top tier guys, won't bother with many regionals. Maybe the "Runoffs", or the Arrcs, or the IT-Fest, but the garden variety regional will belong to the mid packer. Unlike the usual weak Regional Prod fields, I think that, under the "IT is National" scenario, IT fields at Regionals would be healthy. Maybe healthier than now.

Why? IT is a popular ruleset, and having the car be sale-able to somebody who wants to go National racing is another market, one that doesn't exist today. Plus, if the top tier teams are hitting limited regionals, Joe Newbie, or Limited Budget Sam have a better change of grabbing a trophy once in awhile.

[tnord]

why do you think IT regional would be healthier under a national scenario? i'm really scratching my head on that.

[Knestis]

why do you think IT regional would be healthier under a national scenario? i'm really scratching my head on that.

** Newbies interested in moving up to a National program will have to start somewhere and enter Regionals

** Even a highly tweaked IT car is going to be viable for enough on-track hours to make running nearby Regionals a viable option for testing/training for a National effort

** Better resale market pool; larger knowledge- and supplier-base, with trickle-down externalities to new drivers

** Better economies of scale for shops like Flatout, CMS, et al.; better longterm health and viability of local support for regional racers

...but ultimately, I'm more interested in a healthy IT category and healthy Club racing programs, than I am healthy regionals.

K

[quadzjr]

It seems that the majority of people that have posted on here, seem to be against the idea of IT going national with a small handfull of people that say it might be a good idea. So with the fairly evident popularity of keeping IT a regional only class, why is this still an argument?

[Jeremy Billiel]

It seems that the majority of people that have posted on here, seem to be against the idea of IT going national with a small handfull of people that say it might be a good idea. So with the fairly evident popularity of keeping IT a regional only class, why is this still an argument?

Perhaps becasue the people who are against it going National are only fearful and have no concrete/known answer as to why not?

I would love to see peoples investment portfolios cause' we sure have a lot of very conservative people here!

[JeffYoung]

I'll repeat my two concerns on going National here, again. I think they are fairly concrete:

1. There is no guarantee that doing so will increase IT fields. Instead, I'm pretty confident (but no guarantee I am right as well) that for the most part we will see a "split" into guys who run Nationals and guys who run Regionals. I see this as bad for IT with no real benefit for the Club. From what little information I have about SM, this is exactly what happened when they went National. THe high dollar programs run National races, the fair to middlin's stay Regional (or create regional "old school" splinter classes) and everyone suffers a bit.

2. I believe our ruleset and rule culture is fairly unique within the SCCA. The events of the last few weeks have really confirmed that in my mind. I am very fearful of melding the Regional IT ruleset with the "National" mindset of ensuring competitiveness of all cars.

I used to think 2 was a black helicopter concern, but more and more I see it as real.

I remain strongly opposed to a split National/Regional distinction, with IT being a National class. I would be less opposed to ending the distinction and just having the top 24 classes go to the runoffs.

[Knestis]

... I would be less opposed to ending the distinction and just having the top 24 classes go to the runoffs.

...at which point a couple of the IT classes for sure would become de facto "national" (lower-case 'n') classes, with the Big Show up for grabs. Accepting your theory-of-action for the moment.

K

[pfcs]

All this talk gets me to wondering-could someone drive an IT car to the runoffs and be competetive?? If that was the case, well,maybe,.............; hell no! bad idea. Keep it regional-too far to drive.

[JeffYoung]

Which is not a concern for me in regards to points 1 or 2. It would be a concern for those who think going national will raise the price of competitivenes, etc. I don't discount that entirely, but I do tend to lean towards your position and Bill's that it would not change most of our racing programs' cost structure all that much.

I'm most concerned about field dilution from allowing IT to run National and Regional events, and the ruleset issues I mention above.

...at which point a couple of the IT classes for sure would become de facto "national" (lower-case 'n') classes, with the Big Show up for grabs. Accepting your theory-of-action for the moment.

K

[ericblois]

as ITA racer thats races SCCA and ICSCC both in the northwest states. i find that i race more with ICSCC because they ave 20 cars per race and SCCA is up to 8 this year last year was only 4-5. my only win so far was at the Rose Cup races in 2008 (SCCA) even though i won i was not happy with that since only 3 showed up so much for the biggest amature race this side of the Mississippi . with ICSCC best is 4th a few times by no means should my car be competitive motors down i think 15-20 hp from what i think i can build one to. im running on NASA specE30 suspension because its cheap. and im 50lbs over min and i run the same set of NTTO's for this year all trackdays and races. me and a friend plan on going to the ARRC this year with our cars knowing they are not as fast as we could make them but to run on a fun track and see what happends. if IT goes national i will be able to visit more tracks + for me but not sure about everyone else. i know i can drive the wheels off the car( been told by fellow racers, people watching and the all important people in white) any car, thats just me i like beating people with better built cars thats it. i will make my car faster over time. i truly dont know IT as a whole what would happen good or bad ,better competition faster cars. oh and im at the track record for ITA from just 4 years ago and now its about 3 seconds in front of me. im fine with that because not every weekend is the track record in danger. because my car is preped the way it is when the leaders slow down 1-2 seconds for a bad track i dont and get to race with them and have fun. oh whats that word FUN yes i have fun isnt that why we choose to race was because it was fun. ok ive rambled long enough by for now.
Eric Blois

[quadzjr]

Perhaps becasue the people who are against it going National are only fearful and have no concrete/known answer as to why not?

I would love to see peoples investment portfolios cause' we sure have a lot of very conservative people here!

Some people (like myself) don't have a portfolio. All I have is a yellow folder I call "keepers". <--It is just a stack of bills.

I have raced against national level teams (factory supported teams). Money will buy speed, it is quite simple. When I raced motorcross, it was the factory riders up front then the best of the rest following them, all us other people were just hoping to get a factory ride, untill then you have to be excited with finishing in the top ten.. lame.

Everyone seems to be in agreement that it will cost more money in the long run, so why bring that upon yourself? even you people with money, don't you want to keep as much as you can?

[Bill Miller]

As I've noodled on this whole "It will cost more, if IT goes National" argument, I've tried to look at what drives costs in Club Racing. What occurs to me, is that w/in a given class, what drives costs, is the 'density' of the competition, and the perceived reward. You have to analyze each class individually, as trying to do comparisons across classes doesn't take into account the intrinsic cost differences. And, as a general rule, the faster classes tend to cost more (spec classes notwithstanding). For example, I don't think anyone would think that it's valid to compare costs between a FC and a FA. Same basic kind of car (winged formula car), but there are some significant intrinsic cost differences between them, and as a rule, a FA is faster than a FC. Same would hold true for an ITS car vs. an ITB car.

Anyway, onto the key areas I see that drive costs. What I define competition 'density' as, is how many folks compete in a given class, in a given area. The IT classes seem to have a higher competition density along the East coast, than in other parts of the country. That's probably why you see more large-budget IT programs in the East. That's not to say that there aren't large-budget IT programs in other parts of the country, or in areas w/ lower competition density. But, if you look at the size of the grid in a given class, and look at how close the guys that run at the front are, I think you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Because of the differences between Regional and National racing (in terms of a recognized National championship), the geographic areas that you look at the competition desnisty over, are different. And it's not even a geographical thing, but really more of a specific series championship thing. The RO pull drivers from all over the country, and for the most part, the competition desnisty for a RO trophy is pretty high. I would say (in most cases) much higher than for the corresponding Divisional championship.

As far as the reward goes, or really, the value that people place on that reward, what you're really talking about are trophies. That could be a NARRC class championship trophy, a RO trophy, a Divisional championship, a MARRS race trophy, an ARRC trophy, etc. Everyone places their own value on these rewards. Some are happy w/ just finishing on the podium in a Regional race, others aren't satisfied until they've achieved what they believe is the pinnacle for their area. For National classes, that's generally accepted as a 1st place trophy at the RO. For Regional classes, some see it as a 1st place trophy at the ARRC, others may see it as winning the IT Triple Crown.

Race drivers, by their very nature, tend to be highly competitive. They want that 'pinnacle' reward. But it's each individual that decides what they're ultimately satisfied with. I don't think anyone will argue the fact that most folks that run a National-eligible car at the Regional level, spend less than their counterparts that run those cars at the National level. This isn't an absolute, but I think is a fair generalization of the situation. I think it becomes even more accurate when you talk about the folks that run at the front, in their respective arenas.

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.

Going back to the differences in IT programs around the country. Some of you that have been around a while might remember a guy from the PNW that drove an ITS E36 BMW (IIRC, this was around the time that the E36 was either going to ITR, or getting a smaller SIR). This guy ran an essentially stock car, and IIRC, said he had a j/y motor in the car, yet he was winning or running at the front in the ITS races in his area. Here was a car (and driver) that were running at the front in a car that was far from one of the top-level E36's in the country. Why? Because of low competition density.

For the most part, the guys battling for RO trophies have significant budgets. But I think the same holds true for those batting for ARRC trophies. If IT were to become RO eligible, the competition density probably will go up for those shooting for that RO trophy. You have some people that will argue that a 1st place trophy at the ARRC is every bit as significant as a 1st place trophy at the RO. And while it may be, w/in that specific community, I feel that the general perception is that it's not. Yes, it's an accomplishment, but you're really not getting all the best cars / drivers there.

So, if you have a perceived higher reward, you more than likely will attract more people that will want to go after it. That's going to up the competition density for that class (or group of classes). If you want to go for it, you will most certainly have to bring your 'A' game (as there will be more people willing to do just that), and that will, in some cases require you to up your budget. But, that's only IF you make the choice to go for it. However, I think the same would hold true, even if IT was always a Regional series, and you brought your ITA car from the SW to the NE (not picking on anyone, just making an example), and wanted to run at the front. Or if that guy w/ the E36 from the PNW wanted to go win the SARRC ITS championship. If you're going from a series w/ a low competition desnisty to one w/ a high competition desnsity, I don't think you should be surprised if all of a sudden you have to spend more money, if you want to run at the front. It's no different than the guys that currently run mid-pack in the SARRC/MARRS/NARRC IT classes, if they want to move up the grid. Either get more out of the car, or get more out of the nut behind the wheel. Either way, both will require you to spend more.

And by the same token, if you go from a higher competition density to a lower one, you should have to spend less money to maintain your current position on the grid. As myself, and others, have mentioned, if IT were to become RO-eligible, you'd pull some of the cream off the top. That automatically creates a lower competition desnisity for those classes, at the Regional level.

So I just don't buy the arguement that having IT become RO-eligible will automagically cause everyone racing in IT to spend more money. There's just too much evidence out there to the contrary (Regional vs. National programs for RO-eligible cars). And please, don't trot out SM as an example anymore. There are just too many things that are different about it, as compared to IT, that make it a poor comparrison.

Sorry for the ramble, but I figured I'd share.

[callard]

Good assessment and well presented Bill.
Chuck

[Knestis]

I like the "density" construct as well. It helps clarify an aspect of this issue for me.

Thanks, Bill.

K

[tnord]

So I just don't buy the arguement that having IT become RO-eligible will automagically cause everyone racing in IT to spend more money. There's just too much evidence out there to the contrary (Regional vs. National programs for RO-eligible cars). And please, don't trot out SM as an example anymore. There are just too many things that are different about it, as compared to IT, that make it a poor comparrison.

i don't think it's anyones contention that EVERYONE in IT will spend more money if it became RO eligible. it's really not accurate to use an individuals spending level that is "at the front" currently and compare that to what he would have to spend to be at the front of a regional event in the national/regional scenario. the proper comparison is between the guy at the front today and the guy at the front of the national event "tomorrow."

you have to make like comparisons.

- if driver X is winning today, what will it cost him to win a national event tomorrow?
- if driver Y is .5s off the pace of the fastest car today, what will it cost him to be .5s off the pace of the fastest car tomorrow?
- if driver Z doesn't give a shit where he finishes today, he won't give a shit tomorrow and it won't make any damn difference in cost. though he might be having less fun because half his buddies left for nationals.

there's a dynamic here you guys are completely ignoring too. we all agree that use of the process results in different horses for different courses right? in a RO scenario there's only one course that really matters. take Road America for example.....i would expect that if ITA went national today, you'd have most of the top 10 in Integras and Nissan SR20 derivatives. For all the guys running nationals, there's going to be a big movement to switch to these cars that favor the RO track because of their power advantage over everyone else. Is everyone OK with the runoffs becoming a 2 or 3 horse race? or will people start shouting that the process needs to be adjusted (yet again)? do you deal with it in the typical way the CRB does by throwing weight at the cars that seem to have the track specific advantage?

[Jeremy Billiel]

Nicely put Bill.

[Bill Miller]

i don't think it's anyones contention that EVERYONE in IT will spend more money if it became RO eligible. it's really not accurate to use an individuals spending level that is "at the front" currently and compare that to what he would have to spend to be at the front of a regional event in the national/regional scenario. the proper comparison is between the guy at the front today and the guy at the front of the national event "tomorrow."

you have to make like comparisons.

- if driver X is winning today, what will it cost him to win a national event tomorrow?
- if driver Y is .5s off the pace of the fastest car today, what will it cost him to be .5s off the pace of the fastest car tomorrow?
- if driver Z doesn't give a shit where he finishes today, he won't give a shit tomorrow and it won't make any damn difference in cost. though he might be having less fun because half his buddies left for nationals.

there's a dynamic here you guys are completely ignoring too. we all agree that use of the process results in different horses for different courses right? in a RO scenario there's only one course that really matters. take Road America for example.....i would expect that if ITA went national today, you'd have most of the top 10 in Integras and Nissan SR20 derivatives. For all the guys running nationals, there's going to be a big movement to switch to these cars that favor the RO track because of their power advantage over everyone else. Is everyone OK with the runoffs becoming a 2 or 3 horse race? or will people start shouting that the process needs to be adjusted (yet again)? do you deal with it in the typical way the CRB does by throwing weight at the cars that seem to have the track specific advantage?

Well Travis,

If IT went national tomorrow it would raise the price of poker for everyone involved.

Sure looks like there's at least one person out there that thinks it will raise costs for everyone.

As far as your comparisons, I think I covered that.

So, if you have a perceived higher reward, you more than likely will attract more people that will want to go after it. That's going to up the competition density for that class (or group of classes). If you want to go for it, you will most certainly have to bring your 'A' game (as there will be more people willing to do just that), and that will, in some cases require you to up your budget. But, that's only IF you make the choice to go for it.

As far as driver Z goes, if he really doesn't care where he's at on the grid, he's probably not racing w/ the guys that might leave for Nationals. That's not to say that those guys all aren't buddies, but they're probably not racing each other for position.

Regarding the 'different horses for different courses' dynamic, exactly how would it be any different than it is today? Road America or Road Atlanta, does it matter? You've currently got cars that are better suited to Road Atlanta than they are to other courses, and vice-versa. What if the ARRC moved to Road America? Or how about the ARRC @ Road Atlanta vs. the IT-Fest @ Mid Ohio? Also, what happens when they change the RO venue? Sorry Travis, but your argument holds less water than a collander.

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.

On the subject of rewards weight, while the cars are what are ultimately impacted, what I think the real scenario is, is that they throw the weight at the guy that can wring the most out of the car. In many cases, you've got several other examples of a given car that's impacted by a comp. adj., who's driver never stood on a RO podium. Could be because of budget, could be because of development skill, or could be because of driving ability. But they get impacted just like the guy that the comp. adj. was based on.

So tell me Travis, how are those new Pings?

[tnord]

Regarding the 'different horses for different courses' dynamic, exactly how would it be any different than it is today?

So, if you have a perceived higher reward, you more than likely will attract more people that will want to go after it.

i don't even need to argue with you anymore, you can handle it all by yourself.

[Bill Miller]

i don't even need to argue with you anymore, you can handle it all by yourself.

You're making even less sense than usual.