Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Mustang in STU

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    This is my world...

    Any time a given policy is sold to different constituencies as meeting their individual needs we trade (1) greater support for (2) lack of policy (or program) coherence.

    SPx cannot be all things to all people, but it's trying to be something to a number of different groups - IT drivers who want to "go National" without changing their cars, owners of ex-WC cars without a place to play in Club Racing, folks who want to tinker beyond the allowances of IT (with new or upgraded builds), and Honda swap fans (who arguably represent a younger and hipper demo market for SCCA). We are seeing the inevitable result of that mushiness.

    I'd propose that greater support is super in the short run (i.e., getting the classes Nationally viable by car count), but coherence - a tightly defined mission, vision, and execution (rules set) - will become frustrating for participants over time. Spec Miata is an example of this as additional chassis have been integrated into the class, rules get added/complicated, etc.

    K

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    24

    Default

    I somewhat understand what they are trying to do. I get the idea of letting IT cars compete, and saying these cars will not be competitive. Then my question is why make the change in the rules? If a ITR mustang, or the 3.2 ltr bmws or any other ITR car over 3 ltr is not going to be competitive at that prep level, then why not let them be "uncompetitive" in STO. Why change all the rules for a class, which was based on liter size, for cars that are not going to be competitive in either class. Then these racers could still "double dip" in national racing. I just do not get why they changes the philosophy of the class for "double dipping" race cars. Why not just make IT a national class and be done with it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Because the idea moved from the proposition that IT "can never be a National class." There have been lots of discussions here on the topic, many arguments against the idea - some sound, some specious, and some simply under-informed - and ultimately, the powers-that-be wouldn't go for it.

    K

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    I'm not sure that is the case. I think it is more accurate to say that a large chunk of membership (myself included) didn't want IT to go National. And I think that is a large part of why it did not.

    However, if I had known the reaction would be to create the ST classes at a prep level slightly above IT in an effort to attract IT cars and drivers over to a national rule set, I probably would have approached the "IT should go national" debate differently.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    I'm not sure that is the case. I think it is more accurate to say that a large chunk of membership (myself included) didn't want IT to go National. And I think that is a large part of why it did not.
    I agree with Jeff on this one; I think this was one of those all-too-rare instances where the BoD and CRB listened to the members, and acted accordingly.

    Whether or not to allow IT cars to compete in ST is a valid discussion/argument in my opinion. I can see good arguments for both sides of the issue. Making IT-prepped cars of ANY displacement race with ex-WCGT Corvettes & Vipers on the other hand is a ridiculous idea. That's like saying we'll allow SM cars (in their SM prep) to compete in Touring; except the 1.6L cars will run in T3 but the 1.8L cars have to run in T1.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JeffYoung View Post
    However, if I had known the reaction would be to create the ST classes at a prep level slightly above IT in an effort to attract IT cars and drivers over to a national rule set, I probably would have approached the "IT should go national" debate differently.
    I agree with that statement. In essence ST is an end run around IT and I think it will hurt IT participation. In addition to creating more classes within a racing organization that has too many classes, ST further muddies the waters for new racers looking to get into the hobby. I do feel IT could have been adapted to fulfill whatever need that ST is being developed to fill.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    ST seems to me, at its core, to be a class that is needed in the SCCA. the ability to muddy it with IT/jetta TDi/SM/MX5 cup/spec bobcat/pedal cars/land speed record cars has made the whole thing rediculous. I understand the need for numbers but existing classes, especially ones already recognized in club racing, shouldn't be "specifically" allowed. does an IT honda fit STL rules? yes - not to the max, but yes. you are inhearently allowed to run there, or prod with necessary safety upgrades (fire system). pointing out the crossover just seems cheap.

    as for blending in pro series cars, I think that is the realm of ST and am fine with it.

    I REALLY like the idea of a class where I can run a motor swap AND be within some sort of ruleset that theoretically balances performance, at least a bit - i.e. not a super production or ITEveryrthing group. I don't like what I think I will see on track, though. and I'd HATE to be working tech. (not so much becasue it is difficult, but becasue there's a lot of old guys who just can't make themselves care about this confusing melting pot of a class).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    ST seems to me, at its core, to be a class that is needed in the SCCA.
    What is the specific SCCA racing need that ST is filling?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Point being, the powers-that-be SHOULD have been where the decision was made, irrespective of what a survey of current drivers want.

    This is a strategic decision about the structure of National Club Racing, about how the categories and classes fit together to build a comprehensive program, that shouldn't be made based on what Regional IT drivers want. The fact that IT folks picked their classes KNOWING that it was a Regional-only opportunity is powerful evidence that - except for those on the cusp of looking for a "next step beyond IT" - they aren't going to be inclined to be positive about the proposed change.

    And the decision sure as hell shouldn't have been made based on (or even influenced by) the desires of drivers in existing National classes in an environment where the classes are competing one against another for RubOffs berths. The LAST thing they want is a new, SUCCESSFUL class.

    At the end of the day, if the CRB and/or BoD HAD wanted IT to become a National category, they would have done it. That they didn't do it is strong evidence that it wasn't their desire that it happen.

    The lack of strategic thinking at that level - above our category - is what got us this Platypus of a category. None of the parts fit together very well but it will probably be viable in some niche of the bigger ecosystem (i.e., the arch-typical National class).

    K

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •