Mustang in STU

[Knestis]

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

[JeffYoung]

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.

[erlrich]

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.

[Ron Earp]

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.

[Chip42]

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).

[Ron Earp]

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?

[Knestis]

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

[dickita15]

What is the specific SCCA racing need that ST is filling?

If done right a more modern, relevant alternative to Production for those that want to modify there cars more than IT.

[Chip42]

What is the specific SCCA racing need that ST is filling?

what dick said, plus various touring cars, time attackers (some), and attractive to theyounger "tuner" set. IT, for all that it is, is not that. prod less so, due in large part to the competition (cars, not people, though I'm sure the people wouldn't want "punk kids" in their class).

it fills a void. it does not NEED to have IT cars legalized using IT specs - they are already legal (all of them, I think) with a few changes. doing so simply makes the class harder to define, if not for the rules makers than for the enforcers and entrants, particularly those on the outside looking in.

[TomL]

What need, exactly, is this fulfilling? The way I read the ST rules, it looks sort of like GT-with-stock-tubs, i.e., a halfway step between a class that was slowly dying until limited prep was introduced (Production) and one that is dying (GT - excluding GT1). I could see this as a class designed to eventually supplant GT, or maybe as a more liberalized Prod. But I can't see the need as a separate category, even with the huge number of options available within each of the new classes. Are that many people out there who would be so interested in ST-type vehicles, that they wouldn't go into Prod or GT if ST wasn't available?

Or was the thinking that this is what we need to go to long-term as a beyond-IT class (one rule set for everything, with fewer - and better subscribed - classes). And that eventually Prod and GT will be rolled into the new setup. I realize that if you tried to fit ST rules into the current Prod or GT setup (or vice versa), there would be much grief from current competitors. However, the only way that the ST rules make much sense to me is as an eventual combined class for all production based cars beyond IT (with the possible exception of a few healthy "old rules" classes such as GT1).

[Chip42]

SCCA doesn't kill categories. this is an unfortunate (near) truth.

the class fills no racing need - it fills a void for cars of the type popular today in both pro racing (touring cars) and the aftermarket (tuners, SEMA type stuff). it's a void for new entrants and existing cars, not a place needed for people who are looking to race.

apparently the GT category was pretty hostile to the idea of merging WC cars into their classes, and both prod and GT's rulesets are pretty substantially different from WC. thus "Prepared" came to be. then they had to make it work.

now we have the actually unique and somewhat well subscribed STO, the runwhatyoubrung class STU, and "ITplus" STL.

so the "need" is currently hiding in the clouds. but I think at the end of the day, if the word is put out and the rules ironed out, ST could be like the prod of old - manufacturer supported, well subscribed, important racing. it's more relevant than GT or prod and has that certain pinache plus less "baggage".

[23racer]

I hear what you are saying, but the 2011 STU rules don't allow WC Touring cars to enter the class. It seems to have changed from 2010 to more of a super IT grouping. Am I wrong in that understanding?

[JeffYoung]

Just a question -- so if membership, the guys who race in IT, didn't want to go National, it would be ok to force them to do so?

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

[Dave Gomberg]

I hear what you are saying, but the 2011 STU rules don't allow WC Touring cars to enter the class. ...

Stay tuned for the February Fastrack.

Dave

[Matt93SE]

Stay tuned for the February Fastrack.

Dave

Is it Feb yet? My car and wallet are waiting on rules....

[adoyle]

So why then in this throw everything in class, did they stop at 1985 and newer IT cars. I have a 1980 3.5 ltr car and I would love to go double dip at Nationals.

[Ron Earp]

So why then in this throw everything in class, did they stop at 1985 and newer IT cars. I have a 1980 3.5 ltr car and I would love to go double dip at Nationals.

Spoil the look of the class man, spoil the look of the class....

[adoyle]

Jeff, What do you mean by force IT guys to go national. You could make IT a national class, and if member want to run national then do it, or you could run just regionals.

[Ron Earp]

What do you mean by force IT guys to go national. You could make IT a national class, and if member want to run national then do it, or you could run just regionals.

Force the class to be a national class, not force the racers to actually race it. When polls were done quite some time ago the majority of IT racers did not wish the class to be national eligible.

[Knestis]

Just a question -- so if membership, the guys who race in IT, didn't want to go National, it would be ok to force them to do so?

What adoyle said.

The CATEGORY going National would NOT force individual ENTRANTS to do so. Based on my present goals and personal situation, if ITB were a National class, I would almost certainly still just run Regionals within a sensible distance of Pablo's home base.

That's part of why the whole conversation was so whack. Some current IT drivers being asked, "Should IT be a National category?" were answering based on their personal desire to do National events - including the RubOffs - rather than Regionals. In essence, "I don't want to do Nationals therefore nobody should be allowed to do so in an IT car."

Again, there WERE some well-founded arguments against the idea. That just wasn't one of them.

K