February 2013 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Kai Noeske]

So, IT remains regional only for the foreseeable future...

[Greg Amy]

So, IT remains regional only for the foreseeable future...

Per the CRB, for the "permanent" future, foreseeable or not.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Am I the only one who has trouble opening SCCA PDFs in Google Chrome? They never seem to work for me, but will in IE.

[mossaidis]

I have the same problem. Save to your download folder and open from there.

[Gregg]

Am I the only one who has trouble opening SCCA PDFs in Google Chrome? They never seem to work for me, but will in IE.

If you want to disable Chrome's built-in PDF reader and use whatever is the default for your PC instead (like Adobe or Primo, etc) check here:

http://superuser.com/questions/39555...ader-in-chrome

[DavidM]

That was a fairly emphatic FU from the CRB. Sure IT cars can run in ST. Hell, they can run in Prod. The chance of running at the front is zero if there's more than 3 cars running. Kirk's request was just for the *possibility* of IT becoming a national class and they couldn't even do that.

David

[Knestis]

Since a couple of people asked why I "wanted to make IT national," I should share that the question was frankly intended to get exactly this result.

With the advent of the Majors program, an initial (and arguably successful) year of the IT National Tour, and conversations about ST perking along, it just seemed like an appropriate time to affirm the intentions of the CRB vis-a-vis the IT category.

I had exactly ZERO expectation that the prohibition would be removed, even though it still doesn't make any sense in the big scheme of things.

Among us chickens, I think the CRB has pretty much confirmed their view of the irrelevance of IT to the future of Club Racing.

K

[Greg Amy]

Among us chickens, I think the CRB has pretty much confirmed their view of the irrelevance of IT to the future of National Club Racing.

A bit melodramatic. Fixed for you.

I'm quite certain that the CRB is well aware of the value of Improved Touring to Club Racing as a whole; only a fool would suggest otherwise. All that happened here is they affirmed that they like where it is now and do not wish to add it to the National racing program.

GA

[DavidM]

A bit melodramatic. Fixed for you.

I'm quite certain that the CRB is well aware of the value of Improved Touring to Club Racing as a whole; only a fool would suggest otherwise. All that happened here is they affirmed that they like where it is FOREVER and do not wish to add it to the National racing program.

GA

Fixed yours. I'm not certain the CRB knows which way is up. What is certain is that anyone who had hopes of IT becoming a national class and going to the Runoffs in IT will now move to another class or leave SCCA all together. Either way it's a loss for IT.

David

[Greg Amy]

...What is certain is that anyone who had hopes of IT becoming a national class and going to the Runoffs in IT...

....were not reading the rules. That verbiage has been in there since the class was created in 1985, and it has been affirmed by the CRB many times over the last nearly 3 decades -- twice in response to emails from me.

Sorry, no empathy.

Kirk is a close friend of mine but I see his request, and all the others that followed it, as nothing more than a non-sincere attempt to throw a stink bomb into the room and get people all upset. Again. And that's verified by Kirk's admission above that, for all intents and purposes, he knew it wasn't going to work and all he wanted to do was throw a stink bomb in the room and get people all upset.

Looks like it's working.

GA

[Ed Funk]

What's that smell?

[mossaidis]

Kirk's stink bomb.

[mossaidis]

In all seriousness, now that the CRB has officially confirmed again that it will never go National/Majors, I am sad. Near term for me: kids; long term car classification: who knows. So sad.

[jjjanos]

1. Whether you support IT being Ruboffs-eligible , it is disappointing and mildly insulting that the CRB did not even put it into the what do you think section.
2. Seems to me that the CRB is being marginalized by the BoD in regards to the future of Club Racing. They essentially said that everything to do with the Majors Program is out of their hands.

[Knestis]

Not intended to be a stink bomb at all.

Some things were changing and rumors were bubbling up suggesting that the regional/national distinction might change on the heels of the Majors introduction. ST has SUBSTANTIALLY changed the context around IT. Greg can confirm that I shared that opinion with him on our VIR 13 trip. The SS and Touring rules are in major flux.

With everything spinning around IT as it has been for the past 18 months or so, affirmation that something is *not* going to change is as important to members' planning for future seasons as getting confirmation of a rule change.

Yeah, I'm sad about it too because I think that intransigence on the part of a few has compromised what IT could have been. With just a tiny number of exceptions (FVee?) NO category has survived since the mid-'80s without pretty major changes. When motivated, the PTBs can change (or ignore) any GCR rule. IT is Regional-only NOW for reasons completely unrelated to the existence of that one line in the book but that truly doesn't matter. What does matter is that we're all clear what the category will NOT be moving forward.

At this point, I'm not building another IT car, even as I have no powerful motivation to run Nationals/Majors.

K

[DavidM]

....were not reading the rules. That verbiage has been in there since the class was created in 1985, and it has been affirmed by the CRB many times over the last nearly 3 decades -- twice in response to emails from me.

Sorry, no empathy.

Kirk is a close friend of mine but I see his request, and all the others that followed it, as nothing more than a non-sincere attempt to throw a stink bomb into the room and get people all upset. Again. And that's verified by Kirk's admission above that, for all intents and purposes, he knew it wasn't going to work and all he wanted to do was throw a stink bomb in the room and get people all upset.

Looks like it's working.

GA

Times change. You of all people know IT is not what it was when it was started. I think there are a lot of people that would like to be able to compete at the Runoffs in IT and held out hope that the CRB/BoD would entertain that idea. Some people have no desire for the increased modifications that moving to Prod or ST entails. I see the requests as an attempt to ascertain if things were any different within SCCA than before. The resounding answer is no. IT is still one of the strongest categories in SCCA and deserves better treatment than it gets. I think this just re-affirms what the people running the show think of IT. How that translates into IT car counts only time will tell.

David

[lateapex911]

I can see both sides. I know the CRB had. at the time I was on the ITAC, reservations.
-One was a tech issue with old cars that couldn't be documented properly winning the Ruboffs. (there were solutions proposed, none were accepted)
-Another was the fact that IT sets weights via the Process, and the CRB was loath to allow that into the Ruboffs without dictatorship control (competition adjustments) over weights should some car dominate. (We were, at the time, told to give the 'grand experiment' some time regarding the Process and it could be revisited)
- And there were real concerns that it would hurt Regional car counts, that people would run reduced schedules saving up for the big trip to the Ruboffs, and IT and the Regions pocketbooks would suffer.

All of these issues were brought up, I should add, not as a response to any official business or request, but as side conversations on ITAC /CRB con calls, often occuring before or after the actual business of the call happened. Lots of guys on the ITAC never heard any of this.....

[Greg Amy]

...affirmation that something is *not* going to change is as important to members' planning for future seasons as getting confirmation of a rule change...

That, I will grant you, Prof. Though it's an answer that was never really up to question until you brought it up. We've both queried over the years in regards to National status for Improved Touring (the latest, prior to this one immediately before a current CRB member finally said, in effect, "Fine, eff it, let's create a new class to get around this. Pass me a Crown") and the answer has always been the same: "No".

With just a tiny number of exceptions (FVee?) NO category has survived since the mid-'80s without pretty major changes.

That, my friend, is a self-evident truth. I'd argue that the REASON IT has lasted as long as it has without major changes is EXCLUSIVELY due to its Regional Status. Hell, Spec Miata lasted about 32 microseconds before the competition adjustments crept in. Crap, it's already starting in Super Touring Light...

It may seem Bourgeosie or self-important, but I've personally come to believe that Improved Touring is better off with its Regional-Only status. I keep coming back to ITx each time I venture into National racing because of what it is.

But more likely, I keep coming back to Improved Touring mostly because of what it isn't.

GA

[RSTPerformance]

If IT went "National" or whatever the name is and the CRB got more involved than they already are things would get much much worse for IT... Currently we do not have a great class structure in SCCA "national racing" and things seem to constantly get added/changed around, I would hate to see that happen to IT.

While I agree IT should be national, I also don't think it works right now. It would only work if it was part of a simple class structure for sedan type cars (IT, Touring, Prod, GT & a few specialty classes such as AS & SM). I think that for now SCCA needs to keep things how they are if a class is working, and in a few years if things get a bit better organized re-look at it... Not to mention if an Audi won the Runoffs the entire club would fall apart

Raymond "All other negative CRB comments edited out of my reply!" Blethen