New England Region IT EZ

[Dano77]

My best un educated guess is.

Lime Rock in a used IT7 car that he found under a rock. He will sel the Miata and pocket 10,000 Pesos in the deal.


Or he might show up at Thompson.


Only the Shadow Knows

[Flyinglizard]

GA, please explain the logic of ; inviting a successful class to come and race with SCCA and then changing one costly parameter of that class, one that is a large part responsible for that success.
Copy success, dont EFit up.

I see no reason to repeat past mistakes. Keep it simple and cheap.
The R tires have no good rewards other than a little G load. You also slide through the grass faster and hit the wall harder. Please tell me one benefit of R tires other than maybe you get them for free.
It would make the most sense to start this class on the 20 tires that most Chumpemons have in the garage . Once the horse is out of the barn, you cant go back. ( You could loosen the rule up later to meet demand) but once some new guy's wife buys him a set of Hoes. it 's over.
Chumps spend more on fuel than tires!!
There are maybe 12-15 "R tire" classes that are already weak. Allowing R tires to this class would just add to the weakness. The R guys can run someplace else.
Having a dedicated group on streets makes a lot of sense.
180 Tires would indeed allow double dipping for the rest of the IT cars and some of the Prod cars. 400$ per set of tires is like free for most of you. One set of wheels and tires are about the same $ as 4 Hoes and can last 50 sessions.

Chumps went Chump for a few reasons. Hassle, cost, track time.
You comment makes no sense and is rude.
MM

[Knestis]

Yeah, sorry, guys - I'm totally drinking the street tire koolaid on this one.

(And yes, I have raced on them, so nyah!)

The primary purpose of the idea is to capture the Chump/Lemons crowd. Even if it's framed as a "fun run" class initially, you KNOW it's a racing class and racers gonna race - particularly if it catches on even a little. Messing up a key aspect of what makes those formulae work seems like a bad idea. The class can't be everything to everyone so there's no sense dorking up a key aspect of the draw for the target market.

Unless I misunderstand and the class is really supposed to target existing SCCA class-eligible cars...?

K

[Greg Amy]

GA, please explain the logic of ; inviting a successful class to come and race with SCCA and then changing one costly parameter of that class...

Easy:

1) It's not inviting "a" class, it's inviting a category - a mindset - of significantly disparate vehicles from multiple, disparate, disorganized "organizations". NER is inviting "crapcan" cars to come play in, and experience, a different culture, and not to a specific set of regs from any specific other orgs; and

2) They're not changing any costly parameter; they're saying "come run with us, whatever your configuration, whatever you got, as long as it meets our minimum safety regulations."

Herein lies the major difference between how you see this and how I see this (and this is *NOT* a personal attack): you see possibilities of competition, I see possibilities of access. You're thinking in terms of how you can be competitive in a particular class at a minimum of cost; I'm seeing how we can get someone who's not raced with SCCA to come race with SCCA.

And you can race on street tires if you want to. We don't care. Just give everyone else the right to choose what they want to do, too.

A lot of people just gloss right over that whole "no guarantee of competitiveness" thing (the whole basic concept of Improved Touring - the original crapcan series back in 1984!). Some will see that and think "oh cool, a place to play" while others see that and think "oh good, I can be competitive 'cause no one else will try to be". When it comes to ITEZ, I'm the former ("hey, go play and have fun") and you're the latter ("I'm'a gonna win that race!") I could be wrong, but I suggest that ITEZ's intent is "go play" and that means "by whatever means you choose to do, but keep in mind someone else is gonna spend more money than you".

THIS is why I keep teasing you about the "jumping the shark" thing with crapcan racing. It's gone beyond the "let's go have fun stage" and is well past the "I'm'a gonna win that race!" stage. Right now, NER SCCA is all about "go play". That may change later, but for now...

Greg

P.S., Non sequitor, I'm still trying to decide what to do about Sebring and PBR - still trying to find a hitchhike space for my Integra - and I'd really like to get a couple STL finishes under my belt. If you have a car that'll run two weekends without issue, might need to meet up.

[RSTPerformance]

Anyone want to run an ex ITB VW schirocco? I know where you can get one cheep... I think all it needs a front shock, transmission and some safety stuff like belts. If you are interested contact me!

Raymond Blethen
603-738-6686

[JLawton]

LMAO!!


Now, who is placing bets on where and when Jeff Lawton's next SCCA will be?

???

Easy:

1) It's not inviting "a" class, it's inviting a category - a mindset - of significantly disparate vehicles from multiple, disparate, disorganized "organizations".

Yes!!

Making street tires mandatory so everyone is competitive makes no sense. You've got a '79 Ford LTD with a 250K suspension running against forced induction '93 Miata............ Is being on street tires going to make that equal???

Run what ya brung............



And everyone forgets the first page of the IT rules in the GCR: No guarantee of competitiveness...........

[gran racing]

The point of this, I believe, isn't to be a catch-all to other existing SCCA racecars. We have enough of those already. I too feel this should be on street tires. Get a lot of complaints, open it up. Much easier to do than the opposite.

It's not necessarily about being competitive. When I was running an under prepped car, I knew that I wasn't going to be near the front. I was okay with that. But if the street tire deal can make cars run a bit closer and encourages the less expensive culture, great!

If the goal is to attract some chump cars, why not ask they what they'd prefer? Is there a place where many potential candidates could be reached other than the ChumpCar forum?

[Greg Amy]

The point of this, I believe, isn't to be a catch-all to other existing SCCA racecars. We have enough of those already.

I disagree, Dave; it's most assuredly intended to be a catch-all for cars that cannot fit anywhere else. A lot of these crapcan cars simply will not fit into anything else, especially given non-standard modifications. I know this because it has been a point of discussion among some hierarchy for some time on how to incorporate "crapcan" racing into the stodgy SCCA structure.

Couple this to the whole Racing Experience program and a street tire "mandate" is completely misplaced within the philosophy and intent of these programs, which are all about everything but mandates; they're the anti-mandates.

- GA

[Flyinglizard]

Chumpemons has very few rules. One is safety the other is tires.
Racing is all about applied HP. If you are not matted on the gas , the 400Hp does you no good. Shitty tires wont let you mat the pedal as soon.
Low grip tires do even up the pack by limiting applied HP.. both accelerating and stopping. The big power cars take a much longer time to get past a faster exiting lighter car. Shitty tires also stop longer but the overall pack is pretty similar. Lower grip= better racing for a lot of reasons. Spring rates are lower, shocks less important, blah blah ..
More grip simply cost more to run, brakes, fuel, tires, suspension all cost more at higher G loads.
The extreme example of this is ice racing where many cars are door to door for many laps with a huge sample of HP levels.

As noted if the 180TW is not popular, it is easy to change. But very hard to change to a 180 Rule if anyone has R tires.

Every venue that has gone to a faster, more expensive tire has seen a decrease in racers. (SM has new well funded blood) but many SM guys are also running STL or EP to get away from the crack.

AS far as SCCA Chumpemons,promotion goes. You will get banned from the CC forum for discussing any other venue. FB is pretty good, "Grassroots" is best. Print ad in Road and track, grassroots. a nice little PR sent someplaces.

The real issue I see is that we have very few races with any lead time to get the word out. CC post their schedule on their web site in NOV. for the next year.
I was trying to gather some dates but you have to look all over the net to find any SCCA dates.

Compare the Chumpcar site to any site that SCCA has. Right on the home page is the schedule for all to see. There is no easy access to our SCCA schedule.
We need a "SCCA Touring Car"( or EZ Touring car") home site that is simple with 10 doors or less, with a nationwide schedule on the front page. A 1 click page for the overview of our racing program.
I think that each category should have it's own official site, promoting their own agenda. Prod, GT, Touring, EZTC?
WE have so many people/regions involved it just gets sloppy to find anything. Look at the NASA 25 hr? good coverage , big ads.

When I posted my "crap can rules". My hits went to over 100 per day on that page. Why? google up "crapcan racing". Now google up IT racing. next try IT EZ ,
Google "FWD racing".
"SCCA touring car" comes up with terry 's jersey challenge.
You will see why I push for the "crapcan" title , in spite of the down sides to it.

"EZ Touring Car" by SCCA. might be good.

Google is my friend.
FB page might help

WE need google to hit upon a easy to navigate site. We need a nationwide schedule and compatible rules with other sanctions for EZ cross over.


GA ,I will look in the barn for the 300TW tires for the STL car.
Raymond. I am very interested in the Rocco. I called you.
MM



Mike Ogren/ ProtechRacing
1220 Broad St.-US 41
Masaryktown,FL. 34604
352/428/8983
www.fwdracingguide.com