2014 Improved Touring Participation

[dickita15]

even in the divisions it varies. for instance if you look at 100 entries for IT7 in the North East you think that is good. for those 9 tracks. truth is 96 of those were at the 3 tracks in New England.

[Knestis]

These numbers - particularly by division - do nothing but reinforce for me how asinine the "national-regional" status of IT is. If it's not a REAL region-specific category, its classes should be Majors- and RubOffs-eligible. If it's never going to happen, it should be left up to the regions to decide what they want to do.

Fish.

Cut bait.

Decide.

Then make the XX best-subscribed classes in the GCR in 2015 eligible for the RubOffs in 2016 (and so forth). Let the market work its magic and we'd have fewer "national" classes in one step. Cake.

K

[Greg Amy]

These numbers...do nothing but reinforce for me how asinine the "national-regional" status of IT is. If it's not a REAL region-specific category, its classes should be Majors- and RubOffs-eligible. If it's never going to happen, it should be left up to the regions to decide what they want to do...Then make the XX best-subscribed classes in the GCR in 2015 eligible for the RubOffs...

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

[Knestis]

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

That would indeed be one solution. Regions could emphasize what they think is important. It could be that those places where ITC is rocking, they could make it even better by getting out from under the assumption that the entire nation needs to follow the same rules. If a division wanted to form a compact among its regions to include IT classes in a divisional championship, it could, or expand for among-division standardization if it's viewed as valuable.

I have a HUGE emotional attachment to IT - as it's traditionally been framed - but under the circumstances, we should be revisiting first principles of all of our programs.

K

[Tom Blaney]

How about just making it a whole lot simpler and dispose of regional/national status, combine the series, make all the cars eligible to run the events. I don't think now a days the Majors is all that epic, people just want to race and have a lot of cars to race against.

Perhaps have an enduro/pro series as an alternate event. I think people are double dipping just to get some track time for the weekend. Since nationals are longer, this would solve the track time issue, and perhaps we would see more cars in the same number of classes, and then there would be a jump in participation.

[gran racing]

I actually enjoy the sprint / relatively shorter races. Weekends where there are two sprint races versus one long race are more appealing to me personally.

Then again, that flying club is looking more appealing lately...

[Greg Amy]

How about just making it a whole lot simpler and dispose of regional/national status, combine the series, make all the cars eligible to run the events.

Because a vote for that is a request to remove Improved Touring (and other regional-only classes) from the GCR.

Read above: you are working on the misguided assumption that because Improved Touring exists in the GCR, it has a chance to become a Majors class. That is an incorrect assumption that has been consistently affirmed over the last three decades.

GA

[seckerich]

Regional racing is proven to be the backbone of the club in numbers and in revenue. Most regions would not exist without IT and other regional classes. We continue to build a club racing program around the 500-600 drivers that might go to the big show. This is proven out with the introduction of the Concord agreement. Compare that number to the number of regional entries in the Southeast alone and you see why there is such a disconnect with the membership.

One day the CRB will figure out that stable rule sets and classes not marked for death, are what draws entrants. SRF, FV, SM, Improved Touring are always at the top in Nationwide participation. This is because people like to buy the car they like and develop it over time as funds allow. The moving target is killing our club. IT provides what almost no other category in SCCA can offer with so many options to race. We can go to the track with one car and race 4 sprints on a double weekend, as well as a multitude of enduros. Similar to Chump/Lemons a few guys can share one car and cut the cost of racing way down. Majors has no such draw. We have forgotten who we were as a CLUB. Sad.

Removing IT from the GCR would be wrong. When that happens you will see my entry dollars move to some other organization that gets it. You think any other organization would not be happy to have over 4000 ITS entries alone? Our BOD has the same problem as past BOD, can't figure out if we are Pro or not.

Last I checked my post race audit, we send just as much money in per entry as Nationals did, minus the tow fund that goes to racers. This was before the Majors wine and Cheese tax to fly the national office to events to hand out tow money. Each of those entries paid the same membership and license fee so I would say regional racing is very much paying for their fair share of the National office.

[MMiskoe]

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

I would really hope you simply forgot to turn on the sarcasm font. If each region can make changes to the IT rule set, having any hope that people will travel outside of their region would be foolish. I doubt I am alone when I say I don't want to have to keep track of several different regions' current rules in order to confirm that when I go to another location my car will still be legal. ITE is that way now. NER has one opinion of what is legal, WDC has a completely different idea and most NER legal cars would not cut it in WDC. I'm sure there are other similar situations, but that is the one I familiar with.

By having the IT rules in the GCR and therefore consistent across the country is one of the appeals to it. You know that you can pick an event and go to it and there will be cars that are similar to yours to race against.

[Flyinglizard]

The B Spec cars go about the same as the current ITC cars. Why not leave the car as they are in BS and allow them to enter ITC as is?
Keep the stock ECU, exhaust, and plates /weights that they now have.
Also , it is time to allow autos in new cars.
back to lurking,;MM

[Knestis]

The B Spec cars go about the same as the current ITC cars. Why not leave the car as they are in BS and allow them to enter ITC as is?
Keep the stock ECU, exhaust, and plates /weights that they now have.
Also , it is time to allow autos in new cars.
back to lurking,;MM

That's kind of the "limited prep IT" idea that Andy used to talk about. I think his point is that new cars are simply more powerful than previous generations, all other things being equal, so everything shifts up (conceptually) a level or two. There might be some lessons in WC TCA from last year, too.

K

[Greg Amy]

If each region can make changes to the IT rule set, having any hope that people will travel outside of their region would be foolish.

Which is maybe why the SCCA chose to publish the IT regs within the GCR - with a note that has always been there - that these regs were published for competitor convenience and the class would never be considered for National/Majors participation...? Right...? So why is everyone complaining that Improved Touring is not eligible for Nationals/Majors?

If the question is actually "we want IT to go into the Majors program" then the Nationals/Majors/Runoffs question for Improved Touring has been asked and answered numerous times over its 30-year history, with the same answer, and yet we continue to get our panties in a wad all over it. The Club has made that answer perfectly clear, numerous times. And given the recent trends toward reducing the number of classes by around a third, there is zero chance that the answer will be different next time you ask.

Let. It. Go.

But if the shell argument continues to be that "every class in the GCR should be considered for Nationals/Majors/Runoffs" program then my solution is simple: pull Improved Touring out of the GCR. It's the only logical answer and will clearly declare to the membership the category as the Regional-Only class it is - and always has been - and release the regions to decide their own ruleset for their regional class. Topeka can publish a common set of regs in the publications area of its web site, something that the regions can refer to if they wish to run a common ruleset. And given that the ITAC consists of volunteers and costs SCCA nothing that I can tell, I see no reason why the CRB can't allow that committee to continue to exist and use the committee forums and concall systems, and submit regs changes directly to the technical director for publication to the web site as changes are approved by the committee (it would reduce that load off the CRB and the STAC could do whatever it wanted to).

But if the community continues to try to leverage the "but we're in the GCR!" argument, it's simply setting itself up for the Club to get sick and tired of the whining and move toward that last scenario.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Which is maybe why the SCCA chose to publish the IT regs within the GCR - with a note that has always been there

So why is everyone complaining that Improved Touring is not eligible for Nationals/Majors?

The Club has made that answer perfectly clear, numerous times.

The SCCA is a club, an association dedicated to a particular activity. Isn't a club also responsive to what said members desire? If the membership as a whole wishes for a certain thing, then it doesn't matter what note the club wrote in a manual 30 years ago because members can change the manual. Of course, that is assuming that all members have input on activities of the club. I don't think that is the case with the SCCA since "IT National" would never be decided by a popular vote - the powers that be would be too afraid of the outcome to allow the vote to occur.

[Greg Amy]

Isn't a club also responsive to what said members desire?

No. What makes you think that? What makes you think it should be so? The Club's leadership is responsive only to what it believes is within the best interest of the Club. And numerous varying leaderships over the decades have consistently rejected the idea(l) of Improved Touring being part of the Nationals/Majors program.

This question has come up at least every five years within the last thirty. And the answer has been the same, each time. The last time it came up - and was rejected - it spawned the birth of Super Touring/Light. And now we're facing a long-term plan to reduce the number of existing Nationals/Majors classes by a third.

Ron, the sooner you let this idea(l) go, the better IT will be. If we are misleading people into coming into IT with a future (misguided) expectation of this category going Majors/Runoffs, then we're doing them a significant disservice.

I can't stop you from wanting it. But I can do my best, from my perspective, to convince you it's never going to happen. And if you ever accept that then you can adjust your expectations and actions according to your needs/desires.

GA

[Ron Earp]

So just remove Improved Touring from the GCR and leave it to the various regions to publish their own regs. Problem "solved".

GA

One way to solve it, but that the problem exists at all is indicative of a larger issue. Sweeping IT out the door is a band aid. It would seem logical that the club would be interested in capturing, and spreading, what the NE and SE is doing correctly with IT.

But on the other hand expelling IT from the GCR would provide a finality to the IT conundrum. Those that felt like continuing with the club could keep pockets of IT alive, or they could move into one of the national classes. The others could head off in search for green pastures elsewhere.