2014 Improved Touring Participation

[JeffYoung]

It's a bit sad to see the fracturing of IT. The ruleset has some sort of "magic" in it. It's stable, and it produces great racing across many marques and years of production. You would think the SCCA would see more value in that, and by that I don't mean trying to duplicate it in new classes with similar prep.

Five years ago I was happy with IT being an "outlaw" regional class and wanted nothing to do with national racing. I was wrong. Kirk and Andy were, at the time, right. Without "Full" status within the SCCA, IT is destined to die off I think. Which is a shame.

And it needn't happen, and it needn't happen at the cost of entries to ST or Prod. The answer is, I strongly believe, to take the best of three classes that are very close in prep -- LP Prod, ST and IT -- and combine them into a super production car series.

folks are nibbling at the edges of this idea, but we need to get down to it to see if it works.

If not, then I ride the IT wave until it dies and move somewhere else. Which is really not what I want to do.

[Greg Amy]

Without "Full" status within the SCCA, IT is destined to die off I think.

I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

[JeffYoung]

I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

I know. And we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I used to think you were pushing to "kill" IT with some of your ideas, but I get now you are not. Your vision for IT is what made it so popular in the 80s/90s -- regional only rules, regional only racing, "outlaw" stuff. I get that and appreciate it.

I just think that "racing" in general is so different now and that niche is really filled by the Chumpemons stuff, and DEs. IT has to find a new place. To me, that is combined with ST and LP Prod in a new "super" production type class.

But it is all a good discussino, and like I said, it took me a while, but I appreciate where you are coming from.

[seckerich]

I know. And we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I used to think you were pushing to "kill" IT with some of your ideas, but I get now you are not. Your vision for IT is what made it so popular in the 80s/90s -- regional only rules, regional only racing, "outlaw" stuff. I get that and appreciate it.

I just think that "racing" in general is so different now and that niche is really filled by the Chumpemons stuff, and DEs. IT has to find a new place. To me, that is combined with ST and LP Prod in a new "super" production type class.

But it is all a good discussino, and like I said, it took me a while, but I appreciate where you are coming from.

IT already has the draw for Chump/lemons type drivers. Cars can run long races with multiple drivers. More regions need to get on board the enduro series and help promote the cost of shared participation.

How would you like to be looking at the concord agreement with IT as one of the catagories destined to be screwed? Keep your head down and watch the sparks fly, this will be fun. I know I took note of the vote my director made and am not very happy. Hope she is ready to explain at St Simon.

[Butch Kummer]

How would you like to be looking at the concord agreement with IT as one of the catagories destined to be screwed? Keep your head down and watch the sparks fly, this will be fun. I know I took note of the vote my director made and am not very happy. Hope she is ready to explain at St Simon.

The motion on the Concorde Agreement was simply to instruct the CRB do a six-month study and come back with a proposal to reduce the number of Majors/Runoffs classes, nothing more. Once they've presented the plan the BoD will vote again on whether or not to adopt it. And even if they do, I fully expect it to be defeated by future BoD's when members figure out how THEIR class gets "assimilated".

That said, even excluding Spec Miata, the GCR currently has fourteen classes that all "look like" they are based on production vehicles - 4 GT, ASedan, 3 Prod, 4 Touring, and 2 Super Touring. Add in the five IT classes, and are those classes different enough that they can't be combined to create five or six classes that will provide better competition for everyone? If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper, would you really be able to explain why all of them are necessary?

Again, class consolidation (the Concorde Agreement) will never happen because SCCA is NOT starting with a clean sheet of paper. But then this is the off-season and people need something to bitch about until next spring...

[StephenB]

We should start with a clean sheet, just no one is brave enough to do it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

I agree with Greg here 100%. If it would have been under the microscope, with CRB members trying to apply comp adjustments all over the place, it would be just another class because the IT community doesn't like that BS.

IF, and only if, the CRB has the foresight to realize that it thrives BECAUSE of the lack of fiddling, they COULD not mess with it. But as Greg has pointed out numerous times, he seems to know that is simply pissing in the wind at every turn and could never be possible.

We will never know because the juice may not be worth the squeeze.

[Flyinglizard]

Not sure Andy,
I have 6 ex IT cars at the shop for conversion to HP or Chump. One customer asked about all of the Sciroccos. "Well, SCCA treats the Rabbit and Rocco the same. They run at the same weight, so why use a car that is 7in taller? " Exit Rabbits.

The 9/1 compression ,A1 cars cant run with the MK3 Golf Or Honda. So they are here to go Prod, where the 2.0 is listed in FP, and all of the 1.8 can run the same engine and weight.
The non adjustment due to the "process" pushed these cars away. Some went straight to Chump as the value of the 1.8 cars went from 5000$ to 2000$
Maybe the A1 with JH should add 150# and go to ITC?

The allowance of megasquirt for all injected cars dr0ve a few more to Prod. A simple adjustment to the CIS cars by around 100# may have left those cars in ITB and not HP. I hear" that why spend 1500$+ for a regional only class when I can move the car to Hprod spend a little more and race more cars with closer comp." The car only cost 2500$ for this guy. The MS engines are well trimmed to 7000RPM where the CIS has issues over 6500.

So I believe that the non timely corrections has run a few from IT racing to other venues. Luckily Prod is a good fit for many, but Chumpemons has taken many of my best funded customers.

Keep in mind that I dont consider the Chump racing weekend similar to SCCA. I cant talk my Chump only drivers to racing SCCA with all of the down time. That is a separate subject and problem That i can't see SCCA adjusting to. It is simply an option that did not exist a few years ago that is siphoning off cars and drivers. I now have 5of 6 Chump team drivers in SCCA.

Adjustments based upon results, bringing back outlier cars are bad for the outliers, but good for the pack. Treat the pack better. IMHO and more will stay.
IMHO, MM

[OUBob]

If Topeka is "hands off" with IT and won't let us piss in the nationals pot, why don't we improve our own pot to piss in? If people get their rocks off over an embroidered jacket, why can't we fill that vacuum ourselves?

I like the idea of the rotating Runoffs. Maybe rotate the ARRC? Atlanta, Mid-Ohio and whatever the fave is in the N-E? I know I respond well to hype machines.