2014 Improved Touring Participation

[JeffYoung]

I'd say absolutely not. The ARRC is actually pretty poorly attended in ITS and ITA. Big S and A fields at CMP, VIR, Roebling, Daytona, etc. though.

Over 75% of all IT entries are in NEDiv/SEDiv.

Does the ARRC inflate the SEDiv numbers?

Is the ARRC a significant encouragement to account for the huge differential?

Would a similar event in other parts of the country encourage additional participation?

Is there something else that accounts for the huge differential?

[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

[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.

[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.