Results 1 to 20 of 64

Thread: 2014 Improved Touring Participation

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Concord, NH 03301
    Posts
    700

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    FL.
    Posts
    1,384

    Default

    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
    Mike Ogren , FWDracingguide.com, 352.4288.983 ,http://www.ogren-engineering.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flyinglizard View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MMiskoe View Post
    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
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 12-11-2014 at 08:27 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    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

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •