2014 Improved Touring Participation

[Andy Bettencourt]

b) Improved Touring does not provide a large amount of income to the Club, other than in licensing (and I suspect the overhead may exceed those revenues). Improved Touring does, however, provide a large amount of income to the regions in the form of entries.

Ergo, IT is better off being a regional-only category, responsive to the regional racers it serves and the regional leadership that benefits from it.

But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors? What defines income for the 'Club'? If it's entries at Majors, then not allowing one of your biggest classes access to it is limiting your own income potential.

I've moved back and forth over the years between National/no-National. when I was competing at the top of my game in ITA I wanted to bring it to "The Show", but I have always realized (well, at least since the early 90s) that once one does that the game changes significantly. Today's winners in ITA have zero chance of consistent success at their current level against Spec Miata-level Nationally-prepped ITA efforts. That's just the way this game works.

So what? Is it conceivable that a guy with a top Regional effort would want to continuously up his game and have goals and targets to shoot for? The flip side to this is that guy gets bored with smacking his locals around and stops racing. Now there is lost revenue.

The farther we get into these debates, the more I'm leaning toward the idea that Improved Touring and the SCCA in general are better served by removing the ITCS from the GCR. Solves all ills for everyone.

GA

Only because you are in the 'futile' camp and you just don't want to deal with the chatter anymore. Removing IT from the GCR would ruin cross-regional series and the desire for those to travel to different tracks out of region would slump if cars were illegal race to race. Not good IMHO.

My stupid view is simple. Run all the classes at 'Majors'. Top 25 average participation classes get their own run groups at the RunOffs. The rest that meet minimum participation are in multi-class groups. Set and abide by average National minimums to be eligible for Runoffs.

I see very few reasons it can't work and why it's not the best thing for the membership as a whole. (Unless the silent majority is for regional only racing, obviously as we live in the squeaky-wheel world here)

[Greg Amy]

But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors?

Dude, it could FLY if it had wings.

Once again, I'm arguing Reality, you're arguing you want a unicorn for Christmas. I believe you that you want a unicorn for Christmas, I'm just trying to tell you it won't happen.

But...submit a request, prove me wrong: http://crbscca.com

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am not arguing that it will or won't happen. I am arguing that it COULD happen, and be successful.

[Ron Earp]

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.

That'd be shoving the red-head stepchild out in the cold and locking the door. I think when that happens I'll move on somewhere else as well.

But COULD it, if you allowed a couple of much-larger-than-average-participation classes access to Majors? What defines income for the 'Club'? If it's entries at Majors, then not allowing one of your biggest classes access to it is limiting your own income potential.

Looking at the SARRC points I count ~300 individual Southeast racers in all the classes. If only 10% of them "went national" and participated in the ruboffs then it'd be thirty extra racers at the grand ball. What percentage increase at the rubofffs would +30 be? Then consider the NE and other regions. There is a good opportunity for the SCCA to grow its national classes.

[Knestis]

As I said, I've got a real history with IT and I value that. I have also been one of the most stalwart about not effing it up, and about the value of consistency.

However, I think we crossed something of a threshold the last time the pitch for "National" status was turned down. ST came long, other classes shifted around, the economy got into a big understeer... The context in a world considering class consolidations might be different enough that it's the right time to consider new ideas - like big, first principle kinds of ideas - about what the category was, has become, and should be. Yeah, the pressure to reduce the number of classes is specifically about Majors for the moment but the same issues and questions apply to "regional" programs.

The real goal should be building a cohesive Club Racing program that can thrive. I think that assumptions about what that program is going to look like are just as bad as assumptions that being in the GCR is any guarantee of any particular outcome for the category.

K

[seckerich]

You have a point Kirk, IT took a hit with the creation of ST. As the true cost of a ST car is now getting clearer many will see IT as a better route. IT remains strong in the divisions listed in the chart because many of us actively find parked cars and get new drivers into them. Find me anything but a spec class where a car built in 1996 can still run up front? That is the real value of IT that is lost on so many people. You, and the many members of the ITAC over the years made that reality. ST is a direct competitor to Production and will most likely hurt both. It was a toss up for me for next years Runoffs, but EP won out because of the level of prep involved to be fast. ST is World Challenge light and if a rule book says you can, then you must to win.

Keep in mind Florida draws more cars to a non points regional at Daytona than most regions draw to a big points race. Why, because it is fun and low key. Something many have forgotten.

[Butch Kummer]

Keep in mind Florida draws more cars to a non points regional at Daytona than most regions draw to a big points race. Why, because it is fun and low key. Something many have forgotten.

I disagree - they draw because they have a larger racer (retired folks with money) population but more importantly, because they run at Daytona and Sebring. And I don't believe I'd EVER use "low key" and "Robin Langlotz" in the same sentence...

[Flyinglizard]

If we are a member driven club, the line " out for member input" would be a lot more common. Each member gets a vote. If we want to run IT @ Rubboffs we should vote it in. But kee p in mind that there are many reasons national level tech is not easy for IT . We dont have much of the required data to enforce the rules. and more.
But if we are a club, for us, we should be able to vote for this, simple as that.

IT has driven many away for a few minor reasons. We all like a chance to podium . You have a few cars that set lap records across the country. The ITB Hondas , the Mk 3 Vws have driven the old guard to other classes. Fix this and more cars will stay. Many Mk 1 and 2 VWs have moved to Prod.

Adjust the class from the results, not some theory. Prod does this..

The PITA for SCCA protest. allows many questionable cars to continue running . The honest guys just say eff it and finds someplace else to play.

The lack of legal /stock parts for the old cars. It is illegal to update to stronger more available parts. Prod allows most of these parts.
Not wanting to keep buying the little crap like turn signal lights, headlights etc.

Solve these issues in a timely fashion to stay alive. The IT rules have taken so long to change.

SCCA also faces a huge market swing to PDX and track days. No easy way to keep racing when the new money wants to run the crap out of their street cars.
I expect we will soon have one day of PCX/TT and one day of racing over the weekend.
The well funded drivers have also tried the crapcan racing. 1500$ per and lots of racing no sitting around.