Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Since IT is regional...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default Since IT is regional...

    Some good conversations on another thread got me thinking....

    What if we made cars from other sanctioning bodies legal in our class. I think NNJR PRO-IT allowed some spec bmw and spec 944 cars to race as an ITR or ITS car (can't remember). Another example is what STL does to drive participation allowing IT cars to run.

    I would support this type of idea in the NER IT run groups. for example let a car that fits all NASA PTC rules race as an ITR car as long as it follows all rules and regs of that class...

    Ideas? Thoughts?
    Idea is to draw more competitive cars AND people from other organizations. Remember this is a regional class and if we put it in the supps we CAN do whatever we want :-)

    Stephen

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    2,942

    Default

    Heck, the more the merrier. I typically run in very mixed groups and have a lot of fun.

    That is the idea.

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

    Default

    If IT gets removed from the GCR, and all the various regions make their own adjustments to IT so that the rules set is not the same around the country, then the class is doomed in the SCCA. If it isn't already irrelevant now that will absolutely make it so.

    It might be more productive for the interested parties to discuss a new "IT-like" class, with changes to the rules that modernize the class, and shop it around to other sanctioning bodies.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Don't we already have this class in NER? ITE
    '77 Mazda RX-3
    NER SCCA E-Prod

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

    Default

    Sorry, not class but category. Discuss a new IT-like category, that fixes the issues with the current IT category, then offer it to the SCCA or maybe try it with NASA.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Yes we have ITE. I was thinking more along the lines of allowing specific classes from other clubs to run in our classes that gave the same performance potential. I don't think we should change the specific IT rules per region just allow cars to run that have the same potential, a class like STL but at the regional level. It seems to have worked for STL in creating more participation. in NER I think we have two actual STL cars, all others are IT cars running in STL. So... Spec e46 from NASA I would think are basically ITR cars but not all the rules are allowable allowances, so my idea is to have in the supps to allow a spec E46 to run in ITR as long as it meets all spec E46 rules. Likewise I think spec e30 and the 944 Porsche cup cars are similar to an ITS car.

    Just a thought, not something I am super passionate about...

    Stephen

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    I agree that removing IT class structure and rules from the GCR will ruin IT. that is not what I was trying to support at all.

    Stephen

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    If IT gets removed from the GCR, and all the various regions make their own adjustments to IT so that the rules set is not the same around the country, then the class is doomed in the SCCA. If it isn't already irrelevant now that will absolutely make it so.
    You do realize that that whole idea is something I pulled out of my ass, and has never been discussed at the level of any significant leadership, right? But it's the obvious answer to the constant "all classes in the GCR should be able to go to the Runoffs" whining. Just sayin'.

    You need to read my signature again.

    It might be more productive for the interested parties to discuss a new "IT-like" class, with changes to the rules that modernize the class, and shop it around to other sanctioning bodies.
    A most excellent idea! Then maybe we can call it, oh I dunno, "Super Touring"...?
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    And Stephen, everyone wants to add other categories classes into their own category/class...right up to the point where the other categories/classes might have a shot at winning -- or even displacing their mid-packers. Witness: Spec Miata discussion in ITA. No one wants to add classes to their own class that might have a shot; at that point they start talking about removing those classes (witness: Super Touring Light).

    For example, how many ITR drivers show significant interest in going to the Runoffs running STU? How many ITA drivers are looking at STL? Very few...because they're not competitive there.

    This is not "big picture" discussion, this is "it's all about building my class" discussion (he says, as an STL competitor...)
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    A most excellent idea! Then maybe we can call it, oh I dunno, "Super Touring"...?
    Well, if you'd not disallowed a lot of the cars eligible for IT I doubt this thread would exist. ST had a really good shot at essentially taking IT national but didn't. I understand some of the reasoning behind the exclusions and so on, just don't agree with it.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 12-12-2014 at 09:54 AM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    You do realize that that whole idea is something I pulled out of my ass, and has never been discussed at the level of any significant leadership, right? But it's the obvious answer to the constant "all classes in the GCR should be able to go to the Runoffs" whining. Just sayin'.

    You need to read my signature again.



    A most excellent idea! Then maybe we can call it, oh I dunno, "Super Touring"...?
    I hear the Miata is killing that class set, maybe we need another one
    Jason Carroll - NER IT7 #07

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    Well, if you'd not disallowed a lot of the cars eligible for IT I doubt this thread would exist.
    Which cars, those three-decades-old cars older than 1985? Or the American Sedan-eligible V8s, which have only existing in IT for a few years?

    Ron, if you are so hot to get into the National/Majors racing program, why did you invest a lot of time and effort into building a car for a class that has a long history of saying "no, no, no" to National eligibility? Unlike a new member, you have no excuse, you know the history. And if you did this with the hopes and expectations of IT eventually going National/Majors, you were wrong.

    But, you can keep asking. In fact, I encourage you to do so.

    GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Greg, I have no idea if spec E46 would be faster or slower for my class. I haven't done the research enough. I was simply thinking out loud to see what others said.

    I do know when I was at NJMP they DID this in the pro-it series and got a few cars from the bmw club to participate in ITS. No idea what the follow up was with those drivers or if it worked out long term. I think that group was called crucial motorsports?.?

    I do know people with money, resources, and more importantly people that are encouraging others to simply race are building this particular car to a specific ruleset. Having someone like James clay promoting the class and building cars is helping that class grow. If we can race with them and get a few bmw club drivers to race with us then the more the better... I guess unless they all blow us away. :-) haha

    Stephen

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    And if you did this with the hopes and expectations of IT eventually going National/Majors, you were wrong.
    As you well know, I did not build a car with the intention of going National racing. The reason I, and a bunch of others here, are discussing the topic at all is that we wish to help the SCCA thrive despite its attempts not to do so.

    You've mentioned before "you can keep asking (about IT becoming National)" but I don't get the feeling you're sincerely suggesting us to do so. You've forgotten more about the the club than I'll ever know. You know how the club works, who actually runs it (it ain't members), and I think you're convinced the club has zero interest in ever including IT cars and racers into "the club". And, I bet you're right. We should all take a clue and move on to other topics and pastures.
    Last edited by Ron Earp; 12-12-2014 at 10:58 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Earp View Post
    You've mentioned before "you can keep asking (about IT becoming National)" but I don't get the feeling you're not sincerely suggesting us to do so. You've forgotten more about the the club than I'll ever know. You know how the club works, who actually runs it (it ain't members), and I think you're convinced the club has zero interest in ever including IT cars and racers into "the club". And, I bet you're right. We should all take a clue and move on to other topics and pastures.
    I don't know if you're being sarcastic , but you hit the nail on the head. I've seen this argument enough times - and am cynical about the whole thing enough - to realize that it's a futile exercise, that these efforts can be used to discuss/debate/improve other areas (like inviting in other classes to participate). On top of that, I'm paying attention to the new "Concorde Agreement" (I keep forgetting its new name) that is going to pare down the existing Majors classes down by a third. Couple that to the fact that Improved Touring has been consistently rejected for Nationals/Majors status over the decades and I just see absolutely no way that it'll ever happen. Yes, it "could", but a lot of things "could" happen; they're just neither practical nor realistic.

    And when I say "make the request", I see that as the only way you'll stop beating yourself over the head. Eventually you'll realize your forehead hurts and you should probably stop.

    Improved Touring is in a very happy space right now: halfway between casual entertainment (LeChump) and "serious business". Someone can, with a modest budget, be competitive all while having good times with friends. And that's why you like it so much! Hell, I squarely see IT as the happy place I'll be going back to soon. How about we not f**k that up?

    GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

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
  •