IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?

[jjjanos]

>> Those advocating moving IT to National are asking US to pay the cost for someone else's benefit.

Help me understand what you think those costs are.

Short-term
1. Dilution of a strong Regional racing program without any benefit to those paying that cost.
2. Failure to address the fundamental problems in those categories that have problems with the continued costs associated with nursing a sick category.
3. Attracting a larger number of chowder heads with a win-at-all-cost mentality who otherwise wouldn't be at the Regional into our race groups and the cost associated with the resulting carnage. AKA Special Me disease.

Longer-term:
1. Rules creep. Please don't insult me by suggesting that water running down my back is rain. 5-year rule? It's going to be gone. SS will be phased into IT for current model cars and there won't be a damn thing the ITAC will be able to do to stop it. It'll be presented as for the good of the "club." You'll need a mop to clean the drool dropped by Topeka when the manufacturers start waving their official contingency fee bills around. Won't happen? In a pig's eye. I have a strong feeling that this is their plan.
2. Competition adjustments because god knows Topeka can't tell Mazda or Chevy or BMW "TFB, build a better car." The manufacturers will beatch about their current model being uncompetitive or misclassified and Topeka will fall on their knees to placate them just like Topeka has done whenever this happens. The ITAC will advise against it and it won't matter. Either the CRB or BoD will ignore them or the ITAC will consist of new blood attracted by the lure of the Runoffsvwho actually think this is needed for the good of the club.
3. Further dilution of a strong Regional racing program without any benefit to those paying that cost.
4. Attracting a larger number of chowder heads with a win-at-all-cost mentality who otherwise wouldn't be at the Regional into our race groups and the cost associated with the resulting carnage. AKA Special Me disease.

But I don't need to justify why I think we do not need to make a change to IT. The burden of proof is on the Affirmative Side of the debate. Demonstrate that this solves "the problem" (and while the Pro side is doing that, please define the problem because it STILL hasn't been stated by those in favor of this move.) without creating additional problems and that this is better than a 100% top to bottom reworking of the Prod/GT/SS/T rules.

You wanna pull prod's fat from the fat? Why not change their rules and allow me to run my 100% legal IT car in Production AS IT CURRENTLY SITS? The 2 greatest roadblock to having IT cars run nationals is a fire system and a fuel cell. I can count off 1 national I would enter for certain and 2 others I probably would tow to if my car, as it currently sits, was allowed to play. Shoot, one more National and I could qualify for the Runoffs and just might go to be able to say I made the show. Too bad, gotta sink money equal to 10 race weekends into the car before I do that. Not gonna happen.

How about making incremental changes before we drill the foundations for the TNT?

Let's say I come up with a sponsorship pool of loot, prizes, and pro-ride incentives from 10 manufacturers, and make IT a contingency heaven on earth - $1000 for each Regional win. One race WC Touring seat for a regional championship. A full season drive in Koni Challenge to the triple crown winner and runner-up. A GA Porsche team, fully funded at next year's Rolex 24, for the IT class winners at the Longest Day 24 hours...

This package has the potential to make the category insanely attractive. It will dramatically increase ante for those running up front. It's certainly going to inflate competitive pressures. Spending will increase accordingly.

Who here thinks my plan is good for IT? Who does not?

K

I think your plan is unworkable because manufacturers won't be involved unless it is current model cars racing and we don't have that in IT and never should.

Don't you get it? It's the manufacturer money that created the world of shit that is Prod/GT/SS/Touring rules? They won't throw their money into it unless they think they can win and they will lobby until the rules are changed so they can win.

[jjjanos]

Thank you webster. National racing is not equivalent to club racing - it IS club racing. So is regional racing. Of course based on your posts regional racing is 'better' club racing and is the only thing that should be considered in decision making. I don't agree. The big picutre is more important.

I've yet to make any claim that Regional racing is better than National racing. Nor have I said the big picture isn't important. You, however, have equated big picture with National and Runoffs. Nationals/Runoffs are a subset of Club Racing. What is good for them is not always good for Club Racing. Topeka and the CRB and apparently you as well, usually fail to grasp that.

[tnord]

I've yet to make any claim that Regional racing is better than National racing. Nor have I said the big picture isn't important. You, however, have equated big picture with National and Runoffs. Nationals/Runoffs are a subset of Club Racing. What is good for them is not always good for Club Racing. Topeka and the CRB and apparently you as well, usually fail to grasp that.

dude, seriously.

[lateapex911]

......Attracting a larger number of chowder heads ....
... AKA Special Me disease......
...... don't insult me by suggesting that water running down my back is rain. 5-year rule? It's going to be gone. SS will be phased into IT for current model cars and there won't be a damn thing the ITAC will be able to do to stop it. It'll be presented as for the good of the "club." You'll need a mop to clean the drool dropped by Topeka ...
.....Won't happen? In a pig's eye. I have a strong feeling that this is their plan......
......Attracting a larger number of chowder heads with a win-at-all-cost mentality who otherwise wouldn't be at the Regional into our race groups and the cost associated with the resulting carnage. AKA Special Me disease......

Repeated for effect I guess, with other points.

But I don't need to justify why I think .....

You wanna pull prod's fat from the fat? Why not change their rules and allow me to run my 100% legal IT car in Production AS IT CURRENTLY SITS? ..........

.......Don't you get it? (To Kirk, ed.) It's the manufacturer money that created the world of shit that is Prod/GT/SS/Touring rules? They won't throw their money into it unless they think they can win and they will lobby until the rules are changed so they can win.

.....and apparently you (to Travis, ed.) as well, usually fail to grasp that.

I just hit Websters, and found "jjjanos = expert, all knowing and capable of future prediction."

Sorry, but now you are getting insulting too?

[shwah]

I've yet to make any claim that Regional racing is better than National racing. Nor have I said the big picture isn't important. You, however, have equated big picture with National and Runoffs. Nationals/Runoffs are a subset of Club Racing. What is good for them is not always good for Club Racing. Topeka and the CRB and apparently you as well, usually fail to grasp that.

Actually you have been arguing that your regional class the way that you like it right now is more important to preserve in it's current state, regardless of whether it might help club racing as a whole to allow it to develop as a national class.

I never equated national racing or the runoffs as the entire 'big picture', but I am suggesting that they are part of that picture, as is regional racing. A national IT class would result in more IT cars, more IT drivers, and more SCCA drivers. It may result in less regional IT drivers. What you fail to grasp is that what is best for regional IT racing might not be best for SCCA club racing.

What I do fail to grasp is the logic path that generating more interest in a class, thus generating higher participation, thus generating higher level of competition is a bad thing. I still have not seen any substance in your argument that sends any message but - "I like my regional racing the way it is, and I don't want to try any harder than I am right now to acheive the same result."

You and I are going in circles now. It's safe to say we just don't agree on this.

[Knestis]

...I think your plan is unworkable because manufacturers won't be involved unless it is current model cars racing and we don't have that in IT and never should.

Don't you get it? It's the manufacturer money that created the world of shit that is Prod/GT/SS/Touring rules? They won't throw their money into it unless they think they can win and they will lobby until the rules are changed so they can win.

Argh. I was suggesting that you use your imagination to conceptualize how something MIGHT BE, so we can isolate and understand what folks' issues are. That you'd think I was actually proposing that as a plan leaves me wondering why I'm even engaged in this discussion.



Let's get this out of the way: I'm one of the guys that those manufacturers would have to lobby for influence in IT. I have a pretty good sense of how the rest of that group feels. Suggest to them - us, I guess - that Brand X deserves a break because of (whatever rationale) and you might as well be putting yourself between a mother bear and her cub. If a CRB or BoD member tried to back-door that agenda, we'd out them in a second. Can I get an amen, ITAC'ers?

Short-term
1. Dilution of a strong Regional racing program without any benefit to those paying that cost.
2. Failure to address the fundamental problems in those categories that have problems with the continued costs associated with nursing a sick category.
3. Attracting a larger number of chowder heads with a win-at-all-cost mentality who otherwise wouldn't be at the Regional into our race groups and the cost associated with the resulting carnage. AKA Special Me disease.

1. Interesting you seem to be equally worried that a sudden influx of big-buck teams will poach the little guys' success at Regionals. There's little doubt that there will be some shifting as different racers realign their priorities but we can't even agree how it's going to suck, leading me to believe that we don't know that it will.

2. Who cares? I'd predict that offering IT as a National category is going to be one more nail in the coffin for the weakling current classes. IT is very popular (rule set, consistency, good fields, etc.) without the chance of running for a US championship. It will only be more so by adding that option. If the Production folks want that category to stay sick, that's their business. I'd REALLY prefer that it get fixed but there's too high a price to be paid in political capital for the national office, BoD, or CRB to take the entrants on head to head, and I still contend that the racers got the category to where it is.

3. Oh noes! Competition. Spec Pinata rock-em, sock-em behaviors should have been dealt with swiftly and painfully by the drivers and stewards. It was let slide and became a cultural norm. I'm NO SM fan but even I agree that there's been a real shift in the last couple years, in terms of tolerance for bone-headedness. We would all share the responsibility to make sure that we come down on IT bullies hard and fast, should the category get bigger and more competitive for whatever reason.

Longer-term:
1. Rules creep. Please don't insult me by suggesting that water running down my back is rain. 5-year rule? It's going to be gone. SS will be phased into IT for current model cars and there won't be a damn thing the ITAC will be able to do to stop it. It'll be presented as for the good of the "club." You'll need a mop to clean the drool dropped by Topeka when the manufacturers start waving their official contingency fee bills around. Won't happen? In a pig's eye. I have a strong feeling that this is their plan.
2. Competition adjustments because god knows Topeka can't tell Mazda or Chevy or BMW "TFB, build a better car." The manufacturers will beatch about their current model being uncompetitive or misclassified and Topeka will fall on their knees to placate them just like Topeka has done whenever this happens. The ITAC will advise against it and it won't matter. Either the CRB or BoD will ignore them or the ITAC will consist of new blood attracted by the lure of the Runoffsvwho actually think this is needed for the good of the club.
3. Further dilution of a strong Regional racing program without any benefit to those paying that cost.
4. Attracting a larger number of chowder heads with a win-at-all-cost mentality who otherwise wouldn't be at the Regional into our race groups and the cost associated with the resulting carnage. AKA Special Me disease.

1. Let's get your terms clear. Changing the 5-year rule isn't really rules creep, as it's operationalized. That said, I have to admit that, while I think what you suggest is unlikely and that the ITAC can run interference on that kind of stretch, I'm not particularly scared of it. It's to the point now that with the update/backdate rule and the VIN requirement on its way out, a person can in many cases build an essentially new car anyway. There's no magical advantage to running, say a 2006 VW Golf, now that the MkIV has been listed. Yeah, I can spend more money but it doesn't buy me anything.

2. The dynamic you describe does happen, but only because the rules allow it. There is no option for that kind of silliness in IT. It's codified out.

3/4. Fewer entries in Regionals! More entries in Regionals! Dogs and cats living together! We still don't know. You don't know, but you know we should be scared. Not a compelling argument.

But I don't need to justify why I think we do not need to make a change to IT. The burden of proof is on the Affirmative Side of the debate. Demonstrate that this solves "the problem" (and while the Pro side is doing that, please define the problem because it STILL hasn't been stated by those in favor of this move.) without creating additional problems and that this is better than a 100% top to bottom reworking of the Prod/GT/SS/T rules.

The Problem - Small weak National classes, poorly subscribed National championship events, shallow fields with huge discrepancies in performance between the front and back of class grids. Our best club racing is not showcased at our "premier" club racing events.

I'm totally with you that it would be a really wise thing to revamp the current National rules to address these issues. However, the club structure makes that pretty near impossible, as has been demonstrated in the past. Transplanting the best multi-marque category into the National structure would help fix that problem, frankly by hastening the death of the weakest current classes with good old-fashioned competition for entries.

I think the time is ripe to revisit the whole distinction between Regionals and Nationals - I've thought it was stoopid since 1979 - but that's a tough sell too, for folks who presume that it just has to be that way.

You wanna pull prod's fat from the fat? Why not change their rules and allow me to run my 100% legal IT car in Production AS IT CURRENTLY SITS? ...

That's been talked about and, by my recollection, wasn't popular at all with current Prod entrants who had opinions on the subject. Yeah, you can be upset that they aren't willing to help themselves but why let their reluctance prevent IT from taking the next step?

The 2 greatest roadblock to having IT cars run nationals is a fire system and a fuel cell. I can count off 1 national I would enter for certain and 2 others I probably would tow to if my car, as it currently sits, was allowed to play. Shoot, one more National and I could qualify for the Runoffs and just might go to be able to say I made the show. Too bad, gotta sink money equal to 10 race weekends into the car before I do that. Not gonna happen.

And what is being proposed would allow you to do precisely what you describe WITHOUT having to invest in expensive changes to the car. (Unless you - quite incorrectly - presume that we'd all have to buy fuel cells and fire systems to run "National IT.") And if YOU don't want to do that, maybe some of your IT buddies DO want to. You're going to tell them they can't because you've got philosophical differences and conflicting fears about all the bad stuff that might happen if they're allowed to do so...?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

can someone try and convince me why IT won't suffer from the same things SM did in it's move to Nat'l?

I'll try...

SM was not a very mature class when it went Nat. Most people had no idea what 'top prep' is/was. IT is much more mature and people have seen and raced against the best of the best already. I run a pretty extensive program - because I have to - in order to win Championships here in the NE...5-7 sets of tires for 9 weekends, full prep motor, test days, dyno time, data acq, etc.

The expectations are different.

[Matt Rowe]

A national IT class would result in more IT cars, more IT drivers, and more SCCA drivers.

Please explain this logic. Why do we think we will gain people from outside SCCA?

I agree we would likely see an influx of current SCCA National class drivers that would move into IT to chase a runoffs medal with a set of rules they may currently prefer. But I think making the assumption that the only thing keeping people from other clubs out of IT (and the SCCA) is the national status. If SCCA nationals and the runoffs are that important to them they already would be in a national class. My opinion is they aren't racing in SCCA for other reasons and making IT a national class will not change this.

All this change would do is redistribute members within the SCCA. The extension of that thought would be to pull more drivers away from the current national classes and further dilute competition. How does that benefit club racing?

Sorry, but club racing has issues that require a complete reassessment of the class structure, progression, rules making and comp adjustments. IT's status as a regional or national class is only one piece of that puzzle and until an entire plan is put forward I can't and won't support a change that is merely a band aide to the central issues.

There has been a recent history of throwing new classes at the problem, which has only disenfranchised significant portions of the existing racers. Making IT a national class at this point would only upset a majority of the current IT racers, and likely infuriate the bottom half of the national classes which would either lose their runoffs spot or be on the bubble. None of those items are good for the club.

The CRB, BOD and ITAC should be very careful in what they are considering and how it is proposed. The type of informal, poorly expressed communication like casual comments made at a drivers meeting has cause considerable complaints from the membership in the past. You would think we (the club) would have learned by now to be very careful when "mentioning" major changes that impact such a large group.

[tnord]

I'll try...

SM was not a very mature class when it went Nat. Most people had no idea what 'top prep' is/was. IT is much more mature and people have seen and raced against the best of the best already. I run a pretty extensive program - because I have to - in order to win Championships here in the NE...5-7 sets of tires for 9 weekends, full prep motor, test days, dyno time, data acq, etc.

The expectations are different.

that's the best arguement i've heard so far. i know i don't spend any time outside of the midwest, but from pictures, descriptions, race reports etc, but i'm not sure that even you guys aren't quite aware of what "top prep" means. though i agree that the field as a whole is much closer than SM was circa 2005.

....throw in the open ECU issue and you'll spend even more time in development.

[lateapex911]

Let's get this out of the way: I'm one of the guys that those manufacturers would have to lobby for influence in IT. I have a pretty good sense of how the rest of that group feels. Suggest to them - us, I guess - that Brand X deserves a break because of (whatever rationale) and you might as well be putting yourself between a mother bear and her cub. If a CRB or BoD member tried to back-door that agenda, we'd out them in a second. Can I get an amen, ITAC'ers?

K

Oh, AMEN, indeed!

And, I've preached the same sentiment several times up the ladder, as has, I think Andy.

But I fear your words are wasted on jjj, as he clearly has ignored such statements...which suggests to me that he feels that we are stupid and naive to think that we have anything to do with the operation and direction of the category...that the Dark Lord of Topeka will run rampant over us in its quest for money, power and glory. Perhaps he's right....but, I think the PTB have learned from watching the Prod situation in direct contrast to the IT situation. I'm sure someone will think that's just us patting ourselves on the back, though...we "don't get it", remember?

I agree with your points though. But I give you more credit than I...I didn't have the patience to type them all.

[IPRESS]

So we know where Kirk, Andy, Jake stand how about the other keepers of the rules? What are there personal takes on the subject?

Any one up the food change that is leary of chasing Runoffs kool aid?

Kirk made one observayion that is really something that kind of makes me ....uh.....not happy with the ways of the club.
In simple terms I think he said that the different levels of Grand Poobahs who decide SCCA stuff can't, won't, hate to mess with, the classes that are screwed up because of political fallout. At least I think that is what I read.
If so..........HOUSTON we have a problem........and doing this end run with the IT bigwigs onboard (and I mean that nice) is not solving much if anything.

I say again you guys up north should cut your own deal for ITNAT. Y'all are already spending the big dollars and have maxed out the prep and development so nothing bad can possibly go wrong up there.
Us rural boys are racing each other in crapwagons and using rebuit covered wagons to haul'em to and from the track. I can see where it is US that have the problems and not the guys already in the bigtime. (Sorry I mean bigtime without the Runoffs title.)

For real, you guys will never know that things are going the way it went in your hated SM until it is already done. You think that SM contact situation won't happen in IT......... PUHLEEESSSEE. For a Runoffs shot people from higher dollar classes will crossover and in their cheaper (relative) car will dang sure lay more then a fender on ya! Wait and see, it will be great to watch.

[shwah]

Please explain this logic. Why do we think we will gain people from outside SCCA?

I know so because I know a few of them. There are folks out there right now building and racing cars in other organizations that have told me point blank that they would never consider an IT car simply because they would never have an opportunity to compete for a national championship.

None of us can deny that IT is an attractive rule set. So much so that we decided to invest time, money, pain and joy in building and racing cars here, knowing that we could not race nationals or the runoffs. There are others that find the class appealing that simply won't join a class without a chance at a championship (and since they are not here with us now, they don't understand the ARRC and the recently born ITTC).

[Charlie Broring]

With 15 years of IT racing behind me I have become aware on an increasing rate of change (lack of stability) the last couple years. Some changes have been good, but some are in my opinion rules creep that is taking us away from the successful formula on which IT is based. I first started thinking about this while rebuilding my cage 2 years ago to incorporate "NASCAR door bars" in order to net a weight advantage. I thought about it some more last winter while contemplating dropping a couple grand on a new ECU. Based on my recent personal experiences with National racing I expect National status will have a much greater impact on IT then just a little rule creep.

I happen to agree with many of jjjanos arguments. I especially agree with his point the the problem with our club lies in the lack of a good step above IT. I think we should fix Prod or Prepared, not change IT to fit a new role in the club.

It sounds to me that IT going national is high on the personal agenda of some members of the ITAC. I would hope that those of us who help make our rules would listen to all opinions rather then argue against ideas not to their liking. I think the pole still stands 2 to 1 against IT going National.

[Matt Rowe]

I know so because I know a few of them. There are folks out there right now building and racing cars in other organizations that have told me point blank that they would never consider an IT car simply because they would never have an opportunity to compete for a national championship.

So these people you know are so focused on needing a national championship to legitimize their efforts that they won't race in SCCA and are out there racing . . . ?

I'm sorry I don't know what championship they are racing for. There isn't one that is comparable in prestige. Or one that would require the level of effort to win that a IT runoffs spot would require. If they aren't here now, I have strong reservations that they will remain more than 2 years after IT goes national, I have a feeling they wouldn't be willing to commit the resources to win a championship and would walk away. Keep in mind only one guy is going any given class at the runoffs and maybe 10 others will have a legitimate shot. So aside from 50 some guys across the entire country in 5 classes how many people in IT really benefit from going to the runoffs?

[IPRESS]

Guys it sure seems there is a lot more to this then what you are telling us.
(President asking about IT being Nat. class .)

Way too much smoke across various forums for there not to be a fire.

This looks like the herd is already being pushed towards the meat packing plant.

I guess we can look forward to Topeka in the Fall.

[jjjanos]

Let's get this out of the way: I'm one of the guys that those manufacturers would have to lobby for influence in IT.

And that's the view of the current ITAC consisting of people who picked the category as it now stands. Are you certain that the influx of people you project will feel the same way? People who are accustomed to and expect such "improvements"? People from classes that created the mess that is prod and gt and ss and touring? Are you prepared to deny these people a voice on the ITAC? Are you prepared to deny these people a voice on the ITAC when it was the very changes you propose that brought them to ITAC? Ask Chief Powhaten about the unintended consequences of an open-door immigration policy.

1. Interesting you seem to be equally worried that a sudden influx of big-buck teams will poach the little guys' success at Regionals.

I haven't and I just did a quick review of this thread.

2. Who cares? I'd predict that offering IT as a National category is going to be one more nail in the coffin for the weakling current classes. IT is very popular (rule set, consistency, good fields, etc.) without the chance of running for a US championship. It will only be more so by adding that option. If the Production folks want that category to stay sick, that's their business. I'd REALLY prefer that it get fixed but there's too high a price to be paid in political capital for the national office, BoD, or CRB to take the entrants on head to head, and I still contend that the racers got the category to where it is.

Who cares? [cynicism on] Aren't we all in this together?[/cynicism off]

Spec Pinata rock-em, sock-em behaviors ... We would all share the responsibility to make sure that we come down on IT bullies hard and fast, should the category get bigger and more competitive for whatever reason.

There is nothing that a driver can do to come down on IT bullies hard and fast - we don't enforce the rules. Stewards don't want to be the bad cop, will actively discourage a driver from filing paper, and will, more likely than not, issue a slap on the wrist when lethal injection is required. There are good stewards out there. There are divisions where the majority of stewards are good. The opposite also is very true.

That said, I have to admit that, while I think what you suggest is unlikely and that the ITAC can run interference on that kind of stretch, I'm not particularly scared of it. It's to the point now that with the update/backdate rule and the VIN requirement on its way out, a person can in many cases build an essentially new car anyway.

Your faith in your ability to prevent the BoD from doing what it wants is admirable. I have no such faith when financial incentives are involved.

The VIN rule doesn't matter if the change in standard equipment was done within the last 5 years. I can't put equipment that comes on a 2007 Nash Rambler that wasn't part of my 2002 Nash Rambler because the 2007 Rambler isn't classified. Heck, the 2007 might not even be in the same class.

2. The dynamic you describe does happen, but only because the rules allow it. There is no option for that kind of silliness in IT. It's codified out.

Trunk kits.

Did not the SS rules also codify out such adjustments at one time? Did they not change at the behest of manufacturers lobbying through drivers or directly?

3/4. Fewer entries in Regionals! More entries in Regionals! You don't know, but you know we should be scared. Not a compelling argument.

I repeat before you go mucking around with a category where a large number of drivers are very happy and which is the financial life blood of Club Racing, I suggest your foundation for a change rest on something other than some worthless stamp of approval from Topeka. You don't have a single clue as what might be in this Pandora's box and I and others have raised potential contents and it is entirely inappropriate for you to dismiss them with a simple wave of a hand. I suggest you look up the oath medical doctors take.

Do some freaking market studies before you blindly rush down this path. Ask your target audience whether they will run the Runoffs other than to be able to say they did it, once. Ask the drivers of categories you are going to drive out of the Runoffs what they are going to do. Ask the pool of untapped non-SCCA drivers you claim this will attract whether it will make one damn difference because if the benefits don't happen and the costs do, you'll have FUBARed the one thing keeping this club's racing program afloat.

The Problem - Small weak National classes, poorly subscribed National championship events, shallow fields with huge discrepancies in performance between the front and back of class grids. Our best club racing is not showcased at our "premier" club racing events.

....Transplanting the best multi-marque category into the National structure would help fix that problem, frankly by hastening the death of the weakest current classes with good old-fashioned competition for entries.

IT adds 5 classes to the National program. Please explain what that is going to do about the 15 or so that don't draw?

Car counts: Have not these Regions found a solution through the use of restricted regionals?

Shallow fields/discrepancy: It adds 5 classes to the National program. please explain how this would address these issues for the other classes.

Showcasing: Let's see... Runoffs, June Sprints, Rose Cup.... MARRS Labor Day Double, NARRC Runoffs, SARRC Championship, ARRC, ITFest, MARRS/SARRC at VIR if it returns... Cannot really think of any other premier club racing events and by my count two-thirds of those events do allow IT cars to compete, as IT cars.

We, the SCCA, don't market to spectators, do not have a spectator-friendly format and put on our races for the benefit of our participants, not spectators. While I think we should actively seek spectators, 35 classes over eight to ten run groups just won't make that dog hunt. Putting our "best club racing" into the big show won't do squat unless we prune like Paul Bunyon uses an axe.

Classes won't go away, they are The Andromeda Strain. They will continue for decades. Let me present - Club Ford, a class who's entire existence is based upon the inability to compete with a modern Formula Ford. ASR, a class which, if the GCR were actually applied, consists almost entirely of old Can-Am cars and which, most likely, has not had a legal and valid ASR entry in 15 years. IT7 - a class whose existence is based upon the perceived inability to compete with newer ITA cars.

So, I would suggest that before we talk about having a premier event at which to showcase our club, it might actually be better to have a program that the average Joe can understand.

That's been talked about and, by my recollection, wasn't popular at all with current Prod entrants who had opinions on the subject. Yeah, you can be upset that they aren't willing to help themselves but why let their reluctance prevent IT from taking the next step?

Which would be legalizing current IT cars, as they sit, in Production which will fill out their declining fields at Nationals, allow those IT drivers that want a medal to compete as they sit, and which leaves IT alone. It's their problem. If you are asking that we fix it, then we fix the problem with their rules. We don't muck around with ours.

And what is being proposed would allow you to do precisely what you describe WITHOUT having to invest in expensive changes to the car....And if YOU don't want to do that, maybe some of your IT buddies DO want to....

My proposal is less invasive then IT as national. That makes it the preferred solution unless you can demonstrate that the treatment is less effective than the more invasive treatment. Amputation saves a patient with an arm wound, but you don't chop off the limb when a couple of stitches is just as good.

Any of my IT buddies that want to run Nationals with their IT cars can do it with what I'm proposing. Asking that they get a shiny medal for IT when the majority says no is being piggy.

Your position distills to "I want the chance to win a gold medal in IT and nothing else." Well sir, I have given you potential outcomes of why that would be a bad thing. I again suggest that before you go mucking around with a category where a large number of drivers are very happy and which is the financial life blood of Club Racing, your foundation for a change should rest on something other than some worthless stamp of approval from Topeka. Do some research as to whether it works.

Or how about a pilot program? Since there no longer is any need to qualify for the Runoffs, put ITA on the schedule as a bona-fida medal getting class and let anyone who ran finished 4 or more races in an ITA sprint race attend. Let's see how many people show up.

[zchris]

I would say the national office is threatening the national sedan classes. They, the national office, are pissed at the prod, gt and touring guys that are saying FU because we all dislike Heartland Park and are chosing not to go to that crap-ass track. The runoffs are the national offices piggybank. Look at how much of there operating budget comes from that one event. The IT crowd being considered, in part, is because you guys would fill in were many of us have walked away. And then they could use the IT crowd as there cash cow. Can you guys all MOO for the national office. Oh and leave your wallets at the gate.
Chris Howard

[jjjanos]

I know so because I know a few of them. There are folks out there right now building and racing cars in other organizations that have told me point blank that they would never consider an IT car simply because they would never have an opportunity to compete for a national championship.

Organizations? AFAIK, NASA is the only other national club that has a National Championship and a review of their class struture and championship results, IMO, makes it pretty clear that those seeking a NASA National Championship aren't doing it in IT-compatible cars.

[JoshS]

Changing the 5-year rule isn't really rules creep, as it's operationalized. That said, I have to admit that, while I think what you suggest is unlikely and that the ITAC can run interference on that kind of stretch, I'm not particularly scared of it. It's to the point now that with the update/backdate rule and the VIN requirement on its way out, a person can in many cases build an essentially new car anyway. There's no magical advantage to running, say a 2006 VW Golf, now that the MkIV has been listed. Yeah, I can spend more money but it doesn't buy me anything.

You know, I spent my day at a race. At a race track. In a race car. It's much more fun than this discussion. You should all try it.

Anyway, I'm almost embarrassed to admit this, but this is the first time I've disagreed with Kirk in this thread and (gasp!) agreed with jjjanos (whoever that is.)

Manufacturer involvement is something we need to avoid in IT. Contingency awards are good. Manufacturer lobbyists cause problems. Manufacturer involvement happens when their new cars are racing. I will agree that they will be more likely to care about IT if it's national. The 5-year-rule is insulation against this effect. I like the insulation. We need the insulation. We should bolster the insulation somehow (especially should IT be eligible for Runoffs), not reduce it.

PS: Kirk, you get an AMEN from me too.

[Knestis]

So we know where Kirk, Andy, Jake stand how about the other keepers of the rules?

LOL - don't be so sure there. I figured out a long time ago that I don't learn anything new by smiling and nodding when someone says something I agree with, and only arguing a different position when someone says something I don't. What I really think might be a little more complex than you believe.

Kirk made one observayion that is really something that kind of makes me ....uh.....not happy with the ways of the club. In simple terms I think he said that the different levels of Grand Poobahs who decide SCCA stuff can't, won't, hate to mess with, the classes that are screwed up because of political fallout. At least I think that is what I read. If so..........HOUSTON we have a problem........and doing this end run with the IT bigwigs onboard (and I mean that nice) is not solving much if anything.

And you SHOULD - we should all - be worried about this. The problem is, the members responsible for the influences that created the problems you rail against are just as sure that they were right when they pushed those changes, as you are that YOU are right to resist this one.

It's like the IT racer who thinks that the only thing wrong with the rules is the damned stock engine mounts - if we could just get that ONE stupid rule fixed, things would be fine. Problem is, the guy in the paddock space next door is fine with the engine mounts he's got, but REALLY thinks ITB cars should be on 7" wheels - and why are the ITAC members so fixated on preventing that one sensible change? Except the next dude can't find wheel cylinders for his car anymore so the ONLY thing that needs to be fixed is to let him update to rear discs from a newer model from the same manufacturer. But the next guy is fine with his brakes, he just KNOWS that...

Is this making sense?

My biggest take-away from this conversation to date is that y'all better be ready to stand next to the rest of us anti-creepers when these requests come in.

And help the ITAC by recognizing that we can't rely on simply doing what the most - or the most vocal - IT racers want. That's an operational definition of "fearing political fallout." Opponents will look at the 2:1 vote to not go National and say, "See? We must leave it the way it is!" Will you be so agreeable with that argument when the vote on the next issue comes out in the same proportion, but AGAINST what you think is right? I'll bet you all a beer that many of the decisions that "ruined" [fill in your boogie man class here] were made by people who thought they were doing what their constituents wanted them to do.

I'm already on record that if IT went National, it wouldn't likely change my program very much for the foreseeable future. I've explained my reasons for thinking it's a good idea but you need to know that I share a lot of your concerns:

For example, I completely recognize the risk that the ITAC membership might shift enough that we lose the core members willing to draw a line in the sand about the really important things - like competition adjustments (bleah) and rules creep.

I worry that we are altogether too close to falling into the adjustment trap already, if we try to get too precise in our application of The Process. I'm afraid that if we really believe that we CAN think in terms of granularity of less than 50 pounds, we send the message to members that that little weight makes more of a repeatable difference in on-track performance than does the normal variance in lap time due to our lack of human precision behind the wheel.

I worry that, despite repeated efforts to reinforce that it should NOT be a consideration, members still insist on using lap times and finishing positions as rationale to support requested changes. That's the SINGLE most sure-fire way to get us where I hear you saying we don't want to be, so think twice before you participate in that game.

I worry that we are doing a lousy job of adapting to new technologies that are going to be standard on even the crappiest of econo-crap-wagons - or already are. That we wrap fear of ABS, traction control, dynamic stability management, and electronic diffs in a veil of preserving "driver skill" and sporty-car tradition, rather than dealing with the fact that pretty quick here, it's going to be impossible - or impossibly expensive - to disentangle those functions from engine management systems.

I share Charlie's worry about the rate of change, now that the logjam of the past 20 years has come unstuck. Mostly I worry about the fact that so many current IT drivers don't understand the history of how we got here, so are willing to ignore the influences that prevented us from falling into the same traps as Prod and GT, and utterly fail to learn from them. However, imagining IT as a National category doesn't really increase my anxiety about that - because it's already pretty darned high!

I worry that SCCA club racing doesn't have any substantive strategic plan established. It's scary to me that most club racers are fine with that, as long as they get what they want this season.

I worry that Mac (along with most of the SCCA racers I know) doesn't understand that if he doesn't insist that the rules be enforced, nobody will. I worry a lot that this means people think/hope/dream that we can enforce the rules by their writing, so they ask for clarification or revision rather than enforcement.

I worry that in other ways, many of us seem to think that someone else will fix the problems for us, so we don't have to deal with uncomfortable situations or hard decisions. I worry that this is part of the motivation for suggesting that IT get National status - that since it's easier, the difficult changes get put off once again.

I worry that EVERYONE doesn't look at single-digit event participation numbers and see just how ludicrous it is to call something that looks like that a "National class." I tried to explain the old eligibility rule to a NASCAR guy one time, and he was utterly flabbergasted. It was really embarrassing, frankly.

I worry that if you drilled into what 10 people think about the idea of National status for IT cars, not only will you get 6 completely different explanations for what they think will happen, you'll get 20 conflicting definitions of terms that they are all using and a dozen different beliefs of whether those outcomes are "good" or "bad." It disappoints - though doesn't surprise - me that it's altogether too predictable that the degree to which most of them think a result is "good" will be directly proportional to the degree to which it improves his/her relative competitive position (real or perceived).

I worry that we won't be able to count on current IT drivers to help the ITAC maintain what works about the category, so we'll lose a critical defense against repurposing or appropriating the IT rules for ends inconsistent with its first principals. Put bluntly, I don't have any greater fear of those who would "invade" IT were it to become a National category, than I do of those who are already racing in IT diddling it from within.

I worry about what it means when a group of members thinks "National drivers" or "Topeka" is THEM, to counterbalance their US. It doesn't bode well for our future if club racers in the same organization can't see enough common interests to prevent that kind of balkanization...

K