ITAC News.

[Chip42]

They laid out a plan with 25 or so points. Only one item from the proposal was adopted. I will buy a beer if anyone knows what that was.

participation floor for runoffs eligibility?

I don't think there's any anti IT sentiment rampant in the CRB or higher, though I do think that IT is liked better when it's quiet then when there's a controversy. there are at least 2 BoD that race IT, and a few ex IT guys in the CRB - the category is not scoffed at. It's pretty obvious that STL was largely a way to give it cars a path to the ruboffs. Not just the "IT cars may compete" clause, but the evolutionary path solves what many saw as a problem of regional status. LP prod was always sold as a way to "move up" from IT too, though the intention was to save prod (worked) the "draw from that bunch of farm league guys (IT)" mentality is not unique to our club.

it's important to the "path" established by those classes that IT STAY as a "the minors." Gotta have good minor leagues to make this work. so the PTB is most likely NOT wishing to see IT going anywhere. that's a good thing, IMHO.

what does the future of IT look like? I can't say farther than a few months down the line, but I certainly don't want to change anything from the core of the rules. that's up to the people who choose to stay there more than those who choose to leave. there is an interesting contrast between the goals of "farm league" and "category worth winning in its own right." only key I know to success is that the participation has to be bottom heavy in order to make it attractive to join and to have a population to pull from. assuming IT is "the bottom," SCCA risks loosing that.

[lateapex911]

participation floor for runoffs eligibility?

. It's pretty obvious that STL was largely a way to give IT cars a path to the ruboffs. Not just the "IT cars may compete" clause, but the evolutionary path solves what many saw as a problem of regional status. LP prod was always sold as a way to "move up" from IT too, though the intention was to save prod (worked) the "draw from that bunch of farm league guys (IT)" mentality is not unique to our club.

Well, I think that STL was created so that CERTAIN TYPES of "IT like" cars (A very narrow window, actually) could see the "big time", but the category (class actually) is managed completely differently, and due to the weight setting method, will always be a class for a couple elite hp to specific output machines.

Its not IT. It's ONE class, not 5.
It is having it's numbers propped up by double dipping SMs.
IF the top 24* had been the path chosen and IT was eligible, the numbers would have had a couple of IT classes qualify, and not due to SM numbers.

And, STL going to be pretty pricy to build a top dog. Engine allowances are pretty open, so that means you will likely pay. Yes, certain swaps can be cheap, but others not so much. Brakes, the restrictions might keep uber expensive parts at bay, but it's an allowance that must be taken, so most will want to 'get the most', and spend some time doing it. Chassis allowances are more liberal than IT, and the cage rules will support super stiff springs, which need bucks up dampers. Yes, you can spend a fortune on dampers for IT, but the payback just isn't there, if the chassis is undamped and bending. It will be reasonable to build a solid car, but when more people decide to go after the big prize, the costs WILL ramp up, and there WILL be a tangible benefit to the high costs..

IT would have had this happen (more than it has seen in the past or currently) too. It's the nature of the beast. Popularity breeds cost increases. But at some point there are diminishing returns, and I think IT has that point (for most cars,- car choice is of course, key) at a lower level.

I'm not sure I buy the "farm league/move up" aspect. LOTs of people want to race a prep level, and race it seriously. Lots of people aren't of the mind to swap cars and classes "moving up the ladder". They'd rather move up the ladder in one car.

IT is a popular prep level. If you want proof, look at LP prod. Suddenly, Prod is hot. I bet a full prep prod car hasn't been built in yeeears. LP builds are pretty close to IT builds.
IF IT had been a National category, had the same perks and contingencies as Prod, I suggest we'd see a whole different landscape. Prod was in a world of hurt 5 or so years ago, and somebody woke up and came up with a way to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

*The 24 thing was for Speed TV...but that ship has sailed.

Also, people warned that if IT went National, it would die, (Or be ruined) because nobody would want to race if there were big money builds winning all the time. I think that looking at SM proves that wrong. Lots of guys race and they know they won't be winning races with their used up cheap cars. Why would IT be different?

It's water under the bridge now, but it would sure be interesting to see how things would look if IT went national, and reduced the 5 yr limit to 3....and classed interesting cars, and it happened before we lost the SPEED TV contract... I always thought newer IT level cars would attract new racers to SCCA better than any of the classes they televised.

[Knestis]

Sorry - "major league" vs. "minor league" isn't a very good analogy. I don't understand in the infield fly rule but last I checked, both AAA and the Bigs played to the same rules.

And if there's desire for a pathway or pipeline, there's no easier way to move than with a car in the SAME class.

Arguments based on "controlling costs" - certainly within a class - simply are NOT valid. The only thing that increases cost is the desire to be competitive, and popularity of a class increases competition. The only way to keep a lid on costs, absent a REAL claim rule, is to limit popularity. I think we've accomplished that in the past few years with IT. Sadly.

And I'm sorry if it looked like I was suggesting an anti-IT bias among CRB members. There wasn't. In fact, the problem was that they liked it too much, with an investment in the status quo.

K

[jjjanos]

Arguments based on "controlling costs" - certainly within a class - simply are NOT valid. The only thing that increases cost is the desire to be competitive, and popularity of a class increases competition. The only way to keep a lid on costs, absent a REAL claim rule, is to limit popularity. I think we've accomplished that in the past few years with IT. Sadly.

No, you cannot control costs within a class. If someone wants spend the GDP of Swaziland on building an IT car, they can do it. BUT, costs are effectively controlled. The marginal improvement for very expensive items is well within a single standard deviation of mean performance for the car.

Go ahead and have custom-designed, $500,000 shocks for a car... from the lap times, I doubt that anyone will be able to tell the difference between the $500K shock car and someone who doesn't. (At least from the lap times.)

[Ron Earp]

It's pretty obvious that STL was largely a way to give it cars a path to the ruboffs. Not just the "IT cars may compete" clause, but the evolutionary path solves what many saw as a problem of regional status.

What Jake said. STL gives a few select cars, a very narrow portion of IT, a path to the National SCCA scene. But the majority of IT is left to be regional. STL could have encompassed all of the IT cars with a heavy rules rewrite but that clearly wasn't the goal and would have created sweeping changes in the SCCA.

With my limited knowledge of the regional and national classes in the SCCA I think it would have been better had IT made a transition to the national program. That would have effectively ended the national/regional distinction and class system in the SCCA and produced a more cohesive club. It would have been a difficult transition for the club to make but I'm sure it could have been accomplished.

Of course I didn't feel that way back in 2008, but I was also only three years into my racing hobby at that point and knew very little about how the SCCA operated and even less about its long term goals. I know a bit more now, but not much. It is still unclear to me the logic behinds the SCCA's regional and national racing programs. Looks like to me there ought to be classes, regional championships, and a national championship. Largest subscribed classes get to go to the national championship, nice and easy.

[Chip42]

The farm league analogy was simply my attempt to point out that viewing IT as a stock of drivers / car to feed other classes hurts IT. assuming a limited number of drivers and the sort of obvious "evolutionary" system, the end result of a healthy ST and LP prod HAS to be, largely, the result of transition FROM other classes. I'm sure SS/T refugees have also moved in, and we know some entries have been added, so it's certainly not a perfect analogy. I also treat IT as a class that is itself the end goal.

to Greg's post - I see more SM cars moving to IT and ST than IT to SM. not counting double dippers. that's down here. up there it may and likely is different.

[gran racing]

Yes, popularity drives monies spent in a category but it goes a step further than that. A category can cater to different groups of people. Same reason why more people with much larger budgets in IT gravitate towards ITR than on the other side, ITB. Certainly ITC.

[mossaidis]

Looks like to me there ought to be classes, regional championships, and a national championship. Largest subscribed classes get to go to the national championship, nice and easy.

That's the magic sauce. "nice and easy". Lord knows that finishing at the top 5 in regional championships are partly dictated by just showing up.