2014 Improved Touring Participation

[JeffYoung]

I simply cannot disagree with you more, my friend. It is because IT does not have "full" status that it has survived as long as it has, and has been the most stable philosophy of the last three decades of SCCA racing.

GA

I know. And we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I used to think you were pushing to "kill" IT with some of your ideas, but I get now you are not. Your vision for IT is what made it so popular in the 80s/90s -- regional only rules, regional only racing, "outlaw" stuff. I get that and appreciate it.

I just think that "racing" in general is so different now and that niche is really filled by the Chumpemons stuff, and DEs. IT has to find a new place. To me, that is combined with ST and LP Prod in a new "super" production type class.

But it is all a good discussino, and like I said, it took me a while, but I appreciate where you are coming from.

[seckerich]

I know. And we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I used to think you were pushing to "kill" IT with some of your ideas, but I get now you are not. Your vision for IT is what made it so popular in the 80s/90s -- regional only rules, regional only racing, "outlaw" stuff. I get that and appreciate it.

I just think that "racing" in general is so different now and that niche is really filled by the Chumpemons stuff, and DEs. IT has to find a new place. To me, that is combined with ST and LP Prod in a new "super" production type class.

But it is all a good discussino, and like I said, it took me a while, but I appreciate where you are coming from.

IT already has the draw for Chump/lemons type drivers. Cars can run long races with multiple drivers. More regions need to get on board the enduro series and help promote the cost of shared participation.

How would you like to be looking at the concord agreement with IT as one of the catagories destined to be screwed? Keep your head down and watch the sparks fly, this will be fun. I know I took note of the vote my director made and am not very happy. Hope she is ready to explain at St Simon.

[Butch Kummer]

How would you like to be looking at the concord agreement with IT as one of the catagories destined to be screwed? Keep your head down and watch the sparks fly, this will be fun. I know I took note of the vote my director made and am not very happy. Hope she is ready to explain at St Simon.

The motion on the Concorde Agreement was simply to instruct the CRB do a six-month study and come back with a proposal to reduce the number of Majors/Runoffs classes, nothing more. Once they've presented the plan the BoD will vote again on whether or not to adopt it. And even if they do, I fully expect it to be defeated by future BoD's when members figure out how THEIR class gets "assimilated".

That said, even excluding Spec Miata, the GCR currently has fourteen classes that all "look like" they are based on production vehicles - 4 GT, ASedan, 3 Prod, 4 Touring, and 2 Super Touring. Add in the five IT classes, and are those classes different enough that they can't be combined to create five or six classes that will provide better competition for everyone? If you were starting with a clean sheet of paper, would you really be able to explain why all of them are necessary?

Again, class consolidation (the Concorde Agreement) will never happen because SCCA is NOT starting with a clean sheet of paper. But then this is the off-season and people need something to bitch about until next spring...

[StephenB]

We should start with a clean sheet, just no one is brave enough to do it.