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

[JeffYoung]

Dilution though. Will hurt the traditional regional races.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dilution though. Will hurt the traditional regional races.

Your definition of delution is someone elses definition of having a chance to win...

If you have 10 regulars in ITS now in a Regional-only scenario, I bet that IT going National would have this effect:

7 National and 8 Regional.

5 go National and now because IT is National, you have 3 of your regulars and add 2 who like the rules better.

7 of your regulars stay and 1 or 2 come because the big-money/uber-talented guys have left.

Less Regional competitors? Yes, but more OVERALL. (Assuming the ruleset is popular). If you combine Regional and National SM counts, I bet you see a net gain over when it was just regional.

Just a hunch..

[shwah]

If regional / national distinction were dropped, the number of races should drop. We no longer need duplicity of events to serve both groups (which is what some regions already do to make ends meet), and can have more races than current national schedules, with enough competitors to fill them.

For instance, we have 10 regional races in CenDiv, and 1 or 2 nationals are 'restricted regionals' that allow IT cars. We have 5 nationals. A total of 15 races over 11 weekends (8 of the regionals take place over 4 double weekends). In a non-segregated world we could have 10 good nationals, save one weekend of track rental (well probably use that weekend for driver school) and have larger, more competitive fields at every one. Not to mention actual practice, qualify and race sessions, rather than a 2 session race day (I love racing, but hate not having 2 sessions before race time at a double event).

Seems to me the workers would get less burned out, and the events would draw enough racers to reduce entry fees.

The number of classes is another kettle of fish. I also think that part of eliminating the national / regional distinction would be eliminating the classes without national rule sets - either by creating national rule sets, or eliminating the classes, and where it makes sense - making provisions for the affected cars to compete in existing classes: welcome back to ITA/or welcome to ITB - RX7s, weclome to BP or DP - ITE, welcome to FF - CF, welcome to SM - SMT, SSM, etc

[1stGenBoy]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

[shwah]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

Bill - I think some of these rules should be changed in the event of a single 'level' system. Why not allow more nationals per track, and while your at it, have the top finishers in the Division series period - no best 6 finishes. Make it so you have to compete in your series to be invited, not just do a few 'formality' events.

Oh and on the cost thing. I agree that you can spend as much as you like on the way to a national title, but my only 1st hand experience proves that a smart, capable team can also take the gold spending 1/2-1/3 of the 'norm'.

[tom_sprecher]

when I spend the day at DynoLab.

I "read" this whole thread and many of you made some excellent observations and suggestions and here is my take and please use a grain of salt or two.

1. It’s all about the Benjamin’s. From what I have been told but have not confirmed is that the national office's biggest revenue generator is the Runoffs which have seen declining entries after Mr. Johnson’s “sea gull” management style moved them to “Holy Topeka!” National has addressed this with emails to Runoffs drivers that did not show for the second race held there asking “why?” and the response basically was “if you move the race to a track that is more appealing and shorten the time required to do my thing only then will I return”. Well now they have a 10# bag and only 5# of entrants. Sounds like time to get us some more entrants.

2. National has seen and heard of the success of the IT*Spectaular and the ARRC and I would imagine they saw dollar signs. Don’t get me wrong, National office runs a tight ship and they should be given credit for that, but at the same time it has to be wearing them thin and relief in the form of more $ for a larger workforce is something they have got to have on their minds.

3. Popularity makes the price of racing go up. In the racing world the larger the demographic the better the odds are there will be more people with more money than you. Look at SM. Of course the demographic can work both ways. I was crew chief for a club FC team that almost spent more money on beer than developing the car and we were the SARRC champs twice. Why? Little or no competition. However, to make it up to ourselves we changed our goal and proceeded to set 2 track records.

4. I’m not convinced either way that IT going National would reduce grid size. In this time of rising fuel costs I could do more races close to home and not spend 1/3 of my weekend budget on diesel. Let the market dictate what the grid size should be. I do know that we as a region make by far more money on our regional races than on national events that have higher entry fees. We have more time to put on more groups due to race time/distance restraints dictated by the GCR but it does not seem to attract any more addition cars just the same guys entering multiple races but it sure makes paying the bills a whole lot easier.

5. Eliminating the regional designation AND reducing the number of races held would help with reduced grids, reduced revenues, reduced worker numbers, etc. We are trying to continue on the wrong side of the supply and demand curve and it can only go on for so long due to the fixed costs of hosting a race.

6. This post has gone on long enough but I’m sure I’ll come up with some more short sighted, base-less comments so stay tuned…

[1stGenBoy]

Bill - I think some of these rules should be changed in the event of a single 'level' system. Why not allow more nationals per track, and while your at it, have the top finishers in the Division series period - no best 6 finishes. Make it so you have to compete in your series to be invited, not just do a few 'formality' events.

Oh and on the cost thing. I agree that you can spend as much as you like on the way to a national title, but my only 1st hand experience proves that a smart, capable team can also take the gold spending 1/2-1/3 of the 'norm'.

The problem here in Cen-Div is when and where do you run more than 6 nationals?
Who would develop a Division series? There would have to be a group in charge of something like that I would think.
A lot of rules in the GCR would have to change. There is a minumum amount of practice,qualifiying and race distance to contend with too at a national race.
It used to be that you had to be in the top 10 of your divison to be invited to the Runoffs.
Not saying you can't do well on a limited budget at the Runoffs but.... the odds are against you. I like to have the odds in my favor. I know that a new set of intermiediates, a new set of tire warmers=The national championship for us in 06. That was a quick 3k. Was it worth it? You bet. The other drivers were demorilized on the grid and we had a 35 second lead by lap 6.
Next time you see me at the track ask me about it and I'll tell you the whole story about that.
Just thinking out loud so flame away.

Bob

[fiat124girl]

My 2 cents:
The cost argument is a valid point and yes you can spend just as much on a IT car as an AS car.
Having been to the Runoff's many,many times and as a 2 time National Champion
Crew chief I know what it costs to win. It takes a lot. Example the 2007 Runoffs: Tire bill was $7500.00 dollars. Now we did win $3000.00 of that back but..... it still had to spent up front. That's a lot but that's what it takes to win.
There are only 2 nationals allowed per track so that cuts down on the number of national events in the division. You must start 4 nationals and be counted as a finisher in 3 as a minumum and can only count your best 6 finishes of which only 2 can be from outside the divison. That's my 2 cents.

I still content that the cost argument is not a valid point. How much do you think we spend to get to ARRC or to run for the MiDiv championship? It is just as much as the Runoffs. In order to win in IT, you need to spend the same money that you would spend nationally. This is an expensive hobby, if you don't want to spend the money you cannot expect to be competitive.

The way that we qualify now for the runoff would still work with some minor adjustment. Say you have to start 4 races, one of which needs to be out of division. Finish three and finish in the top 10 in division in points. If you go to the runoffs you may not participate in that car in any of the regional championships.

I am not sure why this is being made to be complicated. If you choose to run on a national level you may with any car that is SCCA compliant. If you choose to run regionally you may with any car that is SCCA compliant.

You could begin to combine classes at the runoffs to utilize the track space so that everyone who wishes to attend may. This may take some creative organization but it is not an impossible feat.

I just want to be able to race any of our cars at the runoffs if we choose, not just the AS car.

[jjjanos]

If you have 10 regulars in ITS now in a Regional-only scenario, I bet that IT going National would have this effect:

7 National and 8 Regional.

5 go National and now because IT is National, you have 3 of your regulars and add 2 who like the rules better.

7 of your regulars stay and 1 or 2 come because the big-money/uber-talented guys have left.

Less Regional competitors? Yes, but more OVERALL. (Assuming the ruleset is popular). If you combine Regional and National SM counts, I bet you see a net gain over when it was just regional.

Just a hunch..

And the 2 "new" competitors you are adding are not new - they are poached from another class, so the net effect is 3 diluted classes - The "new" National IT class, the regional IT run group and whichever class those 2 poached drivers were running.

Your proposal doesn't add entrants. It simply shuffles them into more boxes and that is the definition of dilution.

You want to add more drivers, then look at what those who would race with us but currently do not would like. The pool of people who are sitting out racing because 5-year old cars with limited mods cannot run at Topeka is about as shallow as the gene pool in Appalachia.

The proposal to move IT to National doesn't cure the disease. It treats the symptoms and masks the problem. National racing is suffering because the Runoffs (tm) are in a terrible location for both coasts, because a significant number of national competitors would rather have a colostomy than go to the circuit where the Runoffs (tm) are being held, because the respective rules setting bodies keep jerking drivers around like a detainee at Guantanamo, because the cost of building and prepping a National-level car is more than a B-2 bomber and because the travel expenses/demands to qualify for Runoffs are ridiculous.

Simply moving IT to National does nothing for location, venue, rules, cost or travel. In fact, odds are that once the cat is out of the Regional-only box, the IT rules will be about as stable as Brittney Spiers grasp of reality. So what we got here is no benefits and a likely big negative.

Those who stand fast the hardest about rules creep should be manning the ramparts about this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1st: this has nothing to do with RULES, so the creep issue is moot, no?

2nd: You are just assuming the new drivers are poached. They may be FORMER members who have not renewed, they may be FORMER members who now run with NASA because they like a National Championship, they might be NEW members who were considering NASA for it's National Championship, they could be members who were THINKING about not renewing because they can't deal with the constant turmoil that is Prod and GT...and yes, they could be members who are migrating from other classes...members whom we might have lost should they have not found a home they like.

The possibilities are endless.

We can design a better way to qualify for the Runoffs - especially is the Nat/Reg designation goes away.

We can (and will) have the RO at a better location in another year.

The IT Rules are what they are. That is why the class is popular. To change that would be a sin. I doubt it would. The CRB members thinking about this fully understand why IT is popular and other classes are broken. Figuring out how to fix the other classes is the issue. Too many people who won't let go of their old stuff/ideals/perceptions.

[dickita15]

I have no problem with IT becoming a national class but I am very much against losing the national/regional race distinction. The national racers make a big deal about format. Intrinsic to nationals is that they race on more than their home track(s). Nationals require 45 minutes of practice and qualifying and 30 minute races. Regional races use a varied format that does a better job of allowing the regions to cater to what the racers want. The doubles and triples that give us so much racing would go away under a national only format.

[jjjanos]

1st: this has nothing to do with RULES, so the creep issue is moot, no?

Wrong. See Section 9, Sporting Regs. The issue of rules creep is ALWAYS there. IT was conceived as a Regional Class. Change something that ingrained in the foundation of the class and you'll be sleeping with camels - or so I have been told by the rules creep jihadists. The same people who think that allowing an allowance for a single car thrown down a class to keep the wheels they already purchased would have us racing full-blown GT cars in IT before next Tuesday.

Given the history of rules creep with virtually every national class, I find that it strains creditability for you to maintain that the rest of the IT philosophy will remain as pure as the driven snow. Those that have already succumbed to Runoffs (tm) Envy will develop a full blown case of Rule Creep Influenza as sure as the sun rises tomorrow.

2nd: You are just assuming the new drivers are poached. They may be FORMER members who have not renewed, they may be FORMER members who now run with NASA because they like a National Championship, they might be NEW members who were considering NASA for it's National Championship, they could be members who were THINKING about not renewing because they can't deal with the constant turmoil that is Prod and GT...and yes, they could be members who are migrating from other classes...members whom we might have lost should they have not found a home they like.

Pot, I would like you to meet the kettle.

You also have assumed that a de jure championship will attract new competitors or preserve old competitors. IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige. In fact, the "outlaw" aspect of the ARRC adds to its mystique, IMO. That meaningless stamp, however, will allow Topeka to take its cut, stick its fumbled fingers into the IT philosophy and generally turn a successful class into another SM cluster or Production/GT/Sports Racer wasteland.

I'll contribute $20 to buy ayou a gold medal if you win the ARRC this year.

Before you go mucking around with something that works very well and makes a LARGE number of SCCA members happy, I would suggest that you do some market research as to whether it will add new competitors to the club and find a way to prevent the poaching of competitors from many succesful Regional racing programs for the benefit of Topeka and the National System it allowed to rot.

We can design a better way to qualify for the Runoffs - especially is the Nat/Reg designation goes away.

Then give the specifics as part of this proposal and make it indivisible because as sure as night follows day, Topeka will cherry pick IT and keep Regionals and Nationals.

We can (and will) have the RO at a better location in another year.

Topeka already has a verifiable record of screwing up the location of the Runoffs both in terms of member input and in making its input-less decision. Should the Runoffs move to a better location, it still addresses only one of the issues I raised. The rest of the rot with the National program remains.

The IT Rules are what they are. That is why the class is popular. To change that would be a sin. I doubt it would. The CRB members thinking about this fully understand why IT is popular and other classes are broken.

You mean the same decision-making body that gave us tube-framed less expensive GT cars? The same decision-making body that created the $10K Spec Miata motor? The same decision-making body that gave us the Shelby Can-Am? The same decision-making body that let in a Neon racecar into Showroom Stock and fixed the problem with Trunk kits? The same decision-making body that added even more open-wheel classes to a diluted open-wheel set of competitors? The same decision-making body that allowed the hard top solistice to compete in violation of the category's rules/philosophy? The same decision-making body that wouldn't allow racing seats into SS for decades?

How could I ever doubt the decision making abilities of that august body when it comes the National racing program and please forgive me my hesitancy for considering what will happen to IT when the same Runoffs attitude and mindset develops.

Figuring out how to fix the other classes is the issue. Too many people who won't let go of their old stuff/ideals/perceptions.

If that is the issue, please explain how adding IT to the Runoffs addresses that issue. Don't "solve" the Runoffs problem on the back of IT. Fix the problems there before asking us to join that cesspool.

[JoshS]

IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige. In fact, the "outlaw" aspect of the ARRC adds to its mystique, IMO.

The people I talk to (people pissed off at poor decision making in SS/T, but like the IT ruleset) say otherwise. They just won't even give the thought of switching to IT the time of day, simply because it's not a National class and there's no official national championship to strive for.

Some people might be drawn to the ARRC "outlaw mystique," but I personally know several people who are clearly more drawn to the Runoffs. Obviously, people in both camps exist and to say, flat out, that national class "officialdom" is meaningless and that it flat-out "won't add to that prestige" are strong statements with no backing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ,

We will agree to disagree on MANY points. Bottom line? It's a hot debate with MANY different angles.

[ddewhurst]

jjjanos & others, the combined Regional/National event entries was posted by CRB member Stan Clayton on June 14, 2007 therefore they were 2006 numbers. It shows which classes would move up the chart with one level of classes with 24 classes making the Runoffs.

[Knestis]

>> IT already has a de facto championship that carries considerable bragging rights. Some meaningless stamp of officialdom from Topeka won't add to that prestige ...

As an ARRC-winning owner, I feel differently. That was a great accomplishment but partially because it's the only IT game in town. Even more so, if the racing at an IT National championship were as good as it is likely it COULD be, it would be even sweeter. But OK - you can just PayPal me the $20.

And janos - you've got to decide if you want to flip the jihadists crap or thank them for standing in defense of the threats you perceive exist to the category.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that IT might well poach a lot of drivers from current National classes, perhaps hastening their demise. About the only thing the category does NOT have going for it is a championship.

...and arguments about cost? The best way to spend less money is to spend less money. Asking a category to be less competitive than it might so individuals can maintain their current relative competitive positions is a little counterproductive to the big picture, I think. Want to win because there isn't much competition? There are National classes where that's totally possible now.

K

[shwah]

Bill - I would love to hear that story some time.

As far as CenDiv nationals - I will run 4 races at Blackhawk, 4 at Road America, 2 at Milwaukee in CenDiv this year (and Mid-O and the other RA). Why can't we run 4,4,2 at RA, BHF, AB (which has 3 tracks). Get Brainerd back on line - which is close from the info I have, and thats another place to move some racing to. I'm just thinking outside the box.

What is really interesting about the conversation, is that there seems to be almost universal support for eliminating the national/regional distinction. Why don't we write some letters and see if fellow club members share this opinion...

[jjjanos]

>> As an ARRC-winning owner, I feel differently. That was a great accomplishment but partially because it's the only IT game in town. Even more so, if the racing at an IT National championship were as good as it is likely it COULD be, it would be even sweeter. But OK - you can just PayPal me the $20.

I said this year.

And janos - you've got to decide if you want to flip the jihadists crap or thank them for standing in defense of the threats you perceive exist to the category.

Yeah, it was an easy shot, but as long as some of the guards at the gate are flopping back and forth about the intent of the class philosophy, I'll keep doing it. I just think it is silly to throw down the gauntlet and force people to buy new wheels because of the class philosophy and at the same time throw away what, IMO, has been a major part of the same philosophy in terms of Regional-only.

I don't think it's a stretch at all to think that IT might well poach a lot of drivers from current National classes, perhaps hastening their demise. About the only thing the category does NOT have going for it is a championship.

I repeat with minor changes...

Before anyone goes mucking around with something that works very well and makes a LARGE number of SCCA members happy, I would suggest that they do some market research as to whether it will add new competitors to the club and find a way to prevent the poaching of competitors from many succesful Regional racing programs for the benefit of Topeka and the National System it allowed to rot.

Demonstrate that the club, as a whole, benefits through increased participation. Moving drivers from Prod to IT just squeezes the water balloon. It doesn't make it bigger and it risks popping it.