C'mon Jake, the IT7 / ITR comparison is not really valid in terms of gauging popularity. On one hand, you've got cars that have been around, as a class, almost 10x as long. I'd also be curious as to just when the last new ITA/IT7 1st gen RX7 was built. I'm not talking about someone that took what was left off of a wadded up car and swapped it over to a new tub, but the last time someone said "Hey, I want to build a race car, I think I'll build an IT7." I'm guessing that it was before ITR existed.
From what I remember at the time, the SRX7 cars were somewhat unique to the DC Region. IIRC, at the MARRS 1 race 8 or 9 years ago, there were 53 SRX7 cars registered, and I think 48 or 49 of them took the green flag.
But as I said before, at that time, the RX7 folks were lucky. They were running VERY popular cars. Decent performance, nice balance, fun to drive, neat looks, lots of stuff available, and not tons of money to build or run. Seems like the ideal situation. Really not unlike SM today. Is it a coincidence that both cars happen to be Mazdas? Who knows. And it doesn't really matter. I think it's great that the Regions are responding to what the drivers want. It's simple marketing really. Folks have these cars, and would like to race them in a group where they feel they've got a fair shot. Providing that opportunity or 'product' will encourage them to spend their $$$ w/ you (Region). I think that's one of the reasons why NASA is doing as well as they are.
Not sure if this is the appropriate thread to go into this or not, but since I'm here, here goes. Reading some of Stephen B's comments got me thinking. Once things went from 'just providing a place to race' to trying to actually balance the cars in a given IT class, the horse was out of the barn. I think it's safe to say that everyone wants 'stable' rules in IT. However, once you start trying to balance cars, 'stable' rules will be a moving target. If it's completely arbitrarry, no one can say they got treated any different than anyone else, and it really does become a case of 'pick your weapon'. The simplest form of this, is that cars are spec'd at mfg's published curb weight for the base model. No 'adders', no worries about how much of a power gain they'll get, no nothing, other than "You want to run a Puddlebee SXR? It's a 2.0 16v, so it runs in ITA, and the curb weight is 2375#, so that's the race weight." That's it.
You could do the same w/ the current process, but tweaks to things need to go away. No more adjusting the power gain percentage, etc. The problem is, once you start putting things like anticipated power gains in there, you'll get people saying that they're not accurate. Doesn't matter if it gets you to exactly the same number as just running at curb weight, it's about the perception of how you got to that number. One is totally arbitrarry, one is not so much.
But once you go down that road of trying to actually balance the cars in a class, it becomes an ongoing, evolving process. You're continually improving the model. The problem is, everyone will have a different idea as to what level of granularity is good enough. And for most, that will come from a me-centric position. Stephen's comment about "leaving them up the creek" is what really got me thinking. It goes back to the simple marketing I mentioned above. The guy that feels that he is left 'up the creek' will very likely take his racing budget to a place that he feels that he gets a fairer shot.
One of the things about IT, which I really like, is that it's more about folks being able to race cars that they have some kind of connection to. Sure, some will just want the 'best' car, but many will pick cars because of other, more 'emotional' factors. For me, I've been a VW guy for a LONG time. I drove Rabbit GTI's on the street, and really liked the cars. That's why I wanted to race one. Jake has been running that RX7 for as long as I've known him, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar connection. And I think the same can be said for a lot of the folks in IT. We race the cars we do, because we want to race those cars.
I've seen countless posts about how IT is the best it has ever been, etc. But as Kirk has pointed out on several occasions, you're going to get the IT that you want. Once you go to anything beyond a totally arbitrarry classification process, it needs to be an evolving process. I think that it can work, w/o going all the way to what's happened to Prod, but it will take commitment from the top down. Sure wish I had the answer as to exactly what was needed, that's something that will change as time goes on.
Question to Stephen B. If you froze the ITCS right now (new car classifications notwithstanding), and left those guys 'up the creek', how is that any different than the way things were 10 years ago? To me, the only thing that's different, is that you've got a different group of disenfranchaised folks. It's kind of like a game of musical chairs. Stop the music at one point, and so-and-so doesn't have a seat. Stop it at a different point, and somebody else doesn't have a seat. You don't stop the music, and nobody has to sit down.
