Beat me, hurt me - I think I'll go run NASA PT
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
Matt Rowe
New member
If the series gets enough interest to start attracting lots of competition how much money do you think people will sink into coming up with the perfect combination of parts to get in just the right class. Think about it this way, right now in IT the decision is what spring/shock combo to use. For PT the decision will be IF non-stock springs/shocks should be used and then if so what parts. The same is true of EVERY possible change. The money to develop and test all of those combinations would exceed anything IT can think of.
It sounds like a way to get people on track in whatever they want. But by now means does it sounds like a good system to pit the best aganst the best and decide a national championship. And I'd hate to be the one administering this or policing the system. :119:
RacerBill
New member
OK, I can kind of see pros and cons of each classing system - IT and PT. IMHO, I think PT is a neat way to let everyone do what they want to their cars. However, I think it could be a nightmare to police. It kind of reminds me of the old SCCA 'Modified' classes 35 - 40 years ago (what evolved into Sports Racers). I have pictures of Austin Healeys with 289 Fords stuffed in them (how many PT points do I get for that mod? 
).
I am not saying that either philosophy is good or bad. One has to look at both systems, measure their own priorities, make a decision, and commit to having a good time based on their decision. Some race horses by climbing right up their backs, others by riding in a little wagon!
). I am not saying that either philosophy is good or bad. One has to look at both systems, measure their own priorities, make a decision, and commit to having a good time based on their decision. Some race horses by climbing right up their backs, others by riding in a little wagon!
gran racing
Super Moderator
The way I see it, there are some good things about IT that PT lacks and vice-versa. Both could use improvements.
People have made statements that costs can never be controlled in racing and IT is as good as it gets. Fine, you may be content with how things are and do not have interest in making racing less expensive, but others do (myself included). If you do have interest making racing less expensive but still say IT in its current form is the solution, might you be acting a bit lazy?
While there are very few options to prevent people from dumping goobs of money into their racing efforts, there are ways to contain the benefit received from doing so. For example, in a class that only allows stock engines. Yes, a person could go through the parts bin and find the best “stock” part available but when it comes down to it, the difference in HP is not terribly significant. Now take IT where it could be anything from a stock engine to a decent engine build to the cream of the crop engine build. The HP at the wheel results may look more like: 112 HP w/ stock motor, 138 HP decent build, and 155 HP cream of the crop build. There is a much large incentive to spend cash in this scenario.
When looking at SCCA’s various classes, Show Room Stock’s general set of rules seems very interesting. Maybe there is a place for a similar class with older (more affordable) SS cars? I also find it interesting that many good Show Room Stock cars end up dead (not a competitive place in IT for them to run) after their tenure expires in that class. Why not form classes where these older SS cars run in the same exact form? Heck, I don’t even care if they call it over the hill, beat up junky old Show Room A, B, and C classes. It would provide a place for these cars to have a second life, make the donor car much less expensive, reduce the incentive to spend $40K on a car, etcetera.
People have made statements that costs can never be controlled in racing and IT is as good as it gets. Fine, you may be content with how things are and do not have interest in making racing less expensive, but others do (myself included). If you do have interest making racing less expensive but still say IT in its current form is the solution, might you be acting a bit lazy?
While there are very few options to prevent people from dumping goobs of money into their racing efforts, there are ways to contain the benefit received from doing so. For example, in a class that only allows stock engines. Yes, a person could go through the parts bin and find the best “stock” part available but when it comes down to it, the difference in HP is not terribly significant. Now take IT where it could be anything from a stock engine to a decent engine build to the cream of the crop engine build. The HP at the wheel results may look more like: 112 HP w/ stock motor, 138 HP decent build, and 155 HP cream of the crop build. There is a much large incentive to spend cash in this scenario.
When looking at SCCA’s various classes, Show Room Stock’s general set of rules seems very interesting. Maybe there is a place for a similar class with older (more affordable) SS cars? I also find it interesting that many good Show Room Stock cars end up dead (not a competitive place in IT for them to run) after their tenure expires in that class. Why not form classes where these older SS cars run in the same exact form? Heck, I don’t even care if they call it over the hill, beat up junky old Show Room A, B, and C classes. It would provide a place for these cars to have a second life, make the donor car much less expensive, reduce the incentive to spend $40K on a car, etcetera.
Stock bin blueprinting is exceedingly expensive and the difference doesn't need to be terribly significant - at the end of 30 or so miles all it takes is 0.001 second to beat someone else. If it wasn't sufficiently significant to matter no one would do it and they wouldn't all be the ones on the podium - it matters enough that people pay for it when it is worth it to them.
If the racing becomes worthwhile (i.e. large competitive field) it doesn't matter what you do - people will find a way to spend money in it and they will find a way to make that spend matter.
Outside of bracket racing, the only place I have ever seen successfully make racing inexpensive and cost the same for everyone participating is in a video arcade.
If the racing becomes worthwhile (i.e. large competitive field) it doesn't matter what you do - people will find a way to spend money in it and they will find a way to make that spend matter.
Outside of bracket racing, the only place I have ever seen successfully make racing inexpensive and cost the same for everyone participating is in a video arcade.
gran racing
Super Moderator
I never said people are not spending mucho bucks - what I said is the incentive is not as high.
What is the HP difference between a factory engine from Mazda (since you said SM) vs. one built otherwise? I know there is a larger HP gap between a low cost IT engine and a fully developed IT engine.
So what happens with a 15 plus HP difference at the wheels? (I realize this is a very low / conservative number.)
Guess you are right, absolutely nothing can be done to reduce the cost of racing and we'll just have to accept things as they are.
What is the HP difference between a factory engine from Mazda (since you said SM) vs. one built otherwise? I know there is a larger HP gap between a low cost IT engine and a fully developed IT engine.
So what happens with a 15 plus HP difference at the wheels? (I realize this is a very low / conservative number.)
Guess you are right, absolutely nothing can be done to reduce the cost of racing and we'll just have to accept things as they are.
The incentive apparently is even higher in SM as it has grown, to achieve less of a performance benefit and pay more for it requires some sort of increased incentive, at least in a rational economic environment. (Not that racing is.)
It is enough in SM to matter and the incentive is plenty high based on how much they are paying to do it. Whether its 2 or 10 HP people are doing it at high cost, so even with a smaller performance gap the incentive cost wise is actually higher than the incentive in IT, based on actual activities of the participants. If the incentive in IT to spend is so high why aren't there more fully prepared IT cars? The incentive can't be that great, as economically rational participants are choosing not to prepare more fully. If the incentive to do so were greater more would do it.
The gap in IT also should be only 2-10 hp, since the intent of any classing in a rule set is that the car be fully prepared - the person deciding to fully prepare their car is doing the right thing for the class. If anything hurts the class it is the people not fully preparing their cars AND then complaining about those that do. A person chooses each year to stay in IT knowing full well that they either fully prepare and compete or don't fully prepare and go out and have fun. Expecting anyone in any form of racing not to fully prepare and spend as much as they desire to do it is an unreasonable expectation. If it the class is worth racing in someone is going to spend the money doing it.
Even in PT the intent is that whatever class you land in you have fully prepared to compete in that class - but with the same car you can choose which level of fully prepared you want to undergo from the equivalent of less than SS to greater than Production.
It is enough in SM to matter and the incentive is plenty high based on how much they are paying to do it. Whether its 2 or 10 HP people are doing it at high cost, so even with a smaller performance gap the incentive cost wise is actually higher than the incentive in IT, based on actual activities of the participants. If the incentive in IT to spend is so high why aren't there more fully prepared IT cars? The incentive can't be that great, as economically rational participants are choosing not to prepare more fully. If the incentive to do so were greater more would do it.
The gap in IT also should be only 2-10 hp, since the intent of any classing in a rule set is that the car be fully prepared - the person deciding to fully prepare their car is doing the right thing for the class. If anything hurts the class it is the people not fully preparing their cars AND then complaining about those that do. A person chooses each year to stay in IT knowing full well that they either fully prepare and compete or don't fully prepare and go out and have fun. Expecting anyone in any form of racing not to fully prepare and spend as much as they desire to do it is an unreasonable expectation. If it the class is worth racing in someone is going to spend the money doing it.
Even in PT the intent is that whatever class you land in you have fully prepared to compete in that class - but with the same car you can choose which level of fully prepared you want to undergo from the equivalent of less than SS to greater than Production.
I just wanted to formally apologize to everyone for hurting ITA by not building up my car to the limit of the rules. I mistakenly thought that IT was the place for low-cost amateur racing, but I must admit that I was completely wrong about that. Again, sorry all. I am informing the wife tonight that we can't afford to have another kid becuase I need to install the Motech, start getting custom gears made, and get that car on a rotisserie!
Catch22
New member
I just wanted to formally apologize to everyone for hurting ITA by not building up my car to the limit of the rules. I mistakenly thought that IT was the place for low-cost amateur racing, but I must admit that I was completely wrong about that. Again, sorry all. I am informing the wife tonight that we can't afford to have another kid becuase I need to install the Motech, start getting custom gears made, and get that car on a rotisserie!
[/b]
In all serious, I see what he is trying to say.
In order to keep balance you MUST look at what can be done, not what some or even most people are actually doing.
I imagine a bunch of BMW ITS efforts are going to get killed by the SIR. Before they could compete without having to do a balls-out effort, now they won't be able to.
In short, if your ITA car is a $5000 beater, you can't complain about the guy in the $30000 Integra whipping your ass for you. If you spent $30000 on your car, maybe you'd be right up there with him.
Assuming everyone is legal... Of course.
OMG this is just ridiculous - is it just that my composition is really lousy or does no one on the internet have any reading comprehension whatsoever. I swear more people quote you, then respond to the quote in such a manner as to never have comprehended what they were responding to.
Where did I ever say that "not building (your) car to the limit of the rules." hurt ITA ? ? ?
Reread the very words you quoted there is a conjunction in there that results in two conditions to exist at the same time in order for the result I stated to occur. And the criticism has nothing to do with living a life, making choices or having constraints all of which I have and hence do not have a fully prepared car either. The criticism to make it more explicitly clear than I did the first time is to not fully prepare AND then criticize those that do which I think does hurt IT.
Why bother having a conversation with another person if you don't even listen to what they are saying and respond by what you think or want them to have been saying. Might as well just type a monologue.
And for the record the intent states the following:
No where does it say that preparing them or racing them will be inexpensive only that the car will be.
Jake at some point it is highly likely we will meet each other with SCCA or NASA so don't take it personally it is the culmination that no one on the internet understands what they are responding to before they respond. I try to make sure I take the time to understand what I am responding to before I respond (and if I don't then cram it down my throat, because I will have been wrong myself) but I do expect others to make the same effort I guess.
Where did I ever say that "not building (your) car to the limit of the rules." hurt ITA ? ? ?
Reread the very words you quoted there is a conjunction in there that results in two conditions to exist at the same time in order for the result I stated to occur. And the criticism has nothing to do with living a life, making choices or having constraints all of which I have and hence do not have a fully prepared car either. The criticism to make it more explicitly clear than I did the first time is to not fully prepare AND then criticize those that do which I think does hurt IT.
Why bother having a conversation with another person if you don't even listen to what they are saying and respond by what you think or want them to have been saying. Might as well just type a monologue.
And for the record the intent states the following:
No where does it say that preparing them or racing them will be inexpensive only that the car will be.
Jake at some point it is highly likely we will meet each other with SCCA or NASA so don't take it personally it is the culmination that no one on the internet understands what they are responding to before they respond. I try to make sure I take the time to understand what I am responding to before I respond (and if I don't then cram it down my throat, because I will have been wrong myself) but I do expect others to make the same effort I guess.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Once again from the 2006 GCR (and first page of this thread):“Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.”
Correct - there is no reason to complain, but that is not the point here. The point is that NASA is attempting (wheither you like it or not) to try something new. People mentioned that in other classes (i.e. Showroom Stock) tons of money are being spent. Yes, there is extra HP to be made but I'd take a shot that by working on my driving using inexpensive techniques, I could hopefully compensate for the relative small HP differences gained. Not saying that I could, but at least it would be within reach for me.
Listen, right now I'm cool with running in IT. I have worked hard on my driving skills (still have much to improve though!), and have a car that gives me a shot at being up front if I work hard enough. That's now. Just a couple years ago I absolutely would have loved to participate in a class where it didn't require a ton of money to be competitive. (Actually, that's still the case now.) Here's my thing - anything that can be done to make racing more affordable and thus accessible to more people, I see as a very good thing. This isn't about IT being a big bad evil class. I still do not think it is such a horrible idea for people to brainstorm ideas that can make racing less expensive even if you choose not to race in that class.
Scott - watch what I wish for with Olde Show Room Stock classes? Hope you didn't think I meant a class to replace IT. I don't think its such a bad idea.
Now that sounds like something my wife would tell me.
gran racing
Super Moderator
Ed, you mentioned costs associated with racing. Just curious, what region do you typically race in?
Time to pick on Ray -
Time to pick on Ray -
You're kidding, right? When did your tire budget sky rocket like this?
Ever think the significant others in our lives might have a point when it is confirmed elsewhere?Now that sounds like something my wife would tell me.
[/b]
I know she never believes me until I find two other people to tell her too!
Living in NNJR but haven't raced with them yet. I have run with WDCR and NER with SCCA and with Mid-Atlantic and NE with NASA.
RSTPerformance
New member
Dave-
I think that you can justify IT in general being a relatively inexpensive class to run...
In my mind...
ITC- cheep very cheep, and you can be compete and win on a very low budget.
ITB- Inexpensive, you can win (and you and I have proved it) on a reasonable budget, but more money does make it easier to win.
ITA- Reasonably priced to run, lots of cars to compete with and have fun, very expensive to outright win though.
ITS- Expensive as compaired to other "IT" cars and low/reasonably budgeted people, however the cost as compaired to other race cars with similar speeds, performance levels, and lap times this class really is very inexpensive.
IT?- (The class for the cars that are to fast for ITS that everyone always talks about... Expensive, but a great place for the big budget want to have fun people.
That's just my look at the IT structure...
As for your idea on allowing Showroom Stock to allow "old" cars to run... I absolutely agree, I hate the date rule, I think it is lame, and should be opened up... I do think though that could cause issues with people running a 1980 rabbit who can't get parts... my thought though would be once you can't get parts, your car is no longer eligable (IE: better build a junkyard with parts, or update to a newer car)... The "catch22" (no reference to posters name) of that would be that SCCA would need to be strict on not making exceptions and people would need to realize that thier cars would NOT be compeditive as they grow older, thus is does not solve your issue with an inexpensive class where you can compete to win.
Raymond...
I think that you can justify IT in general being a relatively inexpensive class to run...
In my mind...
ITC- cheep very cheep, and you can be compete and win on a very low budget.
ITB- Inexpensive, you can win (and you and I have proved it) on a reasonable budget, but more money does make it easier to win.
ITA- Reasonably priced to run, lots of cars to compete with and have fun, very expensive to outright win though.
ITS- Expensive as compaired to other "IT" cars and low/reasonably budgeted people, however the cost as compaired to other race cars with similar speeds, performance levels, and lap times this class really is very inexpensive.
IT?- (The class for the cars that are to fast for ITS that everyone always talks about... Expensive, but a great place for the big budget want to have fun people.
That's just my look at the IT structure...
As for your idea on allowing Showroom Stock to allow "old" cars to run... I absolutely agree, I hate the date rule, I think it is lame, and should be opened up... I do think though that could cause issues with people running a 1980 rabbit who can't get parts... my thought though would be once you can't get parts, your car is no longer eligable (IE: better build a junkyard with parts, or update to a newer car)... The "catch22" (no reference to posters name) of that would be that SCCA would need to be strict on not making exceptions and people would need to realize that thier cars would NOT be compeditive as they grow older, thus is does not solve your issue with an inexpensive class where you can compete to win.
Raymond...
Doesn't SS already do exactly that with the 10 year eligibility and 5 year positive competitive adjustment cutoff?
I'll be curious to see how many complain how much it costs to race in "IT?"
Pretty accurate description of the cost progression. And on my budget I probably should have gone ITB in order to field a better prepared car.
I'll be curious to see how many complain how much it costs to race in "IT?"
Pretty accurate description of the cost progression. And on my budget I probably should have gone ITB in order to field a better prepared car.
RSTPerformance
New member
When we went to the ARRC and qualified pole/off pole (we wont talk about the race) the tire budget was much higher than that... Thankfully Hoosier helped us out a lot.
We don't spend that much when racing at NARRC races, but are we really the absolute car to beat??? I don't think so, in the Northeast races we run on scraps, however, if we want to win agains Scott Carlson or Derek Lugar we will have to up the tire budget a bit...
Our cars are also unique in the fact that we don't race on all four tires, remember our engine is infront of our front tires!!! At Lime Rock we really only race on the left front tire... lol so our budget is $200 or so plus some used tires, however other cars such as an SM race on all four!!!
Raymond
Ed - I took your post out of context only because I wanted to make a joke - not about your point, but out of an unfortunate order of words. Honestly, I was just being silly. There's nothing wrong with my comprehension or your composition. Another problem with the internet is it is imposible to distinguish text made in anger or in jest. I hope we do meet in NASA and/or SCCA, and when we do I owe you a beer - make it two!