Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

benspeed said:
Nice job and a shout out to Dave G for locating the IT numbers - those get posted in Sportscar almost annually if I recall. Those counts look healthy - would you be able to show Prod and GT so we can see if those classes are down?
Click to expand...

Its an apples to oranges comparision but a look at numbers through June of 2009 look like this: National races only...

Top 5
SRF 18.1 cars per race average
SM 16.1
FV 7.2
EP 5.8
GT-1 5.4

Notables
AS 2.9
T1 2.6
T2 2.5
SSB 2.5
T3 1.8
 
ddewhurst said:
The information given in 2007 on the Production site by a CRB member is that ALL Regional class cars & ALL National classes cars are tracked.
Click to expand...
National entries have been tracked for many years. The Regional numbers started being tracked - by class, not totals - in 2007. That's why there are no numbers available for earlier years. As I said, the 2007 numbers are "iffy" because of the way they were gathered.

Dave
 
benspeed said:
Nice job and a shout out to Dave G for locating the IT numbers - those get posted in Sportscar almost annually if I recall. Those counts look healthy - would you be able to show Prod and GT so we can see if those classes are down?
Click to expand...
Actually the numbers published in SportsCar are National participation only.

Are you asking for all Prod/GT numbers or just regional?

Dave
 
I'd be curious to see what national and regional trends look like for Prod and GT - being sensitive if the request makes it harder including regionals.

I think racing in a fuller field with more passing and being passed develops better racecraft and offers more fun. I also think the regions should offer relief to the workers and rake in more $$ per event.

Here's another question - does anybody else think combining the national and regional schedules makes good sense? Jake - sounded like it did to you also.
 
I stated as much in my first response.

Of course then we are talking about something much larger than the 'state of IT', which is what we SHOULD be talking about. IT is healthy, could use some tweaks here and there, and always will, but we need to improve the SCCA Club Racing program from the standpoint of event financial solvency, regional organization capabilities, venue scheduling/availability, worker scheduling/availability and driver options (too many events to choose from at times).

Still not sure how to word a CRB letter on 'IT in general', but planning to write a letter to CRB and BoD on the subject of Club Racing structure....again.
 
shwah said:
I stated as much in my first response.

Of course then we are talking about something much larger than the 'state of IT', which is what we SHOULD be talking about. IT is healthy, could use some tweaks here and there, and always will, but we need to improve the SCCA Club Racing program from the standpoint of event financial solvency, regional organization capabilities, venue scheduling/availability, worker scheduling/availability and driver options (too many events to choose from at times).

Still not sure how to word a CRB letter on 'IT in general', but planning to write a letter to CRB and BoD on the subject of Club Racing structure....again.
Click to expand...

yea, I'm probably with you on that boat. One aspect to that is IT's place. A central question to that is:
Why is IT successful?
Is it the ruleset? or the Regional status? Some think it's the latter. If so, changine the overall structure will affect IT. (I think it's other reasons, but...) Just something to consider....
 
Jake,
I think the success is due to both.
I have a question, do you think IT racers just race enough to be sharp for ARRC? I don't, I think they race (and they race more than most) because they love to race.
Put the RunOffs apple out there for IT and you will change the culture. You will get those 4 race folks that just want to qualify. And some of them will be guys that raced a large number of races the years before. Your regional type championships will lose their luster (and entrants) and the serious guys will be "saving" cars, money, and time for the "Holy ROs Grail". Of course you will also be lucky enough to pick up some crossover folks who "moonlight" in IT for 4 races, but really are into other classes. They just will want an extra shot at a RO plaque.
Not saying this is bad, it is just not what I want for IT.
 
That is why you just have 'races' and not Regionals and Nationals. You want to qualify for the Runoffs, you come and score points. Your top 5 in each Division get an invite.
 
IPRESS said:
Jake,
I think the success is due to both.
I have a question, do you think IT racers just race enough to be sharp for ARRC? I don't, I think they race (and they race more than most) because they love to race.
Put the RunOffs apple out there for IT and you will change the culture. You will get those 4 race folks that just want to qualify. And some of them will be guys that raced a large number of races the years before. Your regional type championships will lose their luster (and entrants) and the serious guys will be "saving" cars, money, and time for the "Holy ROs Grail". Of course you will also be lucky enough to pick up some crossover folks who "moonlight" in IT for 4 races, but really are into other classes. They just will want an extra shot at a RO plaque.
Not saying this is bad, it is just not what I want for IT.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I don't think bringing IT National will change anything for the top guys who are already building Top 5 cars. The only group going National hurts are the "have nots". That may not be ok for people mid pack, but that is racing.
 
I'd think that if you look at other National popular categories you'll get an idea for how people will treat IT. Look at SRF etc... do they race the bare minimum and pull off half way to save the car? If the category is popular, that stuff won't fly if you want to be top 5.
 
As far as the 4 races to qualify deal, everyone likes to trot this out whenever national racing is discussed, and it happens. There are also folks that just run enough to have their stuff ready for the ARRC. That doesn't mean everyone does this. Aaron Stehley - 2nd place ARRC 08 in ITB, winner of the Improved Touring Triple crown in ITB - moved to T3 this year, and has run every single race in his division to secure the divisional win (and $1000 VW contingency for such). Chuck Mathis - 2nd, 1st and 2nd at the last three GP Runoffs however has run just enough to qualify for the runoffs this year - why? - because when his class was eliminated and his car moved to FP at an amazingly low weight, with an underdog motor, he had to focus ALL of his time and attention to preparing a car that could be competitive. We are two years in, and are finally now going to have a 'real' car ready for the FP runoffs. The point is that there are reasons people do what they do, I doubt that it is often that they don't like racing, and I think there is a continuom between Aaron and Chuck.

In short that is a weak argument IMO.
 
shwah said:
In short that is a weak argument IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree. It does happen but it's hardly the only strategy. I personally ran 10+ national races a year when I was racing nationals. In T2 in particular in 2006, we had pretty much the same 8-10 racers at every race, despite the fact that the division is 16+ hours from the northern-most track to the southern-most.

When it does happen, IMO the reason it happens is because the divisions are laid out poorly, making people travel huge distances to run all of the races in the division ... and we're club racers, not pro racers. It takes too much time and money to do all that travel ... so people cherry-pick the races closer to them.
 
For those of you who believe that there should not be separate races for regional and nationals how do you propose we deal with the current format restrictions on national races? Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.
 
dickita15 said:
Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.
Click to expand...

I have done lots of double nationals. Why do they prevent doubles?

I think the latest fastrack had some sort of change to the timing requirements, but I can't remember the specifics.
 
dickita15 said:
For those of you who believe that there should not be separate races for regional and nationals how do you propose we deal with the current format restrictions on national races? Current minimum practice times prevent doubles or any other format that regions come up to give racers they type of events they want.
Click to expand...

Dick is it as simple as combining the 80 billion prod classes, etc that only have 2 cars and let IT be treated the same as Nationals? Longer Qualifying and races.
 
Josh the NE has some short tracks that limit group sizes to 38 cars. And they have late start (10)and early finish times which combine to make it tough to fit it all in.
 
shwah said:
As far as the 4 races to qualify deal, everyone likes to trot this out whenever national racing is discussed, and it happens. There are also folks that just run enough to have their stuff ready for the ARRC. That doesn't mean everyone does this. Aaron Stehley - 2nd place ARRC 08 in ITB, winner of the Improved Touring Triple crown in ITB - moved to T3 this year, and has run every single race in his division to secure the divisional win (and $1000 VW contingency for such). Chuck Mathis - 2nd, 1st and 2nd at the last three GP Runoffs however has run just enough to qualify for the runoffs this year - why? - because when his class was eliminated and his car moved to FP at an amazingly low weight, with an underdog motor, he had to focus ALL of his time and attention to preparing a car that could be competitive. We are two years in, and are finally now going to have a 'real' car ready for the FP runoffs. The point is that there are reasons people do what they do, I doubt that it is often that they don't like racing, and I think there is a continuom between Aaron and Chuck.

In short that is a weak argument IMO.
Click to expand...

I think the point trying to be made is that Aaron didn't HAVE to do that to qualify for the Runoffs. He is running in a class that Nationally sees less than 2 CAR PER EVENT. Weak sauce, yo! IT is healthy - probably the healthiest catagory in all of SCCA. Rule set? Cheap donors? Big fields? No National? You pick your reason why.
 
Another example is Mike Miserendino, who races in about every regional I've flagged at.

I'm of the opinion that as good as the ITCS are, they have holes in them that just aren't explored like say SM, EP, or any other national class does. If IT were to go national, we'll see a new dawn on rules creep as grey areas are explored in the name of winning the RO's. IMHO, if there is a National version of IT, it should include a small number of cars that are holomogated and are closely monitered for performance, all specs should be listed down to the shock packages that can be used, and there should be no suprises. The closest pro-series would probably be Grand-Am ST/GS cars and prep rules. In the end you'd have Touring without the specific sunset clause and stripped interiors.
 
JoshS said:
I have done lots of double nationals. Why do they prevent doubles?

I think the latest fastrack had some sort of change to the timing requirements, but I can't remember the specifics.
Click to expand...

We do doubles and even a triple on a two day weekend. You cannot do that with the national format. The GCR requires two practice/qualifying session with a minimum of 45 minutes and a 45 mile or 30 minute race. If I remember right the fastrack change made it worse by not allowing hardship time to count.
Meeting the national requirements would allow nothing but single long races on a two day weekend. by the way the number of double nationals is severely restricted by the current rules as well although some divisions have gotten dispensation because of local track problems.
I contend that one of the reasons that regional are much more popular in my part of the country is the varied and more enjoyable formats than nationals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top