December 2011 Fastrack

[SPiFF]

My thoughts are similar here too..
Instead of hobbling the new cars with 500lb of ballast, build the cars to IT spec and see what they can do, then classify them without ballast.

If the old IT cars can't be competitive anymore, then give them a break- lower the weights for those that can lose weight, give them better brakes (almost every car out there has a rear drum-to-disc conversion for sale or easily doable), and such. Maybe cams or a slight compression bump as a line-item allowance so the cars can make more power.

If they still cant compete with the newer stuff, then bump them down a class or create an IT-vintage class where these older cars can still play without the hassles of trying to keep up with the new stuff.

yup.. more classes. that's what we need.

NO NO NO! That is not what the IT core phyosophy(*) is. There are already a bunch of classes where one can spend cubic dollars re-engineering some ancient heap.

What I am suggesting is to allow the power to weight targets for the IT sub classes to be a sliding scale so new cars can be added without having to create more sub classes.

(*). I also strongly feel that the IT phyosophy should be printed at the beginning of the ITCS. What is there now is a joke.

 

[JeffYoung]

I am working on an IT "Core Values" statement of what the class is about, and what I/we (the present ITAC) think should not be changed in the future. We'll see how that works out.

NO NO NO! That is not what the IT core phyosophy(*) is. There are already a bunch of classes where one can spend cubic dollars re-engineering some ancient heap.

What I am suggesting is to allow the power to weight targets for the IT sub classes to be a sliding scale so news can be added without having to create more sub classes.

(*). I also strongly feel that the IT phyosophy should be printed at the beginning of the ITCS. What is there now is a joke.

 

[lateapex911]

I *think* NASA has a younger demographic because of several reasons, and they aren't always obvious.

• 1- HPDEs. This IS obvious. It's their entry gate. Easy in. Then once in and familiar with the organization, and having friends there, it's easy to take the next step, their racing program. They've made that step seamless by providing a classing structure that accepts all cars (essentially) with varying mods and attempts to balance them on a points system.
• 2- Because MOST people getting INTO racing/track stuff are younger, we need to look at the mindset of the average 20 something, compared to the average 20 something 20 years ago. It's quite different. I'd suggest that the competitive edge is rather different. Video games give you extra 'lives' when you screw up. Real racing does not. I'd suggest many (not ALL!) are more interested in being a "Racing driver" than competing in a race car. Many will not 'get' the distinction.
• 3- Friends. Once IN NASA, you develop friends and comraderie, just like Jeff said he's done in SCCA. If you're not a rabid competitor, you stay.

SCCA is an organization built around that distinction. It's classes are designed to compete against each other...... in racing cars.
It used to be that SCCA was the only game in town....so we had many who were here, but it wasn't ideal for their wants.
Think about the marque crowd. They LOVE their Porsche*...but whine that the SCCA doesn't class them 'fairly'. Back in the day, they were stuck. Now, with the advent of marque club racing programs, they go to PCA, or POC and they have 40 classes to choose from. And most have 3 or 4 guys, and the trophies are pretty.
*Or Alfa or Honda, etc...

Honestly, the G Prod guys are the same. They want to 'race' THEIR car. ....it's not about actually RACING! How can it be? If less than 2.5 cars show up to an event, there isn't anyone to beat! It's about showing up and driving the 'old dear' around and getting a trophy. Mental masturbation in the real world.

In the end, I think that people who want to win so badly they are ok with losing are rare*. Most want the participation trophy.

(In other words, they want to win something significant, and feel that coming in 2nd in a large field and rabid competition is better than beating a couple other slackers)

Many scoff at Spec Miata, but it's successful and thank the stars for that. It's removed a significant hurdle on the path to competing: the reliability /hassle building part of race car ownership.

 

[Russ Myers]

Jeff.
I'm not going to ask for anything for my car exclusivly. I will be honest enough to admit that I really don't have the time or money to do a full workup on my car. But it seems to me that we place such am emphesis on NEW, that when we work real hard to attract all that is new, we run off all that has been in the club for a bit of time. We'll put Brand-x in ITZ just to attract all the kids who are tuning them and if geezers SUX -500 is now uncompetetive, well, he can either get a brand-x or just go away. nevermind the time and money he has put into that beast and, to an extant, what he has given to the club. Reading posts here and on the prod site, I sometimes get the feeling I'm not really wanted. My car is OLD & SLOW and in the way of real race car drivers.

Russ

 

[lateapex911]

My thoughts are similar here too..
Instead of hobbling the new cars with 500lb of ballast, build the cars to IT spec and see what they can do, then classify them without ballast.

If the old IT cars can't be competitive anymore, then give them a break- lower the weights for those that can lose weight, give them better brakes (almost every car out there has a rear drum-to-disc conversion for sale or easily doable), and such. Maybe cams or a slight compression bump as a line-item allowance so the cars can make more power.

If they still cant compete with the newer stuff, then bump them down a class or create an IT-vintage class where these older cars can still play without the hassles of trying to keep up with the new stuff.

yup.. more classes. that's what we need.

I'd suggest you've just made another category ...it's called Prod. Where line item allowances are made and politics rule the day.

Here's the thing. ALl this talk about "I don't want to race this new cool car because it will have too much ballast for ITX" is a bunch of poppy cock, I think.
I'd bet that, if the car weighed less, that person STILL wouldn't race it. because excuse #2 would rear it's ugly head. (Choose from: It's too expensive to build a new car and wreck it, or: Tires cost too much, or: I just found out what a rebuild of the Broward Super engine costs and that's nuts!, or, My son just got on the traveling baseball team and my weekends are tight, or: Used race cars are cheaper, etc etc etc.)

Old cars don't need, or should get, special dispensation. CERTAINLY not line item things. In the end, old cars will fade away. They rust, they crash, whatever. They've had their day in the sun. Nothing lasts forever.

IF there are more powerful cars that don't fit in the current class structure, because the weights will be excessive, tehn start a movement to create a class above the existing ones.
At this point though, even though there are many choices, I'm not seeing huge and diverse ITR fields. So, is there really a need for a faster class?

 

[lateapex911]

Jeff.
I'm not going to ask for anything for my car exclusivly. I will be honest enough to admit that I really don't have the time or money to do a full workup on my car. But it seems to me that we place such am emphesis on NEW, that when we work real hard to attract all that is new, we run off all that has been in the club for a bit of time. We'll put Brand-x in ITZ just to attract all the kids who are tuning them and if geezers SUX -500 is now uncompetetive, well, he can either get a brand-x or just go away. nevermind the time and money he has put into that beast and, to an extant, what he has given to the club. Reading posts here and on the prod site, I sometimes get the feeling I'm not really wanted. My car is OLD & SLOW and in the way of real race car drivers.

Russ

See, I don't get this....your car is in ITB. It's recently been looked at by the ITAC and evaluated, and it's process weight should be appropriate. So it SHOULD be in the ballpark. That's not "old and slow and in the way".

But, you say that's how you feel. Yet you admit you haven't put the effort into the program to make it as fast as it can be.
Now, many point that the new cars are easier to make fast. Yup. Probably true. But EASIER to make fast doesn't mean faster.

Oh, and when I look at the Prod board, I see guys who want to get a trophy for showing up. Sorry, but asking for a class to be reinstated that couldn't get 2.5 guys out to race (for 2 years in a row) is laughable.*

*But I don't get why the class wasn't just made Regional.

 

[Chip42]

But it seems to me that we place such am emphesis on NEW, that when we work real hard to attract all that is new, we run off all that has been in the club for a bit of time.

not my experience.

1, as Zsolt said, the new cars typiclaly are too heavy for their power, and wind up a class low and artificially fat, or a class high and unachievably light. new cars also tend to have a ton more power than even 10 years ago, and some of that is leading to cars outside of thr current IT envelope.

2, In my short time on the ITAC, the newest car we have dealt with was 10 years old, the second newest was 17. we look at 84's and early 90's with as much care as late 90's and early 70's, and often the earlier cars require more work as the documentation and measuremnt standards werent as good, leaving some serious open ends. older existing classifications often got overlooked in the realignment, ITB and ITC specifically (were not fully realligneded, as I undertsand it) and thus show some serious inconcistencies. write it, give data, we will do what we can to fix them!

3, many cars that are "popular" on the street never make it to IT, at least not in the hands of those who you might identify with the popular culture (think honda/JDM tuning, hard parking VW fans, etc...) and I've seen very few of the past few automotive trends turn into anything within IT (or racing in general). I see ST allowing engine swaps, AND I THINK THATS GREAT, but it's not right for IT.

4, the "NEW" that we WANT to see is new members. I've felt no pressure in the past few months to make an IT to attract "them". just to keep IT pure and get the cars run to process based on good data.

but, eventually you wont be able to find some parts for most cars as they age. sometimes it's a really common thing, like a wheel hub or brake drum, other times its an oddball. this will sideline the survivors and eventually it wont make sense to run them. no one I know is looking to change the IT core to accomodate this obolescence more than we have currently.

 

[Knestis]

When you condem the older cars to uncompetitive status, you drive out the owners and drivers who have a LOT of time and money invested in them. I can count on one hand the number of drivers stil playing since I started this nonsence, and most of the ones who left say the same thing. "I'm not going to spend anymore money on this ^&#$@#." I am about in the same boat what with the cost of tires, gas, travel, parts, and now an unneeded(in my opinion) H&N deal. And now some are saying my antique Pinto, with it's drum rear brakes, live axle, and carb. should just go quietly into that good night. OK, I'm parked.

Russ

You've got a LOT of factors smushed into one discussion here, Russ.

** It's not fair to use the word "condemn," when what is happening is not an active process. Nobody has made a rule to prevent a Pinto from being competitive. Instead, the ITAC - quite correctly, I believe - has taken the position that it isn't going to get in the business of allowing spec-line allowances to solve make-model problems that surface as a matter of course over time (see, "Mazda RX3 brake parts shortages"). Those are a naturally occurring force and the cost of upsetting the basic premises of the category aren't outweighed by the benefits to the few (or to the resulting entry lists).

** That's problem exists partially because there's a pretty important correlation between "age of make/model" and "degree of build" in IT. Folks inclined to do a whole-hog build (so more likely to commit the $$ to get up front) are *not* likely to do so with a car for which they can't reliably buy parts or tuning know-how. I've said it a hundred times but if I had access to all of the parts in the world, plus a couple of guys in the old country, I am absolutely confident that an ITB Fiat 130 or 124 would kick ARRC ass. Or any number of other cool old options - Alfas, even a Pinto - could be competitive with the right build and effort. No question.

** Given equal budgets, it's not a carb, solid axle, or drum rear brakes that is keeping a Pinto - or anything else - from being competitive. I have a very difficult time believing that a 2.3 Ford can't be made to squeeze out 125hp at the wheels. At that point it's GAME ON with the rest of the B cars, with the wheels driving the right end of the car, even. The first-gen RX7 has demonstrated how to make the rear axle work. A look at what Jeff has achieved with the TR should be evidence enough...

Ultimately, it costs $$ to go fast. If someone is going to outspend you, they'll find a way to do it and probably be able to buy some advantages. The "you burned it to a cinder" replacement price of my Golf is $25K. That's what it would cost to replicate it - a conservative cost, if you consider trail and error, R&D $$ and dumb stuff that didn't work out. You can ask if I'm insane or not, and there's no chance anyone would buy it from me for that price, but at the end of the day how fast could a $25K ITB Pinto be...?

K

 

[Matt93SE]

I guess my comment wasnt' that well thought out-- just throwing out ideas. some are often quite bad. I agree spec-line allowances in IT is a bad idea- but it's still an idea. Since it's SO bad, I bet the CRB and BOD will shove it down your throats in 2013.

I was trying to brainstorm ways to help the older cars stay around and be competitive- whether it's with each other or vs. the new stuff.

The guys that are building new stuff around here are mostly going to Touring and STU. The T3 guys moved to STU and the T2 guys are crying over beers. The fast T2 guy is turning his car into a World Challenge GTS car.

All of those classes have been very poorly subscribed here, but T2 at least had ~3entries/race.

Anyway, I'm just trying to think of ideas.. do you help the older cars keep up, or do you let them die and "force" people to buy newer cars? Or do you relegate them to the back of the field?
OR do you create even more poorly subscribed classes so the older cars can compete against each other while newer, faster cars have a place to play as well. Or do you just tell the old cars to run in Prod and shove the problem off to them?

too many problems, not enough solutions.

 

[lateapex911]

not my experience.

. older existing classifications often got overlooked in the realignment, ITB and ITC specifically (were not fully realligneded, as I undertsand it) and thus show some serious inconcistencies. write it, give data, we will do what we can to fix them!

Just for historical accuracy, it went like this:
The entire spectrum of IT had many "WTFs" classification-wise. A group of guys here on IT.com along with a couple key members of the ITAC who were active on this forum championed a system and structure to work within the existing class structure, in an attempt to disrupt as few cars as possible, yet fix the greatest number of issues. In the actual real world of IT racing, 10% of the cars were causing 90% of the issues.

The CRb warned the ITAC that wholesale changes wouldn't fly, and that the ITAC should take a good solid first crack at it, and see how that went. Opinions vary on whether more changes were expected, and certain CRB members indicated years later that the ITAC was changing weights based on the PRocess with no actual rights.

In any case, the Great Realignment was certainly not an across the board deal, and it tried to hit the obvious cars that were clearly out of line. Overdogs were the main focus. An entrenched belief at the time was that you could not "prove a negative" and that uncompetitive cars should be ingnored.

In any case the political capital wasn't felt to be significant enough to do more than what was done. (Actually, just getting ONE car changed was a major doing, the Great Realignment was equivalent to a massive earthquake as far as the CRB and IT were concerned. It took a Looong time and a lot of work to get there. It was A BIG DEAL)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well it's easy to know what appeals to people about the NASA structure. You can bring the car you already built, and race it as is with cars that are 'similar'.

Now the downsides to that structure are well documented but it for sure makes the barriers to entry much easier to jump.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Reading posts here and on the prod site, I sometimes get the feeling I'm not really wanted. My car is OLD & SLOW and in the way of real race car drivers.

Russ

Everyone is wanted. We all just have to realize that no matter what we drive, old POS or new POS, if we aren't willing to give it the 'full work-up', then we really don't have much to go on to 'help'. Or said differently, it's tough to hear complaints about competitive balance from racers who don't have first hand experience with fully built cars. You and your Pinto are what make Club Racing great, but to affect change, there has to be more info.

Every race is made up of great people and cars from the front to the back. Every racing organization needs them all.

 

[Knestis]

>> Anyway, I'm just trying to think of ideas.. do you help the older cars keep up, or do you let them die and "force" people to buy newer cars? Or do you relegate them to the back of the field?

The rules don't "relegate them to the back of the field," or "...'force' people to buy newer cars." Old age - racing a car for which parts are scarce or expensive - increases costs. People don't want to spend the money or go to the lengths necessary to find parts, so they throw less money at their cars than they would otherwise have to in order to stay competitive. They end up at the back of the field.

I PERSONALLY think that rules or other excuses become proxies for other reasons that people back off or quit - most often lack of funds or emerging interests in other things. Like not having the wife pissed off about how much Fiat heads cost on eBay.

Again - it's about competition. A guy/gal can get out there for damned little money. If one wants to win, one has to compete with others who want to win. If one of those others is willing to spend dough to do whatever it takes to win, anyone who wants to be competitive has to do the same thing.

Once more speaking frankly, a LOT of the people I've talked to who are complaining about the rules or costs actually want to be able to go back to a level of competitiveness in their class when they could win with equipment that just doesn't represent current levels of preparation or commitment. We CANNOT do anything about that. It's the curse of success for a racing class.

Now, if we try to make it easier (for example) for the RX3 guys to solve their brake parts problem by allowing them aftermarket bits, I WANT THE SAME ALLOWANCE. And I will eventually get it because that's the way these things work. The net result is that we're all spending money on the arms race and the guy who spends more than Joe RX3 is STILL going to have a hardware edge.

We've just moved the curve.

K

 

[Robbie]

To go back to Jeff's point about bringing young people to racing, HPDE's being done on race day is a great way to do that. In my NASA region there have been many young guys who have gotten sucked into racing (myself included) because they could watch how awesome it is to race in a competitive group. I started out as a guy who wanted to drive on the track and now I'm a racer.

Running PDX's with regional IT guys and having the racers Interact with the de guys is a great way to get you get people into racing.

 

[lateapex911]

Yup, it is. Without a doubt. The proble for many SCCA regions is how to fit 200 or 300 racers into a weekend AND run an HPDE. Track time runs out.

And it's worse for certain regions that have shorter tracks with strict time limits. OF course, having too many racers is a good problem to have.
Ultimately there needs to be a balance.

Kirk points out that member retention is a problem for SCCA. I wonder how NASA fares in this regard.

 

[Knestis]

It's almost too soon to see a pattern in NASA retention, Jake.

I am working on an IT "Core Values" statement of what the class is about, and what I/we (the present ITAC) think should not be changed in the future. We'll see how that works out.

Just so I know it's been said, the minute that gets loose, it's Katie-bar-the-door on every allowance that's NOT on that list of constraints. So you know what kind of nuclear device you've got you trigger finger on...

K

 

[Terry Hanushek]

Can someone tell me in three sentences or less why the 2.5 average participation rule was removed?

They said it explicitly in the release: to keep Touring 3 from losing National status.

It's not quite that one dimensional. Certainly the pending downgrade / dissolution of T3 was a factor. Added to it was the lack of a coherent plan to manage the Touring and Showroom Stock categories (how to manage the former T3 cars, how to introduce B Spec into SSC, what to do with the existing SSC cars, how to merge the two categories). Another major factor was that there were another 4-6 classes that would have gone on probation for missing their 2.5 target. Probation under the 2.5 rule can be the death knell for class since existing competitors can pull back and potential new competitors reconsider their plans. The fact that so many classes were in trouble in the same year suggested that there is a problem with National racing (economy, ???) and not just a weakness in a single class. The situation is complicated and not just one of allowing Spec Borgward to remain as a National class.

Terry

 

[jjjanos]

No.

For IT, my answer is not allow things like weight breaks for drum brakes, or carburetors, or allow cars to switch out to alternate parts when things no longer become available.

So, Nash and Packard build cars on the same platform except the Nash has drums and the Packard has discs... you would classify the cars exactly the same?

With all due respect, that's just stupid.

 

[jjjanos]

The point Jeff made was in regard to the multitude of letters that come in every year asking for alternate brakes, plexi windshields, altrnate fenders, etc for cars where supply is drying up.

Because people have lots of $ tied up in spare parts for a particular car. The inability to find one part means that they either need to sell the entire inventory of Nash Rambler parts and the Nash Rambler too and start from scratch with an entirely different car or invest a hell of a lot of money in converting the car to another class.

Many people will simply pack it in at that point.

 

[preparedcivic]

Because people have lots of $ tied up in spare parts for a particular car. The inability to find one part means that they either need to sell the entire inventory of Nash Rambler parts and the Nash Rambler too and start from scratch with an entirely different car or invest a hell of a lot of money in converting the car to another class.

Many people will simply pack it in at that point.

Um, no.

The reality is they were ready to throw the towel in anyway. There are directions to go in if alternate parts are a necessity, which depending on the car, are in ST and Production.

I drive a 24 year old car with very tough to find plastic body panels. It is what I chose, warts and all. When they are no more, I have the choice to convert to a worse aero steel tub 3g Civic, or go with aftermarket fiberglass and switch classes.

The SCCA cannot be in the business of guaranteeing competitiveness to a 1966 Superzoomy GT that was the shiznit back in the day, that now wouldn't even run with a B-spec car before modifications.