December Fastrack...

Should be interesting, Dick.

It's the social sciences researcher in me talking but remember that the same motivations that encourage policy actors to influence intentions in their direction will almost autonomously motivate them to bias the information they share.

You can be Regional racing's Jane Goodall among the Club Racing department gorillas but you have to keep their trust if they're going to let you pick fleas off of them. :)

K
 
This sounds like a chorus from the moaners, groaners and complainers club. My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining. Its like listening to little kids standing out in front of a ball field complaining they can't see the game because they don't want to spend the money on admission. Jesus !
Chris Howard
 
Chris - what are you talking about??? LMAO Hey, if we wanted to do that elite (ha!) national racing, we would. Oh, I get it. You agree with the premise of regional racing being more influential for company sales. LOL This isn't about complaining any more than you wanting racing support.


I agree with some of that Kirk and believe SCCA certainly influences companies to focus on supporting national racers.

From what I've been told, the other factor is that some companies recognize that regional racing IS larger and can't afford to offer those types of awards to regional racers. Top 3 for national? There really aren't that many events. Doing this for regional racing would be much more expensive. The other factor is national has a national championship race that many companies latch onto. They want people winning national championships using their product then use that as a marketing tool in various periodicals and their site. Do these results convince regional racers to buy their products? Not sure.

So how does one convince companies to invest in the regional racing program and it's racers?

edit - didn't originally see the numbers in post 16.
 
Last edited:
zchris said:
My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining.
Click to expand...
I suspect, Chris, that there's not a large percentage of Regional-class racers that are enamored with the whole concept of National Racing. After all, you and I both know that we could cherry-pick a couple of guys out of the "regional" ranks that would tan the hide of just about any "national" racer straight-up...

No, I suspect it has more to do with the "stepchild" concept of Regional racing, how the Club views, treats - and to the topic at hand, rewards - Regional-only classes. Go take those two participation charts and run some quick numbers, see where the money is actually coming from (or think about the number of people in the paddock at a Regional versus National weekend). It ain't National weekends...

Personally, I'm of the mindset to make everything one group (call it "National", "Regional", or "Waste of Money", I don't care) and let the chips fall where they may. Everybody races together during the year and if ITS makes its numbers causing T3 (or whatever) to stay home in October, so be it. But that ain't what the National guys want, 'cause they KNOW that there would be some "legacy" classes staying home if categories such as IT were added to the program...and that's kinda what Kirk is trying to say.

I can tell you from personal experience that if the Runoffs were at Topeka instead of Road America, I'd have not wasted a PENNY of my money on National weekends and/or participating (and I probably would have volunteered instead to work those races). National racing is more expensive, it's boring, it's poorly-attended, and the competition is no better than a bad IT Regional weekend; in many ways Regional racing is SCADS better. Regardless of whatever scheme you come up with for "qualifying", National racing always going to be about nothing more than doing the minimum required to get an "invitation" to the Runoffs. Yawn.

But in the end, that's not really what the Club is concerned about... :shrug:

GA
 
Last edited:
So what exactly does this mean? I have a FIA seat on a stock seat "slider". Is an ITR 300zx a FIA homologated race car? Do I have to change something?

I have no seat back brace, and the seat is mounted on the side mounting points to tabs welded to the seat rails.


9.3.41. SEATS
The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. The back of the
​
​
​
​
​
​
seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral support. Seats
homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999 ​

​

or.FIA.Standard.8862-2009 or higher need not
have the seat back attached to the roll structure. ​
​

Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing
​
​
​
​
​
​
may not be mounted to the stock runners unless they are the FIA homologated seats specified in an FIA homologated race
car. ​

​

The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 or No. 40
​
​
​
​
​
​
(lateral, bottom, etc). Passenger seat back – if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place.​

Item 3.

​
 
Last edited:
gran racing said:
I agree with some of that Kirk and believe SCCA certainly influences companies to focus on supporting national racers.
Click to expand...

Now Dave I would be careful about how strong a statement I would make. There can be many factors. As pointed out the volume of payments for the much larger regional racing program may be an influence. Or course the market is bigger as well. there may be some subliminal factors as well. something to ponder.
 
Tristan Smith said:
So what exactly does this mean?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it means that without a seat back brace your stock sliders are now illegal. The costs/testing/evidence involved in producing FIA homologation for YOUR seat sliders mounted in YOUR car are unobtainable, and I think that was intentional by the CRB.

You can either replace the sliders with a fixed mount or add a seat back brace. Or you can spend a lot of money to rub their faces in it by pursuing FIA homologation... - GA
 
zchris said:
This sounds like a chorus from the moaners, groaners and complainers club. My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining. Its like listening to little kids standing out in front of a ball field complaining they can't see the game because they don't want to spend the money on admission. Jesus !
Chris Howard
Click to expand...

LOL - and *I* sound like a complainer...? :happy204:

Kirk - Who thinks those around Chris will appreciate him getting a good hit of tryptophan later

EDIT - to the substance of your issue, Chris, I came to my conclusions about the fallacies of the Regional-National-Pro "progression" (so, hierarchy or value?) 20+ years ago, based on - uh, whattyacallit?. Oh, yeah - "actual first-hand experience." I absolutely choose to NOT play the Nationals game for the reasons Greg describes, and more. However, by doing so I do *not* sacrifice my right to question Club policies, or to make observations about where they come from. Most "pro" racing uses money provided or generated by backmarkers to subsidize the winners, who are typically up front because they have more money to commit to being competitive in the first place. Contingency awards do the same thing, structured the way they are in SCCA Club racing. That more money flows to National entrants than Regional entrants is just another manifestation of the same phenomenon. The Club Racing office could ask Hoosier (or whoever) what they want to accomplish in terms of marketing outcomes (I've played that game, too), and design a program to meet their needs in any number of ways. I tend to believe that those commercial desires COULD be met - perhaps better met - with a structure that wasn't National-centric, except that there are folks who LIKE it that way working to KEEP it that way, who CAN do so. In human affairs something being "how it is," is *always* evidence that someone wants it to be so - and can actuate it. Stuff doesn't just happen.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
Unfortunately, it means that without a seat back brace your stock sliders are now illegal. The costs/testing/evidence involved in producing FIA homologation for YOUR seat sliders mounted in YOUR car are unobtainable, and I think that was intentional by the CRB.

You can either replace the sliders with a fixed mount or add a seat back brace. Or you can spend a lot of money to rub their faces in it by pursuing FIA homologation... - GA
Click to expand...

...or presumably, you can use a homologated seat mounted to the standards of its FIA certification...?

K
 
Complaining about what? I'm "complaining" that regional racing (where I race) has more entries, better participation and better competition than national.

I don't give two whits about national or the runoffs. I just find it amusing that the red headed stepchild of the club (as Greg aptly puts is) -- regional racing -- so dominates national when it comes to numbers.

zchris said:
This sounds like a chorus from the moaners, groaners and complainers club. My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining. Its like listening to little kids standing out in front of a ball field complaining they can't see the game because they don't want to spend the money on admission. Jesus !
Chris Howard
Click to expand...
 
Sadly to this day it exists within the SCCA that each program within the club is a "feeder" system to the next perceived higher level.

How often have you heard it said about someone -moving up- from autocrossing to road racing, or from Regional racing to Nationals?
 
I don't get what Chris is saying at all. From my seat, I would like IT to be National. We have the cars, we have the drivers. Simple.

I am still not convinced you can have an 'event' up here are some our tracks. How are you going to fit all those cars on track? Simply can't be done. We NEED regional / national seperation.

Now having said that, we really don't need it. What we really need is a 'Runoff qualifier' event, where all are invited - using the same format the National has now. Let the guys who want to qualify, do so and the guys who want to run the regular regional format, can do so.
 
In case anyone is thinking about different ways to skin this cat, here's Kirk's current solution:

1. Make every single class in the entire SCCA Club Racing program eligible for points; eliminate the National/Regional distinction and let regions run whatever classes they want.

2. Keep track of Regional points and Divisional points in every class.

3. Award points based on the number of competitors within class ahead of which each driver finished, with bonus point(s) for qualifying on the pole and winning. Only competitor in your class? You get a point for the pole and win, but the guy who finished 10th in the 29-car ITB grid at Summit this past summer gets almost 10x the points you do.

4. Each year, the (however many) largest classes get to go to the national championships, based on the previous year's attendance numbers.

5. Invitations to the Ruboffs go out based on Divisional points totals, with the total number of slots per division weighted by a formula based on the host track's per-mile capacity proportional to the number of RACERS - not entries - in a division. Division X has 40 unique drivers enter a class in a year, it gets half the berths offered in a division that has 80.

6. After some offer date, unfilled invitation slots are filled on a first-come, first-served basis

One net result of this would be the gradual - and NATURAL - obsolescence of extra classes, based on built-in disincentives to participate in poorly subscribed ones. As it stands currently, the National/Ruboff system actually ENCOURAGES someone who wants a medal to go where the competition is thin.

K
 
Ok Andy, Greg, Kirk and the 5 others that beat this "do away with National" drum. Most of you guys are happy being the big fish in the small pond(you like to run at tracks close to home). Nothing bores me more. So I run the brief national schedule because I like racing on tracks that are challenging and entertaining. The point that you like large fields is BS. Andy, when was the last time you actually raced toe to toe with more than one person. Thats what happens when you get to the pointy end of the field. Does it matter that the guys you lap have an ITR,S,A,B or whatever on the side of there car if you are not actually racing with them. They are just field fillers. Same thing happens at nationals. Just more classes on track in a race. If you feel it makes you penis bigger to beat 20 poorly prepared cars vs 5, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that its a race of 20 cars. Unless having to dodge them as lapped traffic counts to you. It personally just annoys me. The fact that you guys feel the mountain should move to you is BS also. If you want factory support and the bennies that go along with national racing, stop being winers and build a nationally recognized car. Or just sit in your little pond and keep wining. God Knows you guys are kings at it.
 
Looks like the likker fairy visited someone for T-giving.

Big fish in small pond? The small pond I see is Nationals. Yes, regional ITS races get between 10 and 20 competitors, depending on the track. Travel? I tow from Barber to VIR to Daytona.

From my viewpoint, racing in regional IT (at least in ITS in the SEDiv) has more cars, more competition, and better prepared cars than the E Prod guys (which I suppose is the roughly equivalent national class).

Bring your halfprepared ITS car to the SEDiv, and you'll get your butt handed to you by half the S field, a good part of the A field and even some of the B cars.

Wow. What set you off?

PS -- Over the last 2 years or so, we have had GREAT 2 and 3 car battles up front in ITS at CMP and VIR with lead changes, and different winners. Has been a lot of fun, and the 3/4/5/6 place cars are usually close.

The myth that National is the big time sure seems just that to this regional driver, who watches the national races and VIR and CMP and wonders were all the cars and competition are?
 
Well, the concept is sound Kirk, and is a big picture view. I like it. A lot. (actually, versions have been discussed on ITAC con calls before, but, in the random open conversation the details weren't laid out...if you know what I mean ;) ).
Right or wrong, resistance to such a concept will of course come from existing stakeholders. I'm inclined to ignore such protests, as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
And the Runoffs has certainly lost it's former luster. Part of that is shifting social relevance, but I also feel its due to the weakness of the National program, and that most certainly includes classes and rulesets.
A major issue for the CRB would be that the plan has, at it's core, a requirement to delay planning attending the Runoffs that year. While that exists now, it's (sort of) in the drivers hands, as he knows his class will or won't be going. There will be concerns that such a plan will serve to discourage people from even trying in borderline classes, and will cause people to homogenize ....
Sounds like Darwin to me, and evolution gets you places.
 
zchris said:
Ok Andy, Greg, Kirk and the 5 others that beat this "do away with National" drum. Most of you guys are happy being the big fish in the small pond(you like to run at tracks close to home). Nothing bores me more. So I run the brief national schedule because I like racing on tracks that are challenging and entertaining. The point that you like large fields is BS. Andy, when was the last time you actually raced toe to toe with more than one person. Thats what happens when you get to the pointy end of the field. Does it matter that the guys you lap have an ITR,S,A,B or whatever on the side of there car if you are not actually racing with them. They are just field fillers. Same thing happens at nationals. Just more classes on track in a race. If you feel it makes you penis bigger to beat 20 poorly prepared cars vs 5, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that its a race of 20 cars. Unless having to dodge them as lapped traffic counts to you. It personally just annoys me. The fact that you guys feel the mountain should move to you is BS also. If you want factory support and the bennies that go along with national racing, stop being winers and build a nationally recognized car. Or just sit in your little pond and keep wining. God Knows you guys are kings at it.
Click to expand...

Chris, WTF is your problem? All I am saying is lets allow ALL the cars in SCCA run at the 'qualifying' events and give them all a chance for a Runoff class. IT is hugely popular because of the ruleset. Not everyone likes to engineer a GT car or build a grenade Prod car. Why not give it a chance to see where it lands in participation?

And I am not really sure you want to compare the 'quality' of competition at Nationals vs Regionals. There are just a few car/driver combos that can win in ANY class - National or Regional. Nobody is saying IT is 'better' because it has larger fields, we are saying that BECAUSE it's big, it should be considered for a spot at the Runoffs. Is that a rediculous platform?
 
zchris said:
Ok Andy, Greg, Kirk and the 5 others that beat this "do away with National" drum. Most of you guys are happy being the big fish in the small pond(you like to run at tracks close to home). Nothing bores me more. So I run the brief national schedule because I like racing on tracks that are challenging and entertaining. The point that you like large fields is BS. Andy, when was the last time you actually raced toe to toe with more than one person. Thats what happens when you get to the pointy end of the field. Does it matter that the guys you lap have an ITR,S,A,B or whatever on the side of there car if you are not actually racing with them. They are just field fillers. Same thing happens at nationals. Just more classes on track in a race. If you feel it makes you penis bigger to beat 20 poorly prepared cars vs 5, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that its a race of 20 cars. Unless having to dodge them as lapped traffic counts to you. It personally just annoys me. The fact that you guys feel the mountain should move to you is BS also. If you want factory support and the bennies that go along with national racing, stop being winers and build a nationally recognized car. Or just sit in your little pond and keep wining. God Knows you guys are kings at it.
Click to expand...

Chris, I ignored the first post but this one, well, are you sure you want to stand on that???.

I was GOING to point out that actually NATIONAL racing is ENTRY level racing earlier in the thread when Rob was talking about the 'progression'. Why? Well, LOTS of reasons.

In general:

  • Thin fields: Lots of time to learn to drive without actually having to RACE any one. (Even if it's for,...gasp...9th of 20 as it could be in IT!)
  • Cheap racing: Less competitors means less money spent trying to climb the competitive ladder. (see Kirk's Popularity=money rule)

  • Easy pickings: Less people = more trophies.
One case (of many) in point: A friend bought a rather shaggy Prod car. A competitive model, in a not weak Prod class. (It was cheeeeep) First National ever, (At a large well subscribed National event) he qualifies fourth of 5. (One guy couldn't get his smokin' heap to make it around the track within even 20% and my guy was better than that. ) Now, his car is also classed in ITS, and he was 5 secs off ITS pace, so..
He ended up getting a trophy! Stayed on the track. Was running. That's all it took, because nobody behind him could do even that. And thats the way it went all season for him. Now, even in it's Prod trim, if he had been in the Regional ITS races, he would have been eaten ALIVE. He would have been scratching for 8th in 20 car fields.

Now are ALL National fields like that? No. Are all Regional fields strong? Of course not. It's a complex matrix of local customs, tracks and classes. Regional racing is strong in the east, but National is stronger in the west, from what I hear.

But your statement is, in my personal opinion, rather narrow minded.

(And this is coming from a guy who has raced (in just '09-10,) at New Hampshire, Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, both New Jersey tracks, Summit Point, VIR, and Road Atlanta. (Missed Mid Ohio due to a charity swim conflict). So the "regional guys all stay at one track" claim isn't entirely true either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top