IT Cars in Prod

[JoshS]

And have to run an SIR...
[/b]

No ...

Vehicles meeting one of the followingg criterion may compete in the
Prepared category;
• Cars built specifically under these Prepared rules
• Currently classified World Challenge cars, using the vehicle’s most
recent VTS sheet
Note: Competitors are responsible for providing the up-to-date VTS.
• GCR listed IT cars, 1990 and newer, under the current IT
specifications.

Cars from the first bullet need an SIR, but not the 2nd one.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause that's arguably created the need for these work-arounds to help give IT entrants an entre into National events. The above position just creates another variation on that problem. Either (1) Andy's intent gets codified and becomes a point of contention, or (2) it doesn't, and we waver through a long process to get "ITP" Production cars equitably listed...[/b]

This isn't a 'work- around'. It's exactly what you quoted me as saying.

...and THAT is going to be a challenge, with push-back from the "real" Prod entrants AND LP guys and gals, as they try to establish their own competitive positions. Argh.[/b]

I see no reason for Prod - limited Prep or otherwise to have a beef. This 'ladder' is not intended to slot cars in at the pointy end of the grid. Just well enough to have some fun and check out the scene.

If it's really a priority to get IT listed as a National class, how about pursuing that option directly?

K [/b]

It's not.

 

[tnord]

If it's really a priority to get IT listed as a National class, how about pursuing that option directly?

K
[/b]

i'm with kirk, sortof.

I agree that a smooth transition from class to class is a good thing, at least for the next class "up" in prep. i don't see that as an IT problem to solve though, that's a Prod problem. If they don't want to find a way to make it easy....no biggie, their class might just lose entrants and be removed from the runoffs IF.......

....we take the top 24 classes and remove this distinction between regional and national races, which imo will not happen if we make this allowance for IT cars in Prod, prepared, or whatever other BS class the BOD decides to create next year.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

No ...

Vehicles meeting one of the followingg criterion may compete in the
Prepared category;
• Cars built specifically under these Prepared rules
• Currently classified World Challenge cars, using the vehicle's most
recent VTS sheet
Note: Competitors are responsible for providing the up-to-date VTS.
• GCR listed IT cars, 1990 and newer, under the current IT
specifications.

Cars from the first bullet need an SIR, but not the 2nd one. [/b]

Josh, while I admit I find the Prepared rules very hard to read, I can't find anywhere where the WC cars are exempt from the SIR.

i'm with kirk, sortof.

I agree that a smooth transition from class to class is a good thing, at least for the next class "up" in prep. i don't see that as an IT problem to solve though, that's a Prod problem. If they don't want to find a way to make it easy....no biggie, their class might just lose entrants and be removed from the runoffs IF.......

....we take the top 24 classes and remove this distinction between regional and national races, which imo will not happen if we make this allowance for IT cars in Prod, prepared, or whatever other BS class the BOD decides to create next year. [/b]

Trav - how is Prod supposed to make it easy for IT? It's an SCCA problem...not a class problem.

 

[JoshS]

Josh, while I admit I find the Prepared rules very hard to read, I can't find anywhere where the WC cars are exempt from the SIR.
[/b]

You are looking for the wrong thing. There is no rule that requires them to add one. Once your car qualifies for either the 2nd (WC-legal) or 3rd (IT-legal) quoted bullet, then you get to skip the entire rest of the GCR Prepared rules, including the one that makes you put in an SIR.

EDIT: incidentally, that means that any WC car or IT car gets to skip the rule that limits DP to 3000cc. So Tommy Archer could enter his WC Viper in DP! I wrote a letter about that one. But the point is that if IT cars don't have to add a restrictor, then neither do WC cars!

Or, perhaps you are saying that the WC rules (as opposed to our GCR) require an SIR (I'm clueless about WC rules). Well, if so, those SIR-equipped cars are running lap times that are WAY out of reach of an ITR car. Last year at Laguna Seca they ran 1:37.0 in qualifying. I can't believe we'll ever see an ITR car below 1:42. Unfortunately our region website is down so I can't find the track records for SCCA classes.

 

[ddewhurst]

One mans view from 10,000 feet.

***So I saw a natural progression for the rest of IT that won't rock the world that is Production. I posted it before but here it is again:

ITR --> DP

ITS --> EP

ITA --> FP

ITB --> GP

ITC --> HP

I see the benefits as many. A feeder system develops of IT drivers getting a looksie into the work of top-prep Prod cars, the Prod guys get short-term boosted car counts as well as potential long-term growth - and we all get to taste National events. Will our cars win? No - but a top program could run at the front of the mid-pack making it fun for most.****

The key point to my proposal, outside the framework, is the inclusion of IT cars - AS THEY ARE. Legal for IT, legal for this jump. No changes.

Another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

***that won't rock the world that is Production***

If you don't think this will rock the Production car world why don't you look for some support on that site. They'll laugh their asses off.

***ITS --> EP

ITA --> FP

ITB --> GP

ITC --> HP***

Slip the IT classes one slip lower so that IT is in a real world.

***A feeder system develops of IT drivers getting a looksie into the work of top-prep Prod cars,***

Many of we IT guys are assocated with a top Production car today so your proposed view is not required.

***the Prod guys get short-term boosted car counts as well as potential long-term growth***

The Production folks get to use the IT cars to save H & G Production.

***we all get to taste National events.***

Is there a difference between an ITA getting passed by a Production car in qualifying versus getting passed by a ITS car in qualifying.

***Will our cars win? No - but a top program could run at the front of the mid-pack making it fun for most.****

Why sell the IT cars a bill of goods when if IT cars were made National the ITs & ITA cars may have the numbers to make their own invite to the Runoffs. It's the 21st century. How about the SCCA allow IT cars be National.

Some factual stats for year 2006 & Production cars. How about getting some factual stats for IT cars for year 2006 for a compare.

EP- 120 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 65 entered 4 or more.
Highest Division tie SE & CEN with 22.

FP- 112 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 46 entered 4 or more.
Highest Division SE with 26.

GP- 67 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 37 entered 4 or more.
Highest Division CEN with 17. BTW- SW had 0.

HP- 67 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 36 entered 4 or more.

CEN Div had a total of 82 prod drivers/ next SE with 77. Lowest SW- 22.

One more fact from year 2006.

When a request was made to class the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported in G Production the Fastrack response was the following. "Another level of prep is not consistant with the Production car philosophy".
Thank you go away from the PAC & the CRB.

Production had a total of 184 different cars that raced 4 or more events during year 2006. Mr. ITAC member how many different cars did IT have raced 4 or more events during year 2006? Why is our ITAC member is trying to sell IT to the low non bidder who don't want us to begin with. The non bidder would be the PAC & the CRB..........

Before selling to the low non bidder has the process to remove the words "Regional Only" from GCR rule 9.1 been exhausted ? How about having IT be a class that the owners/drivers can select to race Regional, National or both & if the numbers warrent an IT class or more may be invited to the Runoffs. Before someone tells me IT can't be National please tell me why did the prepared class come into existance over the IT class & then invite 1990 & newer IT cars to race in their race class to bolster their numbers ?

I propose that we IT folks skip the red headed step child deal & that we get ourselves reclassed to be a National class wher we may make a choice (race Regional or National) as do all the other National classes.

As I said at the get go, another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

You are looking for the wrong thing. There is no rule that requires them to add one. Once your car qualifies for either the 2nd (WC-legal) or 3rd (IT-legal) quoted bullet, then you get to skip the entire rest of the GCR Prepared rules, including the one that makes you put in an SIR.

EDIT: incidentally, that means that any WC car or IT car gets to skip the rule that limits DP to 3000cc. So Tommy Archer could enter his WC Viper in DP! I wrote a letter about that one. But the point is that if IT cars don't have to add a restrictor, then neither do WC cars!

Or, perhaps you are saying that the WC rules (as opposed to our GCR) require an SIR (I'm clueless about WC rules). Well, if so, those SIR-equipped cars are running lap times that are WAY out of reach of an ITR car. Last year at Laguna Seca they ran 1:37.0 in qualifying. I can't believe we'll ever see an ITR car below 1:42. Unfortunately our region website is down so I can't find the track records for SCCA classes. [/b]

I am not with you. Here is the opening statement:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But I know you know this...Some WC Touring cars are making WELL over 250hp. It doesn't make sense to allow them that HP level.</span>







</span></span></span></span>

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

***that won't rock the world that is Production***

If you don't think this will rock the Production car world why don't you look for some support on that site. They'll laugh their asses off.[/b]

And why would that be? It HAS been posted on the Prod forum David...and not many people were laughing. Most thought it was a decent idea. Some even claimed they had requested it years back. See the words here: http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.ph...der=asc&start=0

Slip the IT classes one slip lower so that IT is in a real world.[/b]

THEN they will have a bird. If you put an IT car at the front of a Prod grid, it's not fair to them.

***A feeder system develops of IT drivers getting a looksie into the work of top-prep Prod cars,***

Many of we IT guys are assocated with a top Production car today so your proposed view is not required.[/b]

This is more of a 10ft view, not a 10,000 foot view. Just because you are involved, doen't mean the vast majority is. We have some of the biggest IT fields in the country up here and I can't think of more than a handful that have their hands in anything but IT. It's tough enough for most.

***the Prod guys get short-term boosted car counts as well as potential long-term growth***

The Production folks get to use the IT cars to save H & G Production. [/b]

If it's done properly, everyone would have a chance to see more cars.

***we all get to taste National events.***

Is there a difference between an ITA getting passed by a Production car in qualifying versus getting passed by a ITS car in qualifying.[/b]

If you have to ask this, you don't understand the whole crux of the proposal...hell, maybe it doesn't make sense.

***Will our cars win? No - but a top program could run at the front of the mid-pack making it fun for most.****

Why sell the IT cars a bill of goods when if IT cars were made National the ITs & ITA cars may have the numbers to make their own invite to the Runoffs. It's the 21st century. How about the SCCA allow IT cars be National.[/b]

Production had a total of 184 different cars that raced 4 or more events during year 2006. Mr. ITAC member how many different cars did IT have raced 4 or more events during year 2006? Why is our ITAC member is trying to sell IT to the low non bidder who don't want us to begin with. The non bidder would be the PAC & the CRB..........

Before selling to the low non bidder has the process to remove the words "Regional Only" from GCR rule 9.1 been exhausted ? How about having IT be a class that the owners/drivers can select to race Regional, National or both & if the numbers warrent an IT class or more may be invited to the Runoffs. Before someone tells me IT can't be National please tell me why did the prepared class come into existance over the IT class & then invite 1990 & newer IT cars to race in their race class to bolster their numbers ?

I propose that we IT folks skip the red headed step child deal & that we get ourselves reclassed to be a National class wher we may make a choice (race Regional or National) as do all the other National classes.

As I said at the get go, another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

[/b]

Then write in. I truly believe half would want it and half wouldn't. We have had that discussion before here. If you look at it a little more openly, you might consider this an intermediary move instead of settling. The BoD may need to walk before they run on IT as a National class. And again, I am not sure it is what IT wants - it may be what YOU and I want, but all of IT, I think not.

 

[JoshS]

I am not with you.

The rule that requires them to use one is there: For GT...
[/b]

But that's not the rule for GT, that's the rule for BP! REAL GT cars get to skip the whole thing, just like IT cars get to skip it. The BP ruleset is GT-based, but they do not apply to real GT cars due to the eligibility statement that says that cars that conform to their WC VTS are legal as-is.

Perhaps the intent is as you say, but that's just not what the rules actually say.

 

[mustanghammer]

Andy,

Ultimately I want IT to have National Status and I am not sure if your proposal helps that effort. For example, lets say that the CRB and BOD buys your proposal lock, stock and barrel. Then, after a little fan fair, few if any IT drivers take advantage of the "opportunity." What does that say to the CRB/BOD? Couldn't they use that against a proposal for IT National Status?

Further, I believe that adding IT cars to the Prod ranks will mask a problem that they have and are not addressing properly; they are not actively classing cars. From our perspective there is a benefit to exposing IT cars and drivers to the national racing crowd. However, I am concerned that all they would be focused on are the extra participation numbers and getting and the impact that it has on participation in the next Run Offs. In short, if IT field-fillers boost their numbers they don't have to fix any of the real issues they have.

By the way, in MiDiv we solved the issue of only one race for IT on our Regional/National weekends. It's called a Restricted Regional and these are held on Sunday in conjuction with the National Races. Only IT cars are allowed to run in this race and is run as a Regional length race. So with the exception of events at HPT I can go to a National Race and get very good track time.

I think your intentions are pure and it will be interesting to see what happens. However I don't want to stray too far off focus. NATIONAL STATUS FOR IT.

 

[tnord]

Further, I believe that adding IT cars to the Prod ranks will mask a problem that they have and are not addressing properly; they are not actively classing cars. From our perspective there is a benefit to exposing IT cars and drivers to the national racing crowd. However, I am concerned that all they would be focused on are the extra participation numbers and getting and the impact that it has on participation in the next Run Offs. In short, if IT field-fillers boost their numbers they don't have to fix any of the real issues they have.
[/b]

Scott, i usually disagree with you when it comes to IT going national.....but i think this comment is dead on.

do away with Regional vs national status and top 24 classes go to the show or bust........ :026:

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that's not the rule for GT, that's the rule for BP! REAL GT cars get to skip the whole thing, just like IT cars get to skip it. The BP ruleset is GT-based, but they do not apply to real GT cars due to the eligibility statement that says that cars that conform to their WC VTS are legal as-is.

Perhaps the intent is as you say, but that's just not what the rules actually say.
[/b]

What I was trying to say was that BP is the place for GT category WC cars. DP is for Touring category cars. Says it right in the rules.

The eligibility statement says that the class is a place that they can go with limited mods - I didn't see where the rules say 'as is, no changes'.

Either way, I can't get my hands around the rules...

 

[mbuskuhl]

I propose that we IT folks skip the red headed step child deal & that we get ourselves reclassed to be a National class wher we may make a choice (race Regional or National) as do all the other National classes.

[/b]

Well said, I sometimes think of myself as a second class citizen rather than the red headed step child but either works. I'll take what I can get as Andy's proposal is a step in the direction of more track time. Ultimately, I am 100% in favor of ITS as National class.

There is a R/N coming up in 2 weeks in the SOWDIV. IT is group 1 and has to race before lunch on Saturday. Nothing on Sunday. Do I really want to make the 5 hr each way drive to qualify at 8:00am and then race at 11:00am and be done for the weekend by 11:30am on Saturday? This is how IT is treated in my part of the country.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Ultimately I want IT to have National Status and I am not sure if your proposal helps that effort. For example, lets say that the CRB and BOD buys your proposal lock, stock and barrel. Then, after a little fan fair, few if any IT drivers take advantage of the "opportunity." What does that say to the CRB/BOD? Couldn't they use that against a proposal for IT National Status?[/b]

I would never say never but it's apples and oranges IMHO. *I* wouldn't jump ship to Prod...that doesn't mean I don't want IT to be National. It's about the IT ruleset being the most popular in Club Racing...and sending THAT class National. Again, this isn't about IT going National...it's about a pathway opening up for guys who have never seen that world.

Further, I believe that adding IT cars to the Prod ranks will mask a problem that they have and are not addressing properly; they are not actively classing cars. From our perspective there is a benefit to exposing IT cars and drivers to the national racing crowd. However, I am concerned that all they would be focused on are the extra participation numbers and getting and the impact that it has on participation in the next Run Offs. In short, if IT field-fillers boost their numbers they don't have to fix any of the real issues they have[/b]

But again, that is an SCCA issue, not a Prod issue. It has been said many times here that even the ITAC doesn't actively class cars - it's by request...and if you get guys in IT trying National races, they may be into the slicks, the cams, the cells, no washer bottles, no heater cores, the speed, etc...and then they would ask to have their cars classified...just like in IT. As far as boosted numbers, if they do this right across the categories, all the numbers will get a little bump - and there still will be a 'bottom' that won't get to run for the Wood in Topeka.

By the way, in MiDiv we solved the issue of only one race for IT on our Regional/National weekends. It's called a Restricted Regional and these are held on Sunday in conjuction with the National Races. Only IT cars are allowed to run in this race and is run as a Regional length race. So with the exception of events at HPT I can go to a National Race and get very good track time. [/b]

Our Nationals are too big to hold a RR.

I think your intentions are pure and it will be interesting to see what happens. However I don't want to stray too far off focus. NATIONAL STATUS FOR IT.


[/b]

Then write a letter!!! If this is what you want, you need to go for it! Why are you waiting?

Scott, i usually disagree with you when it comes to IT going national.....but i think this comment is dead on.

do away with Regional vs national status and top 24 classes go to the show or bust........ :026: [/b]

Travis - I thought you were AGAINST IT going National?

 

[tnord]

i am against IT going national as a single action point. but as i've said for a while now, i'm ok with it as long as that happens via the complete structural overhaul of removing the distinction between regional and national classing and allowing the top 24 participating classes runoffs spots.

i don't want IT to go national......but i do want the BS to stop in the club with regards to coddling undersubscribed classes. "trimming the fat" is more important to me than IT staying regional.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

i am against IT going national as a single action point. but as i've said for a while now, i'm ok with it as long as that happens via the complete structural overhaul of removing the distinction between regional and national classing and allowing the top 24 participating classes runoffs spots.

i don't want IT to go national......but i do want the BS to stop in the club with regards to coddling undersubscribed classes. "trimming the fat" is more important to me than IT staying regional. [/b]

I'm feelin' that.

 

[IPRESS]

I was talking to Shannon McMasters yesterday about IT and some of you guys wanting it to be a national class. Shannon is the guy who started Spec Miata (along with DDG.) He just shook his head and repeated what he said in 99, "In the long run SM would be better off to be a regional class with a national set of rules like IT." Sure IT is expensive in some venues, but in others it is not. Going national will make it expensive everywhere. You may think that you will be racing the same car in nationals that you run in regionals, but you are sadly mistaken. The fast SM guys who are doing that are midpack now. (This last Texas Nat. I know two former series winners who were no better then 25th. (Both races!) They are as fast as anybody, they just have not spent the money (big$$) needed to be up front. IT doesn't need that.
I learned this the hardway as I was one of the SM guys that browbeat the CRB to make sure the "regional forever" wording did not go into the GCR for SM. Shannon warned me. But all things have silver linings, now I am having a blast in IT & I run SM in Enduros.

Andy's proposal is good because it will help Production with larger class numbers & it will help IT racers by adding opportunity.

Mac

 

[shwah]

Sorry, the more I read, the less I like the proposal.

Production needs to fix Production. They screwed up the LP concept, but it can be corrected, just like IT was able to correct our classifications. All it takes is commitment and effort on their part, coupled will less turf protection - which should be easier to accomplish since the turf may not exist in the future without changes.

Once the LP concept is fixed, then WITHOUT WAITING FOR REQUESTS, the top 10 cars in every IT class should be classified as LP cars, wherever their process puts them (rather than a straight B->G, A->F, etc.).

After those things happen, this makes a lot of sense. Then there is a logical reason for an IT racer to want to get a 'taste' of National Production Class racing before taking the plunge. Then there will be a real avenue available for IT racers to move into Production as competitors, rather than field fillers, and there will be an existing supply of cars available to make such a move. The end result would be stronger competition and larger fields in Production racing across the board - which is what really assures you a runoffs spot.

Hey if we want to 'try National racing' with no chance in hell of competing, we can already go run DP. What then is the logic in creating exactly the same situation in 4 other classes? It just does not make sense.

 

[PSherm]

Andy's proposal is good because it will help Production with larger class numbers & it will help IT racers by adding opportunity.

Mac
[/b]

What good is helping Production class numbers? Let them die or consolidate if they aren't being subscribed to. I'm still not sure about IT getting National status, but it sure chaps my hide if the BOD, CRB, et al, just use IT for National classing field filler...

 

[ddewhurst]

Andy, I am attempting to treat your proposal/thoughts with respect as you are mine. BUT you left the following out of your response.

***When a request was made to class the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported in G Production the Fastrack response was the following. "Another level of prep is not consistant with the Production car philosophy".
Thank you go away from the PAC & the CRB.***

If the PAC/CRB comes across with this ^ sort of response for ONE car why do you think they will come across with a favorable response to bring a whole bunch of cars to Production with out fuel cells, with glass & what ever else don't meet the Production car rules. I understand the IT cars in Prepared so please don't go there.

As far as my car I can convert to a cheap non-ported E Production car, get my a$$ whipped on a regular basis, make the top 10 in the CenDiv with an invite to the Runoffs. Is that like the days when the top 3 were invited to the Runoffs. NOPE, but it is what it is.