IT Cars in Prod

[cherokee]

And one of the reasons that the Prod lap records may not be that impressive is that for a long time, all a lot of those folks have worried about is 1 race a year. The idea of people running mule motors did not spring out of thin air.
[/b]

I know this is true, as I talked to more then one driver while researching my prod effort. They run a "warm" IT motor during the season. A little cam and a little compression. They save the custom one off high $$ motor for the big show, the sprints and the runoffs. They told me I would easy qualify for a runoff spot with a IT motor. That struck me as odd, but my car goes on a big diet when it goes to FP, and gets stuff like disc brakes. I figured that alone would make me do well enough to get to the show with an IT type motor, Thats why I have an FP and IT motor on stands in my shop.

I got a handfull of prod guys telling me this, at the runoffs no less, and the summer nat at HPT.

Edit: To add a response to Bill's note

I don't think that IT cars are hard to police. I think this is another perception, I also think this has been used as an excuse to open some items up. One other good thing about a "test" season, run it and see the problems that develope.

 

[Bill Miller]

I don't think that IT cars are hard to police. I think this is another perception, I also think this has been used as an excuse to open some items up. One other good thing about a "test" season, run it and see the problems that develope.[/b]

I don't think they're hard to police either, I was only stating one of the arguements I have heard.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

This has the potential to be the best of both worlds for IT and prod.

[/b]

I agree. I am just trying to avoid a massive "NO!" from Prod guys because the bracketry hit's too close to the bulls eye...and they stop the thing cold. Yes, you can say 'tough crap' to them because they are teh ones who need the numbers but we lose out too. I DO believe that it COULD work like this:

ITS -> FP

ITA -> GP

ITB/ITC -> HP

But will the Prod guys accept it? If they don't, it's all moot.

Andy,

Again, I'm not trying to pick on you, but do you read what you post? "Hey, bring your cars and your $$$ and come play, but don't get in the way." If you want to make it attractive for the IT folks, classify the cars w/ a chance to be competitive. [/b]

Bill, you haven't read the intent of my idea. Why would Prod guys want a car that cost somebody WAY less, with WAY less prep, with a TON more reliability - to be competitive with their stuff. Remember back to the Limited Prep outcry and triple that. Everyone will just build IT cars to run in two classes.

The original ladder would have a top-prep IT car running at the front of the mid - and I bet close to the podium. Move it one down and the potential for IT cars winning gets exponentially better. And that is not the intent of the idea, like it or not.

I was looking at some of the results from Nationals posted to the Prod site...5 seconds per fast lap seperating the top THREE in all the Prod classes. Pitiful.

 

[Drew Aldred]

I would gladly accept any "new" car that wants to be classed in Prod. As far as the glass, tires, and fuel cell goes that's not a big deal to me. You can run the stock windshield now, maybe some clear tape on the front lights and let's go to the grid !!

DOT tires don't bother me either, depending on what Division you run in prod is grouped with T2, T3, SS, SM, or SRF. You get used to running with different cars that have different abilities. I'm more concerned about my opinion of how a particular driver is on track, than about their car/tire combo.

 

[Knestis]

So, of those interested in this idea, how many would still be if there were an EXPLICIT clause in the allowance, as follows:

It is accepted that Improved Touring cars, as allowed to run in National events in the Production category, are intentionally classified such that there is no expectation that they will ever be competitive. Such listing is intended only to allow owners of IT cars to experience running National events. As such, requests for reclassification or adjustment will not be considered for IT cars running in the Production category under this rule.

Andy - you'd be OK including something like that?

K

 

[RSTPerformance]

So, of those interested in this idea, how many would still be if there were an EXPLICIT clause in the allowance, as follows:

It is accepted that Improved Touring cars, as allowed to run in National events in the Production category, are intentionally classified such that there is no expectation that they will ever be competitive. Such listing is intended only to allow owners of IT cars to experience running National events. As such, requests for reclassification or adjustment will not be considered for IT cars running in the Production category under this rule.

Andy - you'd be OK including something like that?

K
[/b]

K-

I would ok with it, and it would be clear to those people that will want make adjustments 10yrs from now...

Raymond

 

[Charlie Broring]

You guys are dreaming! I spent the last 4 years trying to get my ITB Volvo 142 competitively classed in Production. They don't want it. I guess it's too big or something. I built a F/P car, raced it in National races and wrote a ton of letters to the CRB. Still. the care is hopelessly classed in F/P at an unattainable low weight. I gave up and parked it and I'm going back to racing my ITB car.

The Production Advisory committee is too afraid of letting in an "Overdog" to ever let IT cars race in anything but a totally uncompetitive classification.

And they don't like bigger cars. Look at the poor ITB mustang classed in E/P Limited Prep.

You all are right to promote this. It would be good for IT and the SCCA. But the Production rule makers will never let it happen.

Charlie Broring

 

[tom91ita]

i could not figure out why this looked so familiar and then i realized that i had commented in the PROD forum.

i am basically pursuing this for the price of a fuel cell and fire system. i want the flexibility of running at different tracks on different weekends and at closer tracks.

i am in favor of the IT to Prod as is but it should drop one level. my ITB honda has been proposed to go to HP and i wrote a letter supporting that with comments that the weight is still too high!

i plan to be on track with my ITB car and a box of headlights and crap in that will say ITB on it. and i will likely have another box that will NASA H5 on it.

my car can move back and forth real easy between Honda Challenge and PROD. it takes more effort to go from that dual purpose configuration back to ITB.

so if i will be able to run PROD at nationals, regionals or Honda Challenge with NASA. this could give me five weekends at a single track this summer about 45 minutes from home.

who knows, with the money i save in fuel / motels, i may convert to ITB in the fall and go to the ARRC.

 

[Knestis]

...The Production Advisory committee is too afraid of letting in an "Overdog" to ever let IT cars race in anything but a totally uncompetitive classification. ...[/b]

But the idea proposed here is to purposefully classify them where they will NOT be competitive, and leave them that way.

K

 

[Charlie Broring]

But the idea proposed here is to purposefully classify them where they will NOT be competitive, and leave them that way. [/b]

Being uncompetitive and a back marker in a National race gets old real fast. Production should be welcome IT drivers who want to move up to National Racing or competitive Regional Prod racing . The IT cars should be made competitive enough that the drivers would be encouraged to farther develop their cares into Production cars if they find the racing to their liking.

This discussion shows plenty of interest in IT drivers exploring production racing. However, in my experience, the production car rule makers haven't been very enthusiastic about bringing in IT cars, especially larger ones. IT rules are fair and well administered. Production rules are mess and much more difficult to deal with than I expected when I first ventured into that world. Production is much better at adding 50# to last years Runoffs winner than classifying "new" cars.

I hope that everybody who posted in this discussion also sends their suggestions to the CRB and maybe a smoother transition from IT into Prod or Prepared or GT will evolve.

Charlie

 

[Bill Miller]

The original ladder would have a top-prep IT car running at the front of the mid - and I bet close to the podium. Move it one down and the potential for IT cars winning gets exponentially better. And that is not the intent of the idea, like it or not.[/b]

I will say one thing Andy, and I give you credit for this. You make no bones about the fact that the only intent of your proposal is to boost Prod numbers. As someone said before, your proposal essentially asks the IT community to prop up Prod so they don't lose their National status or their Runoffs' slots.

I was looking at some of the results from Nationals posted to the Prod site...5 seconds per fast lap seperating the top THREE in all the Prod classes. Pitiful.
[/b]

Please see the earlier comments regarding mule motors. For the most part, these folks only care about 1 (maybe 2) race(s) a year.

And you know what? IF the Prod folks had a classification process similar to what IT has, it would be pretty easy to figure out what cars went in which classes.

 

[charrbq]

I've already heard screaming from the Prod guys I know. They're saying this is the first of many steps to get rid of production car racing and move national club racing closer to professional racing. I know of one who has given it up and dropped out of the club due to the LP rules. Another is selling his national championship winning car and going to SRF to find more stable rules. Another has built a LP Spridget and is dying at the thought that is will be made non competitive in less than a year due to the probable consolidation of the classes.

As it is, within a short time, there may not be any production classes for IT to play with. Those guys would rather park their cars than allow us into their party.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, of those interested in this idea, how many would still be if there were an EXPLICIT clause in the allowance, as follows:

It is accepted that Improved Touring cars, as allowed to run in National events in the Production category, are intentionally classified such that there is no expectation that they will ever be competitive. Such listing is intended only to allow owners of IT cars to experience running National events. As such, requests for reclassification or adjustment will not be considered for IT cars running in the Production category under this rule.

Andy - you'd be OK including something like that?

K [/b]

Absolutely.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will say one thing Andy, and I give you credit for this. You make no bones about the fact that the only intent of your proposal is to boost Prod numbers. As someone said before, your proposal essentially asks the IT community to prop up Prod so they don't lose their National status or their Runoffs' slots.

And you know what? IF the Prod folks had a classification process similar to what IT has, it would be pretty easy to figure out what cars went in which classes.

[/b]

2 final thoughts. First one Bill, I have NEVER sais that the only intent is to boost Prod numbers. I have said that it is a side benefit to the Prod guys. The main intent of the proposal, which has been stated many times, is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. Prod should have one to GT as well (if at all possible - not sure). I don't think IT drivers will flock to National races to run in Prod. I personally will try 1, maybe 2 - at LRP where my car is strong - then I will be done unless I like the scene so much I will build an EP or FP Miata. I doubt it but I am sure there are some guys out there who will be interested enough to make the jump. A jump they would never had made without this idea making it easy to try it out - at least that is my theory and the real basis for the proposal. A logical feeder system if you will. The entire health of Club Racing is my concern.

Second, I think you will find that the Prod committee and the CRB are working VERY hard right now to make similar changes that IT has made over the past few years. I wish them luck, they have a much harder road ahead of them than we did.

 

[Bill Miller]

2 final thoughts. First one Bill, I have NEVER sais that the only intent is to boost Prod numbers. I have said that it is a side benefit to the Prod guys. The main intent of the proposal, which has been stated many times, is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. Prod should have one to GT as well (if at all possible - not sure). I don't think IT drivers will flock to National races to run in Prod. I personally will try 1, maybe 2 - at LRP where my car is strong - then I will be done unless I like the scene so much I will build an EP or FP Miata. I doubt it but I am sure there are some guys out there who will be interested enough to make the jump. A jump they would never had made without this idea making it easy to try it out - at least that is my theory and the real basis for the proposal. A logical feeder system if you will. The entire health of Club Racing is my concern.

Second, I think you will find that the Prod committee and the CRB are working VERY hard right now to make similar changes that IT has made over the past few years. I wish them luck, they have a much harder road ahead of them than we did.
[/b]

Andy,

What I see as the fault w/ your logic is that it's based on the assumption that this 'smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod' is a needed (or wanted) thing. I'm not convinced that this 'feeder system' that you mention is something that Club racers want, as a whole. And if it is, you need to look at all of the sedan categories as a whole and re-define the whole thing. There needs to be a big-picture, strategic approach to it. Right now, there's no easy transition from SS/T to IT, and there's no easy transition from Prot to GT. I'm also not convinced that IT folks necessarily want somewhere to move to. Look at a lot of the Prod guys out there. They've been running Prod for years. They could have made the move to GT if they wanted to. I can see people starting out (or moving to) IT and being happy there. Look at the amount of people that race IT that could certainly afford to race Prod or GT.

If IT were a National category, w/ the chance to compete for Runoffs' slots, I sure don't see where you'd have a large group of people that would worry about transitioning to Prod. At least no more than you do today, and those folks already know what's required to make the transition.

And quite honestly, I don't see how your proposal provides this 'smooth transition' from IT to Prod. Especially in light of your agreement w/ Kirk's proposal. Sure, you get to take your IT car to a National. Given the number of Prod cars that will probably show up, you might stand a chance at a podium based solely on attrition. Regardless, how does it 'smooth' the transition to Prod? You're not going to adjust the IT cars. You can't mix and match across the rule sets. If you want to go to Prod, it's no different than it is now, you have to build your car to Prod specs (that is, unless you're happy just doing laps). You could get that same taste of a National race buy renting or borrowing a National car. I've been to Nationals and Regionals, besides the longer races at a National there's really no difference. There's no big mystery at a National.

So let's be realistic here, the main upside to your proposal is the propping up of the Prod numbers.

 

[fastbenz]

It's not about competing for the win, it's about getting a taste for National competition, National events, getting a look at real Prod cars, teams and efforts, and creating a smooth path amongst our classes as a whole.
[/b]

I for one would welcome any new cars / drivers to the production classes.

Don't kid yourselves though your costs will surely escalate.

Please don't look at Prod cars, drivers, or teams like we are something special. Those who are willing to invest the time, have the financial resources, have some talent and make the right choices will always do better than the guys or gals who bring their clapped out piece of shit and can't drive a nail. We all belong to the same club !

Bring on the new cars from IT.

 

[924Guy]

I've been watching the discussion, trying to figure out what I thought of this... I guess I can best sum up my feelings as follows:

I like IT. I want to race IT. Nothing about Prod, specifically, appeals to me, from what I've heard or seen, certainly not enough to investigate further - not rule set, not car types, not rule making, not competition, nothing.

If I have more opportunities to race IT and/or at a higher level, GREAT, I'm all for it.

If I have to switch gears to maintain/get better competition or maintain/increase number of racing opportunities: I'm gonna seriously re-think what I want to race. Maybe I'd want to go SM; maybe I'd rather do an open-wheel class. Even if I wanted to keep racing a 924 - I'd sell my current one, as competitive as it is, and start from scratch.

So, in light of the above considerations - I don't see much benefit to me, personally, from this proposal. I don't think I'd go so far as to say I would vote against it - I just don't see it affecting me or my desired racing path, so I am ambivalent.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

What I see as the fault w/ your logic is that it's based on the assumption that this 'smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod' is a needed (or wanted) thing. I'm not convinced that this 'feeder system' that you mention is something that Club racers want, as a whole. And if it is, you need to look at all of the sedan categories as a whole and re-define the whole thing. There needs to be a big-picture, strategic approach to it. Right now, there's no easy transition from SS/T to IT, and there's no easy transition from Prot to GT. I'm also not convinced that IT folks necessarily want somewhere to move to. Look at a lot of the Prod guys out there. They've been running Prod for years. They could have made the move to GT if they wanted to. I can see people starting out (or moving to) IT and being happy there. Look at the amount of people that race IT that could certainly afford to race Prod or GT.

If IT were a National category, w/ the chance to compete for Runoffs' slots, I sure don't see where you'd have a large group of people that would worry about transitioning to Prod. At least no more than you do today, and those folks already know what's required to make the transition.

And quite honestly, I don't see how your proposal provides this 'smooth transition' from IT to Prod. Especially in light of your agreement w/ Kirk's proposal. Sure, you get to take your IT car to a National. Given the number of Prod cars that will probably show up, you might stand a chance at a podium based solely on attrition. Regardless, how does it 'smooth' the transition to Prod? You're not going to adjust the IT cars. You can't mix and match across the rule sets. If you want to go to Prod, it's no different than it is now, you have to build your car to Prod specs (that is, unless you're happy just doing laps). You could get that same taste of a National race buy renting or borrowing a National car. I've been to Nationals and Regionals, besides the longer races at a National there's really no difference. There's no big mystery at a National.

So let's be realistic here, the main upside to your proposal is the propping up of the Prod numbers. [/b]

We see it differently.

So, in light of the above considerations - I don't see much benefit to me, personally, from this proposal. I don't think I'd go so far as to say I would vote against it - I just don't see it affecting me or my desired racing path, so I am ambivalent. [/b]

Exactly. You or I may not seek to take advantage, but I am SURE there are guys out there who would. Most people don't understand the mentality of the mid-pack. Some of the resistance here has been 'who wants to run around with no chance of winning?' Guess what? 75% of every grid in every racing organization is the SAME WAY. People race to have fun, and fun is defined much differently for all of us. Why does that guy who comes in the bottom 1/4 in your class keep coming back week after week? Because he loves his car, loves the people and loves the sport I would bet...

 

[Knestis]

Absolutely.
[/b]

Thanks, Andy - that's helpful. And it's going to be important that you stay on-message there, since it's clear from responses to your initial question that there are a lot of other intentions sneaking into the conversation.

I'm still not sure it's needed but at least it passes the "muddle" test - at least initially.

K

 

[AntonioGG]

Guess what? 75% of every grid in every racing organization is the SAME WAY. People race to have fun, and fun is defined much differently for all of us. Why does that guy who comes in the bottom 1/4 in your class keep coming back week after week? Because he loves his car, loves the people and loves the sport I would bet...
[/b]

Amen brother!

As long as there's another mid/backpacker to race with I'm ecstatic. I see too many front runners forgetting to have fun.

(This is not to say I don't work to get faster or tinker with my car, but my weekend/season is not blown if i keep coming in on the last half of the field.)

Antonio