Ron Earp
Administrator
I think HQ/Topeka has realized that now and they want in on the action.....
IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?
- Thread starter shwah
- Start date
I think HQ/Topeka has realized that now and they want in on the action.....
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Chapter 2-
How did the club come to such a point?
See above.
Constituents fighting for their piece of turf. Prod guys writing in, "Bob's TR17 needs more weight, or a smaller restrictor, or a lower lift cam, because he's whooping me on the straights at mid Ohio", And Bob (I actually saw this once, laughed my ass off) writing in that "Harry's MGX needs more weight, or smaller brakes, because he's killing me under braking at the end of the straight at Mid Ohio".
Guys writing in that they can't keep their cars "running anymore, can I please have a billet crank? Otherwise I will have to retire"....." Sure you can, we wouldn't want to lose you. And everyone else can (will have to) have one too...."
It happened over time, sure, but one by one, categories morphed into something the competitors demanded, yet they bear little resemblance to what they originally started with. And they all seemed like good ideas at the time, "giving the customers what they desire", but sometimes, the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few, even when the desires are perceived by many to be needed. Sure, technical progress occurs, and rules must change to stay vital, but it's a fine line. One look at our National championship shows that we've gone off track.
And YES, National racing IS club racing...so is regional racing...we are ALL in this boat together. And while Pro racing is a separate distinction, they have a hand on the tiller as well.
But to say that "club racing" has nothing to do with the runoffs, or that the Runoffs are not important to "club" racers isn't something I buy.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Or perhaps what Stan is saying is, (to prove his point),
"Look here guys, IT has done something right. They say their success is due to their ruleset, and their stability. Look at these numbers. It's hard not to think they might have a point. THIS is what club racers obviously prefer. THIS is what club racing ACTUALLY is...."
Now, you can run in several directions on where and why different people/groups will take that quote, but I'm not going to just assume that the big bad black helicopter people (The mean wizard behind the curtain in Topeka), "Are after our money".
Maybe...just maybe, Stan was saying, "jeez, the IT guys are paying the freight! Why not give them more return? It could be a win win for everybody if it's done right"
But then, I know Stan, So maybe I'm biased.
Sorry - I thought we'd hit on the differences.
1. SM was actively marketed as a place where anyone could mix it up with the big boys for less than $10K. This totally ignored the realities of competition.
2. SM was promoted by Mazda with plums including steps up the ladder. Win this level and you get a "pro" ride at the next.
3. These influences caught the attention of some very astute club racing entrepreneurs (BSI, OPM, et al.), who helped make SM the biggest arrive-and-drive/rental/pro-supported road racing class in the US. The fact that so many SM racers don't maintain their own cars is a big influence on the spending dynamic, I think. These businesses made it very easy for a new niche of well-heeled entrants to come into road racing.
(These influences boosted popularity and competitiveness, which in turn tend to encourage spending.)
4. Because the cars are all "the same," drivers are forced to reconcile any lack of competitiveness in their own program in ways other than "I've got the wrong car." I'd argue that a large number of them are reluctant to blame their own lack of skills, so figure spending more money will get them to the front. A question that we haven't touched on here is whether spending the extra-big bucks actually makes an extra-big difference in SM but perceptions are a big part of truth, so maybe it doesn't matter...
BUT HERE'S THE REAL ISSUE - You define what has happened to SM is a "bad thing," because it hurt your opportunity to be competitive with your existing car, skills, and budget. You're allowed to do that but maybe there are others who'd love IT to become massively popular and competitive. Do you think that those guys who keep coming back to SM think it's a failure? Do Stu B., Tom F. et al. think it sucks?
K
Dave Zaslow
New member
What is the purpose of making IT a national class? To bolster national car counts? To enable drivers who run 4 races a year, hence qualifying for a 'national' license, to run on the same tracks they are running regional races on for a few more minutes? To make certain drivers eligible to go to the Runoffs and establish a national champion?
Is having a national champion for the IT classes important to the SCCA as a whole?
If it is, then perhaps we might stick our two cents in on how that eligibility/invitation is earned. I believe that it is important that IT remain a regional, one size fits all, no distinction amongst your running mates, socialist, pinko, liberal, run what ya got series. Some will have more talent than money, some will have more money than talent, some will neither or both. At the end of the day we will all drink beer and swap lies.
I suggest that major divisional or inter-divisional series be recognized as eligible venues for qualifying for a spot for the Runoffs. In the East we have NARRC, MARRS, SARRC. To my knowledge all are regional-centric series. I do not know what the equivalents are elsewhere, but if none exists, they can be created. Those series' entrants would have their points tallied by the same pointskeepers that are now used for nationals. Issue the top 10 an invtation to wherever the Runoffs are held. The additional entries that may be added by the chance for the golden ring will still be racing with all IT participants. The cream will still rise to the top. In divisions where national racing is predominant, and national/regionals are held out of necessity, those regions will have to work out their system.
Now I'll go back to chewing my cud until someone from HQ puts out a real proposal for us to digest and comment on. There are many other good ideas that have been mentioned but I don't want to dilute this thread any further.
Having a loquacious day....
Dave Zaslow
National License #189195
NYR ITB #14
voted NO
Is having a national champion for the IT classes important to the SCCA as a whole?
If it is, then perhaps we might stick our two cents in on how that eligibility/invitation is earned. I believe that it is important that IT remain a regional, one size fits all, no distinction amongst your running mates, socialist, pinko, liberal, run what ya got series. Some will have more talent than money, some will have more money than talent, some will neither or both. At the end of the day we will all drink beer and swap lies.
I suggest that major divisional or inter-divisional series be recognized as eligible venues for qualifying for a spot for the Runoffs. In the East we have NARRC, MARRS, SARRC. To my knowledge all are regional-centric series. I do not know what the equivalents are elsewhere, but if none exists, they can be created. Those series' entrants would have their points tallied by the same pointskeepers that are now used for nationals. Issue the top 10 an invtation to wherever the Runoffs are held. The additional entries that may be added by the chance for the golden ring will still be racing with all IT participants. The cream will still rise to the top. In divisions where national racing is predominant, and national/regionals are held out of necessity, those regions will have to work out their system.
Now I'll go back to chewing my cud until someone from HQ puts out a real proposal for us to digest and comment on. There are many other good ideas that have been mentioned but I don't want to dilute this thread any further.
Having a loquacious day....
Dave Zaslow
National License #189195
NYR ITB #14
voted NO
How does IT becoming a NATIONAL CLASS fix the Club Racing program?
Doesn't the National Body get a cut of what we pay now?
By being "national" would the cut be bigger?
Is it even a money issue? (Usually is.)
Now at least give this some consideration: (you anti states rights folks!
)
Might IT be the huge success Stan has shown it to be BECAUSE it is a different animal from National racing and therefore a bigger draw.
Since it IS this huge success (and I think it has all to do with not going to the Holy Grail Runoffs
) Maybe it should be basically left alone and National should work out the details on getting more money from it, or include IT in National Racing without it's racers going to the Runoffs.
Maybe the Poll should be:
DO YOU WANT THE IMPROVED TOURING CLASSES TO BECOME RUNOFFS ELIGIBLE?
WOULD YOU LIKE IMPROVED TOURING TO BE A NATIONAL CLASS BUT NOT A RUNOFFS ELIGIBLE CLASS?
WOULD YOU LIKE IMPROVED TOURING TO BE A NATIONAL CLASS INCLUDING BEING RUNOFFS ELIGIBLE?
Doesn't the National Body get a cut of what we pay now?
By being "national" would the cut be bigger?
Is it even a money issue? (Usually is.)
Now at least give this some consideration: (you anti states rights folks!
)Might IT be the huge success Stan has shown it to be BECAUSE it is a different animal from National racing and therefore a bigger draw.
Since it IS this huge success (and I think it has all to do with not going to the Holy Grail Runoffs
) Maybe it should be basically left alone and National should work out the details on getting more money from it, or include IT in National Racing without it's racers going to the Runoffs.Maybe the Poll should be:
DO YOU WANT THE IMPROVED TOURING CLASSES TO BECOME RUNOFFS ELIGIBLE?
WOULD YOU LIKE IMPROVED TOURING TO BE A NATIONAL CLASS BUT NOT A RUNOFFS ELIGIBLE CLASS?
WOULD YOU LIKE IMPROVED TOURING TO BE A NATIONAL CLASS INCLUDING BEING RUNOFFS ELIGIBLE?
shwah
New member
You are flat wrong. BOTH national and regional racing is club racing. Not is synonomous with club racing - IS club racing. What you just typed suggests that you have quite the elitists attitude towards the 'superiority' of regional racing vs. national racing, and paints a much clearer picture of the motives behind your argument.
thanks kirk, there may have been some embedded differences in people's posts, but i didn't recall anything specifically addressing the arguement.
1) while i agree that the marketing was more severe, and the perception of the newcomers *some* more ignorant/unknowing/etc, i think there's still a bit of the same dynamic at work in IT. just look at all the arguements in this thread about how prod/SS/T is so much more expensive to compete nationally. people still have the perception that you can be at least decently competitive with a less than $30k car. if it were to go nat'l, once it all shakes out, i think you're looking at something more than SM, but something less than prod to be competitive at the pointy end.
2) I'm pretty confident Mazda would extend the same offer to IT drivers. This could potentially put not just more drivers in Mazda's, but put a disproportionally large number of full-tilt Mazda's in the field, and likely at the front. You'd then get increased pressure from certain people for comp adjustments to "level" the field. Once it goes Nat'l, the CRB has increased control. But your right, that particular aspect is much stronger in SM than it would be in IT. at least as i see it.
3) agreed. but would people like conover/FOM not start to have a larger presence?
4) agreed. and yes i do think the ultra-big bucks have a decisive advantage in SM. the difference between 120hp/tires every 3rd weekend and 125hp/tires every weekend is pretty huge. of course there are diminishing returns, but that point is pretty far up there.
i agree that each singular hp you gain in IT gets you less of an advantage than it does in SM.
the real issue - yes, it is bad for me and what i think is the majority of IT drivers. but that's different than if it's bad for club as a whole. saying "SM is a failure" is pretty strong, and i don't think i've ever gone that far. i think there are a lot more people who wish it never went national than there are people who are glad it did. i'd also say that there's a very strong correlation between people's income brackets and those opinions. this gets into how each class, and the club as a whole wants to position itself competitively in the "market." IT right now is probably the best point-of-entry into club racing for fendered cars, but if the whole dynamic moves upmarket....then what?
i have more thoughts (as if anyone cared), but i'm rambling....
1) while i agree that the marketing was more severe, and the perception of the newcomers *some* more ignorant/unknowing/etc, i think there's still a bit of the same dynamic at work in IT. just look at all the arguements in this thread about how prod/SS/T is so much more expensive to compete nationally. people still have the perception that you can be at least decently competitive with a less than $30k car. if it were to go nat'l, once it all shakes out, i think you're looking at something more than SM, but something less than prod to be competitive at the pointy end.
2) I'm pretty confident Mazda would extend the same offer to IT drivers. This could potentially put not just more drivers in Mazda's, but put a disproportionally large number of full-tilt Mazda's in the field, and likely at the front. You'd then get increased pressure from certain people for comp adjustments to "level" the field. Once it goes Nat'l, the CRB has increased control. But your right, that particular aspect is much stronger in SM than it would be in IT. at least as i see it.
3) agreed. but would people like conover/FOM not start to have a larger presence?
4) agreed. and yes i do think the ultra-big bucks have a decisive advantage in SM. the difference between 120hp/tires every 3rd weekend and 125hp/tires every weekend is pretty huge. of course there are diminishing returns, but that point is pretty far up there.
i agree that each singular hp you gain in IT gets you less of an advantage than it does in SM.
the real issue - yes, it is bad for me and what i think is the majority of IT drivers. but that's different than if it's bad for club as a whole. saying "SM is a failure" is pretty strong, and i don't think i've ever gone that far. i think there are a lot more people who wish it never went national than there are people who are glad it did. i'd also say that there's a very strong correlation between people's income brackets and those opinions. this gets into how each class, and the club as a whole wants to position itself competitively in the "market." IT right now is probably the best point-of-entry into club racing for fendered cars, but if the whole dynamic moves upmarket....then what?
i have more thoughts (as if anyone cared), but i'm rambling....
shwah
New member
To pay someone to have any competitive car built would be VERY expensive, but why do we always talk in terms that assume every racer is a checkbook racer? The hours and skills involved in building a competitve race car are significant - even in todays average IT car, but most of us invest a lot of our own hours, and skill (or lack thereof ) rather than raw dollars building and preparing our cars.
) rather than raw dollars building and preparing our cars.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Ah, see, that depends on your definition, Travis.
In different areas, you have different truths.
Here in the North East, i have a pal. He (I wrote this earlier, sorry to repeat) bought a $3500 dollar car, and goes racing locally in Regionals. He places top 5 every time out, and he's a rookie. I think he's scored a 2nd in one year on the track. He bought an E prod car.
Then there's ITA...Bettencourt, and Amy, and Serra et al. Serra sold his car for a reported 20K or so. The top guys do well at the ARRCs, so the competition level is fairly high, but it's not dirt cheap.
Yet you see 25 car ITA fields routinely in the area.
And 3- 6 car E-prod fields. (maybe a bit more E Prods at a National race)
So, regionally, spend $3500 and go trophy a class, or spend $20K and fight for a possible trophy in a class.
Seems to me that there's something attractive about IT other than pure budget issues.
Or put another way, you see the budget issue as being a major impediment in the growth and health of a class, yet statistics don't bear that out.
I suggest that items like class stability and a ruleset that's not too much, yet not too little have a larger bearing.
No matter if "National" or "Regional" or "Divisional" is what the IT category becomes, I, and I predict the entire ITAC, will fight to the death to protect the cornerstone philosophies of the category. They are WHY the category is successful, in my opinion.
Kirk,
The Mazda ladder system wasn't the carrot, it came later. Shops were building rentals from the start. SM was a HOME RUN because it was like IMPROVED TOURING... a really cheap easy place to race. Going National just escalated things. I know I was part of it. I don't see Tom's or any other Shop owner's opinion on "sucks or not" meaning squat in the grand scheme. Those guys (God Bless them cause they are a great help) are part of this as a business. The higher things go the bigger the margin. More doodads more dollars.
SM is not a good or bad subject as it is now. It is very different after changing to national classification. IT is close to what SM was with maybe some even better attributes.
Travis and I have been down the path you guys are pushing. We have been a part of the fallout. Makes us a little gun shy of it going that way with changes to IT.
I think we will both listen.
The Mazda ladder system wasn't the carrot, it came later. Shops were building rentals from the start. SM was a HOME RUN because it was like IMPROVED TOURING... a really cheap easy place to race. Going National just escalated things. I know I was part of it. I don't see Tom's or any other Shop owner's opinion on "sucks or not" meaning squat in the grand scheme. Those guys (God Bless them cause they are a great help) are part of this as a business. The higher things go the bigger the margin. More doodads more dollars.
SM is not a good or bad subject as it is now. It is very different after changing to national classification. IT is close to what SM was with maybe some even better attributes.
Travis and I have been down the path you guys are pushing. We have been a part of the fallout. Makes us a little gun shy of it going that way with changes to IT.
I think we will both listen.
No sir, we are not in this together. Nationals/Runoffs are not the sum total of Club Racing. They are part of club racing. A part in which the majority of drivers do not regularly compete. A part whose needs/demands/hunger has been placated by Topeka without reference or regard to the part of club racing that is the largest part. If these were to vanish off the face of the earth tomorrow, there would be little or no impact on the vast majority of competitors.
Those advocating moving IT to National are asking US to pay the cost for someone else's benefit. The socialist mantra of the good of the many over the good of the few doesn't even apply here - WE, regional only drivers regardless of category, are the many. Sorry, but the good of the few over the good of the many doesn't fly.
Let's look at the problems:
1. Attendence at the Runoffs has stunk.
2. Participation in several National-level classes is way off, across the board at both regionals and nationals.
3. Participation might be down for all nationals, across the board.
What are the causes of these problems?
The venue, both location and layout. This feeds into the other two problems - dying classes/categories and generally lower car counts across the board.
Why is participation down, across the board and in particular categories, in nationals? Most likely twofold - the venue and the consequences made by the advisory committees of these groups. Their own drivers do not want to participate in these classes anymore. Moving IT to National doesn't change that and so, will not "save" thse classes/categories.
In addition, they (BoD) have added a new category - Touring- that pulls these drivers into other places.
So exactly how is adding IT going to save these decimated categories? Exactly how is club racing stronger when my regional program loses racers to Nationals, forcing my entry fee to increase and further driving racers to stop racing?
I'm sorry, but this idea stinks like liquid manure and it won't even make my roses bloom.
Sorry, but unless and until Prod and GT and SS and Touring and Formula cars get their own houses in order all this is simply screwing us without even a good night kiss.
Synonymous = Equivalent in connotation.
Something good for national racing or the Runoffs is not in any way, shape or form the equivalent of saying that something is good for Club Racing.
Example: Hypothetical rule: every driver entering any SCCA race is required to enter and run in that year's Runoffs. In addition, the must also enter 4 National races.
Runoff entries and national entries increase. total club racing entries go into the can.
>> Those advocating moving IT to National are asking US to pay the cost for someone else's benefit.
Help me understand what you think those costs are.
>> ... the real issue - yes, it is bad for me and what i think is the majority of IT drivers. but that's different than if it's bad for club as a whole.
Let's say I come up with a sponsorship pool of loot, prizes, and pro-ride incentives from 10 manufacturers, and make IT a contingency heaven on earth - $1000 for each Regional win. One race WC Touring seat for a regional championship. A full season drive in Koni Challenge to the triple crown winner and runner-up. A GA Porsche team, fully funded at next year's Rolex 24, for the IT class winners at the Longest Day 24 hours...
This package has the potential to make the category insanely attractive. It will dramatically increase ante for those running up front. It's certainly going to inflate competitive pressures. Spending will increase accordingly.
Who here thinks my plan is good for IT? Who does not?
K
Help me understand what you think those costs are.
>> ... the real issue - yes, it is bad for me and what i think is the majority of IT drivers. but that's different than if it's bad for club as a whole.
Let's say I come up with a sponsorship pool of loot, prizes, and pro-ride incentives from 10 manufacturers, and make IT a contingency heaven on earth - $1000 for each Regional win. One race WC Touring seat for a regional championship. A full season drive in Koni Challenge to the triple crown winner and runner-up. A GA Porsche team, fully funded at next year's Rolex 24, for the IT class winners at the Longest Day 24 hours...
This package has the potential to make the category insanely attractive. It will dramatically increase ante for those running up front. It's certainly going to inflate competitive pressures. Spending will increase accordingly.
Who here thinks my plan is good for IT? Who does not?
K
tell me what the intent, goals, and purpose of the class are and i'll answer.
shwah
New member
Thank you webster. National racing is not equivalent to club racing - it IS club racing. So is regional racing. Of course based on your posts regional racing is 'better' club racing and is the only thing that should be considered in decision making. I don't agree. The big picutre is more important.