IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?

[Knestis]

... Manufacturer involvement is something we need to avoid in IT. Contingency awards are good. Manufacturer lobbyists cause problems. Manufacturer involvement happens when their new cars are racing. I will agree that they will be more likely to care about IT if it's national. The 5-year-rule is insulation against this effect. I like the insulation. We need the insulation. We should bolster the insulation somehow (especially should IT be eligible for Runoffs), not reduce it.

PS: Kirk, you get an AMEN from me too.

If I believed that it was that simple, I'd agree totally with what you suggest. My point - incompletely made - is that "age" is not the sole issue. In fact, it's largely irrelevant since as I explained, it's damn near possible to run current cars in IT as things stand. As further evidence, consider the many examples of National classes that get no real attention from manufacturers.

No, what matters is "popularity," and we could get POPULAR enough for this to be an issue, even absent National status or a championship. We need to identify what REALLY insulates the rules from manufacturer meddling and focus on THAT, rather than get distracted by what events are called or what year the participating cars might be.

Kirk (who's going racing NEXT weekend)

 

[JoshS]

As further evidence, consider the many examples of National classes that get no real attention from manufacturers.

My assertion is that the reason that manufacters don't pay attention to those classes is because, generally speaking, there aren't any current cars in those categories.

Is it just my Showroom Stock and Touring history showing through, where almost everything competitive is still available in a new car showroom?

 

[JeffYoung]

I vote we move IT to the Swamp Buggy Racing Association of America.

 

[Knestis]

...and toss Jeff into the 'sippi hole with the Swamp Queen.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Hell yeah! And I'll have my windshield washer bottle right there with me!

 

[lateapex911]

So we know where Kirk, Andy, Jake stand how about the other keepers of the rules? What are there personal takes on the subject?

You do? The only thing you know about my stand is that I will defend the cornerstone principle of IT no matter what. I haven't made up my mind, because I don't know what the "deal" is.....
But, that doesn't mean I can't debate points, and defend roles.

In simple terms I think he said that the different levels of Grand Poobahs who decide SCCA stuff can't, won't, hate to mess with, the classes that are screwed up because of political fallout. At least I think that is what I read.
If so..........HOUSTON we have a problem........and doing this end run with the IT bigwigs onboard (and I mean that nice) is not solving much if anything.

What end run?? WHAT...EXACTLY is being proposed? A couple people ask an opinion of the members?? And that's a BAD thing?

And honestly, if I were there, the conversation might have gone like this:
Him: "hey IT guys, any interest in IT becoming a Nationals category and Runoffs eligible?"
Me: "Huh????? You mean nothing else changes, the Regional/National programs stay as is????"
Him: "Well, (A) yes"
Me: (A) "That question is WAY too complicated for me to answer now."
Him ( "Well the National/ Regional thing is being discussed"
Me: ( "Then I'll answer when there's a specific proposal"
Him: "Can you give me any clue?"
Me:"It depends, if certain issues were fixed, and certain requirements were met, then yes, I'd be open minded and would consider it. As it stands now, I'd be skeptical"

[/quote]
You think that SM contact situation won't happen in IT......... PUHLEEESSSEE. For a Runoffs shot people from higher dollar classes will crossover and in their cheaper (relative) car will dang sure lay more then a fender on ya! Wait and see, it will be great to watch.[/quote]

Again, different class, different maturity, and honestly, it is OUR responsibility to write the paper, and it is OUR responsibility to DEMAND that we are listened to, ....but WE are responsible for allowing things to get where they are (in certain regions as you claim). And I've written paper, I've seen the system teeter on the edge of failing, and I've made noises and pushed people to fix it. It's up to each one of us...not the other guy.

It sounds to me that IT going national is high on the personal agenda of some members of the ITAC.

"It sounds" ???? Provide quotes. Honestly- you don't know what's in my mind.

And that's the view of the current ITAC consisting of people who picked the category as it now stands.

You sir have NO idea why I "picked the category" or why I am on the ITAC, or my role in the past or my views on the future. You seem intelligent, albeit very opinionated, and rather snooty, but you are reading things into statements that don't exist. If you want to know why I picked the category, or chose to be on the ITAC, ask. But don't tell me.

Or how about a pilot program? Since there no longer is any need to qualify for the Runoffs, put ITA on the schedule as a bona-fida medal getting class and let anyone who ran finished 4 or more races in an ITA sprint race attend. Let's see how many people show up.

I am very positive that you'd see a field that would embarrass over 50% of the other classes, bot in terms of participation, and competitiveness.

 

[lateapex911]

I would say the national office is threatening the national sedan classes. They, the national office, are pissed at the prod, gt and touring guys that are saying FU because we all dislike Heartland Park and are chosing not to go to that crap-ass track. The runoffs are the national offices piggybank. Look at how much of there operating budget comes from that one event. The IT crowd being considered, in part, is because you guys would fill in were many of us have walked away. And then they could use the IT crowd as there cash cow. Can you guys all MOO for the national office. Oh and leave your wallets at the gate.
Chris Howard

Chris, why not provide the backing information, aka, the financial numbers to prove your point?

Second, Prods runoffs performance has been less than impressive for long before the move to Kansas. I submit that the issues are much more long standing than any recent change in Runoffs venue.

 

[jjjanos]

And help the ITAC by recognizing that we can't rely on simply doing what the most - or the most vocal - IT racers want. That's an operational definition of "fearing political fallout." Opponents will look at the 2:1 vote to not go National and say, "See? We must leave it the way it is!" Will you be so agreeable with that argument when the vote on the next issue comes out in the same proportion, but AGAINST what you think is right? I'll bet you all a beer that many of the decisions that "ruined" [fill in your boogie man class here] were made by people who thought they were doing what their constituents wanted them to do.

I think some of the past major restructings were made by selling the participants a pig in a poke, i.e. tube-framed GT cars. I think the BoD has made decisions without asking and/or soliciting member input. I think people don't pay attention to what happens in other categories either through indifference or feeling that their opinion won't matter since they are not part of that category. E.g. How much weight would the ITAC put on a comment from a driver who races in GT1 and has never even driven. let alone owned, an IT car? How many of those drivers think it is even their place to interfere in a domestic squabble over in IT?

I worry that SCCA club racing doesn't have any substantive strategic plan established. It's scary to me that most club racers are fine with that, as long as they get what they want this season.

That's because many of them don't intend to participate life long. The enlist for a 5 year hitch and then they are out for 10 years.

Frankly, I'd be much less opposed to moving IT to National status if it was part of a comprehensive overhaul of Club Racing that was part of a strategic plan. Moving IT to National is just shock and awe. There is no reconstruction/rehabilitation/exit plan.

This is a major change in the club. It needs to be part of a fundamental restructuring or at least a comprehensive study. You don't add a second story to a one-story home without first seeing whether the foundation and the first story walls can support the weight. Doing this in isolation, something I fear is the plan, is build first and wait to see if you hear timbers snapping.

I worry that EVERYONE doesn't look at single-digit event participation numbers and see just how ludicrous it is to call something that looks like that a "National class." I tried to explain the old eligibility rule to a NASCAR guy one time, and he was utterly flabbergasted. It was really embarrassing, frankly.

Well, yeah, but stepping in and fixing those categories uninvited is akin to going two doors down and mowing your lazy neighbor's yard. Yep, it needed to be done. Yep, everyone else is better off now. Yep, you are likely to get a punch in the nose.

 

[IPRESS]

Jake,
Because I thought I might have lost my mind (which still might be true) after reading that you guys (You, Andy, & Kirk) are stull unbiased fence riders at this point, I made one of my assistants read the posts. He doesn't know squat about racing, SCCA, or even NASCAR.....thinks we are silly.
So he would not be just in my corner I had him skip my posts (I didn't want him to have more ammo on how dumb I am.) I just asked him to tell me who was for and who was against IT going National. He came away with you three in the FOR side. Which is the same thing I did and any other halfwit could see. Nothing wrong with that opinion. Heck Jake, the IT going National promo tour is on the Prod board, The Sandbox board, etc. (as you well know.) I call it the Promo Tour because no PTBer has really made ANY mention that IT could be making a mistake being a National Class. Lot's of "I want to run for a Nat. Championship,"...... but no......... "On the other hand there could be some problems that might not be so good." (Pretty much a promo.)
I have not seen one PTBer say something to the effect of, "MAYBE we don't need to go to THE RUNOFFS."
From our reps we have heard just the opposite.

Kirk,
Wouldn't IT be able to help / save the club by being a National Class without RO participation? Or is the "save plan", to draw those weak attended national classes into IT so the club can disolve the classes they are afraid to kill now? If so that is a sign that leadership needs to grow a pair!

Although not what you guys seem to want, the right path is to straighten out those classes and put an IT type control on them. If IT can be controlled (as you guys say) once it went National, then other already established national classes can be straightened out and ruled with an ITAC like iron fist. At somepoint history be damned, and you have to fix the broken. You don't break the successful trying to fix the other.
You guys seem to support the fix with IT being changed, because Runoffs glory might come with it. I can't fault ya'll for wanting to win the Runoffs, but I can disagree that ya'll want to do it in IT.
The answer (IMHO) lies in the BOD having a big enough sack to fix the weak classes and leave the strong as is. I don't know much about (anything I guess) Prod or Limited Prep, but that seems to be the two areas that are talked about most.

Hey and this isn't personal not even when I call ya'll Yankees and Charlie Priddles! I realize you guys work hard for the class and though I strongly disagree with the class going to the Runoffs, I doubt I would quit and run NASA full time.

 

[Knestis]

>> I think some of the past major restructings were made by selling the participants a pig in a poke, i.e. tube-framed GT cars.

Bzzzt - sorry, wrong.

I was crewing with a TransAm guy during that technical transition and there was substantial driver support for the shift - first in TransAm, then GT1 (when BP cars were even still alive), then the smaller classes, most notably GT3. At least where I was at the time, there was a real resurgence in GT3 under the emerging rules.**

It WAS a lot cheaper to build a new car using short track stock car technology, than it was to build a "ship in a bottle" faux tube chassis in a metal tub. And repair turn-arounds were a hell of a lot better. However, the change did NOTHING to decrease the total amount that a team was willing to spend. THAT'S your pig.

You continue to resist the suggestion that racers help create their own reality, and want to blame problems on the helicopter pilots in Kansas. Yeah - some entrants were pissed off that their technology go pre-empted with new technology but decision-makers simply can't do something that nobody wants.

I'm going to go back to 1 January 2008 and start an evil parallel universe set of IT rules, in which all requested rule changes are granted. What they look like by the end of December should be a good indicator of how afraid we should be of ourselves, absent any major disruptive influences like National status.

K

** One interesting sidebar to this period of change was when the Corvette teams petitioned to be allowed to use stick axles, because they were having trouble getting the IRS to work.

 

[lateapex911]

Mac, it's one thing to debate points, and call out "chicken little" arguments...they have a funny way of becoming "fact' in peoples minds. I am appalled at some of the arguments I've seen here. They show a huge lack or reasoning, NO critical thinking, and show how perceptions can totally skew reality.

So, I've sought to correct some mis information, or misconceptions..call them what you will.

You've read two messages from me:
1- We are all reacting to ???? We don't KNOW....We have no proposal in front of us, we don't know the terms of the deal, much less if there is even a deal!
and..
2- I will defend the cornerstone principals of the category in my role on the ITAC.

Oh, and Mac, if you think I'm in this to go to the Runoffs, look at the car I drive. My trip to the Runoffs will be aboard a Jet Blue plane.

Now some feel that they are able to predict the future, and tell me that I and the others in my position are powerless. Everyones entitled to an opinion. That's all I'm gonna say 'bout that. (credit Forrest G)

Now, we keep referring to Prod as an example of what we will become. Or Touring, or GT.

Has it occurred to anyone, that Prods problems are complex, and have taken decades to create? "Fix Prod" cry the masses. Well, duh. Like that's new news. You don't think the CRB has been down the PAC's neck for years? Have any of you READ the Prod board? I went and looked at the thread regarding "IT National" and whoo boy, there were some funny things said there! Talk about not getting it. And that is the problem, Prod has ceased to be relevant in todays amateur racing world, and of course, the stakeholders (some) don't get it, and are clinging to whatever they have. They welcome IT cars, (with mods) into classes as is..why? Because they will be uncompetitive and help the participation numbers! Duh. LOL.

How do you "fix Prod"?? You put their backs to the wall. Force them to make the tough decisions. Trust me, the ITAC has suggested methods to the CRB on how to help, but it's really not our place, is it? We're not allowed, as pointed out above, on their property. (and honestly, it's a completely different category, and I would hate to have to be in the position of a PAC guy. They have a VERY tough job...FAR harder than ours, I would think. And heck we are trying to do OUR jobs better. There's room for improvement, no doubt, and we are moving in the right direction)

They need to fix their own world. If they are given the right incentive...extinction...they might just do it. Or not. But anything other than that has proven to be ineffective in righting the listing ship. Sorry to say that, but that's my view from where I sit. Overall, Prod (I should say, certain Prod classes, E-prod does quite well, for example) isn't doing the club much good. It's taking space at the Runoffs, and those long time stakeholders resist changes that are good for the category, but bad for them personally.

If I were the Grand Poobah of SCCA, I would have to consider lots of options, and one of them would be to remove the artificial limitations on which classes get which status. I'd look seriously at the National/Regional distinction, and the "requirements" for National races/participation, etc. I'd take a hard look at the role of regions, and try to devise a way to preserve the freedom regions need, yet bolster the overall programs.

Carlos Goshen (sp) (head of Nissan/ Renault) once said, "There is no problem so great that good product can't solve"

But, I'm not the Poobah.

 

[lateapex911]

I'm going to go back to 1 January 2008 and start an evil parallel universe set of IT rules, in which all requested rule changes are granted. What they look like by the end of December should be a good indicator of how afraid we should be of ourselves, absent any major disruptive influences like National status.

K

Kirk, excellent! that means I can use lexan for my windows...oh...drat, that's right, that was only for Z cars, right?

Oh, but better...I can use any injector I want! Oh, wait, I have a carb.

And I can change to 7" rims...only if I were in ITB or C.

 

[rabbidmk1]

Or better yet we could have a ‘paddock checklist’, if you have 3 or more of the following, you can’t place in regional race: data acquisition, fancy-schmancy stick-on graphics, someone other than yourself that works on your car (other drivers excluded), Hoosier rains, communication system, someone to communicate with on communication system, dedicated pit bike/transportation, enclosed trailer with black and white checkered floor, hmm.. What else???

This comment really offends me. I have every one of these listed items that you seem to deem unfair excluding the hoosier rains. What does any of this have to do with making someone eligible to race a regional? I am 24 years old and have raced IT for 7 years now. Just as of recently I have been blessed with friend who likes to work on cars and cannot afford to race them, an enclosed trailer which I installed the checker floor in and have now rigged up a communication system that I scrounged up for free. I am racing on a college student, under 30K a year salary. Yes I am a front runner, but NONE of these items are what make me fast, they just make life at the track a little easier. And how do "fancy vinyl" have to do with going fast. OK, I'll take all of mine off to please you but just know that all of my sponsors will pull their support which would make it near impossible to race ever again. Get a clue... :026:



I vote to go national. I already spend enough $$$ where I am at and would look forward to racing with people who want to put equal effort and time into working towards further improvement or advancement.

 

[tnord]

kirk i echo your concerns regarading lack of strategic vision. i've seen first hand what that can do to a company.....i work for one who is currently struggling with that, and is getting destroyed in the market place.

i echo your viewpoint on the flat-out laughing matter that is class participation requirements for both individual competitors and classes to make the big show. the CRB/BOD has received letters from me about that in the past.

i also reluctantly recognize the challenges we'll have to face with regard to new levels of control and sophistication done through the ECU. i have no idea the solution to that problem though.

you make mention of how it's all of our responsibility to oversee this and that, force the class to stay true to its form, etc etc. but ya know what? this isn't our full time job, and people don't want it to be. you can criticize people all you want for being ignorant and uninformed about current issues....but for pete's sake, this is club racing. it's a hobby. bless your heart for serving on the ITAC in addition to your regular job, but for 90% of us, having to invest that kind of time and effort takes the fun out of it.

It's like the IT racer who thinks that the only thing wrong with the rules is the damned stock engine mounts - if we could just get that ONE stupid rule fixed, things would be fine. Problem is, the guy in the paddock space next door is fine with the engine mounts he's got, but REALLY thinks ITB cars should be on 7" wheels - and why are the ITAC members so fixated on preventing that one sensible change? Except the next dude can't find wheel cylinders for his car anymore so the ONLY thing that needs to be fixed is to let him update to rear discs from a newer model from the same manufacturer. But the next guy is fine with his brakes, he just KNOWS that...

Is this making sense?

what, you mean like the ECU thing? i tried to fight that....i was WAY in the minority. i hope everyone has a friend who has a dyno.

 

[fiat124girl]

I vote we move IT to the Swamp Buggy Racing Association of America.

Oh my gosh, I have always wanted to do that!! There is one young lady who is quite good at swamp buggy racing and she always wears a cow costume in her buggy. How funny is that!

This just looks like so much fun!!!!

Okay, back on topic, I still do not see the problem with simply getting rid of the regional/national distinction and allow the best subscribed classes to the runoffs.

 

[jjjanos]

>> I think some of the past major restructings were made by selling the participants a pig in a poke, i.e. tube-framed GT cars.

Bzzzt - sorry, wrong.

I was crewing with a TransAm guy during that technical transition and there was substantial driver support for the shift - first in TransAm, then GT1 (when BP cars were even still alive), then the smaller classes, most notably GT3. At least where I was at the time, there was a real resurgence in GT3 under the emerging rules.**

It WAS a lot cheaper to build a new car using short track stock car technology, than it was to build a "ship in a bottle" faux tube chassis in a metal tub. And repair turn-arounds were a hell of a lot better.

Hmmm, I see to remember the extinction of the low alphabet production classes and the sedans as being cocommitant with the introduction of GT and the tube-framed cars and a deliberate outcome. I seem to remember the intent was to do this to the remaining production classes as well but they dug their heels in at what was proposed for them down the road. I believe the mantra was "it's cheaper." Which has always been a load of crap. Tube-frame is only cheaper and easier if you are a prep shop.

Repairs are easier and less expensive, true, but that doesn't mean much to a guy who parked his car because the rules just made it obsolete.

You continue to resist the suggestion that racers help create their own reality, and want to blame problems on the helicopter pilots in Kansas. Yeah - some entrants were pissed off that their technology go pre-empted with new technology but decision-makers simply can't do something that nobody wants.

Cow manure! Of course somebody wants it - it got proposed. It's whether the majority want it or just the elites. With the internet, there is greater depth in the input received, but back in the days of double-digit inflation and Jimmy Carter, that wasn't the case. Input was solicited from the circle surrounding the decision-makers and that was the crowd who was in favor of this because it made sense to them.

I remember regionals with a dozen or more AP and BP cars. I don't see that in GT1 now and some drivers have gone their entire career without seeing a GT2 or GT3 car.

How many IT drivers have provided input to suggested Prod rule changes? Not many. Simply reason - it's not their house, not their rules, they'll be ignored and it's none of my business. I did note that you didn't answer the question about how much value the ITAC would give to a GT1 driver supplying input. I'm guessing that either overtly or covertly, his opinion would not carry anywhere the same weight as the winner of the ARRC making a comment.

Your alt IT rules is an interesting diversion, but it won't be very informative without additional stats. You'll need to track how many drivers made a request and how many drivers competed. If one guy makes a 1,000 suggestions during the year, it's not the same as 1,000 drivers each making one request.

 

[lateapex911]

I did note that you didn't answer the question about how much value the ITAC would give to a GT1 driver supplying input. I'm guessing that either overtly or covertly, his opinion would not carry anywhere the same weight as the winner of the ARRC making a comment.

Interesting question. Kirk hasn't been on the ITAC long enough to know this, so I'll answer. Actually I HAVE gotten a request from an ARRC winner, and I have to tell you it bordered on preposterous, and very self centered...and completely ignored the basic premise of the IT rule set.

If a GT category participant wrote in with something well reasoned and thought out, it would get due consideration. Good ideas come from many places.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mac,

One thing that I DON'T do well is try and present both sides of issues without making it seem like one is what I believe. Often, bringing up the 'opposing' side of issues creates a perception that someone is in favor of that side of the debate. Often, the ITAC has heard many sides of these things and it can come out wrong.

So, to restate my position: I would like IT to be eligible for a NC. I would also revamp the whole structure (Nat/Reg) to make sure Regional racing stayed viable and National racers couldn't coast into a RO birth. That is neither here nor there.

But, just because I want a chance to run for a NC doesn't mean it is what the members want - or that it will be ultimately good for the SCCA or IT. I think it would, but I don't pretend to have a crystal ball.

 

[IPRESS]

Andy that is Fair enough right there. No we don't know what will happen... at least for sure, we just know what each of us thinks will happen.

I just felt compelled to argue so that what looked like it was becoming a lobby effort could be sort of neutralized. I am willing to wait and see.

Besides I don't want to get punted at SP next month.

 

[shwah]

Organizations? AFAIK, NASA is the only other national club that has a National Championship and a review of their class struture and championship results, IMO, makes it pretty clear that those seeking a NASA National Championship aren't doing it in IT-compatible cars.

You are right about that. Why would they care if the car is IT compatible? They have already decided that they won't be racing IT because it is regional only. Not everyone builds thier favorite car to race, lots build the one most likely to win the class they are in.