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

[tnord]

My only comment is National racers on a whole enter less races than Regional racers do. The goal for a National racer is to qualify for the Runoffs. Divisional Championships exist but they have little to no importance to these drivers. That means 3 finishes and 1 start (4 entries) and a top 10 in Divisional Points gets you to the big show. No need to race any more than that.

The Current top 10 IT drivers in a Division enter more than 4 races to contest their Regional level Championship. This is where the hurt is going to come from with IT becoming a National Class. It will be in overall entries collected by the Regions and the resulting increase in event entries to cover those losses.

i don't think IT would pan out like this. SM is national, yet those guys all enter plenty of races because of the difficulty in finishing top 10 in pts.

the number of races entered has little to do with national/regional, and a lot to do with competition (or popularity as kirk likes to say).

 

[Knestis]

And I think this is important for you and the other ITAC members to act accordingly. I could see in some places on this thread it appeared as if the ITAC highly supported the concept and would go for it despite the membership. I'm not saying that was going to happen for sure, but it felt like that at some points in the dicussion.

Thanks,
Ron

If that's in response to my drilling, it's a mistaken perception. It's my pedantic nature coming through but you can COUNT on me to force discussions, in hopes that those involved will get to the real bases of their concerns, and so misconceptions can be surfaced. I learned a lot from this discussion re: inherent biases and assumptions of some of the arguments involved - considerations that would never have surfaced if first-version cases had been taken at face value.

For example, I learned that while it's popularly held that "SM going National" increased budgets of those running at the front of the class, there's no shared understanding of HOW that worked. That's something that needs to be addressed in this discussion somehow...

K

EDIT - ...but equally, it bears repeating that it is NOT safe to assume that everything will be AOK, as long as the ITAC simply does what IT drivers say they want.

 

[jjjanos]

Consider - DC Region had 64 IT cars entered in its first event. Those 64 cars will generate something like $91,000 in entries give or take what the entry for the Double will be this year.

If 25% of those entries go National racing, it's going to cost my Region $23K in entries, give or take. To break even, it means we would need to pull 73 more entries to our National. That's 57 drivers other than the 16 who I'm assuming have gone National.

So, let's say I pull all all 64 of the April entrants plus a real conservative estimate of 40 other NEDIV guys going for the Runoffs in NEDIV. (If I'm getting 25% of my IT drivers doing national, I'm guessing that there's more than 160 IT drivers in the rest of NEDIV or what I'll pull from upper SEDIV).

Sweet, I've covered my nut and we're actually going to make money. Now, here comes the tricky part, there's NFW the stewards are going to let me put more than 50 cars on course, especially if there's going to be a wide speed differential and there's no way we're going to run more than 8 race groups without really pissing off the volunteers. I've got to shoehorn 104 aditional cars into 8 groupings and some of those aren't going to mix.

Yep, it can done, but it's going to be sausage making.

Now, think about trying to do this at Lime Rock, where they can't put 50 cars on course and they can't run late.

Just something to consider...

 

[lateapex911]

Dave, I understand your point regarding the frequency of races attended by National vs Regional drivers, but i think a better question is WHY is the number so low in some cases?

I asked a few Prod and GT drivers this once, and the answers were:

1- It costs so much to travel to the tracks I have to travel to, there aren't many National races locally because of the rules.
2- It costs so much to maintain the car. i have a billet crank (or insert other high dollar custom weirdness) and it only has X hours of life and costs X gazillion dollars.
3- I don't HAVE to race more than the minimum, because as long as I hit the minimum, I get qualify. There just aren't enough guys in my class to have to beat any of them.

And so on.........

I suggest that if IT were a national class, the dynamic might change. Especially for the last reason.

I'd also suggest that there are reasons to think carefully about restructuring the qualifications process. It needs to be made less strenuous for people to try to qualify, so maybe more will ....

...but category (class) popularity is still the #1 driving force behind it all, and (not just in IT's case) that popularity is achieved due to a few core reasons, (like the absence of reason #2 above), and brings with it the elimination of reason #3.

 

[mom'sZ]

IMHO the IT rule set has a lot of gray areas. Many of them have been discussed at length on this forum usually without resolving them. Examples I can recall from recently include the spare tire and the crazy shifter in that mustang. Some, such as the spherical bearings and the ECU have been resolved with changes to the rules, but started life as folks pushing the gray. I can't help but think that if IT were to go national that folks would be more inclined to really start to push some of these gray areas.
Travis began to say the SM cam rules had been changed since going national. Andy quickly pointed out that the cam rules had never actually changed, but had merely been clarified. (sorry if I got the names or point of views wrong) But the point was/is that after SM went national, the typical lift and duration specs weren't enough to keep guys from fooling with the cams. Ramp speeds, opening and closing rates and god knows what were apparently being dinkered with and cast in stone specs had to be issued to keep the crazyness in check. Imagine the same thing in a non spec class like ours with some many different models.
Someone's earlier statement about us all excepting the classification 'process' being within 100 lbs. seems important also. I could see a lot more heat on the ITAC if a national championship were at stake. What if one model car started winning often even if it were just coinsidence? I've also heard 'a fully developed car hasn't been built yet' and 'your car isn't fully developed because it doesn't have a this or that' or 'no one races one anymore' lines to defend the classification process. (no offense meant to the ITAC, I think they have done a great job) If IT went national a lot more 10 tenths (fully developed) cars could start showing up. Outliner, tweeners and oddballs could become spoilers.
I think in many regions a sort of gentleman's agreement keeps people from pushing the limits. There is a sort of unspoken rule of what is excepted and what isn't. If folks start showing up from other regions to contest national points or a national championship is at stake things could change. I fear the IT rule set could end up getting a lot longer and more complex. More pressure to tighten the noise factor in the process. Endless bikering about classifications and legality. Sound familiar?
Andy Rowe

 

[Knestis]

>> I fear the IT rule set could end up getting a lot longer and more complex. More pressure to tighten the noise factor in the process. ...

A very real concern.

Kirk's opinion (shared by some ITAC folks, he's sure) - We can't enforce rules by writing them differently. Adding more verbiage just provides more words that can be repurposed by those interested in "going gray." If anything, I'd advocate for getting rid of some of the "clarifying" language that's made its way into the ITCS - particularly the "you can't do this" stuff.

In our system - love it or hate it - we are our own cops. We get, in practice, the interpretations that we're collectively willing to put up with. Go back through my rants here (last winter, particularly) and you'll see that I think there's been a general leaning among THIS group of IT drivers toward, uh, "clever" interpretations as being socially/culturally acceptable.

Someone shows up with a "replacement" cam (allowed under that clause), then it's simply got to be the same dimensions - even the ones that are hard to measure - as an OE part. Here's an example of an OE part - spin it on the Cam Doctor and compare the outcome with the "replacement." We do NOT need to write more rules to make that happen.

This issue is not ITAC business - that's EVERYONE'S business. And (yet again) it's got to be handled irrespective of National status status.

K

 

[tnord]

Someone shows up with a "replacement" cam (allowed under that clause), then it's simply got to be the same dimensions - even the ones that are hard to measure - as an OE part. Here's an example of an OE part - spin it on the Cam Doctor and compare the outcome with the "replacement." We do NOT need to write more rules to make that happen.

K

well.....then all of the first generation pro-motor SM cams will remain legal in IT. keep in mind they were OEM parts with a Mazda PN on them. how they measure up to another one doesn't really matter, but how they measure up to the specs in the FSM does.

anyway....that's another topic.....mom'sZ expresses the exact same concerns i did earlier. 100lbs within target will not be acceptable to the RO crowd. i'm just warning "you."

 

[jjjanos]

If anything, I'd advocate for getting rid of some of the "clarifying" language that's made its way into the ITCS - particularly the "you can't do this" stuff.

I'm curious why you feel this. If it's unclear or open to interpretation, then wouldn't that part of the rules be out of the ITAC's jurisdiction and upto the judicial process? For example, roll cage mounting plates. The rules give the area and the minimum thickness, but isn't the maximum thickness subject to the subjective "serve no other purpose" rule? (I seem to recall a Miata getting bounced for some incredibly heavy mounting plate as a result of a protest.) That puts the decision in the hands of SoMs and the CoA. A driver could be protested at Portland, win and take the identical car to Sears Point and get bounced.

Maybe I'm wrong, but saying you can't do X, Y or Z doesn't give people license to do A, B and C. Or does it?

 

[mom'sZ]

I'm curious why you feel this. If it's unclear or open to interpretation, then wouldn't that part of the rules be out of the ITAC's jurisdiction and up to the judicial process? ...
... Maybe I'm wrong, but saying you can't do X, Y or Z doesn't give people license to do A, B and C. Or does it?

To keep the discussion on topic (IT going national) please see earlier threads concerning rules rewrite
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22920
and writing a good rule
http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22779
or to save time I'll quote Kirk's comment from post #12 from first linked thread
>>>That said, I COMPLETELY support Andy's effort to get rid of the "you can'ts" - it won't fix everything but it will head off one way that rules get subverted.<<<

 

[Dave Patten]

Jake,
I'll give you some of my personal experiances on going from Regional to National racing and why I say those that focus on National Racing will more than likely run less events than they did racing Regionals.

In 2007 I raced in NEDiv in GTL, 6 National races over 5 weekends plus the Runoffs. It took 15 vacation days to cover the Friday race days (LRP & Pocono double), the Runoffs and travel time. If I stayed within a 4 hour drive of my home I could have raced 8 weekends at Regionals and used only 4 vacation days to do it. And let’s not forget the fuel costs for towing. ($1200+ in fuel costs to go to the Runoffs at $3.25/gallon, make that $1600 for 2008)

By focusing on National racing the idea of damaging your car at a non-point Regional becomes a huge concern when there is only like 8-9 events in your Division you can earn points at for a Runoffs invitation. This is a huge detraction from entering Regionals for these drivers.

This is why I say the total event entries (Regional & National) will drop for any particular Region rather than stay even. I suppose everyone will have a differing opinion on what could happen and until IT becomes a National class no one can say with any certainty what the results will be. I don’t have the numbers but the SM statistics might show some trends of giving a Regional class, National status regarding total annual entries.

 

[Knestis]

Wrote this last night when the site was down but cleverly saved it when it didn't submit. It might still be pertinent - K


* * *

do you agree that there will be one "cherry" car for whatever the current RO track is?

No.

I think that a perception could easily arise that there IS one "best answer." However, in the grand scheme of things, considering all of the factors that contribute to this thing we call "competitiveness," I firmly believe that the make/model of car is not a statistically significant contributor.

There might well be some models that are out at the other end of the curve far enough that they are bad enough to be a problem, but driver skill, testing days, dyno time, and a bunch of other variables - all hinging on BUDGET - will pretty much trump the kind of metal box someone starts with. There are plenty of cars that have NEVER won a Regional, that The Greg Amy could win an ARRC IT race, given sufficient development budget.

An Old Fart story to illustrate: David Hobbs and Willy Ribbs won almost every Trans-Am race in 1983 (a formative year for me), driving a pair of those "stock car" chassis Camaros we talked about earlier. The cars were kind of nappy, frankly - partially (I was told) because the team owner and crew chief believed in lots of testing, so they got miles put on them.

About the same year (plus or minus one), another team was trying to develop a Mercedes 450SL for the same series. It was underfunded and didn't have much success.

Now, did the Camaro have an unfair advantage when DeAtley won the title? So what if DeAtley had had the SAME success but been the only team running the Mercedes? Did your answers consider that there were other Camaro runners in '83? How do we separate out the influences? How are perceptions influenced by our assumptions?

* * *

After the ARRC, there was talk about those damned MkIII Golfs. All three of them were essentially new and pretty much top-shelf builds. Was it the platform or the effort? At the last VIR Regional, I had little luck matching the pace of one of the same cars, but its team partner MkII Golf was right there, like within hundredths.

Was it about the CAR or the drivers? Those pesky Canadians had spent the entire previous day testing in the wet. I'm fair-to-good in the rain and was almost 2 seconds short in the same conditions in practice, with the same tires. Make? Model? Rust. (Not on the car - on me.)

Perception says "you gotta build a Whatsis GT if you wanna win the IT National Championship," so a few serious competitors do it. They spend big, develop, practice, get good, and run up front. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

K

 

[Knestis]

well.....then all of the first generation pro-motor SM cams will remain legal in IT. ...

I'm not going to rehash all of this except to repeat that there are rules and there's enforcement of rules. I've made the comparison to the legislative and judicial branches of our government: Both must be working in concert for the system to function. In this case, the real issue is whether those branches/functions are all adhering to the same first principles. That's where you all come in, making sure that everyone involved knows your big priorities for the category.

K

PS - Oh, bugger. Can't resist! On the cam issue, you're doing a GREAT job of perpetuating a myth and are therefore part of the cultural/organizational problem (see comments about "getting what we ask for"). There are 9 million dimensions on my car, only a handful of which are in the FSM. I can be illegal if any of them are wrong. If I diddle with parts to lower the engine and gearbox, am I legal just because the FSM doesn't provide the specific dimensions describing where it's supposed to be?

The "lift and duration" defense crapola is "tech shed legal" silliness. Caving to pressure and trying to stipulate every single dimension is only enabling the behavior of those who are getting clever. "Hah! They had to change the rules so I must have been RIGHT!" Bravo. Sierra.

 

[jhooten]

Thanks for the insight Jerry. I guess my impressions may be a few years old. It was not that long ago that SW div was a one track division but that has certainly changed in the last few years. Has the number of IT and other regional only cars increased down there? At our last regional we had 53 It cars out of just over 150 cars.

We now have 4 approved tracks in the division with three seeing most of the action.

C is all but dead
B has a handful of cars on any given weekend
A is going strong
S has a few cars each weekend
R is off to a slow start but new cars show up every weekend
E has between 3 and 6 each race.
SRX7 still has it's core die hards

Now that SM has their own run group and SP has been moved to the big bore group our group puts 20-35 cars on track depending on the track and time of year. Drivers come and go, we seem to have been holding steady for several years now. We have lost some to NASA but picked up enough new drivers to keep even or grow a little.

 

[tnord]

No.

I think that a perception could easily arise that there IS one "best answer." However, in the grand scheme of things, considering all of the factors that contribute to this thing we call "competitiveness," I firmly believe that the make/model of car is not a statistically significant contributor.

not statistically significant? seriously? i can't count the number of times i've heard that certain cars suit certain tracks well (CRX at MO, Miata at LRP?, anything with big motor at RA, etc), or that the process isn't meant to balance cars on the tip of a pin, but more like the head of the nail. this very philosophy of classifying cars means that there will be one theoretical best option for each track.

There might well be some models that are out at the other end of the curve far enough that they are bad enough to be a problem, but driver skill, testing days, dyno time, and a bunch of other variables - all hinging on BUDGET - will pretty much trump the kind of metal box someone starts with. There are plenty of cars that have NEVER won a Regional, that The Greg Amy could win an ARRC IT race, given sufficient development budget.

After the ARRC, there was talk about those damned MkIII Golfs. All three of them were essentially new and pretty much top-shelf builds. Was it the platform or the effort? At the last VIR Regional, I had little luck matching the pace of one of the same cars, but its team partner MkII Golf was right there, like within hundredths.

and there are plenty of people out there that could win the ARRC in Greg Amy's car.

anyway, that's just the thing about this "hinging on BUDGET" comment. Budget no longer becomes an issue for a large chunk of the field at the ROs. i'm not so sure that there really are any 100% builds out there in IT right now, some darn good ones for sure, but 100% i question. within a couple years, a change to national would bring 15+ real 100% builds out there of differing options for each class, each with a driver capable of winning. mix in a week of testing, a week of qualifying, and a race. the result is you get some seriously good data on identifying trends for that track.

 

[tnord]

PS - Oh, bugger. Can't resist! On the cam issue, you're doing a GREAT job of perpetuating a myth and are therefore part of the cultural/organizational problem (see comments about "getting what we ask for"). There are 9 million dimensions on my car, only a handful of which are in the FSM. I can be illegal if any of them are wrong. If I diddle with parts to lower the engine and gearbox, am I legal just because the FSM doesn't provide the specific dimensions describing where it's supposed to be?

The "lift and duration" defense crapola is "tech shed legal" silliness. Caving to pressure and trying to stipulate every single dimension is only enabling the behavior of those who are getting clever. "Hah! They had to change the rules so I must have been RIGHT!" Bravo. Sierra.

i don't really know what "myth" i'm perpetuating, because what were legal cams per the FSM, suddenly became illegal in mid-2006. and not only the pro-motor cams either, some coming out of crates weren't passing either.

don't like to deal with this type of stuff kirk? National probably isn't a good idea then. have fun trying to determine legality for 20+ year old cars like the TR8. don't think it'll be an issue? think again. yeah yeah...i know...police your own patch...throw paper...it's our responsibility...etc etc. an idealistic view that would be nice, but doesn't really pan out. how am i supposed to protest something that meets the specs in every piece of documentation there is?

 

[dickita15]

and there are plenty of people out there that could win the ARRC in Greg Amy's car.

Of course there are horses for courses, but I think that we jump to the conclusion of which they are way to quickly. Remember Bob Stretch taught us the 240sx was unbeatable in ITA at RA until Anthony Serra did it. So now we have the truth the Integra is unbeatable at RA even though plenty showed up that could not win, but the fact are clear the teg in the car to have until the egg beat it. Ok now we know the truth, the Nx is the car to have for the Arrc.
Trust the process and of course bitch slap anyone who tries to tamper with the process.

 

[Knestis]

>> ...the process isn't meant to balance cars on the tip of a pin, but more like the head of the nail. this very philosophy of classifying cars means that there will be one theoretical best option for each track.

The processes put in place in attempts to "solve this problem" got Production to where it is today, paved the way for SS trunk kits and escalating performance, and got the GT folks SIRs. Based on what I think hear people saying about their perceptions of the success of IT, I don't think those are better answers regardless of what events are called or how points are accrued.

K

 

[shwah]

i don't really know what "myth" i'm perpetuating, because what were legal cams per the FSM, suddenly became illegal in mid-2006. and not only the pro-motor cams either, some coming out of crates weren't passing either.

The myth is that just because the FSM specs are not all encompasing, that you have the freedom to do whatever you like in those areas. I don't care what number is stamped on those cams, if they are not the same as a stock from the showroom floor car, they are not legal .period. There is no rule that states cams must match FSM specs (edit - well actually there is, does that shoot a hole in this whole argument? It hinges on definition of factory specifications, and whether that is manufacturing specs or FSM specs), there is more importantly no rule that allows use of a cam other than stock - you put one of those 'magic cams' in a cam doctor next to a cam purchased from the local dealership parts counter and they don't match - in any measurable way within the capability of the measuring equipment - then it ain't legal.

There is no FSM specification for the internal shape and volume of my intake manifold - does that make it A-OK for me to source the castings and make some new ones that flow better and look the same, including the VW part number?

EDIT - see edit note above, I should double check before posting...
Here is the rule in discussion. (sorry it is so small)

p. All engine components not otherwise listed in these rules shall
meet factory specifications for stock parts. Where factory
specifications are absent or unclear, e.g., cylinder head thickness
and/or combustion chamber depth, etc., the Club may
establish an acceptable dimension and/or allowable tolerance
from stock. Engine compartment cosmetic trim pieces may be​

removed.

 

[tnord]

Of course there are horses for courses, but I think that we jump to the conclusion of which they are way to quickly. Remember Bob Stretch taught us the 240sx was unbeatable in ITA at RA until Anthony Serra did it. So now we have the truth the Integra is unbeatable at RA even though plenty showed up that could not win, but the fact are clear the teg in the car to have until the egg beat it. Ok now we know the truth, the Nx is the car to have for the Arrc.
Trust the process and of course bitch slap anyone who tries to tamper with the process.

my point didn't come across very clear, my fault.

the point was that Greg Amy is not some 'magical' driver that could win in any car at any track any where. the point of the comment was only to de-emphasize what i felt was kirk's over-emphasis of the driver. it takes equal parts car and driver to win the RO, and i felt like kirk was communicating it was more like 75% driver 25% car.

 

[tnord]

>> ...the process isn't meant to balance cars on the tip of a pin, but more like the head of the nail. this very philosophy of classifying cars means that there will be one theoretical best option for each track.

The processes put in place in attempts to "solve this problem" got Production to where it is today, paved the way for SS trunk kits and escalating performance, and got the GT folks SIRs. Based on what I think hear people saying about their perceptions of the success of IT, I don't think those are better answers regardless of what events are called or how points are accrued.

K

Kirk i completely agree that the current IT process of balancing cars is better than the trunk kits, SIR, etc method. All I'm saying is that there will be a theoretical best car for each given track, and that participating in the RO would put a far greater emphasis on one specific track, resulting in more people building that specific car, creating pressure from both membership and the CRB to "equalize the field."

i hope the system doesn't succumb to those pressures....it's just how i see this playing out.