IT National? Anyone else have this experience at a driver's meeting this year?
- Thread starter shwah
- Start date
.......................... 
.......................... 
lateapex911
Super Moderator
TWO hundred? You think there will be two hundred IT cars at the runoffs?
Lets assume that, if this plan were to go through with minimum changes, that the "top 24 classes" will be invited.
I think we can probably eliminate ITC from contention. That leaves 4 IT classes. You think 50 guys will show in every class?
(If so, IT would make nearly EVERY category look like stooges, but I digress)
I think you're being optimistic in thinking we'll get 50 ITR cars. And 50 ITB cars sounds like a bit much too.
I'd bet the numbers would be more like: 45 ITA, 40 ITS, 30 ITB and 24 ITR cars, first year. That's 149 x 300= $44,700, not the 60,000 you suggest..
But wait, there's more....
Now, as everyone is fond of pointing out, IF IT were to go, it would DISPLACE other classes. Since those classes typically have 17 -22 entrants (A rough guess from my memory) that's 4 x 20 (avg) = 80.
So, take 80 away from the 149, and the actual increase is more like 69 entrants, or $20,700. Which is not exactly what you are representing.
And those numbers are rough of course, but gambles no matter what. I honestly wonder if the Dark Lords in Topeka are really going to alter the face of club racing for a possible $20K.
I suggest there might be other large picture items.
Lets assume that, if this plan were to go through with minimum changes, that the "top 24 classes" will be invited.
I think we can probably eliminate ITC from contention. That leaves 4 IT classes. You think 50 guys will show in every class?
(If so, IT would make nearly EVERY category look like stooges, but I digress)
I think you're being optimistic in thinking we'll get 50 ITR cars. And 50 ITB cars sounds like a bit much too.
I'd bet the numbers would be more like: 45 ITA, 40 ITS, 30 ITB and 24 ITR cars, first year. That's 149 x 300= $44,700, not the 60,000 you suggest..
But wait, there's more....
Now, as everyone is fond of pointing out, IF IT were to go, it would DISPLACE other classes. Since those classes typically have 17 -22 entrants (A rough guess from my memory) that's 4 x 20 (avg) = 80.
So, take 80 away from the 149, and the actual increase is more like 69 entrants, or $20,700. Which is not exactly what you are representing.
And those numbers are rough of course, but gambles no matter what. I honestly wonder if the Dark Lords in Topeka are really going to alter the face of club racing for a possible $20K.
I suggest there might be other large picture items.
that said NO.Bill Miller
New member
Hi guys, I'm back! Did ya miss me??? 
I actually read most of the 18 pages of this (I admit that I did skim a lot, and having a couple of people on 'ignore' made it more like 2 pages _kidding_ )
Anyway, there have been some very good points made. I should have taken notes through the whole thing though. Couple of things that I see.
If IT goes National, I think there will be definite pressure to tighten up the granularity of the classification process, as well as publish it. I also think you will have a case of all cars having their spec weights set at the process weight. No more "It's w/in xx lbs, so it's close enough.". You may be able to hold fast on the "no comp. adjustments", but I think you will have to publish the process, and set cars at their process weights.
People have brought up this 'path' or 'stepping stone' concept again. While it makes a nice story, and paints a tidy little picture, I think that it's really nothing more than a red herring, and goes back to the old notion that once IT racers decide they want to race 'real' [sic] race cars, they'll move to Prod or GT. How many people out there know someone that has gone from SS to Prod to GT? One of the things I've seen is that people pick a category for a variety of reasons. Anywhere from they want to race w/ a certain group of people to liking the freedom/limitations on what they can do to the cars to wanting to race a certain type of car. I don't believe the category structure w/in Club Racing was ever designed to be a 'progression' type of structure.
I've heard something about doing away w/ the Regional / National distinction, and having qualifying / non-qualifying races some place before, but I can't quite put my finger on where.
The only thing I'll say about IT attaining National status increasing the costs for anyone racing in IT is the same thing I've said before, look at the Prod/GT/SS/etc. efforts that show up at Regionals. Just because you have guys spending cubic $$$ on their National programs doesn't make the guy running his EP car in Regionals spend that kind of money (I stole the EP/Regional thing from Jake, but you could pick anyone that runs a National-eligible car in just Regionals).
As far as the impact on Regional car counts, I just don't think there's enough solid data to draw any kind of conclusion from. You may lose guys to Nationals, but you may also pick up folks that don't want to spend the huge $$$ to run Nationals, and like the fact that you will have less big-buck teams at Regionals.
The factory involvement thing is also another red herring (but, you need to keep the 5-year rule). Do you really think VWoA (or any other mfg) is going to up their involvement in Club Racing because you've got VW's running National IT races? Kirk, how much support did you get from VWoA when you ran your car as an SSC car?
And someone made a comment about the ITAC doing what was best for IT, and not necessarily doing what was best for Club Racing. It's no different than a corporation. Divisions have Divisional goals, but they need to be aligned with, and support the overall goals of the Corporation. Work to make the whole organization a success, or spin your Division off.
Kirk,
I'll admit that I didn't read your list on my first pass through this, but I will go back and read it.
I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
I actually read most of the 18 pages of this (I admit that I did skim a lot, and having a couple of people on 'ignore' made it more like 2 pages _kidding_ )
Anyway, there have been some very good points made. I should have taken notes through the whole thing though. Couple of things that I see.
If IT goes National, I think there will be definite pressure to tighten up the granularity of the classification process, as well as publish it. I also think you will have a case of all cars having their spec weights set at the process weight. No more "It's w/in xx lbs, so it's close enough.". You may be able to hold fast on the "no comp. adjustments", but I think you will have to publish the process, and set cars at their process weights.
People have brought up this 'path' or 'stepping stone' concept again. While it makes a nice story, and paints a tidy little picture, I think that it's really nothing more than a red herring, and goes back to the old notion that once IT racers decide they want to race 'real' [sic] race cars, they'll move to Prod or GT. How many people out there know someone that has gone from SS to Prod to GT? One of the things I've seen is that people pick a category for a variety of reasons. Anywhere from they want to race w/ a certain group of people to liking the freedom/limitations on what they can do to the cars to wanting to race a certain type of car. I don't believe the category structure w/in Club Racing was ever designed to be a 'progression' type of structure.
I've heard something about doing away w/ the Regional / National distinction, and having qualifying / non-qualifying races some place before, but I can't quite put my finger on where.
The only thing I'll say about IT attaining National status increasing the costs for anyone racing in IT is the same thing I've said before, look at the Prod/GT/SS/etc. efforts that show up at Regionals. Just because you have guys spending cubic $$$ on their National programs doesn't make the guy running his EP car in Regionals spend that kind of money (I stole the EP/Regional thing from Jake, but you could pick anyone that runs a National-eligible car in just Regionals).
As far as the impact on Regional car counts, I just don't think there's enough solid data to draw any kind of conclusion from. You may lose guys to Nationals, but you may also pick up folks that don't want to spend the huge $$$ to run Nationals, and like the fact that you will have less big-buck teams at Regionals.
The factory involvement thing is also another red herring (but, you need to keep the 5-year rule). Do you really think VWoA (or any other mfg) is going to up their involvement in Club Racing because you've got VW's running National IT races? Kirk, how much support did you get from VWoA when you ran your car as an SSC car?
And someone made a comment about the ITAC doing what was best for IT, and not necessarily doing what was best for Club Racing. It's no different than a corporation. Divisions have Divisional goals, but they need to be aligned with, and support the overall goals of the Corporation. Work to make the whole organization a success, or spin your Division off.
Kirk,
I'll admit that I didn't read your list on my first pass through this, but I will go back and read it.
I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
[
ITC makes the cut. Ranked #20 in total count and more popular, overall, than SSC, T2, T1, FT3, T3, and GP.
ITR will make the cut REAL soon, especially if it goes National, so kiss SSB bye too.
I think 180-200 IT cars over the 5 classes isn't unreasonable, especially since anyone running the minimum number of events gets an invitation. Heck, if you live 1 day away from the place, you might as well go. Move it further east and we're talking a HUGE number of cars.
The displaced classes had 134 drivers turn a wheel. So somewhere between 50 to 70 additional entrants or a 10% increase. Not too shabby, especially since Topeka takes a huge financial hit if it doesn't meet its guaranteed car count.
I believe the penalties for non-performance are pretty steep.
Plus, it's 25 races, so add SSB back. Net loss: 75 to 100 cars, SWAG.
Non-performance clause on car counts.
Here's my early May prediction. For 2008, Runoffs invitations will be extend to drivers who do not meet the GCR-mandated number of races to qualify.
ITC makes the cut. Ranked #20 in total count and more popular, overall, than SSC, T2, T1, FT3, T3, and GP.
ITR will make the cut REAL soon, especially if it goes National, so kiss SSB bye too.
Other than the Miatas and maybe the SRFS, yes.
I think 180-200 IT cars over the 5 classes isn't unreasonable, especially since anyone running the minimum number of events gets an invitation. Heck, if you live 1 day away from the place, you might as well go. Move it further east and we're talking a HUGE number of cars.
The displaced classes had 134 drivers turn a wheel. So somewhere between 50 to 70 additional entrants or a 10% increase. Not too shabby, especially since Topeka takes a huge financial hit if it doesn't meet its guaranteed car count.
I believe the penalties for non-performance are pretty steep.
Plus, it's 25 races, so add SSB back. Net loss: 75 to 100 cars, SWAG.
Non-performance clause on car counts.
Here's my early May prediction. For 2008, Runoffs invitations will be extend to drivers who do not meet the GCR-mandated number of races to qualify.
Last edited:
JoshS
New member
Maybe I just don't understand your point, but you know that's not true, right? You have to run the minimum number of events *and* finish in the top 10 in your division in points. I personally know people who have run enough national events, and yet not gotten an invitation due to their finishing position in division (as recently as 2006). And they would have gone, too.
For the 2007 Runoffs, I heard from multiple National drivers who did not "qualify" on final Divisional standing that invitations and pleading were extended to them to go. All had run sufficient events to qualify, but didn't finish high enough in the standings. Now maybe they were blowing smoke. Don't know.
I also can recall instances in other years when drivers has their entries accepted and ran but who were not invited. It's just that most drivers don't have the chutzpah to either submit entries w/o the invitation OR actually show up at the event w/o having submitted a pre-entry.
Production stayed away in droves last year. Lots of drivers said screw it; we'll run the Prod Fest at Goblins Go. I'm betting the number increases this year.
Their going to be hurting big time for cars. People went last year hoping the changes would improve the circuit. They aren't buying promises again and are feedup with the venue. Gas prices through the roof. Can't race on the equity line of credit any more. Hell, I think there's probably a 20% probability that at least one IT class will be part of the 2008 Runoffs and the only reasons I don't put the probability higher is because they don't want to PO the classes not invited and they'd have to find some way of deciding who to invite.
dickita15
New member
again we are speculating and drawing conclusions without having any idea how making IT National would fit into what could be a much larger revamping of club racing. For instance maybe they will propose all classes get to go to the runoffs but only the top say 16 get stand alone races and the rest get multiclass runoffs races. We really have no idea what will be decided or if a consensus decision can even be made.
Welcome back Bill
Welcome back Bill
Drew Aldred
New member
I'm not knocking increased Club revenues, just saying let's be clear about why there is even talk about making IT into National classes. Personally, I think IT has a great thing going for it the way it is right now. Had I not been exposed to prod racing as a kid when my dad raced the first time around, I probably would have gone the IT route when I started racing in 2001.
Kirk,
The motivation comes across as being less about helping IT and fixing the long-term problem and more about throwing yet another band-aid on the problem and hoping that the ticking time bomb has a snooze button so that the big boom happens when someone else is on the BoD. Same reason why Prod and GT and Sports Racers haven't received the major overhauls they've needed. Take the asprin to make the pain in the knee feel better when what you really need is a knew replacement.
Nor is it clear that this raises money for the Club, as a whole. Looking at the 2007 final standings, it's pretty obvious that there are alot of guys who do their 4 races and stop. Guys chasing regional-based championships tend to run more. Topeka will, however, get more $ for itself because of higher entry at the Runoffs.
...because under the current circumstances, maybe they can meet the requirements to qualify for the RubOffs in 4 races...? Would that be possible in a really well-subscribed IT class?
K
EDIT - and for Pete's sake, can we PLEASE stop talking about "Topeka" as if it's freakin' Baghdad or someplace...? THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE SCCA, JUST LIKE YOU. AND ME.
K
EDIT - and for Pete's sake, can we PLEASE stop talking about "Topeka" as if it's freakin' Baghdad or someplace...? THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE SCCA, JUST LIKE YOU. AND ME.
Yes.
http://www.sedivracing.org/National/Points07/index.html
3 of the qualifiers could have made it with 3 starts.
Over 50% could have done it with 4 starts.
http://www.grav.net/~nedivpoints/stats.pl?mem=SM
6 of the 11 drivers in the top 10 could have done it with 4 or less entries.
**maybe they can meet the requirements to qualify for the RubOffs in 4 races...?**
***EDIT - and for Pete's sake, can we PLEASE stop talking about "Topeka" as if it's freakin' Baghdad or someplace...? THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE SCCA, JUST LIKE YOU. AND.AND ME.
I agree K & I have never call Topeka anything except Topeka.
How about you start calling the Runoffs exactly that, the Runoffs.
***EDIT - and for Pete's sake, can we PLEASE stop talking about "Topeka" as if it's freakin' Baghdad or someplace...? THOSE PEOPLE ARE THE SCCA, JUST LIKE YOU. AND.AND ME.
I agree K & I have never call Topeka anything except Topeka.
How about you start calling the Runoffs exactly that, the Runoffs.The first line of Kirk's post reads "So, here's what I think might happen if IT were to "go National." Some of the consequences Kirk lists might be reasons for somebody, but everything Kirk lists may not come to pass.
If I was having a conversation with somebody and they said IT should be national my first question would be "Why?". If that can't be answered with some good reasons then the rest of the discussion becomes moot. I've read through this thread a couple times and don't recall seeing a succinct list of reasons why IT should be national. There's been lots of discussion about what people think will happen if IT does go national, but that's different IMO.
Why should IT be a national class? No long winded answers. A short, succinct list of reasons why IT should go national.
David
JoshS
New member
Some reasons I've heard:
- It doesn't make sense to have a nationally-managed ruleset and not allow it at National races. Why the special case?
- IT racers deserve the chance to compete for a national championship too.
- IT is a hugely successful ruleset. It could bolster the national ranks and Runoffs entries.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
- -IT racers have more options when it comes to scheduling races to attend, and choosing tracks.
- -IT could appear more attractive to newcomers in the areas of the country where IT is very competitive if the "bar" isn't always so high at Regional races.
- -Category could stand some increased self policing. Even a little has trickle down effects that are hard to define.
- -National status would increase contingency options.
- -Influx of "fence sitters". People from other sanctioning bodies, or from within SCCA that weren't actively racing in IT for various reasons.
The problem with "why?" is that it requires a value judgment. Racer X's "reason we should do this" could easily be Speed's "reason we should NOT do this.
We each need to answer, for ourselves...
** Do you think IT should be a National category?
** What is your rationale for thinking that? What case do you make for your position?
** MOST importantly, what values, goals, and priorities drive that rationale?
There's no such thing as a universally "right" answer for the second question among people who disagree in terms of the last.
K
We each need to answer, for ourselves...
** Do you think IT should be a National category?
** What is your rationale for thinking that? What case do you make for your position?
** MOST importantly, what values, goals, and priorities drive that rationale?
There's no such thing as a universally "right" answer for the second question among people who disagree in terms of the last.
K