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

[jjjanos]

You just addressed what happens to two categories of people who are already in IT. And a fair assessment too.

But you are not asking what happens to other club members.

Neither was the assertion.

What happens to other members of the club? Don't know and in some ways I don't really care. Keeping 25 Prod drivers who might come to an OGM IT category doesn't compensate for the far greater number of current IT drivers that won't be happy. The club isn't offering these disenfranchised prod drivers what they want. Some have asserted that IT as a National class is what they want. I doubt the veracity of that statement and there has been no evidence presented to reject the null hypothesis - IT category, whether National or Regional will keep a disenchanted Prod driver fat and happy.

The circumstantial evidence refutes the position that there is an untapped source of NASA drivers just dieing to race IT if it gets a OGM. NASA's "successful" classes aren't IT by a long stretch. If you want to go down that road, you'll need to suggest that we adopt yet another category - NKO (Nasa knock-off).

 

[jjjanos]

What everyone who says this doesn't understand is that the Runoffs participation and National participation in general is waning. One of the goals (I assume) of proposals like this one is to address this problem.

In other words, it's one thing to say, "find another class." But the problem is that there aren't very many interesting, popular classes to find anymore if you want to go to the Runoffs. You really need to think bigger picture.

Physician, heal thyself. We are looking at the big picture. You are looking at the picture as if the Runoffs and Nationals are the be-all/end-all reason for the existence of the Club. You sir, have a Topeka-centric view of the world. The Runoffs could vanish this year and, I believe, the majority of club participants and the majority of club racing entries would be uneffected.

Frankly, if my Region were to lose a date at Summit Point, the first thing I would delete would be one of the two schools. The second would be the National.

Makes sense. I was just addressing the "if you want to go to Runoffs, go find another class" concept. People hear that, so they start looking around for another class that offers them the same sorts of values they found in IT, and they come up empty.

And one of the key values of that category is REGIONAL ONLY. I like dogs. I don't willingly own a cat because I cannot find one that is a dog. If only there was a cat that had the same values/characteristics/behaviors of a dog. Solution: Own a DOG.

 

[mustanghammer]

Finally, from a marketing standpoint, I don't think the SCCA could do anything better for participation and membership than making IT run at the Runoffs. The ruleset is very attractive to the average racer wanna be, there are cars he and she can identify with, and the races will look great on TV. For the club as a whole, its a powerful tool gone unused for years.

+1

 

[Knestis]

Haven't we already seen a couple of variations of this theme already?

Case 1: The RX7 is one of the top cars in ITA - then the CRX, Integra, 240Sx, and Miata are added and it becomes impossible for the RX7 driver to even smell the front of the pack. Result - IT7 & SRX7 pop us as bastard regional classes so those displaced front-runners have a place to compete again.

Case 2: ITS, and the introduction of the 325. The guys with the bucks figure out that this car can be a huge overdog if built to the hilt. Result - a lot of ITS drivers parked their cars and/or went somewhere else to play. ...

Sorry - I didnt' explain very well, I guess because neither of those situations is an example of what I was trying to describe. Case 1 was "performance creep" - where cars that were simply faster (all other things being equal) were listed in A. Case 2 was an overdog situation. Yeah - BMWs got popular but it's because they were THE car to have in S.

I'm talking about some weird influence - all of a sudden lawyers get huge windfalls in earnings and thousands of Young's colleagues go racing - causes a huge uptick in popularity and competitiveness at the front of the grid.

Jeff Y. explains that he'd welcome it, and continues that it's a DECREASE in competition that has him worried. That's a very different thing than I hear from Travis, who's suggesting that he would actually be willing to do something else with his discretionary dollar, if he can't be as competitive as he is on his current budget.

Accurate so far?

K

 

[JoshS]

Physician, heal thyself. We are looking at the big picture. You are looking at the picture as if the Runoffs and Nationals are the be-all/end-all reason for the existence of the Club. You sir, have a Topeka-centric view of the world. The Runoffs could vanish this year and, I believe, the majority of club participants and the majority of club racing entries would be uneffected.

You know what? I agree with you, on all of those points, including, perhaps, my perspective.

What I don't agree with is the "I'm in IT, it works perfectly for me, so leave it alone" attitude. This is how we get a club racing program that's out of touch with modern realities and cause us to have a shrinking membership. It's the same attitude that has produced the "graying of the SCCA."

The stewards of the club racing program (the CRB and the BOD) are on the hook to look after the entire program, not just the current IT racers.

 

[JeffYoung]

Correct. My concerns are two fold:

1. Decrease in participation at "regional" level IT events that, as of today, are very popular (and fun). Jim Stark Double at Roebling. Memorial Monster at CMP. Goblins Go at VIR. Etc.

2. Increase in influence of "national" IT drivers on the IT ruleset. No hard evidence to back it up but I think the pressure on the stability of the ruleset would increase as more became at stake. It would be harder to maintain the idea that we don't guarantee competiveness given all other National classes try to do so via balancing or by spec.

 

[tnord]

Jeff Y. explains that he'd welcome it, and continues that it's a DECREASE in competition that has him worried. That's a very different thing than I hear from Travis, who's suggesting that he would actually be willing to do something else with his discretionary dollar, if he can't be as competitive as he is on his current budget.

Accurate so far?

K

it's close, but there's an aspect you're missing. it has nothing to do with the increased competition that could push me away, and everything to do with the cost of being relatively competitive.

they're close to the same thing, and certainly related, but not exactly the same. for example, SM was still hugely popular and competitive 4 years ago, but the cost to compete at the front half of the field was much lower.

 

[Knestis]

Let me ask some of the guys with more "historical" SCCA experience than me a few questions. ...

The prod classes had turned the corner in the early-mid '70s, right before I went to my first SCCA club race (1979). Many were already getting long in the tooth - 25 years old already, even back then - and they were so highly tweaked, they were fragile. Parts were getting hard to find and for all of the same reasons we hear current IT drivers request additional rules allowances (safety, cost, safety, cost, competitive advantage, cost, safety, competitive advantage, and cost), the cars were creeping like crazy. Hand whittled gear sets. Hand whittled crankshafts... They were expensive to build, yeah - but more expensive to race. There were some class contractions - notably CP and DP, both of which had neat options but were dwindling in entries.

The Sedan category was morphing into GT at that same time, going the TransAm tube chassis route. That was arguably a smart deal by comparison and for a while there, GT3 (for example) had a resurgence, as did GT1. There weren't many options for GT2. CP got folded into GT2. AP and BP got sucked into GT1.

Partially (I think) there was a sense of irrelevance about prod cars in the '80s. The definition of "sporty car" had shifted from "sports cars" to the "hot hatch" and sedans like the 2002/320i. There were gas lines for a while and the economy contracted, hurting participation on and off over these decades. Heck - most of the "sports cars" had really lousy performance, frankly - so where was the appeal?

The pseudo factory teams were wandering off to other emerging "pro" series, like the 2-liter TransAm and then IMSA, as it emerged as a force. Group 44 for example, ran semi-pro club racing efforts but by the '80s was running TA TR8s and XJS's, then IMSA Jag prototypes. I don't think they had any real influence on the 3-decade decline of Production.

Frankly, the drivers did it to themselves with all of their "improvements." And then again, when LP came along, they got it sort of right, then some idiot decided $10,000 gearboxes would be a swell plan!

Look - IT could go that whole route even WITHOUT NATIONAL STATUS. We rules jihadists are here to protect you, though and we do it pretty fiercely. I had a silly thought the other day during the ITAC con call, that I should keep an alternate set of IT rules, implementing all of the proposals that we get - alternate body materials, Lexan - the whole shebang. Give it a couple years and then put it out for comment. That would be a riot...

We can avoid Prod's fate by leaving the rules alone, to the very greatest extent possible. We are going to lose some cars as they get old but I don't think the cost of keeping them can be borne by the category in the long term. If you are thinking that National status might increase the pressure on the rules, I'll guaran-damn-tee you that is something that every ITAC member has considered, and that more than a few current board members fully understand. But the pressure is already there and we're doing a pretty good job of ignoring it, knowing what's at stake. Do your part and discourage creep.

k

EDIT - I left out a very important influence, that I guess I figured everyone understood. I shouldn't do that so please recognize too, that there have been some VERY long-lived and influential leaders in the Prod ranks, who did a pretty effective job of preserving their vision of the category. I vividly remember people bitching about the Z-cars and RX7 not being "real sports cars" - and the SAAB Sonnet, of all things - because they were hard tops. That's a blatant example but in a thousand small ways, the old guard influenced the system to maintain the status quo. We see THAT force at work in IT, too. Quite a little bit.

 

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Kirk, very informative.

That last paragraph is helpful to me. Yes, I am very concerned about that pressure; sounds like the ITAC has already thought about it. THIS ITAC I trust. As you have pointed out many times, it's the one in 2015 that we have to worry about.

 

[Knestis]

Finally - I'm VERY interested in the us-vs.-them attitude I'm seeing here. I have this sneaking suspicion that there's enough chauvinism at work here for some, that they don't want IT to become "them" - because National racing (or insert symbol here, like Topeka) is just evil. Like an editorial I read this morning in our local "news paper," that stated flatly that "atheists are just like terrorists." How does one have a reasoned discussion with THAT?

K

 

[JeffYoung]

There is, unfortunately, some truth to that -- I have to admit.

It's not that Topeka/National is EVIL (to me, they've always been very helpful actually when I've had to call on them), it just appears that all National sedan/production car based classes are pretty farked up. Competition adjustments seem to be the root of it, at least in the prod categories, an I just want absolutely no part of that culture being imported in IT. I think "going National" would increase the chances of that happening, whether it be now or in 10 years.

But I would suggest that some of it is that natural reaction of the "outsider" of being asked to by the "insider" to join them. Like when that group of football jocks asked you (meaning me) to come to the "cool kids" party on Friday night. It might be fun, or it might be humiliating....so it seemed safer to hang out with "outsider" friends, listen to some Black Flag or early Maiden or TSOL or Sabbath or Siouxsie or the Pixies or whatever and drink some High Lifes.

What National has to offer COULD be good, but it could also destroy the good things that "outsider" status has meant to IT.

FOR EXAMPLE -- do other classes have anything like the ITAC? I mean, we are, as best I can tell, basically self-governed. I LOVE that. Jake will actually pick up the phone and CALL ME if he sees me concerned about something. Andy too. That's just awesome to me.

I fear we'd lose that type of stuff if we went "national" and became the lead dog in an reorg of SCCA club racing by the folks in Topeka.

 

[Knestis]

... As you have pointed out many times, it's the one in 2015 that we have to worry about.

Which is why it's so important for IT entrants to know where we came from, and stay clearly focused on what's important.

I saw a great T-shirt - "I don't have the patience for instant gratification." Sometimes that's how I think they must feel when IT people (particularly newer ones) make requests that seem to be pretty short-sighted, or are really just about their individual competitive position.

K

 

[jjjanos]

You know what? I agree with you, on all of those points, including, perhaps, my perspective.

What I don't agree with is the "I'm in IT, it works perfectly for me, so leave it alone" attitude. This is how we get a club racing program that's out of touch with modern realities and cause us to have a shrinking membership. It's the same attitude that has produced the "graying of the SCCA."

In some ways yes. In some ways no.

1. The irrelevency of Prod wasn't because they kept the status quo. Rules creep isn't status quo. The gained carnal knowledge of a canine for Prod because they didn't lock it down for what they had and simultaneously worked to freeze out newer cars.

2. If you are attempting to address the greying of SCCA (the disease), I suggest that adding IT to the national mix is the equivalent of trying to treat a viral infection with antibiotics. Great drug, wrong infection.

3. Exactly what modern realities is club racing lacking? Cost containment might be the only thing missing and I would suggest that the NASA drivers you hope to attract are not interested in cost containment. Wildly expensive and heavily modified classes are their most successful classes - other than the ones they directly stole from us.

4. Exactly why is a shrinking membership bad when the cost of increasing membership is the discarding of core values? For example, if the Flat Earth Society had shrinking membership and the cost of attracting new members was accepting a globe, would you say they should go for it?

5. Again, you are executing the sentence first and having the trial second. If you want to attract NASA drivers, then what is it about their program that attracts those drivers? I again say that I seriously doubt that IT matches their desires.

The stewards of the club racing program (the CRB and the BOD) are on the hook to look after the entire program, not just the current IT racers.

No. The CRB is on the hook to execute the orders of the BOD. The BOD is on the hook to serve the interests/wishes of the majority of the members of the Areas they represent. The club racing program exists for the members, the members do not exist for the club racing program.

 

[JoshS]

JJJ, I'm am not personally doing anything. I am not the cause for this concept being raised at a driver's meeting at a race somewhere, I am just responding to the concept, just like you.

I'm just bristling at the attitudes that are just about protecting ones own turf. This is a club. We shouldn't be having turf wars with other members. I do understand that people are concerned about the possible effects and you and others have brought up some excellent points.

Let's move on.

 

[lateapex911]

Correct. My concerns are two fold:

1. Decrease in participation at "regional" level IT events that, as of today, are very popular (and fun). Jim Stark Double at Roebling. Memorial Monster at CMP. Goblins Go at VIR. Etc.

2. Increase in influence of "national" IT drivers on the IT ruleset. No hard evidence to back it up but I think the pressure on the stability of the ruleset would increase as more became at stake. It would be harder to maintain the idea that we don't guarantee competiveness given all other National classes try to do so via balancing or by spec.

1) Jeff, I agree, that, if the club racing system were to remain as it is today, and the only change was to be the status of IT, then yes, I would worry about some fracturing of the group.

Keep in mind though, that, even today, you have races that are important and well attended, and others that are less so, and that some people may choose to go to races where the big guys don't show up. This will always be the case, pretty much regardless of the system. However, if we were to modify the "National/Regional" system, we might see more freedom in the scheduling, perhaps fewer races overall (which would be a boon for overworked regions and their workers) and increased attendance overall. It might work out better all around.

2) Yes, there will be more pressure from "National" drivers. Ho hum. I've been reamed before, and I'll get reamed again. You guys can probably even put a name(s) to the reamer(s), LOL. Honestly, I'm not worried, at least about this ITAC, and we are currently making great strides in increasing the committee's documentation and structure, so that future ITACs can operate with the proper perspective.

You asked if other "ITAC"s exist. yes, absolutely. The Spec Miata ad hoc is called, you guessed it, the "SMAC", and so on. The lists of the members is maintained on the "Boards and Committees" section of the website. Now, I might be in danger of bragging, but I get the impression that the CRB is generally pleased with our performance, and might even suggest that other committees utilize some of our methods, modified, of course, to serve their purposes. But, we a re certainly not self governed. The CRB is on every call, and Bob Dowie, the head of the CRB (great guy, BTW, a racers racer) is very vocal, and very fair. And he's not afraid to toss in his two cents. We make our recommendations based on what we feel is best for the category, do our best to explain to the CRB guys on the call, and consider their bigger picture concerns.

(An interesting aside here. Two recent ITAC members have been tapped for CRB positions. One has multiple category racing experience (two categories at the same time!) and the other races IT AND runs a pro racing team (Prototypes). And one of them has a very big picture view of the club, the National/Regional system, is most decidedly NOT "old guard" and isn't afraid to stick his neck out and say what he's thinking. One thing I lose no sleep over is the "old guard" aspect of the CRB.)

One thing is for certain, I feel that a small group (you actually know most of them) had a long range mindset to take IT from where it was a few years ago, (A great ruleset hampered by some core classing issues and a couple screwy individual rules) and systematically worked through it, move by move, it to where we see it today. That took a lot of work, required the building to be propped up while one of the cornerstones was realigned, and the subsequent rebuilding of sections, stick by stick at times. It's not quite there yet, but, there is a system in place, and the remaining work is fairly straightforward. Many on the committee have done the lifting, and will dig their heels in if outside forces try to change things.

 

[lateapex911]

it's close, but there's an aspect you're missing. it has nothing to do with the increased competition that could push me away, and everything to do with the cost of being relatively competitive.

they're close to the same thing, and certainly related, but not exactly the same. for example, SM was still hugely popular and competitive 4 years ago, but the cost to compete at the front half of the field was much lower.

Ahhh...but Travis, I think that the cup is at the halfway point.

You say it's the money....but......it's not just the money.

...it's really the finishing position. You will search for the class that allows you to win/finish at the front at a certain cost. But the finishing position is driving your search.

(See other posts for the winning/high finishes reference as well)

 

[tnord]

Ahhh...but Travis, I think that the cup is at the halfway point.

You say it's the money....but......it's not just the money.

...it's really the finishing position. You will search for the class that allows you to win/finish at the front at a certain cost. But the finishing position is driving your search.

(See other posts for the winning/high finishes reference as well)

because the finishing position allows me free tires....which goes back to money.

it's all about finding a class with at least decent competition where building a front-running car is reasonably attainable from a financial point of view.

if i had my druthers, i'd be in SM because of the increased compeitition. but a $7000 motor and tires every weekend isn't even in the ballpark.

i know i'm not explaining all this very well, because you and kirk are missing the message by a little. but i'm not someone who searches out the "easy win." whatever, there's no reason to focus on my individual situation/perspective.

 

[Knestis]

FWIW, I did get your distinction Travis - no problem.

K

 

[gran racing]

Finally, from a marketing standpoint, I don't think the SCCA could do anything better for participation and membership than making IT run at the Runoffs.

Jake, I’m sure we’ll talk about this more over the phone but do you and others really think this after giving it some hard thought?

Member retention continues to be one huge hurdle for our club to overcome. Each year as a club we gain approximately 10,000 members yet we lose that many or more. (Some of those numbers represent people letting their membership lapse then re-new later.) Does adding IT to the Runoffs actually improve this?

Would the Runoffs be broadcasted at better time slots? No matter how awesome the racing or cars are, it does very little at 2 a.m. to help participation and membership. Even if it was on a great time slot, I’m not so sure how attractive most of our cars are to potential racers. The National office did express valid concerns from a marketing perspective when were talking about what cars should be showcased on the cover of the SCCA edition of my book. IT cars were not the top of this list due to the cars not being the most appealing to the masses.

With our five year rule, it automatically eliminates some of the new and cool cars from our category. Then to top it off, that darn ITAC makes older (less sexy?) cars competitive with newly classed cars which some might say ruins the image a bit. Hmmm, what’s the Prepared age rule that limits the age IT cars from competition? Going along with all that, don’t cars in classes like Show Room Stock and Touring fit the marketing target better?

I do think we need to further utilize World Challenge to promote club racing. Every freakin’ broadcast needs to have a segment on getting into racing, and I’m not just talking about Club Racing. Have clips about Solo Racing, PDXs, and so on. Sorry, that’s getting way off into another topic. LOL!


It would be interesting to hear what various people’s perceptions and actual facts are about a few items.

- What defines the average Improved Touring racecar?

My view is that there are many nice cars out there, but the majority of IT cars are on the old side, don’t exactly have show car appeal, and the younger crowd wouldn’t fantasize about getting behind the wheel.


- What is the definition of the average IT racer and what are they looking to get out of racing with the SCCA?

- Does the average IT racer even care whether there’s a national championship race?

I for one don’t and choose my events based on the fun factor, and where my friends will be racing. Then again it somewhat depends upon my next question…

- How much would the likelihood of people obtaining solid ($$) sponsorships be by adding the Runoffs to the mix?

 

[erlrich]

Sorry - I didnt' explain very well, I guess because neither of those situations is an example of what I was trying to describe. Case 1 was "performance creep" - where cars that were simply faster (all other things being equal) were listed in A. Case 2 was an overdog situation. Yeah - BMWs got popular but it's because they were THE car to have in S.

I'm talking about some weird influence - all of a sudden lawyers get huge windfalls in earnings and thousands of Young's colleagues go racing - causes a huge uptick in popularity and competitiveness at the front of the grid.

Jeff Y. explains that he'd welcome it, and continues that it's a DECREASE in competition that has him worried. That's a very different thing than I hear from Travis, who's suggesting that he would actually be willing to do something else with his discretionary dollar, if he can't be as competitive as he is on his current budget.

Accurate so far?

K

Your explanation was fine, I think it was my response that failed to make its point. The examples I used were meant to illustrate the results of what happens when drivers lose all chance of being competitive, regardless of the cause.

Of course, the underlying assumption is that under your scenario the influx of new, well-funded drivers would raise the performance bar to a level beyond where it currently resides. If that were the case, and say suddenly half the field at every event were made up of brand new, 101% built Speedsource, Bimmerworld, Tri-Point and Realtime cars with former pro drivers behind the wheels (yeah, I know, extreme example), and lap records started falling and the rest of us lost all hope of ever having a shot at a win - then yes, I would start looking for someplace else to race.

On the other hand, if as you noted a bunch of rich pansy lawywers get the itch to go racing and all showed up with professionally prepared TR8s that were capable of running WITH the current front-runners, that would be a different story. I too would welcome that competition without hesitation.

And to answer your next question; yes, I realize that the potential is already there for those Speedsource cars to show up in ITA - it's just that the likelyhood they WILL show up would increase by a factor of ??? if IT were to become a national class.