IT National Racing

F

fivedimeracer

New member
Since I first began racing an ITC Ford Fiesta back in 1996, I was of the opinion that IT should be national or rather there should be no differentiation between National and Regional races in SCCA. My desire to qualify and race at the Valvoline Runoffs lead us to converting what was one of the fastest ITC cars in the NE into a backmarker and one of the first tin tops in FP in 1998.
At the time National meant big money to be competitive (still does and even on the regional level to be up front is not cheap) and many regional racers warned me that the National guys weren't nice and wouldn't talk to me. Truth be told, they were nice and I met some of my best friends to this day, however, what was different was that my car had been so modified it had now become unpredictable, unreliable and un-winning...if there was a way to have run on a "National" level with my little Fiesta without spending boatloads....

I'm sure it has been discussed here before at length well prior to my return now to IT, but I'm no longer 22 and looking at running the Runoffs or bust, but rather looking at SCAA holistically and what would be the best model to move both the club and grassroots roadracing forward?

I feel IT racing is the single best way to promote Grassroots RoadRacing and it does not need to be the "steppingstone" that in my opinion it is often thought of. I raced in fields of 17 ITC cars at Lime Rock and The Glen in the 90's that frankly made me think harder and drive better than I ever did at the 5 Runoffs I ran. The driving at the regional level is on par with national, the car counts at NE regionals are on par or better than many NE nationals(except maybe the Glen National). Some areas of the country are already running combined events due to lower overall numbers which I sure is also a cost effective measure.

IT at Runoffs would increase car counts not only at the Runoffs, but on the divisional level as well. However, the key would be not just making IT national, thereby, making those interested in the Runoffs to just run the 7-8 Nationals...but rather making all races SCCA National Races that qualify towards Runoffs..

Thoughts ?

Thanks
Joe Z
 
Last edited:
In short, you're preaching to the choir....at least in my opinion. The NAtional/Regional debate has raged on here several times. It used to be that a majority of IT guys were against it, but thats waned.

In general, I think the National/Regional distinction has run it's course and was suited for a different time. now, I think we just need races.

But, to do so requires dropping certain requirements of race length etc. Can you imagine a National at Lime Rock for ALL the myriad of classes?

(yes, we have TOO mANY classes, but thats another, though integral discussion)

It would be difficult to fit all the classes with the required race length at a short track like LRP with it's short days.

And National guys, in general, would be opposed, as they will lose track time, and various other intrinsic aspects.

The CRb has opposed the IT going national idea (Some have supported it) due to numerous reasons, but a main one mentioned has been the difficulty in teching the 300 plus cars in the ITCS at a Runoffs.

Some say the whole Super Touring concept was an outgrowth of the frustration in certain parts of the club for not taking IT national.

you'll get lots of opinions on this, but at this point, my gut tells me IT won't go National unless "National" racing as we know it evaporates...
 
Shorter version: The people who most influence decisions bearing on the issue have the most to lose - personally - from IT going National. It won't ever happen.

K
 
Jake,
Thanks for your reply..I really appreciate it, and I realize that you are playing devils advocate as you said you are somewhat in agreement. The points are the same ones that I remember discussing in 2003 at the RUnoffs when the combination of GT4 and 5 was "suggested" to us as we felt we had no choice...this was the advent of the "SIR". At the time it was all about how much track time SRF could get and FV at the RUnoffs and they needed there own class, and there was this new SCCA Formula car that needed time...oh and dont forget this new "Miata" class that regional guys were running and wanted to be a part of Nationals...etc. etc. This to a certain extent caused a fear mentality and people ran races just to play the game and the systematic "numbers" so their class could maintain its national status. This caused great classes like GP (which was annually one of the best Runoffs races)...to be lost, even though it only had 1 bad year compared to some classses that always did.

Here's the thing...I went to the Glen last week and was a quite surprised...barely any AS, half the SRF from back in the day, waaaay fewer Showroom Stock cars, less FV, barely any Atlantics or Continentals(there used to be 20 FC 's !!) E Prod was a booming class from 2000-2006, and one of my favorite classes even though I wasn't in it. However, at this 2011 Glen National there were not even a quarter as many. National numbers and specifically the Runoffs are bolstered by Spec Miatas, however, it may be a case of subtraction by addition ? Possibly, when folks realized that good competitive racing could be had on a somewhat cost effective budget, folks turned to SM...rather than the other classes, and when new folks came they entered there or the traditional entry classes like IT.

Many of the track time questions folks have/are raising..will be answered when the 2.5 rule eliminates these classes, as there are currently quite a few classes under the limit. Clinging to .."I want my own race"..just isn't reality...as there won't be races... Just look at the event results..regional and national in Sportscar...1-3 cars/no entrants in many cases.

Most of these questions/concerns that are raised are no longer the concerns they were when times were great and SCCA could decide what classes got to be on TV(there was a time when all weren't on), and the tv coverage was a reason given for certain decisions around the Runoffs.

Thanks,
JZ
 
Last edited:
K,
Understood, and I appreciate your honesty. I have felt this way too, when my GTL was going to get the axe and my huge investment was going to be lost...even though other classes may have not been meeting minimum reqs. , but was given National status based on a "probationary" period..... I feel that if the IT community comes together and the vast majority states that they feel that IT should be national it can be....just like SM.

Many National competitors did not want SM to be national, even though it had earned the right as it proved the numbers it could produce at the regional level.(numbers which IT had always produced, but philosophy prohibited National status ) However, because it was seen that SM was a savior, from a Runoffs car count perspective, folks accepted it...

We are always looking for a "new" class, or tweaking an existing car by putting a different motorcycle engine in it, but all this does is further splinter the classes and separate those in a given class who have invested and often these classes require new unrealistic cars that range from 20-65k...As a club we often focus being "catch all" and what's "hot"..remember when we got into promoting drifting..., when we should be focusing on what we are good at, we have fantastic workers and great grassroots roadracing. Lets have Races....the rest will take care of itself.

The "new" class...is a very old one, and it has been sitting there all along.

JZ
 
Last edited:
fivedimeracer said:
K,
Understood, and I appreciate your honesty.
Click to expand...
yea, Kirks right, LOL. I was trying....for once in my life....to be a 'responsible poster", LOL. And not comment on things that are conclusions based on soft issues that are obvious to some. But yea, turf protectionism is very very prevalent. We have a great BoD guy here in the NE, Dick Patullo, and I'll be interested to hear his take, should he be able to post.

Many National competitors did not want SM to be national, even though it had earned the right as it proved the numbers it could produce at the regional level.(numbers which IT had always produced, but philosophy prohibited National status ) However, because it was seen that SM was a savior, from a Runoffs car count perspective, folks accepted it...
Click to expand...

Yup, but also remember that SM is ONE class, whereas IT is a category of FIVE classes.
Further, just a year or two ago, this came up and the PTB, IIRC, have shut the door on changing the philosophy to allow IT to qualify for National inclusion.


I think you'll continue to see a decline in classes that require guys to fab and tinker and build. Sure, there are guys who love to do that, but, I think social norms (Dad MUST be at every soccer game) have changed significantly and classes like SM are the best option for many. Look around the paddock. 20 years ago, you'd see open trailers and some top dog rigs...duallys with enclosed trailers. Now, Toter rigs and Diesel pusher motorhomes towing 35 foot enclosed trailers are commonplace. Motorhomes that cost more than many houses. People want to crash in the AC motorhome, with the pop out section and the leather couch watching satellite programming on the 50" flatscreen between races, NOT tinker with the Stromberg carbs and get all stinky with gas on their hands.

Arrive and drives are much more popular, again because Dad can't just ignore the fatherhood responsibilities anymore. So you'll see more and more consolidation of classes that are easy to care for and reasonable to race, and more money spent on comfort.

That means more erodinging of many of the old school classes, and more consolidation into SM, SSM, etc. OR Boxster Cup. OR BMW E30 Cup (or whatever it is.) Or Ferrari Cup. Or the latest cool thing NASA has going for a 'Cup"...
SCCA once was the center of the universe, but the universe is shifting.

I told the CRB, when I was on the ITAC, and the whole question was being discussed, that I thought they should use IT to make a better Runoffs, and better National program, if they insisted on keeping the National/Regional distinction. Some feel it would destroy IT, but I think it would help the club, in the big picture.
 
Jake,
I too have tried to explain this to folks for quite some time. The majority of guys would rather hit the easy button(that is not a slight) than work on a car every night..its just reality. I did it..but when my son began playing soccer 4 days a week and I was coaching.......??
In previous discussions many would state that my priorities shouldn't change others classes, but as proven by SM....Im not alone.
IT provides a fair amount of prep and fab that those without engineering degrees can do quite well.
My father ran the IMSA bfg radial challenge in a pinto in the 70's and when we look back...it was an IT car! ...and was a pro series...with 50 car fields.

jake,so funny and true, that you brought up the open trailers...2006 Speed Runoffs GTL coverage.
 
Last edited:
IT isn't as popular here as it is up north, but the only difference in run groups between our National and Regional races is the absense of IT incorporated into the Prod/ST/GT/T classes. ITR, ITE, ITS all run with GT, STO, and T; while ITA/B/C run with Prod, GTL, and STU.
I'd say we might have a max of 10 IT entries at an event though so it's not much different for car counts.
Plus I'm friends with most of the IT guys and like racing with them so I'm all for IT going national.
Hell the ones in the area that want to drive Nats just enter in STU and come out anyway. it's the same guys on track with different letters on the side.
 
Thanks, good points. there are plenty of folks that run HP with IT spec vw's and Hondas. Let's not just say well if you want to run nats you can buddy..just in another class where you'll be in the back....
Again, if IT was national and was promoted by the club as such...it would be even more popular..even in areas where they may not have huge fields.
 
For years I was opposed to my "outlaw regional class" going national. I've changed my mind. The regional/national distinction is meaning less and should be eliminated in my view. But like Kirk said it is probably too late.
 
I think Jeff's opinion was a popular one on both sides of the aisle a few years back. However, as I've said..its not about IT going national, but rather regionals going national. Gcr states ""IT is a regional only class"...agreed...no verbiage change needed..as they'll all be races..
I know there are national guys who wouldn't push back as they had in the past.

Would it hurt to try?
 
It has already been said here by others, but I too agree that the national/regional distinction needs to be eliminated by the SCCA. NASA doesn't suffer from not having a national/regional distinction. In fact I think they benefit greatly from having a simplified organization that is far easier to approach and understand.

Renewing my NASA license for the upcoming UTCC took all over three minutes. I dread renewing my SCCA license each year.
 
Last edited:
I run both NASA and SCCA..... each have there good and bad points. I just feel that there should be no distinction from national and regional classes. I know the argument is look at SM. I just do not believe that National class drivers are BETTER than Regioanl drivers. If I am not mistaken I have seen many Grand Am drivers driving IT cars recently. We already have guys spending $50k on IT cars. I just came back from a NASA race at midohio and I can not believe the amount of $$ that these club racers have...... get mad at me but a regional SCCA cars look more like crap can race cars..... It is sad to me and I support both clubs. I just want to race and have fun.

Greg
 
Another voice for the elimination of Regional / National distinctions. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

If I were the SCCA czar , the 1st orders of business would be to transition from the current structure ( regionals & nationals ) to club races and to grow competitor participation.

As part of that you figure out the runoffs invitation process for the highest participation classes ... All the other classes get invitations to an ARRC type event ... You end up with 2 premier events.

Runoffs could be for xx number classes needed to put on a GREAT show that takes much less time for the competitors.

Those are big and bold brush strokes , but it solves the number of classes question , it works for the runoffs and ARRC , and the IT question.

In another thread ( or venue ) the club needs to figure out how to remove barriers to entry so that we can grow overall participation.
 
Yup, good plan. HUGE resistance would be encountered though, LOL.

That's SCCAs greatest strength...and weakness. Lots of experience in how to run races and a racing program, but lots of resistance to change....especially if the change affects something you like.

Clearly the 'club racing' pie has grown and morphed over the years. Track days/HPDEs used to be rare. They were called "Time trials" in the 80s. Now they are commonplace. For many they are enough...removing some potential racers from the ranks. On the flipside, they often inspire people to take the next step into racing. SCCA is poorly positioned to benefit from the "step ups", as the SCCA HPDE program is just getting off the ground, and is hindered by a racing program that often has underutilized track time. Other clubs have a head start here.

Marque racing used to be solely a one event per year deal with PCA or BMWCCA. Now there are dozens or marque clubs and hundreds of events, from novice education to full up racing.
The participants were once club racing candidates as well, but now many filter into their favorite marque specific activity, including racing and stay there, having made friends and becoming comfortable with the program. I'd say SCCA loses on this one, except for the rare guy who decides that the marque club pond is too small for him.

Bottom line is that there is a bigger pie of customers ...BUT, the pie is much more splintered. SCCA needs to streamline and ensure that it attracts as many of those potential customers as it can. It's impossible to be everything to everybody, but, the club needs to ensure that it has a logical and easy to follow path that eases members into whatever activity they desire. And it needs to cut down on things that are inefficient.

In the end, a plan such as the one above will do it, as it naturally eliminates the weak while the strong remain, freeing up resources for better ease of entry.
 
The real answer is to not have any Nationals or Regionals. Races are races. Top 10 east, top 10 west, all go to the Nats.
True, the Crap Can Racers, often are ex IT cars.
The biggest problem that I see with SCCA is the business model. SCCA has many volunteers that make it all work(MOL). Many of these people just left work fri, show up at SCCA to work and have a nasty attitude towards the people that pay SCCA. The issue is that it is not the workers money.. The customers are treated less than perfect..
Most of the crap can racers are ex SCCA, ImSA/ Pro, drivers that have had enough. NASA, Chumpcar, PCA, SVRA, all treat the racers like they want them back. The pie slices are small, as stated. SCCA needs to figure what SCCA does well, and do it better.
Making the drivers jump through hoops to get a Nat license is just nuts. My son had about 8 races last year, and is a good instructor. Can he get a NAT ticket to go race a couple of HP NAT races?? " No, he needs another reg race. " He has more laps than most track sweepers. Will he go out of his way to run SCCA?, No way. NASA does it much better. Chumpcar also does it well. It is a business, treat customers like you want them back.
I ran a PDX last week @ Sebring. I had to get a TT novice permit. The instructor asked my what my experience was. ( I have about 8-10k miles @ Sebring.) The PDX instructors dont get any track time!! How can SCCA compete with all of the schools that pay with track time.
When I start racing a new venue, I copy the known good value. SCCA needs to do the same . Copy success.
IMHO, MM
 
Somebody said it better than me, but SCCA is a club and acts like it and NASA is a business and acts like that.

This may ultimately be our (I'm an SCCA guy through and through) undoing.

I just signed up to renew my NASA comp license so I can do the UTCC. Took 3 minutes. SCCA is a few hours at least tracking down sanction numbers and other stuff.

What SCCA does best is (a) rule and class stability (I know, I know, but still better than NASA) and (b) competition. With (b) being the key.
 
with one exception IT is pretty much dead in So-Pac. Last season for one race there were three of us in ITR, now there's none. ITS has one regular, used to be a couple of others, but they ran out of money a couple of years ago. ITA has about 3-8 real ITA cars with about that many more double dipping SM's. ITB has maybe 2-4 racers who come out as they can afford to.

I left ITR for STU for several reasons, it best addresses the issues my car has. STU allows me to swap motors for one that will make power instead of futilly trying to prove it can't. I can replace my soft motor mounts for something that'll last longer than 4 races. I can replace the heavy and soft dual mass flywheel which is more expensive with a light weight aluminum one. Finally, I can really solve the aero issues of driving a car that looks like a backwards wing by adding a wing on the back that balances the car better than just a front air dam/splitter.
 
For those with large car counts and small tracks (NHMS, LRP, anything under 2 miles) it would be dang near impossible to run a 'race' under the current minimum track time rules. ESPECIALLY if you cut down the number of races (because you can't expect to crown a real champion if you have 20 races to choose from).

For many places, the logistics are NOT simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top