IT National Racing

JeffYoung said:
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.
Click to expand...

In some classes SCCA seems to have an edge with competition - SM, IT (depends on which IT class and location), SRF. But others are woefully under-subscribed and down right pitiful.

However, NASA does well with car counts in some classes and I think it'd be unfair to say the competition is poor unless you've driven in the class. Their CMC class gets large fields at some races. Some NASA regions have a large SU contingent. I can't imagine that all the NASA racers that enjoy those races classes are participating in classes with sub-par competition but I honestly don't know as have no means to race with them. I know you've tried the "IT-like" class and said it wasn't very good, but that was a pretty long time ago and maybe that class isn't NASA's strength.

I sure like the SCCA but I get downright frustrated with the stodginess of the organization. Part of me wants to volunteer in my local region and try and make things better for racers. But then I hear stories of those that have tried to no avail and the motivation is gone. Even if you made regional changes you'd still be saddled with an organizational structure and rules set from 30 years ago - "we must transcribe all race communications" and "we must run T&S by hand in case the transponders should fail", and so on.
 
The two non-UTCC races I've run with NASA seemed to be more like SCCA than you'd first think.

Spec E30, Spec944 and SM had a lot of entries. The rest were either very small fields, or larger fields with a number of different classes or huge speed differential between cars in class.

NASA is very regional as well. Mid Atlantic and Southeast seem to do really well. Others, not so much, like SCCA.

I still think it very fair to say that competition levels in SCCA are generally higher. SCCA still serves, for example, as a feeder to World Challenge, Grand-Am, etc., while NASA not so much.

I'm not knocking NASA. It has its strengths, primarily in the concept of "run what you brung" and in creating V8 classes. But I do think overall competition levels in SCCA are higher.

Ron Earp said:
In some classes SCCA seems to have an edge with competition - SM, IT (depends on which IT class and location), SRF. But others are woefully under-subscribed and down right pitiful.

However, NASA does well with car counts in some classes and I think it'd be unfair to say the competition is poor unless you've driven in the class. Their CMC class gets large fields at some races. Some NASA regions have a large SU contingent. I can't imagine that all the NASA racers that enjoy those races classes are participating in classes with sub-par competition but I honestly don't know as have no means to race with them. I know you've tried the "IT-like" class and said it wasn't very good, but that was a pretty long time ago and maybe that class isn't NASA's strength.

I sure like the SCCA but I get downright frustrated with the stodginess of the organization. Part of me wants to volunteer in my local region and try and make things better for racers. But then I hear stories of those that have tried to no avail and the motivation is gone. Even if you made regional changes you'd still be saddled with an organizational structure and rules set from 30 years ago - "we must transcribe all race communications" and "we must run T&S by hand in case the transponders should fail", and so on.
Click to expand...
 
Those of you supporting the elimination of the regional-national distinction ARE writing letters to that effect, right? :D
 
After taking 10yrs to do away with the VIn rule for IT, how long would this take??
I just joined again, after 10 yrs of not. I carry a lot of weight, I'm sure.
The whole SCCA system is set up to support both. A few guys would be out of work. ..
MM
 
Actually just went and looked at the NASA SEDiv site on AI, AIX and CMC. About 9-10 cars in each class scored points this year. Only 3-4 made most of the races. Field separation in AI at CMP in CMC was EIGHT seconds.

In contrast, there were over 70 individual entries in ITS in the SEDiv SCCA this year, with about 25 cars running at least 4 events. At CMP back in May, the top 7 qualifiers (Kent, Steve, Me, Steve P., Ron M., Mark Gray, Chuck Hines) were within 2 seconds of each other.
 
Jarod, point well made. That is my intent. However, because this has all been hashed out numerous times....we take what we are given.....
The old track time argument is an old one...and certainly had its place, but as times change as Jake and I have both noted....so will the number of cars in certain classes. I already noted that there are no longer fields of 25 FC's and AS...classes by the way that I had loved, but I feel that the rapid paced, short attention span, working from a phone in the airport, telecommuting world, well....has changed things.

I didn't want to muddy the waters with NASA comparisons or really the class structure.


JZ
 
Last edited:
One thing to remember when restructuring the SCCA view of Club Racing is we NEED to keep/maintain a distinction between events for "casual" vs. "serious" racers. Obviously there are exceptions (such as the ARRC by GRM and many of the bigger SARRC weekends), but historically that has been Regional vs. National.

i.e. - Do you/we really want guys with no prior racing experience coming out a double driver's school being turned loose with a bunch of Ayton Senna wannabe's at the June Sprints or a Road Atlanta Double National?

Any recommendation(s) to the BoD/CRB/XYZ needs to address this concern. It may not be an issue to the folks on this forum, but as a race organizer that's trying to grow his region's road racing program it's a very real concern to me.
 
Butch, I rarely disagree with you but I do here. I think it perpeuats the (to me) myth that the competition at the National level is better/higher than on the Regional level. I don't think that is the case. SM, SRF, ITS all hotly contested at the front this year (and in previous years).

Collapse the classes,a nd let the newbs run. They are in just as much danger at CMP when a four car lead chain in ITS or SM or SRF comes up on them in lap 6 as they are at a National event.

Butch Kummer said:
One thing to remember when restructuring the SCCA view of Club Racing is we NEED to keep/maintain a distinction between events for "casual" vs. "serious" racers. Obviously there are exceptions (such as the ARRC by GRM and many of the bigger SARRC weekends), but historically that has been Regional vs. National.

i.e. - Do you/we really want guys with no prior racing experience coming out a double driver's school being turned loose with a bunch of Ayton Senna wannabe's at the June Sprints or a Road Atlanta Double National?

Any recommendation(s) to the BoD/CRB/XYZ needs to address this concern. It may not be an issue to the folks on this forum, but as a race organizer that's trying to grow his region's road racing program it's a very real concern to me.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Butch, I rarely disagree with you but I do here. I think it perpeuats the (to me) myth that the competition at the National level is better/higher than on the Regional level. I don't think that is the case. SM, SRF, ITS all hotly contested at the front this year (and in previous years).

Collapse the classes,a nd let the newbs run. They are in just as much danger at CMP when a four car lead chain in ITS or SM or SRF comes up on them in lap 6 as they are at a National event.
Click to expand...

All of what tJY says and then some.

Here in NEDIV, within the regular IT racer contingent are some pretty nifty car prep and driving campaigns in ITR and ITS. A noob coming out of Driver's School must do a fair bit of mirror driving if they do not want to get plain old run over, especially if in a slower B, C or S/SM. My first weekend this year getting my butt-rust off was at VIR for March Memories. It wasn't any different there in that part of SEDIV when I ventured out for the Carolina Cup practice/qualifying on Saturday morning. Not the recommended way to learn a new track in a slow car.......

Getitng back towards the topic, following through on the sunset rule for poorly subscribed classes along with a restructure of the National/Regional event distinction are the absolute biggest challenges the SCCA faces in the next 5 years.

Done right, it will absolutely put the club in a much better position with competing organizations.
 
Butch Kummer said:
Obviously there are exceptions (such as the ARRC by GRM and many of the bigger SARRC weekends), but historically that has been Regional vs. National.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said "typically" rather than "historically".

I fully realize there are parts of the country where regional races/classes are more hotly contested than many national classes. Of course there are also parts of the country where regional racing is dying.

All I'm saying is we need to have a place for the newbie driver to get her/his feet wet and gain experience without having to deal with a pack of "serious" drivers passing her/him on the inside at Turn One. I get calls after just about every event from drivers wanting me to move their class to a slower run group because they're driving in their mirrors all the time. Sometimes, however, it's because of people in their own class. Yes we can tell them to cinch down their belts and deal with it, but they can also tell us they'd rather spend their money elsewhere.

I'm not the only stodgie old has-been that is concerned about running off the less intense participant by throwing everyone out there together every weekend. As I said, any proposal asking for a change in the structure of Club Racing needs to provide an opportunity for the casual racer to have fun without fearing for their life. I agree the current regional/national distinction is not perfect, but it IS the best option we have going right now.
 
Butch, I am sorry, but I honestly don't think true track rookies should be "racing". I stepped up the ladder over 5 years and I truely feel it benefited everyone. Solo -> HPDE/TT -> Club Racing. Doing so allowed me to build the car AND the driver, I finished 6th (with 2 year old Toyo's) at the DS regional in out of many top notch ITA drivers. So 5 years might be too long for many folks, for me it was fine since funds were limited. Even so, asking a true rookie to go solo'ing and then HPDE'ing over the course of one year before they attend a DS is NOT asking much and certainly makes it better for EVERYONE. So in the vein of the discussion, should SCCA be stricter about DS graduation? I think doing so might be essential for regional/national consolidation. Last, there are a few national and pro level drivers that are just not good drivers, but have money and a license.
 
Last edited:
Butch Kummer said:
All I'm saying is we need to have a place for the newbie driver to get her/his feet wet and gain experience without having to deal with a pack of "serious" drivers passing her/him on the inside at Turn One. I get calls after just about every event from drivers wanting me to move their class to a slower run group because they're driving in their mirrors all the time. .
Click to expand...

But this problem you describe is going to happen in SCCA regional racing too. I have to dodge newbies when I'm driving my ITS jalopy around. Are a close pack of ITS racers who race nine times a year any less serious than three E Prod guys doing their fourth national race of the year so they can make the boreoffs in Topeka?

They can go to other organizations but I don't think their experience is going to be a whole lot different.
 
I was SEDiv Solo I (now Track Trials) steward for five years back in the late 90's, and I encouraged everyone to do at least a year of Solo I before attending their first drivers school. I still do that today, but not everyone is patient enough to learn how to go fast before they try to race. And other parts of the country don't have a TT program as strong as the one here in SEDiv. I do know the idea of letting TT experience count toward earning a road racing license is gaining traction at a BoD level, but that has been a long time coming as well.

I CERTAINLY know there are exceptions, but all I'm saying (which no one seems to hear) is that throwing everyone out there together and letting the strong survive has consequences as well.

I'm done here now...
 
I agree with Butch in that we should keep the distinction between national and regional events. I'm now of the opinion that it won't make any difference if IT gains national status (my reasons for opposing this have proven to be unfounded). However, there will still be true regional-only classes (ITE, ITO, SPO, SSM...) that should not be included in national events IMO, and I do also believe there are drivers who just won't want to participate in national-level events for whatever reason (and not all of them are rookies). If you were to make all GCR-listed classes Runoffs eligible, then have certain events that are "national" points events, you would accomplish the original goal.

My $0.02
 
Here is what I would like to see if we were to eliminate National vs. Regional race classes:

First of all: Maintain the Regional/National Licensing requirements we currently have.

Create two classes of races: One for local series points and another for races that earn points to go to the Runoffs :smilie_pokal:.

Anyone with a license could enter the local (Regional?) series races and race for region/area/series points.

Only National license holders could enter the National(?) races. These races would be run with the National Championship in mind and would only exclude regional classes that are not listed in the GCR. These could include any of what we consider to be our top races: ITfest; ARRC, NARRC, etc. You can even maintain the requirements to go out of division for points to the Runoffs. It really just adds IT to the class structure and maintains the integrity of the regional race program.
 
erlrich said:
I agree with Butch in that we should keep the distinction between national and regional events. I'm now of the opinion that it won't make any difference if IT gains national status (my reasons for opposing this have proven to be unfounded). However, there will still be true regional-only classes (ITE, ITO, SPO, SSM...) that should not be included in national events IMO, and I do also believe there are drivers who just won't want to participate in national-level events for whatever reason (and not all of them are rookies). If you were to make all GCR-listed classes Runoffs eligible, then have certain events that are "national" points events, you would accomplish the original goal.

My $0.02
Click to expand...

Not what I would have said, but said better than I could have. and it accomplishes the same idea: "championship" races with restricted access and only GCR classes (replace national), divisional race weekends for everything (new regional).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top