IT National Racing

Andy,
You are wasting your time...... the only class worth watching currently at the Runoffs is SM...it is the only class that crosses over to NASA were many people are playning and understand the (more) stable rule set. If SCCA thinks what they are doing works let it be...... My suggestion for you and people that have visions of growth would be make IT or PRO-IT its own race series and market it to all groups running events. We could be a series within NASA,EMRA,SCCA, BMWCCA, PCA, and other groups. I saw the 944 guys do this a with a few groups.
I bet if you market PRO-IT to NASA next year you will have a full race group at their Runoffs at MidOhio. The show will be good and NASA can help you put a telecast together .....they did it with SM last year. Who knows.....maybe you can get the series to be a support race for other Pro races or SCCA national races...............
Hell....laugh at the telecast idea but my idea of GrandAm anymore is a bunch of RICH club racers or club racers with their credit cards maxed out racing to be on tv ,which very few people know about or watch..I watch it, but can't believe it is that popular to anyone outside of club racing. I'm an idiot...if I had $9k to burn I'd run around the back of one of these races. To me a real pro race means you make more money winning the race than it cost you to run that one race....that means you are making money...not reducing your costs.
I run both groups but this year my goal is to do well at NASA Nationals and SCCA regionals are just something to do for now.

Greg
ITS RX7
PTD E46 BMW 323i
 
Just curious Greg, how many cars are you running against in PTD? And in ITS? IF the ITS guys form SCCA (nationwide) came to the NASA Nationals, how would they fare? And, if the NASA National PTD guys came to the ARRCs (or any top drawer ITS race ) how would they fare?

I missed the NASA Nats telecast...where was it broadcast?

Regarding "Pro" racing, well, yea, it's obvious that 95% of the guys racing in the Pro ranks aren't surviving on their 'paycheck' form the winnings, or even independent sponsorship, in roadracing. Even guys at the DP level are "pro-am"-ing it.
 
gpeluso said:
Hell....laugh at the telecast idea but my idea of GrandAm anymore is a bunch of RICH club racers or club racers with their credit cards maxed out racing to be on tv ,which very few people know about or watch..I watch it, but can't believe it is that popular to anyone outside of club racing. I'm an idiot...if I had $9k to burn I'd run around the back of one of these races. To me a real pro race means you make more money winning the race than it cost you to run that one race....that means you are making money...not reducing your costs.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Anybody who wants to have a 'career' in pro sportscar racing is fooling themselves unless they are a Fellows, Pobst, Said, etc. There are only a handful, maybe two, of these drivers around.

Otherwise, you're just gonna lose money, and lots of it.

I like what I do. Virtually the same as the 'pros' but without all the bullshit...
 
Last edited:
NASA SM was on Versus.

Last PTD race had 6 and I think at Summit there were 11-13 ITS cars. That was my last two races. If I sign up for the Beaverun race next weekend I will be only the 2nd ITS car.......NASA pt is still in the early stages but has traction.

Greg
 
Jake,
sorry....I got 2nd place at the last NASA race and won the ITS race at summit if that was your question..... If you are askingme who's better....neither....this year I have had equal success ...... I am not that good and I am not saying that in anyway....actually got my ass kicked in SM for 2 years and last year came over to IT and have got a chance to win more than a few races.

Greg
 
disquek said:
Now there is a push for IT to go national? Why?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question.

disquek said:
National racing is really hurting.
Click to expand...
disquek said:
I think there is value in having a ladder. Having raced both regional and national extensively including the runoffs, I can say that most of what's been written (by people with first hand experience) is true. The difference between national and regional racing (talent wise) is not at the tip of the field. It's in the middle of the pack. There are fast guys and slow guys at nationals, just like at regionals.
Click to expand...

Which creates a ladder in what way... I mean other than how much money one throws at a car? Ladders typically are defined in development of the participant. Is there a difference in driver skill at the National level or is simply the amount of $ one has? If it is the former, that argues for creating a driver licensing system. If it is the latter, then there is no need for a ladder as all one needs to do is have rich DNA.

The difference is that (in general) the national only classes spend WAY more money at the pointy end. Like WAY more. I've seen national racers using TWO sets of stickers EVERY SESSION (@ $2500 a set). They actually stop for a tire change (practice and qually only). These are $250k cars with full time crews. You don't want to invite these guys to your casual party.
Click to expand...

That's the rub in moving IT to National. There are those who say let IT go National. (I'm not one of them.) There are those who say get rid of the National/regional distinction and simply have races. (I might be one of these). But that opens up the question of how does one get to the Runoffs? If every race earns points towards the Runoffs, then qualifying for the event gets VERY expensive. If only some events grant points, then how is that different than what we have now?

The cost arguments have some merit, but they really only matter if one is trying to get the Runoffs. I don't need to run stickers at every race if I'm only interested in my Regional series and every race isn't a Runoffs qualifier.

The bigger problem will be those who "lose" their single-class championship. They are going to be howling mad.
 
This whole Runoffs qualification thing has me wondering...when, other than SM, was the last time you actually had to qualify for the event, as in, they had a full field? (I should check the numbers, but my impression was that most classes were far from full.

On the other hand IF every class was full, I imagine that would be bigger than nearly any track or event could handle...

Regardless, if they aren't showing up now, (and lets face it, if you want to go, it's not THAT tough) I don't see changing the qualification standards would make a huge difference.,,,
 
disquek said:
Please do not sacrifice IT at the alter of national racing. IT has an important role in getting people into club racing. There are better ways (for the club as a whole) to fix national racing than to add IT.

Plus, most of the IT folks that want to attend national races already do in the form of restricted regionals and STU/STO. So I doubt that adding IT to the national classes will help national participation numbers (from the event stand point).

If it's money or talent, it doesn't really matter in club racing. Lap times and finishing position tell the whole tale. There is no prize for being the highest finishing guy in an under prepped car. Like it or not, the car is a factor. More so in classes with looser rules. Sometimes money can buy the best car. Sometimes you have to build it yourself. Both are worthy of a national championship. This is racing, it's not always fair.

One thing you need to consider is that the classes that are not regional only (GT, prod, Tx, FA, FC, FF, FV) are what we're really talking about when we talk about "national racing". So comparing regional EP to national EP, for example is what we should be doing. Not comparing ITA to FP.

The difference between a winning national GT1 effort and a winning regional GT1 effort will likely be substantial in both money and experience. It's impossible to speak in absolutes. The guys with more money tend to gravitate toward more expensive cars. Nothing wrong with that. That's just a fact of life in every endeavor. So you don't see a lot of fast (money and talent) regional entries for these national classes. Mostly because the cars are expensive to run, so you only run them where there is decent competition (nationals).

Regional only classes should be geared toward providing a great value for the money. National classes (those that are not regional only) should include (notice that I didn't say "be limited to") classes that offer an engineering (read $$) challenge along with a driving challenge.

Re: drivers ladder. Granted the four races needed to go from a regional to a national license does not create much of a ladder. But the reality of national versus regional racing is that the average national racer has more career starts under his/her belt than the average regional racer. Granted, there are individual guys at regionals that more starts than some entire nationals (Ken Payson). FWIW: I'd like to see the requirement for a national license be made more like 20 races.

So is there a ladder in terms of car development and experience? Yes - for the non regional only classes. Does it apply to every car and every driver? Certainly no. Does it apply as an average. IMHO: yes. Does it add value to the club: Yes. For sure.

Good discussion.

-Kyle
Click to expand...

Oh thank you experienced national driver for coming to our lowly forum and imparting your wisdom.
Honestly Kyle you are coming of as a condescending ass.
 
Thanks Dick. I didn't mean to be.

I'd heard that this forum was hostile. I guess there was some truth to that. Good to see the "us versus them" thing was a fable. :rolleyes:

I'll delete my posts and leave you guys to yourselves. Feel free to delete your quoting me.

-Kyle
 
disquek said:
Thanks Dick. I didn't mean to be.

I'd heard that this forum was hostile. I guess there was some truth to that. Good to see the "us versus them" thing was a fable. :rolleyes:

I'll delete my posts and leave you guys to yourselves. Feel free to delete your quoting me.

-Kyle
Click to expand...

Actually I do not think this is a hostile forum at all, and I do not mean to drive you away but I am sorry I am calling it the way I see it, for you to come here and tell the IT community what their place in the big picture is overreaching at the least. Improved Touring is a huge and important part of this club and for others to tell what our class’s purpose should be is, well, condescending.
 
Kyle's data is I am sure accurate but it doesn't so much apply to IT. Two $2500 sets of tires for qualifying? Fine in GT1, can't happen in IT. I never had a set of tires over 6-8 heat cycles...and it would have been less if they had fallen off before that.

Full time crew? Got that. Almost a weeks worth of dyno time, check. Etc, Etc. The beauty of the ruleset is that you CAN spend as much as a GT-1 team but it won't get you very far given our chassis and parameters.

Will it raise the price if tea at the front of a National field? In some areas, no, some yes and some HELL yes. Will it create a tough class to win at Nationals with a big field? YOU BET. What's wrong with that?

To Kyle: Thoughts on my theory that if a National class is created, then the Regional racing for that class has the potential to get 'softer' or more inviting for the 'average spender' (both in money and dediciation to the driver)?
 
Dick,
You're out of line. Plain and simple. Resorting to name calling is the last bastion of a dead argument. There is a difference between straight shooting and being a jerk.

I never told anyone what their "place" is, let alone an entire category. I offered my opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, let's discuss that.

But calling me an ass for having an opinion is just not right.

Andy,
My experience with SM (and I know you know a lot about SM too) tells me that having a national side to a class only ups the game. In SMs case, big time. My GT1 example wasn't supposed to be specific. It was just an example of the level of the madness. Don't think you cant spend big money on an IT car when you can spend $40k on an SM.

FWIW, I'm done here. As a long time forum participant, racer, and worker, I dont deserve the treatment I got. Dick, I was glad you got to elected area one director. Up to now, you've always been a good guy to me. Let's hope this is was just a bad day.

-Kyle
 
Kyle, minor point of order. He said you we were "coming off as a condescending ass", as opposed, to "Kyle you condescending ass".

I consider Dick a close friend and worthy adviser. Trust me, he's told me that I have 'come off as a dick" at times. I took the thought as a good suggestion, and reviewed my path.

That said, I read your post and I nearly responded, but i didn't. Too much material actually, and it's ground well covered. I disagree with the whole ladder thing, the whole 'entry ' aspect and all. And yea, I saw some 'tude in there, but I hoped you didn't mean it, or it was a bad day...
 
Ok ok I am sorry I told Kyle he was coming off as an ass. I was very annoyed that someone who has no stake in IT racing coming here and declaring what regional only classes should be.
Kyle, I am Sorry I offended you.
 
disquek said:
Andy,
My experience with SM (and I know you know a lot about SM too) tells me that having a national side to a class only ups the game. In SMs case, big time. My GT1 example wasn't supposed to be specific. It was just an example of the level of the madness. Don't think you cant spend big money on an IT car when you can spend $40k on an SM.
-Kyle
Click to expand...

Oh, we all know you can spend huge dollars on an IT car. Builds can easily exceed $70K if you have someone else do the work.

I also think SM is not a great class to look at when you want to call on what will happen if IT goes National. SM seems to have a extraordinary amount of double-dippers. So they bring their 'pro' car to regionals. And with REALATIVELY low development costs, builds of these 'pro' cars are cheaper than in IT or whatever class you want to choose. Add in how many classes they can actually run in and you a have the best value in club racing across both Clubs.
 
I dunno, I didn't find Kyle's post all that condescending, if somewhat incorrect; he's got a point of view that doesn't match with ours.

Is it really all that surprising that guys running Nationals only would have a pretty minor view of IT? After all, it's not like they see much on a regular basis - the big Regional races are the doubles and IT-Fest and ARRC, not single and Restricteds coupled with Nationals, right? We go to our races and see huge fields of IT cars, and develop our perspective on how important we are as IT racers... and how meaningless those 3-car FV fields etc are... meanwhile, they go to their National races, see 3 IT cars total show up for a Restricted Regional, compare with their 20-car FV fields, and see that IT's a fringe element.

Let's just not get too stuck in our own little world, now.

Interestingly enough, there's been some similar discussion - on the DSR/CSR board, of all places - about ditching the National/Regional distinction, and how much sense it'd make, start to get the numbers up at the races.

Mind you, DSR and CSR are struggling at the bottom end of the participation numbers grid, and trying to find a way to boost attendance. Of course, being as how they're the sharp end of the field WRT cost and speed, the barriers to joining are pretty high... and they can't arbitrarily lower those without completely undermining the philosophy of the classes. After all, DSR is intended to be the place to go extreme with your engineering and design!

So I've pointed out in that discussion that one of the natural consequences to removing the Regional/National distinction would be to open up the gates to the IT Horde... and this might directly mean that classes on the edge of participation numbers, like DSR/CSR, might end up getting the bump off the Runoffs invite list.

I'm still waiting for a response to that point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top