May 2012 Fastrack

shwah said:
I agree that Production is very healthy. Even though in some areas people only run them in Nationals, dropping the cars/available event, they still are higher on the list than people realize. L
Click to expand...

Prod aside, I just can't agree that any class with 2.4 or 2.0 entries per race is healthy. That means on an average weekend you and one other joker are racing each other.

I wish to see an SCCA where the top ten classes have double digit entry averages. I realize my own ITS class doesn't meet this goal, but so be it. If the club is to grow and progress we really need to be very objective about our analysis.
 
For reference, latest/current Nationals participation numbers:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012_National_Participation-MAR1.pdf

Of course, this early in the season there's not really any representation from the upper half of the country, Left Coast excepted.

Unfortunately, they keep screwing up this spreadsheet; actually a total of 17 races, not 13 as noted. But that puts the 2.5 bar at 42.5 cars/17 races... which means everything from CSR-down wouldn't qualify.

A different data point, if you were to say 3.0 were a good bar (an actual full podium)... nearly half the classes don't make that (60 cars total)...
 
Numbers so far this year are.

Currently, the three prod classes have the following attendance and averages for 22 races.
EP- 117-5.32 rank 4
FP- 91-4.14 rank 9
HP- 87-3.95 rank 11

For IT- I am currently counting 34 races.
IT7--28- 0.82
ITA--221- 6.50
ITB-- 39 -1.15
ITC-- 23- 0.68
ITS-- 85- 2.25
ITR-- 32- 0.94
ITE-- 16- 0.47
ITX-- 11- 0.32
ITO- 7- 0.21


Keep in mind IT in some areas does not really exist and skews the numbers. IT in southeast,Northeast, etc is much higher. Note number of entries in ITR for those that call it dead compared to the other IT classes. This does not include enduro numbers either.
 
Last edited:
For IT- I am currently counting 34 races.
IT7--28- 0.82 = 28 racers entries
ITA--221- 6.50 = 221 racers entries
ITB-- 39 -1.15 = 39 racers entries
ITC-- 23- 0.68 = 23 racers entries
ITS-- 85- 2.25 = 77 racers entries
ITR-- 32- 0.94 = 32 racers entries
ITE-- 16- 0.47 = 16 racers entries
ITX-- 11- 0.32 = 11 racers entries
ITO- 7- 0.21 = 7 racers entries

Average is 50 racers per class, but the standard deviation is 67, which tells us exactly what you know intuitively, that the class distribution is heavily skewed.

Do we simply have too many choices and classes?

I wonder how hard it'd be to balance ITB/ITC into one class and ITA/ITS/ITR, or, ITA/ITS into one class. Boy that'd be a fun discussion for the winter!
 
Ron Earp said:
For IT- I am currently counting 34 races.
IT7--28- 0.82 = 28 racers entries
ITA--221- 6.50 = 221 racers entries
ITB-- 39 -1.15 = 39 racers entries
ITC-- 23- 0.68 = 23 racers entries
ITS-- 85- 2.25 = 77 racers entries
ITR-- 32- 0.94 = 32 racers entries
ITE-- 16- 0.47 = 16 racers entries
ITX-- 11- 0.32 = 11 racers entries
ITO- 7- 0.21 = 7 racers entries

Average is 50 racers per class, but the standard deviation is 67, which tells us exactly what you know intuitively, that the class distribution is heavily skewed.

Do we simply have too many choices and classes?

I wonder how hard it'd be to balance ITB/ITC into one class and ITA/ITS/ITR, or, ITA/ITS into one class. Boy that'd be a fun discussion for the winter!
Click to expand...

I have to wonder if these regionally-spec'ed classes are hurting IT participation in some areas too. Our region has an ITE (nothing like IT, shouldn't be called that) and an ITX (for double-dipping ITA/B/C cars), but ITO, ITU, IT7 ... we don't have those. Our ITE&ITX don't hurt IT participation. But in some regions, do these non-GCR "IT" classes pull participation from the GCR IT classes? Just wondering aloud.
 
JoshS said:
But in some regions, do these non-GCR "IT" classes pull participation from the GCR IT classes? Just wondering aloud.
Click to expand...

I think they do. I've written it before and I know I'll be skewered for writing it again, I don't think we should have these classes that are very similar to other classes such as SRX7 and SSM. There are probably others around as well but those are the two I've seen at the tracks I visit. However, they are regional-only classes and someone there in the region wants them to exist. Not sure they shouldn't have just been told "no", but it is what it is.

I'm not sure what ITX is all about, but I bet it wouldn't be too hard to combine ITO/ITE/ITX into one class - "For cars that are built to IT safety rules be they production cars, tube frame cars, replicas, kit cars, etc." One of those run what you brung classes, as long as it is IT-safe.
 
Last edited:
In the SEDiv, I'd say IT7 does pull a significant amount of cars from S/A/B. I don't think the other ITx classes do (ITE, O, X, etc.).

S and A certainly could be combined but the power to weight ratio would need to move up some for S and down some for A. The problem with a "broader" swath of stock hp ratings is that you have more cars on the fringes that have a hard time making their low spec weight, or have to "ride heavy."

Note in the numbers above, that A is skewed high due to SM crossovers. I did a quick average for ITS participation in the SEDiv and it's over 10 cars per race so far. VIR and Sebring had great turn out.
 
I bet you could do something like this:

IT0 = ITR and a future ITQ
IT1 = ITS and ITA
IT2 = ITB and ITC plus first generation RX7s

Yep, there would be difficulties there with some cars and classifications. But, that is why the ITAC gets paid the big bucks. Number One, make it so.
 
I thought it was number 1, go take a number 2?

I think by luck or by chance, we kind of got the power to weight spreads on IT "right." We have a few tweeners but not many. You throw S/A together and fewer cars fall in the sweet spot I think.

I need to run some cars using an "IT2" (say A and S) power to weight modifier and see what we get. If we move it to say 13.5 it might keep the A cars heavy enough to still make race weight and not make the S cars TOO heavy at the top of the heap -- but cars like yours would gain weight staying in S.
 
JeffYoung said:
In the SEDiv, I'd say IT7 does pull a significant amount of cars from S/A/B. I don't think the other ITx classes do (ITE, O, X, etc.).
Click to expand...
While likely correct in context, beware making such sweeping generalizations. It's a common conclusion to make - many people do - but it assumes that these competitors are racing to be racing, and not racing because they like to race their IT7s. In other words, you're assuming that if IT7 (or these others) were banned as a class that these competitors would "definitely" compete in ITA or at least another SCCA class, versus leaving racing entirely.

Likely, but not assured.

GA
 
JeffYoung said:
I need to run some cars using an "IT2" (say A and S) power to weight modifier and see what we get. If we move it to say 13.5 it might keep the A cars heavy enough to still make race weight and not make the S cars TOO heavy at the top of the heap -- but cars like yours would gain weight staying in S.
Click to expand...

Hell, cars like mine need to gain weight in S. A 3.8L V6 motor classed at 2470 lbs - no, that isn't right. Should be up around 2700 to 2775 lbs, which is about what the car weighs.

Not much sense in running through such an exercise as there isn't any way in hell IT will see any merging of classes.
 
Greg Amy said:
While likely correct in context, beware making such sweeping generalizations. It's a common conclusion to make - many people do - but it assumes that these competitors are racing to be racing, and not racing because they like to race their IT7s. In other words, you're assuming that if IT7 (or these others) were banned as a class that these competitors would "definitely" compete in ITA or at least another SCCA class, versus leaving racing entirely.

Likely, but not assured.

GA
Click to expand...

Oh, I certainly get that. I've had this very conversation with some of the IT7 contingent about why they haven't moved to ITS RX7s, etc.

Hell the fact that some of them are spending a good chunk of change to convert to a Renesis to run IT7R supports your point.

BUT -- I do think that for the most part, if IT7 had never been created those cars and drivers would have stayed in IT, either in the 7 in B or A, or in another car. It is these "fractured" classes in particular that I think are a problem. I know and am very good friends with the core group of IT7 folks in the SEDiv, and I know I frustrate them when I say this, but I really do think it would be better for the club and them in the long run if they were folded into a "standard" IT class.
 
Ron Earp said:
Not much sense in running through such an exercise as there isn't any way in hell IT will see any merging of classes.
Click to expand...

The strength of IT is in the stability, but cars keep getting faster, and heavier. as long as those trends move together we'll still be able to match the power to weight specs, even if it leads to "heavy" cars on track with "light" ones, but eventually the initiatives by the OEMs to shed weight will bear fruit and the slower classes will effectively be locked out to new cars. at that point, we should allow the old slow classes to pass into vintage. I think a lot of SCCA should be passed into vintage, but then I'm an oddball in the club in that I don't have a 60's BMC fetish...

combining B and C would be harder than splitting A into B and S, or S into A and R. S and R are pretty close anyhow, and lately we get a lot of tweeners on the A-S cusp. I think the middle here could be fruitful IF we were to look at such a merger. Doing so would undoubtedly upset a number of people.

"ITQ" will need to happen within ~5 years in order to allow most of what is new and "sporty" into the ranks and stay relevant to the manufacturers and potential membership. The current civic Si will be an ITR car, and it seems every 3rd generation moves up a class (disregarding the EM/EP/FA-FD inversion which is due to a huge increase in the minimum achievable IT weight of the cars). I'm honda-centric so that's my yardstick. There should always be a class above the civic Si, and a quick look at a used car lot will show you that's still true.

to Jeff's point about tweeners: there will be tweeners wherever you set the weight breaks between classes. today's tweeners could be tomorrow's bogey cars - it's all what you define the sweet spot to be.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
While likely correct in context, beware making such sweeping generalizations. It's a common conclusion to make - many people do - but it assumes that these competitors are racing to be racing, and not racing because they like to race their IT7s. In other words, you're assuming that if IT7 (or these others) were banned as a class that these competitors would "definitely" compete in ITA or at least another SCCA class, versus leaving racing entirely.

Likely, but not assured.

GA
Click to expand...

Right, I'll go out a bit on a limb here and say that in the NE, where we resisted the IT7 pull for longer than we probably should have, it has resulted in more entries for the region.
I was one of the only guys duking it out in A. Then we did IT7. In spite of the economy etc, the number of RX-7s increased. More entries for the region, more fun for the racers. Sometimes the IT7 crowd (often) was larger than lots of other classes like ITC. 4 -5 cars was pretty 'normal'.

It's safe to say that if the cars had been left in A, MOST of the guys would simply not be racing. The cars are cheap, the racing is fun, and because they feel like they get a fair shake, they show up.
Now, you CAN say that they COULD be more competitive than they were in A, with better efforts, after all SOME IT7 guys were running near the front, and even grabbing a win when the rains were biblical. Some might suggest that they weren't 'true' competitors. (Thats a line in the sand that gets drawn to the level of convenience of whoever is drawing it!) On the other hand, running at that level required a pretty aggressive spending effort (I'd say ITA in the NE has some fast cars) and development effort, and I think that was beyond the scope of some of the guys. (most of the guys) And...at that level (the car I'm thinking of broke and set records across the NE at 9 different tracks)...a top RX-7 is STILL lucky to be gridded 4th in a 20 car ITA field.

It just aint competitive. The B move should have happened long ago, but even if it did happen the ITAC refuses to class the car at an appropriate weight... so whats the point of moving the car, changing wheels, just to be marginalized in another class? The classing powers that be failed this car.

So, the bottom line is that those classes exist to fill a need in the marketplace, and the net net is more money for the region and more guys racing...which, last I checked, was the point of the whole exercise.
 
Last edited:
Ron Earp said:
Prod aside, I just can't agree that any class with 2.4 or 2.0 entries per race is healthy. That means on an average weekend you and one other joker are racing each other.

I wish to see an SCCA where the top ten classes have double digit entry averages. I realize my own ITS class doesn't meet this goal, but so be it. If the club is to grow and progress we really need to be very objective about our analysis.
Click to expand...

Yeah for an average of the 310 events in the dozens of regions you are correct. In reality we can all see what is happening in our regions and divisions, and choose not to build a car that has zero entries - which is a lot of what creates those low numbers. My point was that there are a lot of events where there are no competitors in a class for a lot of reasons. For instance in CenDiv, there is a whole lot more national participation than regional. As a result, some of the national classes - specifically the prod classes - get really weak participation at regional weekends.
 
Let's also remember that Regionals are all about putting on great events and making money. Local classes that add entries for the cost of an ashtray here and there are fine as long as they don't screw up run groups that thrive.

Nationals, now that another story...
 
I agree. I feel that in general:

Fewer Classes is better than More Classes

Andy Bettencourt said:
Nationals, now that another story...
Click to expand...

The SCCA should have given up the National/Regional distinction long ago. There should be classes, racers, races, and a SCCA Championship.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top