October Fastrack is up

As it is, the powers that be don't want IT in national racing. They use the excuse of the cars being to old to keep up with, yet they allow cars from the '50's to run production.
[/b]

I think the issue is that in IT, you have to run stock cranks and stock cams and stock TB's etc. For those 50 year old cars, the 'specs' aren't really needed because those items are part of the rules so it isn't hard to police...in IT it would be.

For me, there is no National category that suits me. I want the IT ruleset. I like the IT ruleset. Enough mods to be fun and an engineering challenge, yet not freaking crazy. Realize that if you don't want to run a Miata, you have to jump from a wallowing street car in SS or T all the way to Prod. There is no happy medium. The IT ruleset IS that happy medium for me.
 
I don't think it's correct to compare Regional grids vs. National grids. SM and IT would be born from Regonal racing. The culture is different. I only know of one SM guy this year who went National racing and did no Regionals. Everyone else is doing a full Reg schdule with 3-4 Nats thrown in.

No offense intended but prep level for "Regional" Prod cars is pretty low. Why is it 95% of these cars are slower than ITA? The culture is that a top Prod guy goes to 2-3 Nationals, gets his invite and that is all the money he needs to outlay. It seems most Regional guys race for the fun of it and the National guys race because they 'have to' to get to the big dance. SM and IT culture is the opposite.

If guys in some of the wicked National classes had the option of building a top car for less money (IT) and less operating costs but could still go to the dance, I am betting IT would boom.

Again, if IT went National, NOTHING would change at the pointy end of ITA in NER...NOTHING. But in some Regions, people would flock to it and some guys would go from 5th to 15th on grid. Even with no NEW players in SM, guys who didn't prep for National caliber competition have slipped down the grid sheet and are sour because things ain't what they used to be.

Hey, I am for it - but it will hurt IT in most areas...so I am very leary of the idea.
[/b]

Andy,

What would change at Regionals if IT went National? I don't follow the logic if how making IT National would increase the fields at a Regional.

Maybe the windwo that I look through is the exception, rather than the rule, but most of the MARRS races at Summit Point draw more Prod cars than probably half the Nationals around the country. The racing is good, and people don't feel compelled to spend their kid's college fund to be competitive. To run at the pointy end of the IT field, takes some major $$$ What's a Serra Acura go for? How much did it cost to build Nick's car?

I see the fact that people can run Regionals, in National-eligible classes, and have good races and lots of fun, w/o spending what it would take to be competitive at the National level. I have yet to see any compelling arguement that says that IT wouldn't go the same way.

Will it take a $25k ITA car to be on the podium at the Runoffs? More than likely. But it probably already takes that to be on the podium at the ARRC.
 
I'm with Bill on this one. It seems that most of the people who are whining about IT becoming a national class want IT to remain regional so that they can remain competitive with substandard equipment!!

The only difference I see is the cost of traveling to tracks outside of your region. IT is IT is IT. The cost of preparing a 1st class regional car should be the same as a 1st class national car, the rules are the same.

I say, bring it on, I'd love an excuse to travel to other regions. Having said that if IT went national you won't see me at the runoffs. I dont want to spend ten days to run one race!
 
IT is IT is IT. The cost of preparing a 1st class regional car should be the same as a 1st class national car, the rules are the same.[/b]

sorry, but it's not.

so this is what deja-vu feels like?
 
sorry, but it's not.

so this is what deja-vu feels like?
[/b]

Travis: I agree. i can remember when FV fields were divided naturally into three sub classes : the $5000 engines, the $2500 engines and the build it yourself engines.

I can remember guys who built 30 minute engines and 15 minute engines (National vs Regional)

BTW, this was back in the 60's!!!!
 
Once again, we're not getting the full "causal" picture, here. It costs no more to build the very best, very fastest 1998 Whatever to run Nationals than it does to build the same car for Regionals. What changes is the definition of "fastest."

In 1986, I won an ITC regional championship with a stock 1.4 Alliance with OTS Konis, soft springs, and aftermarket bars. I was arguably the "fastest" ITC car in the Northwest, or at least the most consistently fast of the four or five C cars out there at that time. Put that into a different context, with more competition, and what changes is NOT the cost of preparing a car to any given level. What changes is the MOTIVATION to prepare to a level higher, at greater expense, than the racers you want to beat.

I hate to be indelicate but often times, when people complain that costs are going up, they are really complaining that the cost has gone up of maintaining whatever level of competitiveness fits their individual goals. The problem is that, when the guys/gals up front get more serious, spend more money, and gain time at the margin, the effect trickles down through the field...

Racer Rick used to be able to keep the front three pretty much in sight. When someone broke, he could end up on the podium. He had achieved his equilibrium, balancing budget and competitive goals. Rick was happy. He was spending $X per year on his racing, while the Three Fast Dudes were spending $1.2X on theirs. When five new racers came into his class because it was (gaining popularity due to whatever influence - prize money, status, contingenc dough, babe magnetism) and decided to outspend the three drivers who consistently beat Rick, he got relegated to duking it out for 8th. Worse, the previous Three Fast Dudes, long used to being able to fight for the podium for $1.2X had to step up and spend $1.8X to stay in the hunt. They got faster Rick is even more miserable.

There are a lot of variations of Rick.

There's Participant Paul, who just wants to be out there and is happy to circulate around off the pace. He's resigned to always being a backmarker, is terribly constrained by money, and doesn't really effect the dynamics of competition.

There's Super Star Steph, who's the next female Indy phenom, whose dad is willing to spend whatever it takes to be sure that she's in front. She helps establish what it takes to stay at the bleeding edge.

There's Victor Visa, who's willing to max out his cards to stay in the lead pack, but won't be there next year when the bills come due. He contributes to the cost-of-competition bloat up front, until he blows out - and gets replaced by Mastercard Mike, who does the same thing.

National Nate cares about NOTHING besides getting to the big show. He'll spend only as much as necessary to "qualify" to go to the RubOffs, and picked his class because the participation numbers are so low, he pretty much can't NOT earn the chance to spend his whole budget on one race.

Whatever Willie only cares nothing about points and only wants to race at one track close to his house, so having a National-eligible car lets him into the big Double there, giving him more tracktime wihtout traveling.

Everyone's got their reasons for playing and their budgetary thresholds of pain. When a class gets MORE POPULAR, supply and demand for the commodity of speed change. It has nothing to do directly with what its called or what the rules are.

K
 
No offense intended but prep level for "Regional" Prod cars is pretty low. Why is it 95% of these cars are slower than ITA?[/b]

Funny you said that. Back when I was in ITA and had no shot of being up front, Jake F. and I often half-joked about turning out cars into Prod. cars. Meaning not add any go fast stuff except maybe switch to slicks. We would have won a few regional races. Then again, there were very few Prod cars to beat.


K, I agreed with ya till here...

When a class gets MORE POPULAR, supply and demand for the commodity of speed change. It has nothing to do directly with what its called or what the rules are. [/b]

It's not just more popular - it's more popular with people who are willing to spend more money on their racing budgets. You could have many, many Participant Paul's out there and it won't impact the economy or the racing class. And yes, changing the IT class (or rules if you want to call it) does impact things, weither seen as good or bad. It may not impact if there will be the Serra's of IT, but how many. And who will come in to make that budget appear small?

Yup, there certainly is a trickle down effect in money spent. It sure would be a shame to drive Paul and Nate out of racing. I’m not sure why the class in which SCCA has defined as the entry level class should have $50K ITA, ITB, and ITC cars as the norm.
 
I must agree with K...I won the 2005 SARRC with a stock motor anf final drive...06 rolls around and it is everything I got to keep up with MVS with a built motor and FD/LSD...i do need to develop my suspension more due to more power. SM at the regional level circa 2004/2005 was nice, but as soon as the nats came there were 60+ cars out there with $$$ spent on them. More cars/higher visibility=faster groups...I dont think thats a bad thing but I really dont think the club could handle that many cars at a national...and everything that comes with that many cars in a high pressure event. Can you imagine the cheating and protests for IT cars like SM??? Yikes. IT is great for getting people to the sport and I believe that was part of the plan for it. Why change a good thing into something that would just cause more headaches and drama? I just think the SCCA should promote more IT races as big events around the country like the ARRC separate from national and have a year end invitational somewhere like Mid O or Road America with the points leaders for each division. I'm sure the participation would be there...
 
evan i think you'd end up with the same result as making the class national if SCCA promoted a big invitation only event for IT. it probably wouldn't be to the extent of the national classes because the event wouldn't be televised.....but people would still step up their spending.

with that said, i'd love to participate in something like that. i'd get smoked, but it'd be fun.
 
There's Participant Paul, who just wants to be out there and is happy to circulate around off the pace. He's resigned to always being a backmarker, is terribly constrained by money, and doesn't really effect the dynamics of competition.

K
[/b]
Hey now, just because I drive a Neon doesn't mean you should pick on me... :lol:
 
I must agree with K...I won the 2005 SARRC with a stock motor anf final drive...06 rolls around and it is everything I got to keep up with MVS with a built motor and FD/LSD...i do need to develop my suspension more due to more power. [/b]

Evan, with all due respect, you also benefitted from hitting a down year for ITA SARRC. You Obviously drove your ass off to win it with an underprepared car, but the top guys just weren't there that year.

In '01 and '02 when I won, John Wilding was running his Integra with a built engine, and we had some good battles. That was a top 3 ARRC car. My car had a fresh Sunbelt, 4.88 plus LSD, custom Konis, fresh hoosiers every 6 cycles, etc. It was about a top 5 ARRC car too. MVS won in '03 or '04, and you know his car was maxed out just as much as his 1.8 is this year.

This has shown itself this year. As you said, you have had to up your game to compete. You have done a great job of it, and will probably be in the top 5 at the ARRC for your efforts.
 
that same under prepared car qualified/finished 7th last year...hopefully better this year with a full on car B) as long as Greg's cute little small red egg doesnt have too much new top secret rocket science in it!
 
Kirk, every time I hear from you it confirms your hero status...

...why the class in which SCCA has defined as the entry level class should have $50K ITA, ITB, and ITC cars as the norm.[/b]

Because that's the way the rules - pretty much designed 20 years ago - are written. Just 'cause no one has fully prepped a car until now doesn't change the fact that it could have been done back then.

Nothing's changed technically, just the attitudes, motivations, and mindsets of the participants. Nobody's HAD (or WANTED) to do it to be up front 'til now. - GA
 
Kirk, every time I hear from you it confirms your hero status...
Because that's the way the rules - pretty much designed 20 years ago - are written. Just 'cause no one has fully prepped a car until now doesn't change the fact that it could have been done back then.

Nothing's changed technically, just the attitudes, motivations, and mindsets of the participants. Nobody's HAD (or WANTED) to do it to be up front 'til now. - GA
[/b]
The origional Volvo's from Hell were the first fully preped IT cars. They were built by Prod. racers like Bob Griffith. Bob Chriss, and Phill Hunt to nearly production car standards. I hear they were not very welcome when they showed up. If you notice the Volvo's are not really dominent anymore. Everything else cought up with them.

Charlie
 
sorry, but it's not.

so this is what deja-vu feels like?
[/b]


You just don't get it Travis. IT has only one place to play. That means that they spend whatever it takes to run at the pointy end of the field. Look at ITA and ITS up and down the East coast. There are some big-dollar cars at almost every event.

Do you think Chet would spend more on his E36 if IT were National? Maybe, but he probably wouldn't have to, as the car is already built to the max. Same goes for a lot of cars.

What's tripping you up here, is that the National classes that are happy to run Regionals don't have to prep to the max, because the guys that do, aren't running Regionals.

A max build is a max build, regardless of where you run it. Kirk pretty much hit the nail on the head (again). :023:
 
there is a world outside of the east coast bill.

i completely agree with kirk as well, how can we both agree with the same person, yet be in disagreement with each other?

making a decision for IT based on what you experience is rather selfish (though understandable). as andy alluded to earlier, many of you guys won't have to change a thing if IT went national, because you're already prepped to the limit.

here in midiv, 99% of us would have to drop at minimum 5k on the car just to maintain our current finishing positions. what about cendiv? rocky mountain? etc etc.....what are their divisions like? i don't know. all i'm saying is a decision for ALL OF IT shouldn't be made based upon what happens in 1/3 of the country.
 
...It's not just more popular - it's more popular with people who are willing to spend more money on their racing budgets. You could have many, many Participant Paul's out there and it won't impact the economy or the racing class.[/b]
I don't know how you could do it - since "racing" is by definition competitive, and it tends to attract competitive people - but I suppose it IS hypothetically possible that you could convince some large group of people to spend some smaller portion of what might be put into any given class or type of car. That's actually the way that 'claimer' classes work - everyone agrees to assign an artificially low value to a car or engine, to put a lid on spending. Problem is, that doesn't seem to jive with the culture of road racers, wherein cubic dollars have always purchased an advantage.

And yes, changing the IT class (or rules if you want to call it) does impact things, weither seen as good or bad. It may not impact if there will be the Serra's of IT, but how many. And who will come in to make that budget appear small?[/b]
Depending on what you mean by 'changing,' the answer I think is 'absolutely maybe.' Any change is going to either impose costs (if a change must be made to stay legal) or encourage additional spending - if it opens new ground for competitive spending. If I purchase a $20K secret to put in my ECU black box and the rules next year require that I run stock hardware, I have to pay to stay legal. If the rules are liberalized to allow standalone systems and I currently have nothing, it's not a requirement of the regulations that I spend.

If I'm competitive with a reflashed chip in a stock ECU (as is the case now with a lot of fast IT cars, right??), I'm frankly unlikely to take advantage of the new allowance. If it costs LESS than the current Black Box option but gains me a relative competitive advantage, I MIGHT step up. However, once the people in my place on the competition food chain pony up, I have a choice to make - buy the new speed or lose my place.

It's a gross generalization but yes - more liberal rules with additional allowances DO raise the ceiling potentially but (for the thousanth time) the only real constraint on spending is how much money the most enthusiastic spender is willing to part with.

... It sure would be a shame to drive Paul and Nate out of racing. I’m not sure why the class in which SCCA has defined as the entry level class should have $50K ITA, ITB, and ITC cars as the norm.[/b]
It's not possible to drive Paul and Nate out of racing. It IS possible for the culture and participants to make it tougher - or impossible, even - for them to achieve their competitive goals at their past levels of expenditure, at which point they may opt out. That there are $50K IT cars out there is NOT the result of changes in the rules: It is strictly because that's what someone decided it would take to meet his or her goals - competitive, ego, appearance, or whatever. And another someone decided to chase that someone, and the race was on.

K
 
Back
Top