SCCA's answer to the HPDE participants

[Knestis]

>> I think that most (if not all) new racers coming into IT use this second line of logic when it comes to rules and therefore, when they see these incredibly acrimonious debates over suggested changes that, from their point of view are no-brainers, they get turned off and start looking for other clubs. They don't care about what the original purpose of the class was, they're just looking for a low cost, straightforward way to get on track.

But what they don't have the experience to understand (and what you don't seem to get) is that each of them - as an individual - is only going to be in the game for a few years, on average. If we give every short-timer what he wants, the entire category gets dorked up for the everyone in a few years, and the guys/gals who pushed for the changes are long gone anyway.

The ITAC's first obligation is to the category. Second, to the Club. Third - a distant third - comes any individual group of racers, defined by a geography, class, marque, or time period.

Racers are, by and large, a bunch of selfish pricks. They want to win and if an entire program has to lose because of it, many of them don't care.

IT has some of the best racing in the SCCA. Add a bunch of new allowances and the distance between the front and back of the grids will get even bigger. If someone wants to monkey with things more than IT allows (yeah, I'm gonna do it) they can run Production. Or STx. If someone doesn't want that, wants what is good about IT, but then wants to shove the category closer to those more open categories WTF do they choose IT in the first place...?

K

 

[Flyinglizard]

The most succesful PDX groups all have some sort of ride along program. Some charge 50$ and they get an instructor for 2- 15min sessions. Is it a money loser? Short term ,yes. I had one student that had been three times before. But he could find 50$ for the day, not 300$. Young guy in school, etc. Doe he love cars, yes, will he come back with more money later?? maybe.
Again copy success, not failure. SCCA wont even let people into the track. Man the reg booth for the day, pay some kid the 25$ and sell 10$ passes. Hang some dam signs, maybe where kids race or work or drive cool cars. Have car shows at the local restaurant, on race weekend, handing out some passes for Sun.
It doesnt take a lot of thought to see that every one turned away, is turned away for good.

I have rented race cars for 20yrs. I get maybe 4 SCCA drivers per year @ 900 per race weekend.
I will rent about 25+ seats this year to Chumpcar guys. Why is that?? Hassle,and one freaken class. DOT 190 tires!!
3000 racers last year. hassle free fun
Cheap-ish racing.
ONE CLASS... far from perfect, a little scary in some areas, but in reality, a good time with lots of seat time.

Market SCCA by making it visible, making the first touch, a nice touch. By fixing the racing... MY ITB car can go into how many classes?? it will run HP next time , so that we can use the free tires.
Make it user friendly. Make the classes mean something , quit adding classes .


SCCA PDX; I had to get a TT Driver logbook to run my Chumpcar @ the PDX?? really .
Ride with me, follow me around what ever, log book? Bag of Hassle .
The TT board should just clean up the whole program. Just a sticker on the Club card should be fine. If you drive likeshit, remove the sticker and start over.
Copy success, NASA does a good job, makes money,/welcomes/brings young people with money.
Chumpcar does a good job, brings lots of money and drivers from all backgrounds. I think that the 4 driver rule is a hidden/accidental, part of the low rate of driver idiotis. Chances are good if you have 4 drivers, than someone may have a clue, and passing on that clue to success and non interface with hard objects.

SCCA needs a PR person with a vested interst.
Give me a budget.
I'll make a plan..
SCCA in HS driver ed. HS VS HS solo, Local cops take on the winners. against the cops!!
SCCA in the local car shows. pay 20$ off with a pic of your car at any show. Hand out schedules and passes!
Bring a non SCCA friend to a race. Get those people a 20 min session on the track, that day!!
Make the races shorter and more of them. practice session, qualfying session, race , qualifying session, race. Not!!
Practice/qualifying, Race, Invert the start, race, race, drink. easy
More fun, more racers.

I need more engineering lube. >:, MM

 

[jumbojimbo]

... If someone doesn't want that, wants what is good about IT, but then wants to shove the category closer to those more open categories WTF do they choose IT in the first place...?

They chose IT becase that is where the car they bought was built. And they stay because that is where the cars are at. Why would someone move from a 10 car class to a 0 car class just to replace plastic fenders with metal?

But you are also dumping all requests for changes into one "lets go prod racing" group.

1. Changes that don't make any difference and don't undermine the category, washer bottles, wiper switches, etc.
2. Changes for nla parts. Civic 4G hubs bolt right on, 3G hubs NLA. No performance difference, ok, maybe outside the philosphy of the class, but so what?
3. Actual allowances, bigger brakes because my car sucks, better hubs for "safety", etc. definitely outside the philosphy of the class. Bad idea.
4. Random changes like plastic windows, fender flairs, sequential gearbox, pistons, things that are clearly outside the philosphy of the class and have no business in the category.

The issue is that you jump all over people for asking why types 1 and 2 are not allowed anad you treat those potential changes like types 3 and 4. Oh my god, no washer bottle, that will lead to titanium pistons and custom cams. Cats and dogs living together.

And to some degree, same issue with NLA parts. Why force cars out of our class just because plastic fenders don't last 35 years? Ok, i get it, it's outside the class philosphy, but there's no way to extrapolate that to cars getting PERFORMANCE allowances, that argument sounds insane to most drivers. Trot out your SS example of some obscure car that got a bolt changed on rear calipers and then dominated the class and killed it. Or how some small allowance for deer whistles led to custom cranks. But that argument doesn't ring true to CRX guys who want to buy aftermarket metal fenders. You might be "right", but it still doesn't sound logical to most people.

(sorry, didn't mean to use the word 'You' so much and make it sound like a personal attack. That's the royal "You")

 

[Knestis]

I've been watching SCCA classes (and those in other sanctioning bodies) since I went to my first race in 1979. It WILL happen, Jim. The incremental creep from changes that you don't think matter to performance (they DO make a difference to competitiveness, but there's no convincing "You" of htat) will get made, then the ones that REALLY make a difference in performance will follow hot on their heels. It's happened in the last 10 years.

The only thing that's preserved IT in the form that is as close as it IS to the original rule set, is the neglect it got during the dark ages before the Not-so-Great Realignment. Look how much other classes have morphed since 1986 and you'll have some perspective.

If you stick around long enough, you will see it.

K

EDIT - Because, to be clear, when ONE car gets a gimme, everyone else will eventually get it too, regardless of 'need.'

 

[mgyip]

SCCA PDX; I had to get a TT Driver logbook to run my Chumpcar @ the PDX?? really

For a Time Trials, you'll need a log book and for PDX, we'd like to have a log book so, like other Clubs, the organizers can track the student's progress. There's no requirement to bring a TT Driver logbook for a PDX though and issuing one takes less than 5 minutes (if that).

SCCA needs a PR person with a vested interst.

I doubt that will ever happen at the National level for a variety of reasons, the least of which is that each Region has it's own "special" needs. At the Regional level, you're on the right track - get someone who has a FULL-TIME VESTED INTEREST in SCCA to promote the program. The concept of having a part-timer trying to promote a Region's events simply doesn't work. I work with several Clubs' local chapters - we get an invoice sometime well after the year has started and then there is no contact until the next year when we receive a call about "advertising". Given the level of service we receive, it's more akin to a donation b/c the ROI is minimal.

 

[ajmr2]

Art - I'm a bit lost about your example. How is moving the MR2 or any car to a class where it has a greater chance to be competetive equivalent to introducing new classes and adding confusion?

Sorry I wasn't clear, but I was trying to support Kahl's post. The "greater chance to be competitive" in the case of the MR2 has been well discussed in the past and not worth resurrecting here. I was simply trying to point out the difficulty in understanding the rules even as long time racer, and how that contributes to potential members looking elsewhere. And I may be wrong about the wisdom of adding so many new classes but "time will tell about the cirlcles in the wishing well." Another example of confusion with the rules would be a guy who can run a PDX or Club Trial all day but can't bring the same car to the same track for a Track Trial. I know there are several guys in the WDCR who are facing this situation.

Finally, in regards to attracting new members, I have been one of the pace car drivers for a number of years for MARRS events at Summit Point. I always make a point of inviting a volunteer or friend of a friend to ride along. This year I got busted for taking a 15 year old out. Yeah, that was a bad idea, but he was thrilled. His dad had won an auction that I had offered at his school for a Day at the Races. I also took out his dad, his dad's friend and 2 other teenagers over 16. Now the rule is only SCCA members can go in the pace car. So now I don't get to invite non members, which would include almost all spectators/family members and potential members to see the track from the pace car. I get the safety issue (liability lawyers), but that keeps me from trying to get someone interested in joining the club from my little place in the pace car.
AJ

 

[jumbojimbo]

Maybe we're at an impass Kirk. I'm pointing out the reality that the vast majority of current and potential drivers just don't agree with the logic that allowing us to remove one wiper is going lead to custom cams. They see it as pure pigheadedness. More of the same old been-there-done-that arguement. And yes, as member number 176823 I've been around a bit too.

What needs to be done is find the driving principles of IT and make that the line in the sand we will not cross. Allow the little changes tht don't matter and absolutely do not allow the ones that do violate the real principles. Don't protect the main principles by resisting all changes.

What you are describing in the past is a lack of disipline and poor decision making. The failure was the decision to voliolate the guiding principles of those other classes, not the little changes that led up to it Or perhaps to change the guiding principles themselves. But now, we're making the opposite mistake. We're resisting reasonable changes because we lack the faith that we'll be able to resist the unreasonable changes when the requsts comes along. That's why people keeping asking "why?"

 

[Kahl23]

>> I think that most (if not all) new racers coming into IT use this second line of logic when it comes to rules and therefore, when they see these incredibly acrimonious debates over suggested changes that, from their point of view are no-brainers, they get turned off and start looking for other clubs. They don't care about what the original purpose of the class was, they're just looking for a low cost, straightforward way to get on track.

But what they don't have the experience to understand (and what you don't seem to get) is that each of them - as an individual - is only going to be in the game for a few years, on average. If we give every short-timer what he wants, the entire category gets dorked up for the everyone in a few years, and the guys/gals who pushed for the changes are long gone anyway.

I completely understand your point of view and agree with the point that any single racer is likely going to be in the class for a few years at most and rules shouldn't be changed for any one individual.

However, what I am saying is that, while the rules shouldn't be changed for the interests of any one individual, there is clearly an issue facing IT when it comes to bringing in new drivers and changes should be considered in the interest of the long-term future of the class. The comments I've made merely reflect what I've experienced and seen among those people who are looking to get into racing and I'd suggest that there is a much larger group of people than just the newbies that get turned off by the ruleset in IT.

I also don't buy the argument that these incredible debates over things like washer bottles, wiring and motor mounts are worth it because they keep the class from transforming into Prod. Pretty much every other club has a low cost class that allows these types of mods while keeping the transformations to a minimum. It sounds like there have been past experiences where this was attempted and it didn't turn out well. I would suggest that perhaps rather than that experience being an indictment of changes as a whole, it perhaps was more a reflection of the way those changes were executed at the time. That said, I'm now talking about things I don't know enough about, so I defer to your experience.

IT has some of the best racing in the SCCA. Add a bunch of new allowances and the distance between the front and back of the grids will get even bigger. If someone wants to monkey with things more than IT allows (yeah, I'm gonna do it) they can run Production. Or STx.

Just because someone wants to simplify their wiring for troubleshooting or change mounts because they keep forking out for OEM replacements doesn't mean they want a class with cams, four-way adjustable suspensions, seam welding, etc.

 

[JeffYoung]

This is basically what I have been saying for a long time. We need to "codify" the IT core principles that cannot be changed, and allow member input to shape IT around them.

I've always said that I think we would agree on 99% of those core principles, but this thread has given me a bit of pause because I personally don't think lexan and fiberglass panels should be allowed. Core IT philosophy, to me, is stock stuff in those places.

Maybe the IT Core philosophies approach will be more difficult than I anticipated then, but I still think it worth the effort.

Maybe we're at an impass Kirk. I'm pointing out the reality that the vast majority of current and potential drivers just don't agree with the logic that allowing us to remove one wiper is going lead to custom cams. They see it as pure pigheadedness. More of the same old been-there-done-that arguement. And yes, as member number 176823 I've been around a bit too.

What needs to be done is find the driving principles of IT and make that the line in the sand we will not cross. Allow the little changes tht don't matter and absolutely do not allow the ones that do violate the real principles. Don't protect the main principles by resisting all changes.

What you are describing in the past is a lack of disipline and poor decision making. The failure was the decision to voliolate the guiding principles of those other classes, not the little changes that led up to it Or perhaps to change the guiding principles themselves. But now, we're making the opposite mistake. We're resisting reasonable changes because we lack the faith that we'll be able to resist the unreasonable changes when the requsts comes along. That's why people keeping asking "why?"

 

[mgyip]

Maybe the IT Core philosophies approach will be more difficult than I anticipated then, but I still think it worth the effort.

I'd be more apt to say that IT Core Philosophies have been lost during one of the many "scope creep" allowances.

Let's start with a simple question to the ITAC - Please provide a mission statement for Improved Touring.

Once that's codified, that should lay the groundwork for how IT was/is designed so that the ITAC can follow written guidelines instead of pulling in separate directions to satisfy each member's special needs and desires.

 

[Knestis]

I'm old.

And I'm going to try to stay done on this topic. I'm convinced that the horse is out of the barn. In 5 years, I'll look back on it as an academic question and see how it shook out.

When you define your 'core principles,' Jeff, you would be well advised to look at how they align with LP Prod, and be clear about what is different, because you are defining where the line will be drawn in very short order.

If you go as far as it sounds like you are, IT will be three proposed allowances away from those rules. I hope that's enough for it to maintain its identity and you best be ready for the Huns at the gate on those last few differences...

Rock on, y'all.

K

 

[coreyehcx]

Once again, this turns into a discussion about IT philosophy and the rules or how a washer bottle is the gateway drug for cocaine. I get it because IT is where the most competition is and with that comes arguing but jesus it gets ridiculous.

This is part of the "people getting turned off with certain comments/arguments" that have been mentioned.

But what they don't have the experience to understand (and what you don't seem to get) is that each of them - as an individual - is only going to be in the game for a few years, on average. If we give every short-timer what he wants, the entire category gets dorked up for the everyone in a few years, and the guys/gals who pushed for the changes are long gone anyway.

The ITAC's first obligation is to the category. Second, to the Club. Third - a distant third - comes any individual group of racers, defined by a geography, class, marque, or time period.

Racers are, by and large, a bunch of selfish pricks. They want to win and if an entire program has to lose because of it, many of them don't care.

IT has some of the best racing in the SCCA. Add a bunch of new allowances and the distance between the front and back of the grids will get even bigger. If someone wants to monkey with things more than IT allows (yeah, I'm gonna do it) they can run Production. Or STx. If someone doesn't want that, wants what is good about IT, but then wants to shove the category closer to those more open categories WTF do they choose IT in the first place...?

K

I dont mean to point you out but this as a newcomer doesnt get me puffy, maybe it explains part of the problem. Sure maybe I drive for a year or two and then I dont....How do you know for sure? I could enjoy the hell out of it like I enjoyed HPDE for the past few years and want to continue doing it. I could recruit everyone I know to come race SCCA with me. You have been club racing since whenever you started, how did anyone know at that time how long you would be around and your group? I assume there are some statistics to back your claim and I would love to see them.

The only thing I agree with from all of that is the selfish prick part because I want what I want too.

This is the same BS that made me get out of autox with SCCA about 8 years ago and run with Martin until I just didnt enjoy autox anymore at all and moved on finally to HPDE.


Im in the same boat as kahl like I have stated before in other threads and agree with most of what he had to say.


I have friends that have helped me through my process luckily (probably will hate me after this post), without them I probably wouldnt have gone this direction. NASA is very friendly and inviting to new people which I think SCCA lacks to an extent and most are arrogant about it and think its a selective club. SCCA is prestigious and has history but that doesnt mean it gets a freepass from the newer gens looking to race/compete/be cool whatever you want to call it.




I pointed this out recently for STL:

"OEM brake systems must be used" but "The standard production calipers or any 4-piston calipers are permitted.”

Basically it appears you can and cannot use an aftermarket caliper. Yes you can use an aftermarket caliper!

This I believe will be re-worded, some rules seem to need decoding which makes it difficult if you dont have a friend or you dont know a forum like this exists with contributing members.

SCCA's website as mentioned is one place to start. It gets you all excited when you first get there, "Go Racing with your car!" but first try to decode this big rule book that you may have no idea how to disect.

Dave Grans website was a huge help when I intially was doing HPDE's and decided I wanted to do w2w racing (count me in the group of HPDE guys that wants to really race) at this point in my life. Dave has taken the time to answer a few questions for me too which I appreciated a lot.

Greg Amy has been patient with my questions as well which is the type of reception you would want when youre trying to do everything within the rules when you are new. I dont get that vibe from some on this board and some I have met outside of friends at events.


Im curious, some of you have a lot of input and argue a lot concerning IT and whatever else.

How many events are you doing per year where you are actually competing in IT or XYZ class?



I will be happy to run in STL by myself, with 2 cars, with 20 cars or whatever. Why will I be happy? I will actually be out there which I think is the hardest part. I will be enjoying the specific car I want to drive with other cars faster and slower around me.

One thing really stuck with me oddly considering I dont listen to my own wife enough.

"While at a race as a spectator, he talked to his wife about how badly he felt for one of the drivers. “That driver is so far behind everyone else that is racing. That must be really awful.” I know when I watched races in the past, I used to think the same exact thing – “That poor person!” Of course, it often takes the wisdom of a woman to set us men straight. “Who should feel bad for whom? You are the one sitting here on the hill and not driving. I feel sorry for you, not him!” She was absolutely right. Keep in mind that running in the back of the pack is the worst-case scenario. But when you really think about it, that worst-case scenario really is not so bad. And by all means, I am not saying that you will be running in the back of the pack."
-Dave Gran

Obviously I like him and his site which were instrumental in my decision to go w2w from HPDE.


Those are my opinions/perception on it all obviously and I know some wont be liked.

 

[Knestis]

Once again, this turns into a discussion about IT philosophy and the rules or how a washer bottle is the gateway drug for cocaine. I get it because IT is where the most competition is and with that comes arguing but jesus it gets ridiculous.

This is part of the "people getting turned off with certain comments/arguments" that have been mentioned. ...

Those are my opinions/perception on it all obviously and I know some wont be liked.

No worries. Your timing is actually pretty good because you caught my last barrage before I waved my white flag. Y'all win.

I've tried various strategies to kick my give-a-shit habit about the IT rules and fallen off the wagon every time, but I'm seeing a hypnotherapist who's self-actualizing my understanding that more liberal rules are actually to my benefit. I've just been slow to come to that realization but I am very confident that I'm actually cured this time.

Hell - if the powers-that-be would get past the silly "USDM" engine requirement, I'd look very seriously at STL at this point.

EDIT

...How many events are you doing per year where you are actually competing in IT or XYZ class?

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/gti/history.php



K

 

[coreyehcx]

I wish the USDM and JDM thing could be worked out because I know some other people that would surely join me too.

Thanks for your link, that and my whole post wasnt attacking you

 

[Knestis]

As I said, no worries. I hope you *do* beat the odds and stick around.

I picked up the "most don't last more than 3 years" number from a discussion here or at rr-ax.com. It could be flawed but the most obvious evidence of turnover is member numbers. Mine is 103210, which was actually a NEW number I got after I taking a short break after first joining in 1979. SCCA doesn't make it easy to know how many people quit - or why, certainly - but we're up in the 430,000s now, I think.

That's all academic though. The current ITAC - and prevailing sentiment among members, I guess - are taking the category further down the path, so we'll all follow...

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, you are a good friend, but you are dramatically, dramatically over stating the claimed change in directon of this ITAC versus the one you were on (the one that allowed open ECUs, and sphericals, etc.).

We've probably had, what, maybe 25-30 rules request changes come up in the last year since you were off?

Almost all were shot down summarily.

The power steering removal allowance was voted down.

The engine mount change - a legacy from the ITAC you were on -- was finally approved.

A few small non-essential items can now be removed from the car.

You can legally now add an ignition switch, a starter button, and switches for wipers and lights.

Far MORE of what we do NOW than the first two years I was on the ITAC has been using the process to either class or fix cars.

I don't get the angst. I really don't. There hasn't been a major rule change from this ITAC (engine mounts were originally approved by the "old" one) and my guess is there won't be one.

 

[red986s]

>> The ITAC's first obligation is to the category. Second, to the Club. Third - a distant third - comes any individual group of racers, defined by a geography, class, marque, or time period.

K

Totally agree!!!

NASA is very friendly and inviting to new people which I think SCCA lacks to an extent and most are arrogant about it and think its a selective club. SCCA is prestigious and has history but that doesnt mean it gets a freepass from the newer gens looking to race/compete/be cool whatever you want to call it.

I think you see the difference. The SCCA is a club where (IMHO) NASA is a business willing to cater to the individual to keep your business. In SCCA you pay your dues/prove yourself and then folks open up. We all experience that at the beginning.

As you pointed out there are a bunch of great people in the club willing to help. There are just as many who won't extend a helping hand. Such is life. Like all of us you'll learn and then pass that on to "the new guy".

 

[Knestis]

Point of historical accuracy: ECUs and spherical bearings got "allowed" by a de facto application of the same kind of logic that says air bolts are OK. All the ITAC (which I wasn't on at the time) did was NOT put those genies back in their bottles - with the help of the CRB on sphericals - because they were politically untenable "take-backs." There was no proactive plan by the Committee to get to that place, and it only happened because earlier "safe" allowances were made, then exploited by members. That's how creep works.

Many of the most recent allowances were denied by the ITAC in the past 3 years - when I WAS on the committee. And the only "legacy" of the engine mount allowance from "my generation" is that we voted against it. The trend in the past 9 months clearly represents a line in the sand being wiped out by the current Committee. My current understanding is that you're going to redraw it based on the "core" attributes that are being kicked around, which will usher in another round of envelope-pushing reinterpretations (creep).

But that's just for historical clarity - not to argue that it should be different. It is what it is. I know we'll creep because we always do but I'm fine with the new way of things. Power steering WILL be looped, for example. There is ZERO question it will happen. The only question is, "when?"

I'm not clairvoyant. I'm just your reminder of the fact that this is how it ALWAYS works. I'm along for the ride and ready to take full advantage.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I tire a bit of the "just putting the genie back in the bottle" excuse for creep, because that's all it is. An excuse. You guys could have said no, but you didn't. You allowed open ECUs and you didn't recommend against sphericals.

The interesting question is why? But the answer is easy: BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT BEST FOR THE CATEGORY.

Your understanding of what I -- just *I* because no one on the committee is on board with it yet -- would like to do is wrong by the way. All I want to do is codify what we have NOW as existing core principles so that they don't get changed in the future. Essentially, NO MORE ECU rule changes, or no more sphericals.

If members want to change certain things around that, and can muster the support for it, the ITAC should in my view consider it.

That's all.

And in all cases this ITAC is doing what it thinks is best for the category. Just like you did. I just wish you'd give us some credit for it.

 

[Knestis]

That's all fine, Jeff.

It's what people want and I'm good with it. I'm disappointed that you (collectively) don't acknowledge the implications for the future based on past patterns but, again, that's where we now are.

I do *not* think that sphericals and open ecus were good for the category but it's water under the bridge, and it sounds like have now established the standard by which all future allowances will be judged to be "within the spirit of IT." I hope that works but it could cut both ways.

We've got a lot of freedom now and the "core principles" will run us right to the edge, removing the "buffer" that's slowed our getting there by incremental creep. I hope everyone is clear about where the brakes are.

K