Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
An improvement to FC's picture? That makes no sense. At least in terms of stating that FC's "picture" is improving because though it is still declining, its not as rapid as before. An improvement would be an increase, not a continuing decrease.
Stan,
I was one of the FC guys who supported Nationals in the NE this year. In addition I hauled 34 hours to the Sprints and 41 hours to the Runoffs by myself. I raced at one Hankook event because it was in my backyard so I say this as a supporter of SCCA and someone who wants to see SCCA be successful and as someone who paricipated in the pro series.....
Members are voting with their dollars. They aren't stupid, they know there is a cost by going to other series. They are trying to sending the SCCA a message. Please listen to them and stop trying to blame others!!! The other series aren't stealing entries, the SCCA is pushing entries away!!! A very large number of the guys running the Hankook series had already stoped racing rather than go SCCA racing. They are excited to race with an organization that actually wants them and helps them. But rather than reading the signs, listening to the members and maybe even try to emulate the series that is "stealing entries" it seems there is more interest in blaming other series for the decline in participation.
Liars figure and figures lie. There are a hundred difffernt ways to spin why the FC numbers are declining but forget about it just focus on how to make them better. Listen to what everyone is saying, LESS CLASSES, driver friendly events, track time, that's what the majority are asking for, not more classes. There seems to be this attitude that the BoD and Comp Board know what is best for us and ignore what we are saying. When I read your posts its like you think we are all stupid. Many of us have advanced degrees and are successful in our businesses so why not listen every once in a while. Yes there are a few who would like a new class but they are a minority. If you open that can of worms how and when do you close it? By allowing an F1000 class how can you say no to an F3 class using the new Cooper car or a Pro Mazda Class or a Fran Am class or a FBMW class?
The only one to blame for SCCA's decline is the SCCA and as a member of the Comp Board you have some ability to affect change. Please make it positive change. Focus on bringing back the guys who have cars and have supported the club in the past instead of hoping to attract a couple new guys with a new car. I can assure you for every new guy in F1000 you'll turn off 2 guys in other Formula classes.
For what it's worth, and I'm sure you'll blame everyone but yourself and SCCA, after reading what you've posted and knowing your position in SCCA I'm seriously considering racing with the Hankook series next year.
Yes Paul, I refer to a decrease in the rate of decline as an "improvement". I have had many private communcations from FC guys who blame F-SCCA for the decline in their class. The numbers don't lie, though, and the truth is that the decline in National participation for FC started years before F-SCCA came along. Furthermore, the decline slowed coincidentally with the introduction of F-SCCA. I find this very interesting but have insufficient data to support any clear findings. Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Hope you don't get a nosebleed up there on that lofty pedestal Stan......
Yea SCCA!!
Back to the point of the thread, I for one applaud what the SCCA has done with the rules for F1000 and by making it a national class for 07. I think this class will totally revive club formula car racing, and I will predict that you will see a 30 car F1000 grid sometime in the next two years(and a pro series). I have spoken with several shifter kart drivers and dads who are totally into the concept of motorcycle motors in cars and since they already spend 50-70k per year on thier fragile ICC shifters, F1000 is a no-brainer. Sorry guys, FF and FC are dead in spite of some brave efforts, I think F1000 is the future if the rules stay under control.
Ok Mike.
Just assumed that you were also the push behind it since you are the public face.
I think it is a good thing that the F2000 series is doing in that it gives people who want to race in a different atmosphere a place to do it.
If it ran at tracks within my limited travel range, I would be doing some of the races in it. I think it ran at MO this year, but I had so many car problems that I had a heck of a time getting 5 weekends in as it was.
Stan,
Your attack on Mike Rand, Bob Wright and the rest of the F-2000 competitors is not justified. Blaming F-2000 for the problems in FC club racing is not going to convince anyone they should support scca national racing. Just read what people like Chas Shaffer and Rick Silver are writing. Both long time FC National & Runoffs supporters.
History proves that a healthy Pro = healthy Club. With both sharing the same spec you get a ton of crossover. Just look at FM with the standard car as the spec Pro car. Scca National FM racing was in allot better shape, same with the hay days of F-2000 pro.
Please Stan, keep pushing to get the number of National classes below 20, IMO 10-15 would be fine. And yes, if my class that I race in now [fc] was dumped for a better mouse trap then so be it. But make no mistake about, the number one reason that so many open wheel classes are in trouble is too many classes. Too many open wheel classes & too many National classes.
Rob Nicholas
SCCA Member #268431
F-2000 #89
I just sold my 95 VD and am in the process of purchasing a newer car. My partner already has a zetec car, and we are looking into the different series in which to run. I went to the LRP ALMS race as a spectator met Mike and Al, and overall was impressed witht the series. It's hard to argue with 20+ very similar cars, lots of track time, a staff that is very nice and accomadting to it's teams, and spectators.
Len
Cheers
Len
Porsche River Oaks. Houston
Rob, I'm sorry you take my blunt assessment of the future of FC as an attack on the FC community, as that was not my intent. Once again, though, let me reiterate that the future of FC lies squarely in the hands of its members, not with SCCA.
No, what makes a healthy pro-linked club class is the trickle down of reasonably priced recent vintage ex-pro cars, which is no longer happening. Only a handful of new pro FC cars have been sold in recent years and they are not trickling down to Club racing. Instead, the pro series are jiggering their rules packages to attract Club racers with older technology cars. This is an insidious threat to FC club racing because it weakens the club class while failing to provide the historic trickle down of new cars.History proves that a healthy Pro = healthy Club.
That's the Rock. The Hard Place is that the top-tier Pro F2000 chassis for 2007 is the Dallara F3 chassis (with the Zetec). I feel confident that the the FC community doesn't want this chassis in the class. Even if VD continue to offer their tube-frame chassis for sale, how many new $53,000 rollers are they selling, plus another what, $15k-ish for the Zetec package? Now that the pro series have figured out that drawing club cars works better than selling new cars, that effectively means the end of significant numbers of new chassis for FC.
I will, but you guys have to support that plan for it to happen, which means you have to communicate that support loud and clear to the BoD.Please Stan, keep pushing to get the number of National classes below 20...
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
No, what makes a healthy pro-linked club class is the trickle down of reasonably priced recent vintage ex-pro cars, which is no longer happening. Only a handful of new pro FC cars have been sold in recent years and they are not trickling down to Club racing. Instead, the pro series are jiggering their rules packages to attract Club racers with older technology cars. This is an insidious threat to FC club racing because it weakens the club class while failing to provide the historic trickle down of new cars.
Stan[/quote]
No Stan, you have put a spin on the facts.
Yes wile the trickle down effect is part of the equation, its just one part of many factors.
Many people buy or chose what class they race in if the car/class can cross over to pro with few changes. Most of these people never pro race the car or only do a one pro race per year deal. The rest of the time its club raced. Next, Hard core pro teams love cheap testing, guess what, they sign up and run scca weekends at tracks they will be seeing during the season.
No doubt, any pro start up series will hurt scca club racing short term. But if the pro series has legs, and can grow, the club will also grow. Long term this is a good thing.
Next your issue with high dollar pro cars no one will buy.
Look back at some post, It seems that VD has some interest in the Pro F-2000 thing, VD also said they want to continue to develop space frame cars. IF this is true then again give it some time, People / Teams will start buying new cars and then, well you know the rest of the story, they sell the cars to club racers.
BTW,
I think this as gotten of the topic and should be moved up / under Rick's post about losing car counts and more classes.
Rob Nicholas.
I agree that there are many factors in what makes for a healthy class, Ron, but I didn't really cite any "facts" in my argument to put a spin on. Rather, I disagreed with your assertion that healthy pro classes equal healthy club classes, and articulated why I think that is so. Mike and Bob's series appears quite healthy right now, but its effect on club racing in that part of the country is definately NOT healthy.No Stan, you have put a spin on the facts.
Yes wile the trickle down effect is part of the equation, its just one part of many factors.
Many people buy or chose what class they race in if the car/class can cross over to pro with few changes. Most of these people never pro race the car or only do a one pro race per year deal. The rest of the time its club raced. Next, Hard core pro teams love cheap testing, guess what, they sign up and run scca weekends at tracks they will be seeing during the season.
I do have a few facts that I'd like to share, though.
Fact 1: FC National participation increased nearly every year from 1989 to 1999, starting at 597 and ending at 981...a 64% increase in ten years. Since peaking in 1999, the class has declined more than 50%, to 454 National entries. [Source: official SCCA records.]
Fact 2: 1989 to 1998 was a period of rapid optimization of the tube frame/pinto FC package, with annual improvements usually rendering prior designs off the pace. [Source: Jon Baytos and others in pro FC.]
Fact 3: From 1999 thru 2001 the default VD changed very little and sales slowed to a crawl as pro teams upgraded their existing chassis rather than investing in new ones. [Source: Jon Baytos and others.]
Fact 4: In 2002 Pro F2000 introduced the Zetec engine, which continues in service to this day. [Source: Cooper Series website.]
Stan's spin on these facts...
1. Both club and pro FC racing were very healthy for the decade of the 90's. Pro teams bought new cars and raced them for typically 1 to 2 years, then sold them to club teams and bought new chassis. The racing was fantastic, with huge fields and reasonable costs, and it looked like the good times would go on forever.
2. Better funded club teams bought near new cars from pro teams and sold their now 2-3 year old chassis to less well funded club teams, who in turn sold their 4/5 y/o cars to even less well funded teams. [Source: personal observation and conversations with Jon Baytos and others about this as early as 1992.]
Double-spin zone...
3. The healthy pro equals healthy club dance continued so long as there was a constant supply of reasonably priced near-new cars. When that source dried up starting in 1998, club FC racing began a decline that continues to the present time. Furthermore, in 2002 the Zetec meant not a "drying up" of the source of near-new pro cars for club racing, but the end of the line until the Zetec got approved.
4. Today we have come full circle. After selling 30-ish new Zetecs in 2002-3, sales of new FCs have slowed to a stop, with only a handful of new cars sold in the past 2-3 years. That is not only not enough to supply the pro ranks, but those series have figured out that if they can't sell new cars they better convince club guys to come race with them if they are to survive as series. Mike and Bob may be the best at this option, but their success is directly contributing to the further decline in club FC numbers.
5. Generalizing from the FC situation, we see again and again in the club that reasonably priced race cars generate sales, whether for new cars or for used. Ent sold hundreds of SR kits for under 10-grand more than 20 years ago. Today you can still buy a new one for (IIRC) $26,500, and Ent sells a couple of them a month. Ent also sold about 50 new FSCCA cars at under 30-grand in their first like, 90 days? As the price has gone up their sales have slowed, but they still sell about one a month for more than $20,000 less than a similar performing (and virtually identical) FC from Van Diemen. And what can I say about the 1500 SMs built in the past 5 years? You can build or build a starter one for 10-grand, and twice that can put you on any podium if the shoe is up to it.
I agree 100%, Ron, but the difficulty is that VD have a pricing structure that is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Come on, VD, how can you sell a turn-key FSCCA in Denver for a profit at $45k, but think a virtually identical FC is worth $53k plus engine and transport from the UK (what...$68k?)? Ipso facto, pro FC ain't got no legs because VD are blowing smoke up your anatomy if they are telling you they want to continue in tube frame FCs!But if the pro series has legs, and can grow, the club will also grow.
Who knows whether anyone will buy those cars? That wasn't my point, though. My earlier comments were about the club FC guys not wanting them in club racing, though I'd love to be surprised. In my not very humble opinion, if VD are serious about selling club FCs, they need to take a page from their FSCCA playbook and drop the price about $25 grand. Anything short of making them price competitive is just pi$$ing in the wind.Next your issue with high dollar pro cars no one will buy.
Look back at some post, It seems that VD has some interest in the Pro F-2000 thing, VD also said they want to continue to develop space frame cars. IF this is true then again give it some time, People / Teams will start buying new cars and then, well you know the rest of the story, they sell the cars to club racers.
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan: Do you rember John Bishop? He was one of my sponsers for membership in SCCA.
What are the numbers for formula car participation if you combine compareable cars? That would be FC, FM and FSCCA. By entering the market for intermediate formula cars, didn't SCCA make a very clear statement about FC. I think they did and it was not good. How about FM. That was also a knife in the back of the FC manufacturers. I think that SCCA has done a good job of driving participants away from FC. It is surprising that the numbers are as good as they are.
Finally, this years fisaco at the start of the FC race is just a single incident in a long string of events that were detrimental to SCCA and FC in particular. I have lost several good customers because of incidents directly related to their participation in the run offs. One in particular still races FC but not in SCCCA. I am hearing that more of my customers might decide to race with Mike's group. Sadly SCCA is not the only game in town. There are several race tracks east of the Mississippi that servive well without any SCCA events.
IMSA was built with disgruntled SCCA members. I would argue that Skip Barber, Pro Mazada, FBMW, and others are successful because SCCA has failed to meet the needs of a significant segment of the membership. The growth of alternatives to SCCA can be traced to the arrival of Enterprises. It was bad enough racing a formula car in the "Sports Car" Club of America but when the club went into competition with me and others, and was willing to subsidize their products, the club drove me and many others out.
I have been engineering race cars in the pro formula car classes for the last 15 years. What really makes me sad is that very few of the young drivers I have worked with have raced in SCCA at all. I engineered a drivers test for 2 fully funded Atlantic rides last winter and there was not a single SCCA driver who was close to being competitive. The same is true for mechanics, engineers, and even car owners. I find it sad and depressing. This entire thread is depressing. But you are voicing the SCCA official stance, it is the fault of those ---- formula car drivers. The five FC drivers got their just rewards. Right?
In the past we had the run offs at tracks like Daytona, Riverside, Atlanta, and Mid Ohio. Tracks that had meaning to the fans of road racing. Famous drivers learned their trade by competing against the masters in club racing. The junior series -- FA, FSV, FF, and FC-- were support to the top series. No longer.
Steve Lathrop, OT
Are those Newman / Wachs seats going to be fully funded again next year? If so, I'd like a shot at one of them. If you're willing to talk about it, I can contact you offline.
Cheers,
Rennie
Wow, Steve, you're dating yourself...!
Kidding aside, I know the name, but to the best of my knowledge have never met John.
In 2006 FC had 454 National race entries, plus 414 for FM and 49 for FSCCA.What are the numbers for formula car participation if you combine compareable cars? That would be FC, FM and FSCCA. By entering the market for intermediate formula cars, didn't SCCA make a very clear statement about FC. I think they did and it was not good. How about FM. That was also a knife in the back of the FC manufacturers. I think that SCCA has done a good job of driving participants away from FC. It is surprising that the numbers are as good as they are.
Although I've read several versions of what happened on the FC pre-grid, I did not know anything was wrong until the field passed me at the bus stop chicane on the warm-up laps with Dave W. as tail-end-Charlie. After the race results were official I went down to Dave's paddock space to ask him what happened, and he looked me right in the eye and said, "I screwed up." He was out of the car and had left his helmet in the trailer when the 5-minute call went out. Dave knew what the Sups said about the starting time and about the 2 warm-up laps, and made no attempt to shift the blame to anyone but himself.Finally, this years fisaco at the start of the FC race is just a single incident in a long string of events that were detrimental to SCCA and FC in particular. I have lost several good customers because of incidents directly related to their participation in the run offs. One in particular still races FC but not in SCCCA. I am hearing that more of my customers might decide to race with Mike's group. Sadly SCCA is not the only game in town. There are several race tracks east of the Mississippi that servive well without any SCCA events.
Steve, I've stood in the sun from Canada to Mexico for up to 90 minutes while CART and then Champcar poised the Atlantics in "ready mode" for their appointed moment (you probably even more than I). The camera is a cruel taskmaster, for sure, but that's the way of it if you want the TV coverage. So IMO there is no blaming the pre-grid folks because they can't give you "an extra minute or two" to get ready.
This isn't a question of "just rewards", Steve, and it isn't about them being formula drivers. IMO it is about being there on-time and ready to go when the whistle blows. It's about having read the Sups, planning accordingly and maintaining good situational awareness. Ultimately, it is about taking responsibility for your own actions.But you are voicing the SCCA official stance, it is the fault of those ---- formula car drivers. The five FC drivers got their just rewards. Right?
Stan
Stan Clayton
Stohr Cars
Stan,
I've actually been in your corner during most of this argument. I appreciate the time you have devoted to the SCCA and by addressing issues on this board. A very small portion of us can actually say we contribute to the club outside of paying our dues and racing our cars... but the latest concerning the issue on the grid at the Runoffs seems a bit skewed.
1. How is one supposed to prepare for a "green flag" time? Why can't they just give a time when the cars will roll off the grid? How hard would that have been? That way there's no doubt when YOU have to be ready.
2. What difference does the TV crew make? It's not a live broadcast. Sure, they have a schedule to keep, but, again, how can they keep a "green flag" schedule, but not a "leave the grid" schedule?
3. Yes, Dave W. admitted fault....but, he's also voiced extreme displeasure with the way it was handled. You may say that ultimately it came down to lack of preparedness, others would say it came down to a complete lack of respect from the officials.
No, I don't think there was a conspiracy against these guys because it was a formula car race. No, I don't hold you accountable - these are general questions that I wish someone from the SCCA would address. I know this thread is wandering from it's original intent, but it seems that there are some simple things the SCCA could do to retain membership. Simply addressing this incident would go a long way to mend some fences.
James
Dave wasn't the only driver caught off gard, just one of several who were penalized by loss of their starting position. The fact that nearly half the field was some what unprepared to leave at the chosen moment indicates to me that there was some failure of communications. At the minimum, it indicates the event was not very user friendly. I say that this is an official screwup to the extent that a very significant penality was imposed. But prior to the start of the event no driver had any idea when such a penality would be imposed.
Based on your position, Stan, I am interperting that what you are saying is the official position or attitude of SCCA and the race stewards, or at least reflects that position.
Bishop was president of SCCA before he fromed IMSA. Mike Rand gave you a list of a few organizations that compete with SCCA regions for track dates. The club does not need more competition for track dates.
A number of years ago I was working in Indy Lights and we were racing at Road Atlanta with ALMS. The vast majority of the participants were club type racers in the old FM and several classes of sedans. My lasting impression of that event was what a great racing deal those guys got for their money, lots of track time, low hassel, and they shared the card with some really exotic stuff. That should have been SCCA. In the early 70's SCCA events could be that good.
Stan, I read the supps, there was absolutely no mention of green flag times in the supps. I read them carefully in my office before going to the Runoffs. You want technicalities, the GCR says "The supps shall contain the schedule of events for the competition." The supps did not contain a schedule of events. There was a separate sheet of paper with a schedule. The GCR says "the GCR and supps shall govern the event".
The fact that so many drivers had no idea the informational schedule said green flag times should be an indicator of a communications error on the SCCA part. The fact that there was not a single call to the grid following lunch is RIDICULOUS. Every event we go to has calls to the grid. The exact words of the announcer prior to lunch was "we will resume at 1:00". I guess forming a grid or rolling off is not part of resuming an event???
The fact that there was no call to the grid or delay of the 5 minute or 2 minute board by a few minutes, once the grid marshalls knew many competitors did not know of the green flag times, is undefensible. My car was ready well in advance, engine already heat soaked, and believe it or not, we were polishing the car.
The SCCAs defense of what happened at the FC Runoffs race will drive several long time members to race in an alternative driver friendly series that CARES about their patrons. I dont think you are accurately characterizing Dave's perspective on this, buit I will let him speak for himself.
Last edited by Rick Silver; 10.27.06 at 10:03 AM.
Rick,
While I agree with almost everything you said, let's not ignore the fact that the times were published as green flag times. You've seen Dave Gomberg's post in another thread. For those who haven't, here it is:
I cannot comment on the whole of Rick's remarks because I was not present at the grid for the FC race - in fact, I got to the track while the cars were doing their pace laps. However, it is not true that "There was no mention in the supps of green flag start times." The schedule is part of the Supps. Above the race times in the schedule is the following:
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP RACES
ALL RACES 18 LAPS OR 40 MIN., WHICHEVER ELAPSES FIRST.
RACE TIMES ARE GREEN FLAG TIMES.
The Runoffs schedules going back to at least 2001 (the earliest available on line) all say the same thing about race times being green flag times.
Are you saying that just because it was written on a separate piece of paper (albeit included with the SUPS) it doesn't count?
How about we all stop trying to see spookies, puffs and specters and black gunships and realize serious mistakes were made, but not on purpose. Did it become a "comedy of errors?" Absolutely. Could this be an indication that we need to develop a Club wide system that all races will follow? I think so.
Yes, IMO the times should all be "leave the grid" times. It's easy enough to figure in two pace laps and work with the TV folks.
Yes, announcement should have been made, especially after lunch.
Yes, the Grid Workers should have been more proactive, especially at the 5 minute warning, in relaying to Race Control that the grid was unusually quiet. At the two minute call they should have been forceful with Race Control. At the "release" call they should have held them. In my experience the call is usually "Grid, you may release when ready." Obviously, many were not ready so a hold could have been called by the Chief of Grid.
Yes, the drivers should have been aware of this (IMO) anomaly in timing.
I am not laying the blame on the drivers, even though the Green Flag statement was available. Green Flag times are ridiculous. This should have been caught long ago as being unworkable. There appears to be no proactive examination from the Race Committees before the events.
We missed the chance to see what would have been the most exciting race of the event by having some of the fastest cars out of position. Was it a travesty? Yes. Was it a plot? No. Should we draw-and-quarter someone? Hmmmmm . . . . . But who would it be. Not Stan. Not Mike Sauce. Not the drivers. I realize the RunOffs are the culmination of a lot of hard work, expense and expectations for many racers, and to have something like this happen is a real blow. Let's fix it, not talk about how crap like this will chase people away.
Maybe the CRB should appoint a committee to study exactly what happened and come up with a standardized plan that ALL events will follow. It would mean contacting the Race Committees from each Division/Region that hold events and coming up with a plan that would account for the unique issues that some tracks may have but something has to be done to keep this from happening again.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Charles, your response is very reasonable and I think what I myself am looking for. The SCCA and the stewards and marshalls should acknowledge that something went wrong and that SCCA was at least in part culpable. Did the drivers miss the green flag times in what was not a direct part of the supps, yes, several did. But there has been no response at all from the SCCA and any response from officials has in no way indicated that a review of procedures should ocurr.
The entire point of my posts is to fix the problem, since the SCCA uniquely offers amateur racing at a reasonable cost. But when a steward from the local region says that some stewards thought it was a travesty what happened and others thought nothing wrong at all happened, and other responses have the appearance of defending what happened, what is one to think?
The comp board and board of directors should look at what happened and some official repsonse should come forward. Let the members know that what happened is not OK and the organization will try whatever reasonable measures to ensure that this does not happen again. A reasonable response similar to your comments and suggestions from the BoD or CRB might go a long way to giving the membership some confidence that the leadership cares about the racing membership and will try to proactively make sure these kinds of things dont ever happen again. There has been a deafening silence from the leadership.
I agree completely.
Charlie Warner
fatto gatto racing
'Cause there's bugger-all down here on earth!
Well said Rick.
The longer it takes for the club to follow up on this problem and the others that came up during the run offs, the more positions will harden. The feed back I am hearing about the run offs is mostly negative.
Stan:
Going back to your reply to my question about numbers, where does a class with 917 entries rank among classes? That is the entry count for intermediate formula cars. I think that F1000 should be considered successful if the that number increases by several hundres next year.
Can you not follow up on Rick's suggestion in your official capacity? That is assuming that you agree with his quote.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
