FC/FS/FM/FA/F1000 dropped from MARRS Series?

[Rennie Clayton]

Disclaimer: I'm merely an interested observer on the West Cost, and have no immediate personal stake in this argument.


Alan (Olsinvest),

On the Spec Miata Forum, you and several other individuals (your drivers rep Mike Collins and Jason Meise come immediately to mind) have recently professed the sentiment that nobody really wants to eliminate those classes from MARRS. And yet, your Driver Representative Mike Collins voted to do exactly that. What conclusion do you suggest we should draw from that dichotomy?

Anyway, as I understand it, the MARRS series comprises all of the Regional Races for your region, correct? Now, I understand that Restricted Regionals are allowed in the GCR, and that's all fine and good on a race by race basis. It's a mechanism that allows you to put on races where certain classes are not included in the schedule for a particular race. But although the GCR allows these Restricted competitions, it still mandates that SCCA Regional Organizers shall provide competitions for GCR recognized classes (2006 GCR Section 17.1, 2007 GCR Section 9.1) - I don't see a plan for how the Region is going to comply with that requirement, given that the classes have been eliminated from the entire Regional schedule. Simply put, if the Region does not provide races for those GCR recognized classes, they are in violation of the GCR. And as one of the votes for eliminating those classes from the schedule, you now share in the responsibility for the fact that your Region is now in violation of the GCR, assuming this gets past your Regional BoD.

If, as you say, you love us all as brothers in this great sport of auto racing, how could you in good conscience vote for, let alone express sympathy towards such a measure? As you quite rightly point out, Formula racing in general needs to be responsible for increasing its own car counts. But if you are going to adopt that stance, then you must give us an equitable opportunity to do so. By eliminating these classes, you are not giving us that avenue. You might say that we can do it via Nationals instead of Regionals - true, but only the people who currently hold National licenses can compete, since you've removed the avenue by which competitors in your Region can earn new National licenses. Do classes which don't compete in the MARRS series have driver representatives? If they don't, how do you expect us to petition to get back on the Regional schedule - via a referendum by the very same folks who voted us off?


Jeff,

With due respect, the attitude pervasive in your post exemplifies the very core of why the Formula crowd is upset with the Sedan crowd right now.


Cheers,
Rennie

[iamnotwearingpants]

Jeff:


I would appreciate it if you can tell us when 61 drivers were turned away. I 've
never heard of this happening and would appreciate the information. I look
forward to hearing from you soon. Thanks for your help!

Mark

Please do not twist my words.

I did not say that 61 drivers were turned away. I said that the elimination of region-specific and optional regional-only classes will result in 61 drivers being turned away. And I made an error, it would be only 56 drivers. Those demanding that the CC be overturned on procedural grounds are willing to sacrifice those 56 drivers for the sake of the 10 drivers in the classes currently eliminated.

There were an average of 56 drivers who competed in these types of classes and whose cars do not easily transfer to existing GCR-mandated classes. I have assumed that drivers in classes such as IT7 or GTP will return to ITA and GT3 (from where they came), that SSM drivers will move to SM up to the 50 car limit, the CF will run in FF. SPO, SPU, SRX7 and ITE are SoL.

I find neither solution acceptable, particularly when moving the members of one race group would allow a home for everyone. Unfortunately, the DR for that group made it clear to the competition committee that any solution other than his class with open-wheel cars ONLY and no winged cars would be unacceptable.

[John Nesbitt]

Jeff,

Your argument is disengenuous. Nobody serious is recommending elimination of regional classes; they are simply insisting on inclusion of GCR classes.

[iamnotwearingpants]

With due respect, the attitude pervasive in your post exemplifies the very core of why the Formula crowd is upset with the Sedan crowd right now.

With all due respect, the attitude of the open-wheel crowd is simply hardening the hearts of many in the closed-wheel community.

The majority of closed-wheel drivers have no problem with 2 open-wheel run groups, even if their average participation is below the closed-wheel participation. The issue is when does a lack of participation by open-wheel drivers no longer justify maintaining those 2 run groups? A single Vee? 5 Vees? You tell me how few Vees it requires before it no longer is fair to the 45 car multi-class group.

Most of us would be willing to give the one problem run group time to raise their participation numbers. Problem is, they've been given notice for several years and nothing has been done.

Nobody WANTED to tell the Atlantics and Continentals and other fast formula cars that they could not run, but if one class refuses to run with them and refuses to run with anything else either, where are we suppose to put these guys?

[Stan Clayton]

Disclaimer: I'm merely an interested observer on the West Cost, and have no immediate personal stake in this argument.

While your stake may not be immediate, it is certainly there...along with that of every racer of lightly subscribed cars in the Club.

IMO, this isn't about a few lonely open wheel drivers. It is about preserving the foundations of our Club so it can continue to thrive into the future. I would just as vigorously defend the Spec Miata and IT drivers' rights to race were the shoe on the other foot, and the formula drivers in WDCR were trying to force them out with a "let them drive Nationals" attitude.

No, it is the ramifications of permitting Regions to "cherry pick" their most popular classes, while altogether denying access to more thinly subscribed classes that has me deeply concerned, and which prompted my intervention. If WDCR can "cherry pick" its most popular classes and eliminate the least popular, those eliminated classes can NEVER come back in that Region, for the simple reason that they no longer exist! Blink! Winged formula cars no longer exist in one of the Club's largest Regions. Then Cal Club (to pick on the West Coast), another large Region with thinly subscribed formula and sports racer classes, sees that WDCR got away with it, so decides to eliminate those classes to make more room for whatever its most popular classes are. Blink! Another Region where GCR-recognized classes are eliminated from regional racing at the stroke of a pen. And so it goes. One Region after another will weed out long-recognized classes that are "inconvenient" to their racing program. and the cascade effect will devastate the Club in a manner that the collective efforts of other road racing clubs, pro series, single-marque clubs, lawsuits, etc., could never hope to come even close to.

This issue is not some contentious but ultimately trivial dispute over a class' technical rules. This is a threat to the existence of the Club as we know it, and as such is worthy of our concerted effort to stop. And the threat is not just to Regional racing. Without Regional races to hone one's skills in on the way up to National racing, the affected National classes will wither as well. What will WDCR do in a few years when their supply of winged formula cars at Nationals dries up, argue that they should be allowed to drop them from the National schedule? The ripple effect from permitting this to happen goes far beyond a few formula guys in the D.C. area, folks. It threatens to fracture our Club into something not even closely resembling what we are today.

I don't want to see that happen.

Stan

[KAMcDonald]

jeff, jeff, jeff....

boy, could i use a banging head against the wall smiley here....

how are you arriving at region specific class people be sent away? is this what we are demanding be done to safe ourselves? i have not seen that anywhere. you did not put the two things together in your post, talked about elimination of gegion specific in one place, and 61 drivers somewhere else.... no link between the two items.

oh, wait, was that one of the proposals that came up at the CC in order to satisfy the DEMAND of drivers from classes that felt the group they were in was overcrowded (cannot use oversubscribed because by GCR, NOT ONE GROUP ALL YEAR WAS).

we could always play like the potomac porsche people at SP events, members only, if you are not WDC region of record, not welcome here... Nahhh that is selfish and i feel embarrassed to put it in words even to make a point of how silly this is all getting.

if we were oversubscribed, and it was REQUIRED to redo the groups and someone hass to be bumped, and CC felt bumping 5 classes totaling 10 people instead of X region only classes and Y people, ok, maybe.

again, all that we see from this side is some classes feel it is not fair to them to be on track that is 80% full when others are on track that is only 40% full, so split the people and get it all to 50%.

if this can be done without booting people, great. if people get ousted just to make others get a couple hundred feet/yards of clear track before coming up on someone else, no way.

show me one GCR/WDC mandated requirement where we HAVE TO make changes to meet this (dare i say petty) DEMAND and i will shut up. all i see expressed is a DESIRE by some to change for "quality track time", not even a safety issue.... and if safety is brought up because of too many cars on track, get it changed in GCR where lower count per mile is defined and then we MUST change things to conform to the rule.

Nobody WANTED to tell the Atlantics and Continentals and other fast formula cars that they could not run, but if one class refuses to run with them and refuses to run with anything else either, where are we suppose to put these guys?

and by the way, we wing cars currently run with FF, CFC, DSR, CSR, S2, so lets make it clear that it is not us that refuse to run with other classes. safety issues with us and FV/F5, yes. lots of difference in speed, size, weight, bad things can happen.
keith

[Amon]

Jeff:

I posted the 2006 Marrs participations on the SM website several days
ago and believe the FV's had either 83 or 81 entries for the 5 weekends
listed. That would amount to 16+ Vee's each weekend, so please explain
to me and everyone else where you're coming up with 5 vee's etc....
The hardening of the hearts is due to actions of drivers in your own class,
so please don't try to twist the events that have occured. Thank you!

Mark

[iamnotwearingpants]

Jeff,

I should have thought that someone who uses 'irredentist' correctly would avoid double negatives.

Seriously, though, your argument is disengenous. Nobody serious is recommending elimination of regional classes; they are simply insisting on inclusion of GCR classes.

If the average car count per race group is going to be addressed AND given the grouping constraints imposed by about 10-15 drivers (none of whom are in the classes that got the axe), then someone needs to go.

Everyone acknowledges the problem of Atlantics and Vees because of the closing speeds and the braking zones. Having spent 2.5 hours in an ITC car at VIR with cars that were running 40 seconds each lap faster than me and weighing about 1000lbs more... I appreciate the pucker factor involved and the additional problems caused by the difference between going thunk and going for a flight.

What would calm the rhetoric would be an acknowledgement by the open-wheel drivers that many of our closed-wheel run groups face the same problem and are doing it with two to three times as many cars on course at once.

There are solutions to the grouping problem that leave a home for everyone, but....

Nobody thinks the 2007 groupings are perfect. The ITA drivers don't want to run with ITS. I don't relish trading SRX7s for a Volvo that outweighs me by a ton. The sheep won't play with the cattle and the Flemish are throwing rocks at the Francophones.

[iamnotwearingpants]

Jeff:

I posted the 2006 Marrs participations on the SM website several days
ago and believe the FV's had either 83 or 81 entries for the 5 weekends
listed. That would amount to 16+ Vee's each weekend, so please explain
to me and everyone else where you're coming up with 5 vee's etc....
The hardening of the hearts is due to actions of drivers in your own class,
so please don't try to twist the events that have occured. Thank you!

Mark

Gee Mark,

I'm not a Miata driver. You guys ticked at ITC too?

Don't mess with a numbers guy who knows spreadsheets and statistics.

April: 7 Vees 0 F5
June: 10 Vees 0F5
July: 7 Vees 1 F5
Oct: 15 Vees 0 F5

Single race weekend average: 9.75 Vees, F5:.25 Total: 10

Labor Day: 21 Vees 1 F5
Labor Day: 21 Vees 1 F5

Counting Labor day as a single WEEKEND:
12Vees/weekend .4F5/weekend Group: 10

Counting Labor day as two RACES:
13.5 Vees/Race 0.5 F5/Race 14 cars/RACE

Compare and contrast:
Big Bore:
Single-race weekend: 37.5 cars/singe-race weekend
Labor as 1 event: 39.2 per weekend
Per actual race: 40.3

The Big Bore group has ITS and GT1. The speed differential between the two classes is huge.

[s2scca]

I wasn't going to comment here, but I can't take it any more. Below is an excerpt from an email distributed earlier today to a small group of folks, with a few more comments added...

[SIZE=2]In reality, Wings are not the smallest group, but in fact are only the smallest group once the proposed realignment occurs. In reality, the smallest group by far is FV/F5, which due to construction and speed issues would be difficult to group with either the current W-n-T group (due to speed) or SRFs (due to construction). I agree that a handful of Vees is very difficult to substantiate their own group, and safety considerations that must be take into account make this even more difficult. I have been reviewing some of the numbers and statements made about the whole situation, and there are a few points that strike me as very odd.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]There seems to be a consensus amongst a good number (note I did not say majority, because I can't substantiate that claim) of production-based drivers that they chose to run a production-based car because they wanted to have other people to race with.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]-- therefore --[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]If you run a class or group that has enough cars so you have lots of people to race with, that in itself will result in large groups, by nature.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]-- therefore --[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]What is the real motivation here in the sudden realignment? Without introducing/perpetuating a conspiracy theory, it appears that there are a number of drivers who would like to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, they would like to have enough cars to race with to make it fun, but "not too many". This dichotomy just doesn't fly with me.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Furthermore, it is many of the same drivers who eagerly await to participate in the WDCR's existing restricted regional every year, the 12 Hour Enduro. I'm a little confused (tongue firmly planted in cheek) as to why the same drivers eagerly want to participate in an event that lasts 25 times longer than any other regional race we run in the MARRS series, and always has 50-55 cars in it. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a bit peculiar at a minimum, and a lot more like [/SIZE][SIZE=2]hypocrisy in reality.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth, and flame away if you like.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=2]Dan Brooks[/SIZE]

[Amon]

Jeff:

I wouldn't mind racing with ITS if I had an ITA, but paring FV's with FA'S
is similiar to ITA's racing GT-1 or Trans Am cars, which is dangerous to all.
To simply remove two classes and then blame the FV rep. when Mike C.
has been working on this for years is incorrect.

Mark

[John Nesbitt]

Jeff,

What would calm the rhetoric would be everybody taking a deep breath, counting to 100, and thinking twice (or three times) before posting the sort of tripe that has gone up on contending boards over the past few days.

I made a similar request about 100 posts ago, and I might as well have saved my breath. (BTW, I requested the SM rep to make a similar posting on specmiata, but nothing was forthcoming.)

This is a tough problem. It will require serious effort to resolve. Heaping abuse on the 'other side' will accomplish nothing except to harden attitudes and positions.

The Board will meet on Saturday, the protagonists will make their presentations, and then the Board will find a way to undo this mess. Then the competition committee will need to go back and start all over again. We shall need all the good will and common purpose that we can muster to find a good solution.

[KAMcDonald]

BINGO.... that is what i was looking for....

over on the SM board i queried why they voted for the proposition when they gained nothing either way. response was "quality" time as defined by lower car counts equals more open track to race on. when we mentioned FV/FA mix being a safety concern with closing speed being too great, resonse was, hey, that is what racing is about, deal with it.

now, are you saying that this restructuring is considered a REQUIREMENT due to safety issue within existing grouping? please identify the group (and race/races) and let me take a look at the numbers, results, etc. and teach myself to see your point of view with the numbers and not us tossing things back and forth at everyone.

keith

ps if sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me, why does everyone have to be politically correct???

i think i need to make my tag line....

i just wanna race!

[iamnotwearingpants]

if this can be done without booting people, great. if people get ousted just to make others get a couple hundred feet/yards of clear track before coming up on someone else, no way.

1. All Formula (Not good)
2. SRF and Vees utilizing a split grid to put about 30 seconds between the back of the SRFs and the front of the Vees so as to minimize the interaction between the two classes during periods when the fields will be bunched. I.E what SRX7 and ITC arrived at this year in response to numerous first lap incidents between fast ITC cars and mid-pack SRX7s.
3. Setting concrete minimum participation numbers for a race group to keep its identity and resorting to solution 1 or 2 if that race group fails to meet that minimum.

show me one GCR/WDC mandated requirement where we HAVE TO make changes to meet this (dare i say petty) DEMAND and i will shut up. all i see expressed is a DESIRE by some to change for "quality track time", not even a safety issue.... and if safety is brought up because of too many cars on track, get it changed in GCR where lower count per mile is defined and then we MUST change things to conform to the rule.

With all due respect, the same could be said for the reasons why we won't run an all formula group. The GCR allows it, after all. Would not fairness and avoidance of pettiness suggest that different classes would get the opportunity each year to run with only 12-16 cars? I wouldn't want the open-wheel drivers to be unfair or petty, so as much as I hate the idea, I think the ITC drivers or the ITA drivers or the Prod drivers would be willing to undergo the hardship of having you folks combine and force them to have their own run group. Remember, we don't want an all formula group, but we know that you folks want to be fair and do not want to be petty.

Ok, sarcasm off.

Can you understand why many closed-wheel drivers are upset with the relative sizes of the run groups, especially when it benefits one race group year after year?

[Amon]

Jeff:

Since you're a numbers guy, you'll realize that the FV's were in the
top 1/3 of the 2006 Marrs participation #'s, the FF, FA, CF & FC's
were in the middle 1/3, and the F500's were in the bottom 1/3 of
all the classes . Thank you!

Mark

[KAMcDonald]

will not argue with you there, it is nice having clear space in front of you. but others make the argument of getting more thrills out of tight, competitive challenges... heck, at the ARRC last weekend the lead 4 SM's were nose to tail lap after lap, althought chris windsor did say there were car changes within the pack... i just gotta learn to tell those dang cars apart.

i think the SRF/FV was a safety issue as well, SRF are bigger size/weight and cannot see those little vees easy enough, sorta like a big rig and and a mini-cooper, gonna get ugly for one of them if they touch and all the SRF guy is gonna wonder is what rock he just ran over.

and while it is not much, we averaged 20 with low of 17, not 12-16. hey, if it is all about numbers i gotta make us look as big as possible, right?

if we could only talk the slow ITS (or others) into jumping into even a slow wing'n'ting, they could pick up 20 seconds a lap a solve a lot of problems....

keith

[iamnotwearingpants]

Keith,

Car counts for past 4 years are available at

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/pdfs/2006CarCounts.pdf

PM me your email and I can send you a spreadsheet with 3 of the years already in it.

I've given two workable solutions - a Vee/SRF pairing that keeps the two separated and one which postpones the day of reckoning. I don't see any solution other than the status quo and you won't find a great deal of support for that among the closed-wheel drivers.

I freely admit that some of the closed-wheel drivers have been unsympathetic to the problems faced by the open-wheel drivers. The converse is true as well.

I will tell you that my background is flagging and had I been flagging instead of driving this year, I would have been mightly annoyed to be out there for an 8 car group. I would have been even more annoyed if it was cold and wet. My experience is that flaggers wouldn't mind a 10 group race weekend.... if you promised them 30+ cars in all of the groups. Flaggers start to wonder why they do it when they see mostly open pavement - especially when cold and wet.

[s2scca]

Jeff -
While I personally am not concerned about running with the Vees, I really don't want to see the aftermath of 2 SRFs getting together and a Vee becoming an unwilling participant in the mess. Believe me when I say that SRFs are tanks (I'm sure anyone in a formula car or bigger sports racer who has ever gotten together with one will back me up on this), and a Vee would lose out in an extremely bad way. As much as we all try not to have contact, somtimes it is going to happen. I for one would not want to be the SRF driver who hit the FV, because the results could be enough to make me stop racing.

Dan

[iamnotwearingpants]

Jeff:

Since you're a numbers guy, you'll realize that the FV's were in the
top 1/3 of the 2006 Marrs participation #'s, the FF, FA, CF & FC's
were in the middle 1/3, and the F500's were in the bottom 1/3 of
all the classes . Thank you!

Mark

Yes, 7th in average race participation. Do the 3 classes that had higher participation numbers get their own run group too?

[iamnotwearingpants]

Jeff -
While I personally am not concerned about running with the Vees, I really don't want to see the aftermath of 2 SRFs getting together and a Vee becoming an unwilling participant in the mess. Believe me when I say that SRFs are tanks (I'm sure anyone in a formula car or bigger sports racer who has ever gotten together with one will back me up on this), and a Vee would lose out in an extremely bad way. As much as we all try not to have contact, somtimes it is going to happen. I for one would not want to be the SRF driver who hit the FV, because the results could be enough to make me stop racing.

Dan

Dan,

I understand, but..... there are things we can do to keep the cattle from the sheep.

Alot of the guys running with the GT1 cars face a similar problem and they face a speed differential too.

Jeff

[Rennie Clayton]

Jeff,

With all due respect, the attitude of the open-wheel crowd is simply hardening the hearts of many in the closed-wheel community.

The majority of closed-wheel drivers have no problem with 2 open-wheel run groups, even if their average participation is below the closed-wheel participation. The issue is when does a lack of participation by open-wheel drivers no longer justify maintaining those 2 run groups? A single Vee? 5 Vees? You tell me how few Vees it requires before it no longer is fair to the 45 car multi-class group.

Most of us would be willing to give the one problem run group time to raise their participation numbers. Problem is, they've been given notice for several years and nothing has been done.

This is not an outcry against the elimination of groups. It is an outcry against the carte-blanche elimination of GCR recognized classes. One of those is GCR-legal, the other is not.

Consolidating classes into fewer numbers of groups is done all across the country on a regular basis. As an FA driver, I can tell you that I have braved the perilous tangles of FV's and F500's in All Formula run groups on several occasions when I've gone to thinly subscribed races. As someone who also has plenty of sedan experience, I can tell you that the speed differential is not equivalent. Compared to FA and FV, a GT-1 car might have the same 50mph speed advantage at the end of the straight over a SM. But the braking and cornering difference between FA and FV is staggering is ways that you sedan guys without ground effect downforce simply don't have to deal with.

In your first post, you insist on more than one occasion that this was the "only solution" available to you. Really? Because I can think of several off the cuff that would settle this situation equitably, with varying degrees of heartburn. You have suggested several in this very thread. It was just a matter of pursuing them to their logical conclusion, rather than taking the expedient approach of eliminating classes. But please don't try to tell me that an intelligent individual such as yourself believes that there was well and truly "only one solution" to this problem.

Nobody WANTED to tell the Atlantics and Continentals and other fast formula cars that they could not run, but if one class refuses to run with them and refuses to run with anything else either, where are we suppose to put these guys?

In one of those situations, a competitor has a choice about whether they compete or not. In the other, a competitor has no choice. You tell me which is the more equitable solution.


Cheers,
Rennie

[s2scca]

Agreed, but from a construction standpoint, ITS and GT1 have some degree of similarity. I am not well versed in comparitive weights for production-based cars, but I'm guessing the weight ratio between the two is not 2:1 like it is with SRFs and Vees. The whole reason SRFs are allowed to run with Small Bore (per the GCR) is a relative construction and speed thing, but I don't know as that case can be made for Vees.

Dan

[KAMcDonald]

yup, already have that one in my own spreadsheet... what i was looking for is some examples so besides just numbers, could look at results as well.

and there you go tossing out another thing, the flagger is bored because there are not enough cars to watch....

i cannot remember if i said it here or over with the SM folks, i am sympathetic to safety concerns, just not the "i want more space" notion. i will not complain if 20 people join our group and i have to work harder to pass, Wel....l, watch my mirrors and get passed more until i get good enough to call myself a fast car.

if it all comes down to safety and we have to move class/groups around, and the only way to do it is to merge all formulas OVER their safety concerns, it becomes their CHOICE, as well as ours, not to race over fear of a hit or get hit situation. when we are voted out and DENIED the ability to race, well, we, like you, tend to dig in our heels and wanna fight back however we can. and lets not use the excuse of we can always go to nationals or get a car in a class that we can race to justify the boot, that applies to everyone and we are here for WRC Regional Club Racing....

[fv31]

as for the vee that gets in a big one with a SRF........i'm that vee.

Central florida runs vees with spec racers. i had a SRF spin to the inside on an off camber corner. we had room to get by, but said SRF did not keep his foot on the brake and drifted backwards across the track. i put it in the rear wheelwell at a pretty high rate of speed. i hit it so hard that the independent rear was rolled up underneath the transmission. my car was pretty much destroyed. it had to be picked up and carried on the trailer. along with a pile of parts too.

SRF and vees is not the answer. personally, i've always preferred to run with the big bore formula cars over the SRF. the formula car guys tend to know what they're doing, and we respect each other. with open wheel, whether you're the big guy or the little guy, it can end up bad for either of you or both of you. it's an open wheel thing....if ya don't run 'em, you wouldn't understand. but compared to running with SRF, i prefer to drive my mirrors and give point bys. but yes.....the speed differential is HUGE.

this whole thing comes down to one thing. right and wrong.

If, as you say, you love us all as brothers in this great sport of auto racing, how could you in good conscience vote for, let alone express sympathy towards such a measure?

honestly, i don't see how anyone could. and to use convoluted formulas of car counts, GCR loopholes, and all matter of other issues to justify your point, well, it's just wrong. it's sort of like our present problems in government in this country. everyone is out for what they can get, instead of doing what is right. there are few left that will stand up and just say "this is wrong". i sort of wonder where this attitude came from. oh yeah....i forgot. it IS DC region, seat of government! lol

NO justification is good enough to eliminate big bore formula cars from a points series simply to make it better for others, just as NO justification is good enough to eliminate any other group of GCR legal cars to make for better formula car racing. it would be like the open wheel folks saying "ya know, if we just dropped SM/IT cars, it would cut WAY down the number of on track incidents we have, giving us more time and a safer weekend......maybe we should drop 'em!"

it's wrong. and no matter how long this pissing battle goes on, no justification on the face of the earth will make it right. if it does fly, who's next? vees/CF/500? production cars? we don't see a lot of GT1 cars...maybe them! CSR/DSR tend to have smaller fields....how about them?

the answer is....NO ONE.

this is a battle worth fighting. because everyone is at stake...if they can just be voted out if you get enough people behind it. you may be next.....WHATEVER car you run.

bill
fv31

[iamnotwearingpants]

This is not an outcry against the elimination of groups. It is an outcry against the carte-blanche elimination of GCR recognized classes. One of those is GCR-legal, the other is not.

Rennie,

I believe the DR that objected the most to any changes and who also suggested the elimination of less-subscribed closed-wheel classes (that, BTW are also GCR-mandated) was asked directly which open-wheel or sports-racer classes he would be willing to run with and his answer was "I'm not going to answer that."

See: http://specracer.com/forums/topic.as...32&whichpage=2

The charitable part of me says that the DRs engaged in finding a solution decided to save the open-wheel class with the largest contingent and anyone clearly unacceptable to that class either could run in another run group or would need to be eliminated.

There were several options on the table that would have provided a place to run for everyone, but all were either unacceptable to the largest open-wheel class or were operationally unavailable. If one class won't even accept being grouped with FF and CF and refuses to be grouped with anyone else... where do you suggest we put the winged cars? The only place is with the SRFS. A GCR-approved solution, but hardly optimal. Putting the slowest open-wheel cars in with the SRFs was vehemently objected to by that rep who said it wasn't safe.

Split weekends will lack sufficient staffing, will result in 50% of the classes not racing for 3 months during prime racing season and if a car were damaged on Saturday, toss away nearly an entire season of racing.

Many in the closed-wheel ranks view split weekends as the death sentence for open-wheel as it would dramatically decrease IT-like entry fees ($135 versus $195) and raise the entry fee for "real" race cars ($240 versus $195). The growth in IT cars has been subsidizing track time for "real" race cars for years. Many in the CW camp would support this, some of us would rather keep you guys around.

[LolaT440]

My only interest to joining the SCCA is to run at my closest track as often as I can.

That said, you get crap for track time compared to the expenses.

When I run with the FRCCA, I have to travel a lot farther. But my seat is still warm when I get back in the car. You barely have time to work on the car because you are on the track so much. EMRA and FormulaPro do a good job too. But FRCCA scrapes by catering to only formula cars, and 80% of formula cars don't even run with them. It seems that people have issues with them because A) they want to go to an event like the runoffs. or B) the clubs rules are controlled by AJ. But the focus on everything there is keep things simple and as cheap as possible. .

SCCA is a business and they need to make money. I don't think it is right for a private club to exclude members from an event to make others happy. But I never cared much for them anyway, so this is not surprising. I am not one to fight against the tide, you just go nowhere fast and get really tired.

With bigger car counts clubs like FRCCA and FPro can rent more tracks and events. If you want the runoffs, change classes. Look at the pros jumping ship for NASCAR. So is is not just a problem with SCCA, it is a dying class everywhere.

[Rennie Clayton]

Jeff,

You are ignoring the cogent requirement in the GCR that states that the Region shall provide competitions for GCR recognized classes (2007 GCR section 9.1). "This DR said this", or "this DR said that" is completely irrelevant to the conversation, and frankly they are just excuses at best. The Region must provide competitions for all GCR recognized classes, and anybody who suggests that one of those GCR recognized classes should be eliminated from the Regional schedule, whether it be an open wheel or closed wheel class, is making an improper suggestion.

The suggestions you made are exactly the sort of compromises that the Competition Committee is required to come to. Yes, they are difficult decisions, but the fact is that the Competition Committee must still operate within the boundaries and guildelines set out by the GCR, and they overstepped their mandate by eliminating GCR recognized classes. Again, I ask: what plan does the region have to comply with 2007 GCR Section 9.1 to provide Regional competitions to these classes which have been eliminated from the MARRS series?


Cheers,
Rennie

[iamnotwearingpants]

You are ignoring the cogent requirement in the GCR that states that the Region shall provide competitions for GCR recognized classes (2007 GCR section 9.1). "This DR said this", or "this DR said that" is completely irrelevant to the conversation, and frankly they are just excuses at best. The Region must provide competitions for all GCR recognized classes, and anybody who suggests that one of those GCR recognized classes should be eliminated from the Regional schedule, whether it be an open wheel or closed wheel class, is making an improper suggestion.

I'm not ignoring it - SCCA's own actions have rendered it moot and even if SCCA decides that this section now needs to be enforced, there are numerous ways the Region can render it moot.

The solution suggested by the OW DRs also would be deemed illegal based on this unenforced GCR provision.

SCCA has approved numerous enduros that do not include races for all GCR-specified classes , the ARRC, the all formula car event at Roebling, ProIT events run in conjunction with Nationals all fail to meet this criteria. How many of these are invitation only? SCCA has established the precedent of excluding GCR-recognized classes.

As for circumventing the proscription
- the Region could simply develop its own set of MARRS classes and limit participation to those classes. Say, MGP whose rules just happen to be identical to GP, etc.
- the Region could set a prohibitively large entry fee for these classes with extremely limited track time. The GCR does not require uniform entry fees, uniform track time or even set the length of Regional races.
- the Region could schedule these groups and simply refuse to accept their entries. A reason has the right to refuse an entry for ANY reason. DC has told one driver his entry would not be accepted and told a second that any entry listing him as driver, entrant or crew would be rejected. I was on the BoD when the second banning happened.

The Committee tried to reach a compromise and I believe frustration led to a punitive solution. Unfortunately, it was collective punishment inflicted on the innocent. Based upon what I have heard happened at the meeting, if anyone was going to be dropped, well.. you can figure out who I had put on the chopping block because of their DR's actions.

[RobLav]

What a bunch of BS. Rennie's got it right here again.

Time to write the CRB...

[TimW]

As for circumventing the proscription
- the Region could simply develop its own set of MARRS classes and limit participation to those classes. Say, MGP whose rules just happen to be identical to GP, etc.
- the Region could set a prohibitively large entry fee for these classes with extremely limited track time. The GCR does not require uniform entry fees, uniform track time or even set the length of Regional races.
- the Region could schedule these groups and simply refuse to accept their entries. A reason has the right to refuse an entry for ANY reason. DC has told one driver his entry would not be accepted and told a second that any entry listing him as driver, entrant or crew would be rejected. I was on the BoD when the second banning happened.

<sarcasm>gee, sounds like a club I really want to be a member of...so warm and fuzzy</sarcasm>

[iamnotwearingpants]

<sarcasm>gee, sounds like a club I really want to be a member of...so warm and fuzzy</sarcasm>

<sarcasm> That's why we always look forward to the multiple times each year you compete in the MARRS series and enter DC Region events.</sarcasm>

You want to keep open-wheel a viable set of classes at DC Region events, then enter your car and raise the car counts. It's that simple.

If it's too far for you to tow, then it really isn't an issue for you who gets to enter a DC Region event, now is it?

If you are worried about OTHER Regions taking the same action, then I suggest that higher participation numbers wouldn't lead them to the same choice we made. Maybe if some of the drivers that only do National would support their Regional races, this wouldn't be a problem. I know that I saw a heck of a lot of CW drivers that do Nationals at our Regional events. Didn't see many OW drivers doing it.

[Stan Clayton]

Jeff Janoska's (iamnotwearingpants) comments, and the attitude that drives them, remind me of what happened to "Los Angeles Region" some years back. (At the time Cal Club was a large local sports car club, but not affiliated with SCCA.) Anyway, LAR kept screwing around...doing whatever they wanted and telling SCCA to get lost every time someone from headquarters would tell them to follow the rules. This went on for a while and then one day the BoD called them up and said, "Thank you very much, but your charter is revoked and you are no longer an SCCA Region." Within weeks SCCA had inked a deal with Cal CLub, and the rest is history.

So is LA Region...

Stan

[fv31]

As for circumventing the proscription

this sounds like a procedure that requires ky jelly and a rubber glove. lol

when one starts to talk in contractual terms....it's usually smoke and mirrors to cover up the holes. you've got him on the ropes boys......a couple more posts and he'll sound like an enron exec in a congressional hearing!

use of complexities and multiple citations of documents......truly does sound like....a bureaucrat. and that's one thing the world needs less of. if it's a valid point, it'll stick without flowering it up.


bill
fv31

[Rennie Clayton]

Jeff,

You seem to be suggesting that the provision in the GCR that allows Regions to put on Restricted Competitions somehow sets the precedent for eliminating entire GCR recognized classes from competition entirely within the region. Yes, Regions are permitted to put on Restricted Competitions on an individual event basis. There would be absolutely nothing illegal about the Region putting on so-called split weekends, so long as they provide competitions for all GCR recognized classes - there is nothing in the GCR that states these competitions must be all provided in the same events, just that they must provide them. To wit, Regions are still required to put on competitions for all GCR recognized classes. So again, all of the examples that you profer are completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

When you speak of methods for circumventing the SCCA attempting to enforce the rules, it leads me to think that you're not being completely honest with the people on this board when you say that you "wish there was a way we could keep all of the classes", and that you're simply dead set on getting your way with eliminating the open wheel contingent. It is highly unfortunate and regrettable that sheer numbers of competitors in Regional-only classes allows you to feel justified in ignoring the rules and guidelines set out in the GCR. Your tone now simply smacks of trying to get your way instead of honestly striving toward an equitable solution.

If you're going to resort to those kinds of measures, just keep in mind that SCCA national also has some nuclear options at its disposal, one of which Stan alludes to.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Stan Clayton]

Good point, Bill. Thanks for reminding me of something I was going to write earlier.

Jeff actually used the phrase "circumventing the proscription". That means that right up front he is saying "F-you, SCCA, we'll do whatever we want. Rules or no rules." Jeff isn't arguing about how the rules read because he doesn't care. The rules are immaterial to Jeff...and by extension to the others steering this boat.

If this is allowed to proceed, it is the end of our club.

Stan

[DogDoc]

Putting FV in with FC would be like putting SM in with GT1. How would you like that 150 mph bullet coming up your butt, better not make a wrong move, you'd be in sad shape. Would not make for enjoyable racing. Can't blame the FV guys for not wanting to run with FC/FA.
Doug

[fv31]

honestly, we do it all the time. i've run with the big bore cars at every track we go to at some point. and as i said before, i prefer them to other classes such as SRF. they're good racers for the most part. they are a damn sight faster than us and that can produce problems with novices (and those not paying attention).

when i am instructing, i tell my student the following, and try to do the same when i race.

1. watch your mirrors. that speck gets big quick.

2. when being passed, be predictable. don't try to get out of their way. hold your line and do what you've done previous laps. the overtaking drivers get less nervous if they know what to expect from you.

3. point 'em by. they know you've seen them and are expecting them.

4. be courteous. if they're racing for the win, don't get in the middle of it.

bill
fv31

edit- i haven't run at summit, so i can't speak for there. but i did have a student come to the track after his schools. the grouping was wings and things and he was in a vee. he needed both races that weekend to get his license. after the first practice session, i came in and he was strapping the car to the trailer. i told him to get the thing off and we'd get it running again.

he replied that the car ran fine. but this was NOTHING like the computer sims he'd been playing for years! my reply was "yeah.....that's your a$$ out there." and it is. FA and FV, while both open wheel, are very different. running with them regularly will either steel your nerves...or run you off.

when you're at full song on the back straight at charlotte, and an atlantic goes by you like you're sitting still.......it gives you an idea of how nasty it could get.

[iamnotwearingpants]

Jeff,

You seem to be suggesting that the provision in the GCR that allows Regions to put on Restricted Competitions somehow sets the precedent for eliminating entire GCR recognized classes from competition entirely within the region. Yes, Regions are permitted to put on Restricted Competitions on an individual event basis. There would be absolutely nothing illegal about the Region putting on so-called split weekends, so long as they provide competitions for all GCR recognized classes - there is nothing in the GCR that states these competitions must be all provided in the same events, just that they must provide them. To wit, Regions are still required to put on competitions for all GCR recognized classes. So again, all of the examples that you profer are completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

I'm not disputing that the GCR says that if you hold a Regional you have to include all of the classes listed in the GCR. I am saying that SCCA has regularly ignored it and if the selectively decide to enforce it, they damn well better enforce it for an event held at Roebling Road.

I am also disputing your interpretation that that the GCR authorizes split weekends. You are implying that Section 9.1 says that as long as a Region holds at least one Regional or National Championship event for all the classes, it may hold a Regional or National Championship event that restricts some classes. In that case, there is no need for Section 3.1.3. Restricted Nationals since the GCR would already authorize such events. Nor could Section 3.1.3 authorize a Region to hold ONLY a Restricted National since Section 9.1 prohibits doing this.

When you speak of methods for circumventing the SCCA attempting to enforce the rules, it leads me to think that you're not being completely honest with the people on this board when you say that you "wish there was a way we could keep all of the classes", and that you're simply dead set on getting your way with eliminating the open wheel contingent.

Nope. The two positions are not exclusive. I hope the DC REGION finds a way to keep all of the open-wheel classes. I know there are two immediate ways of doing it. I know that both of these have been deemed unacceptable by the members of the general open-wheel community. I know that if the specific people who actually compete in DC Region events find neither proposal acceptable, then the only solution is to eliminate those classes that they have determined are incompatible with the open-wheel class with the largest participation numbers. I know that this can be done in ways that satisfy either the precedent set by SCCA or by the letter of the GCR.

It is highly unfortunate and regrettable that sheer numbers of competitors in Regional-only classes allows you to feel justified in ignoring the rules and guidelines set out in the GCR. Your tone now simply smacks of trying to get your way instead of honestly striving toward an equitable solution.

And I think it is highly unfortunate and regrettable that the messianic complex exhibited by certain classes leads them to view that everything is some great conspiracy to disenfranchise them. I find it highly unfortunate that certain classes view the addition of well-subscribed "extra" IT-enduros as taking something away from them - extras that subsidize the cost of the sprint races in which the put-upon classes participate. I also know that if the sedan enduro got 50 entries at $200 a head, the open-wheel drivers would cry "foul" and "unfair" if a similar event for 25 of their entries cost $400 a head. You'll note that both hypothetical races raise the same amount of money to subsidize the cost of the sprint races.

The decision of the CC was the product of the attitude of a SINGLE DR - an OW DR - who refused to offer any alternate solutions and who made it clear that his class could not (would not) race with either sports-racers or winged cars. If he wants to HORDE track time, then let his class pay for it. 10% of our entries are open-wheel cars, but 20% of our track time is allocated to them. If running with anyone else is unacceptable, the raise their entry fee from $195 to $500 to reflect their use of track time.

Ya want a separate race weekend... fine. If the Region gives it to you, every single out of region that driver that decided they needed to stick their nose into DC Region business better enter, better be bring someone to stand on a corner and they better be prepared to pay about $1,000 a head to hit the pavement. God help the poor SOB who wads his car during his first track session.

From OW drivers, I hear a great deal about fairness for OW drivers, but there's nothing but crickets from you when it comes to solving the problem of race groups whose two race car count equals the entire season car count of one of the OW race groups.


I am sorry that the vast number of people joining the ranks are not joining the OW ranks. I'm sorry that OW drivers aren't supporting events to keep the race groups separate, but the more I hear about the unfairness of it and how it is the CW drivers fault, the less sympathy I have for your plight. If OW dies, it's because of car counts like: 7/10/8/22/22/15 and that's an OW problem, not mine.

[fv31]

10% of our entries are open-wheel cars, but 20% of our track time is allocated to them. If running with anyone else is unacceptable, the raise their entry fee from $195 to $500 to reflect their use of track time.

love the math in this one.

if you use 10 percent at $ 195, then 20 percent is $ 500. ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

this guy MUST work for the government. who else does math like that???? i'd love to see 'em figure gear ratios.

bill
fv31

[Rennie Clayton]

Jeff,

I assume that your frequent invokation of DC Region is to suggest that we should all remove our noses from your business and leave you to pursue your druthers without outside interference. Somehow, I doubt you'll get your wish - this is an issue that has precedence ramifications outside of the myopic purview of just the DC Region. Or conversely, you'll get it in spades. Either way, I don't see this ending happily for you.

Ironic that you accuse the open wheel crowd of having a messianic complex, and yet the primary thrust of your argument is that the closed wheel contingent is bearing the financial burden of running your races like a cross on its back. If you really think I buy into this conspiracy theory BS with regards to disenfranchisement, you have another thing coming, so please - do us both a favor and don't try to lump me in with that crowd. Your financial arguments don't hold water anyway, this whole "we have double the cars in our run group, so we should have to pay half as much" idea is rubbish - and I would be saying the same thing even if our positions were reversed. As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. 20% of the sessions go to 10% of the participants, not 20% of the track time. Last I checked, every competitor at an event is afforded roughly the same amount of track time - unless closed wheel competitors only receive 1/2 of the track time that an equivalent open wheel competitor receives. You know, seeing as how closed wheel seems to be the bastard step child of the DC Region, and all.

From OW drivers, I hear a great deal about fairness for OW drivers, but there's nothing but crickets from you when it comes to solving the problem of race groups whose two race car count equals the entire season car count of one of the OW race groups.

Nothing but crickets from me? Solving the problem of these race groups does not require a genius: merge them into a single open wheel group just like the rest of the country does on a regular basis, and allow the competitors to make their own decisions about participation. Yes there will be bitching and moaning from those affected. You don't seem to be blanching at the prospect of simply cutting out 5 nationally recognized classes, so why the hand-wringing woe-is-me squeamishness about telling the FV and F500 guys that they're going to have to run with the big cars or stay home?


Cheers,
Rennie