... a need for consolidation of classes ...

[RussMcB]

Within the announcement regarding FSCCA's new national status:

"The Board emphasized that, with two new formula car classes approved for 2007, there is a need for consolidation of classes within that category for 2008."

Does that mean that one or more of the following classes may go away, with the cars likely getting merged in with other existing formula car classes?

F5
FV
FF
FC
FM
FS
FA

Kinda sad to think that one of those could disappear.

[John Robinson II]

SCCA announces new consolidation of classes for 2008.
FV
FF - F500
FC - FM
FSCCA
FA - F1000 - FS
More to follow.

[Steve Demeter]

How did FSCCA (legitimately by the GCR) get to be a national class.

I do not believe that they had anywhere near the numbers to get national class status.

Kinda silly to make a class for which only a hundred or so cars exist.

Or am I wrong about soimething?

Wouldn't be the first time.

[Keith Carter]

FM and FSCCA should be grouped together... Not FM and FC.

[John Nesbitt]

FM and FSCCA should be grouped together... Not FM and FC.

No, No. You don't understand. We need to free up room for Pro FSCCA.

You heard it here first.

[KAMcDonald]

How did FSCCA (legitimately by the GCR) get to be a national class.

I do not believe that they had anywhere near the numbers to get national class status.

Kinda silly to make a class for which only a hundred or so cars exist.

Or am I wrong about soimething?

Wouldn't be the first time.

well, i think there are more of us, and more races attended in 2006 for us, than there was for f1000 and they are a new national class as well. we got in the same way they did.

[TimW]

How did FSCCA (legitimately by the GCR) get to be a national class.

I do not believe that they had anywhere near the numbers to get national class status.

Kinda silly to make a class for which only a hundred or so cars exist.

Or am I wrong about soimething?

Wouldn't be the first time.

The 430 or so National entries of FF in 2006 were made by approximately 115 fords. FF is the 7th best subscribed class in SCCA in 2006. So thats the why. For the how, you really need to read the threads on this board from about September on. The game has effectively changed (don't kill the messenger)

Tim

[Rennie Clayton]

The sentiment around these parts seems to be one of shock and dismay. Personally, these tactics appear to be a fairly workable, if political solution to the problem at hand.


Problem
National would like to see fewer classes with higher participation numbers. Competitors in entrenched classes have proven unwilling to allow their classes to evolve and adapt with the changing times, even in the face of rapidly dwindling participation and car counts. These classes consistently refuse to revise their rule structure to reflect modern powerplants, or allow themselves to be consolidated with another class of similar speed and performance capability.


Solution

Step 1
Eliminate the guarantee that all established National classes get a berth at the Runoffs, by capping the maximum participation at 24 classes.

Step 2
Flood the roster with new classes that will further dilute the already thin participation in the Formula ranks.

Step 3
As classes start dropping off the coveted list of 24, out of a sense of self-preservation classes will start to look seriously at measures that had been heretofore considered verboten, most likely resulting in merging with another (weakly subscribed) class which is similar in performance and can be equalised.


Eventually, we'll ended up right where National wants us: with fewer classes which are more heavily subscribed, brought about by virtue of Darwinian selection and adaptation. Problem solved. Your opinion may vary.


Cheers,
Rennie

[sarrcford]

John Robinson,

Are you joking ?? If not, please elaborate if you can.

Rob Poma

[John Robinson II]

Rob, Yes I am joking, but it is exactly like Rennie says...the writing is on the wall. FSCCA is a stand alone class, because Enterprises sells the cars and we MUST support enterprises.
FSCCA is a national class the same way all the prepared classes were added, or F1000 for that matter. Because of the anticipation of "numerous" F1000 entries at the Sebring National, DSR has been moved the FF/FV/F500 group. yipee. this part is actually true.

Nesbitt stole the next "press release" about the FSCCA, SRFSCCA, SM, MX-5 pro series! Of course it is backed by Pro Racing. Note at bottom of page in very small print, membership dues have increased to $1500 per household, licenses have increased to a per race basis, unless it is a pro race sponsored by, you guessed it, SCCA Pro Racing.

Even better, it now costs money to volunteer, unless it is a Pro Racing sanctioned event, then all workers will be paid, but just enough to cover the cost of your own over priced lunch that you have to buy from the track.

[Stan Clayton]

TimW wrote "The 430 or so National entries of FF in 2006 were made by approximately 115 fords."

Interestingly, Tim, the 110 FSCCA's active in 2006 had 425 entries.

[Stan Clayton]

Steve Dementer wrote "I do not believe that they had anywhere near the numbers to get national class status."

Steve, according to calculations we did at the end of the season, FSCCA needed 273 entries to complete the first of two consecutive qualifying years. They had ~425 entries, so it is a forgone conclusion that they would have qualified in 2007 had the Club stayed with the old rules. However, the BoD changed the qualifying standard with the introduction of all those new National classes for 2007, and so supported adding FSCCA to the roster of new National classes as well.

[Steve Demeter]

Thanks stan for explaining that in a sane reasonable fashion, unlike some of the smart remarks that were made.

To those that made those responses, I worded my post the way I did, because I thought the rule was something, but not positive about it.

That is why the question if I was missing something at the end.

As far as the comment about reading posts from September on, I read this forum 5-10 times a day.

[Stan Clayton]

You're welcome, Steve. Hope that clarifies things.

BTW, I didn't read the other comments as being snarky to you. We don't all know each other, and sometimes it isn't clear that someone has or has not read back threads. In any event, I am confident Tim's comment was not intended in any disrespectful manner, even if he is a FF guy...

Stan

[Mike B]

I hope Stan or Charles or someone will correct me if my stats are incorrect:

In 2006 there were 25 national classes of which only SIX were formula classes. Ignoring Sportsracers for the moment, that leaves 14 sedan classes, over double the number of formula car classes.
In 2007 there will be 30 national classes with the addition of two more formula classes and three new sedan classes, making the formula/sedan mix even more lopsided at formula:8, sedan:17.

To me, this begs the question: why has my club made the statement that "there is a need for consolidation of classes within that category for 2008."?

Never mind the fact that 5 of the 6 formula cars are in the top 10 in participation while sedan cars only account for 4 of the top 10. Based on '06 numbers, FSCCA would make the top 10, too.

I'm not a believer in black helicopters, but why has the BOD targeted formula cars for consolidation?

[oh2winindy]

I think a better grouping would work something like this:

Formula Atlantic, Formula Vee and Formula 500

That would leave FC and FF and F1000 together, and you could stick the Formula Mazda guys with Formula Drift

Please do not take offense, I am only playing

[Purple Frog]

Rennie is spot on.

[Charles Warner]

I hope Stan or Charles or someone will correct me if my stats are incorrect:

I'm not a believer in black helicopters, but why has the BOD targeted formula cars for consolidation?

Mike,

I wish I could speak to your very good and appropriate questions. I'd suggest a letter to the BOD/CRB regarding this issue. I would imagine if the tin-tops were targeted for consolidation it would mean the consolidated groups would be larger than allowed by the cars-per-mile formula and we would, therefore, be turning paying racers away. Just a hunch.

[Larry]

Perhaps SCCA should adopt a new mission statement:

"The mission of the SCCA is to establish and promote SCCA Enterprises, and to ensure its profitability by creating special classes, promoting these classes, and restricting the use of alternate parts and components to those supplied by Enterprises whenever possible. It will accomplish this mission by occasionally encouraging members to race, and alternatively, by subsidizing Enterprises through member dues and charges."

...yeah, that's the ticket!
Larry Oliver

[Lee Shumosic]

Just can't let this one go.....

"The mission of the SCCA is to establish and promote SCCA Enterprises, and to ensure its profitability by creating special classes, promoting these classes, and restricting the use of alternate parts and components to those supplied by Enterprises whenever possible. It will accomplish this mission by occasionally encouraging members to race, and alternatively, by subsidizing Enterprises through member dues and charges."

Call Erik

[M.L.Sauce]

Mike B- The BOD is not targeting formula classes.I am a Formula guy and out of the 3 other drivers on the BOD one is also a FF- F/SCCA guy.We are not trying to reduce the number of Formula classes.We do however want to help classes become healthier.The Formula car classes we have are in the top 10 in participation.Formula car owners need to race and make their classes healthier.We do however have many classes that are not healthy(GTL,T3,GT3,CSR,etc..We want them to realize that with the population of sedan classes like SM we need to grow our numbers.The 24 classes at the Runoffs will address some of the weaker classes.This process will take several years before we have any measurable results.I would not be a member of SCCA if formula classses were being legislated out.

[Bob Devol]

Just can't let this one go.....

Call Erik

Right on, Lee! This Enterprises bashing is way, way off the mark.

[Larry]

...I'm blaming the club! SCCA can hardly be impartial and make decisions for the better of the membership when they have a financial interest in Enterprises--especially when Enterprises has a long history of weak/losing performance. As an example, I could source out many SRF parts and sell them for less than Enterprises. They would be dimensionally the same, weigh the same, and provide no performance advantage, but this is prohibited. I could do the same for FSCCA. How is it in the best interests of the membership to keep competition out of the marketplace?

I could expand further, especially on things like subsidization, low interest loans, comments by the hearings judge on the Fran Am lawsuit, etc., but I've got an appointment in a few minutes...but the reasons are ample.

Larry Oliver

[RobLav]

Agree with both Larry and Rennie.

Darwinism is the way to let things evolve here (consolidation). But by the Club subsidizing Enterprises, that same Darwin theory is not being used. So we are not being consistent.

[Rennie Clayton]

Some observations. Your opinions may (and likely will) vary.


First
We know where things are going. Or more accurately, we know what direction National is trying to funnel the classes to (it should be pointed out that this applies to all classes, not just formula), and we know within a reasonable margin of error that the desired end scenario is, in fact, going to come to fruition. Eventually, there will be fewer classes with heavier subscription individually. We need to start talking about concrete ways to increase participation and car counts across the board in our classes. We cannot simply sit back on the laurels of our current 5 of the top 10 car count positioning. If we want to continue to remain relevant, we need to dominate that top 10 roster. Barring that, we need to start casting a critical eye towards what classes can be combined with reasonable equalization. United we stand, divided we fall sort of thing - but start thinking about it now when we have some chance to affect our destinies rather than when our backs are against the wall and we have no choice but to take what's on the table.

Second
Enterprises as an entity owned by the Club is a batty idea, in my opinion. But it is here, so get used to it. I know it's a sucky situation, but instead of simply complaining about it, we need to start formulating our own tactics to accomplish our goals just as National has done with the intent of fomenting Darwinism amongst the classes. If our betters are to be believed, Enterprises is now being expected to stand on its own two feet like a real business and get on with financial reparations and responsibility. We should encourage that as much as possible. We should also encourage, with letter writing and vociferous phone calls if necessary, the Club to treat Enterprises just as it would any other manufacturer rather than handing out sweetheart deals. Manufacturers need to build cars to the Club's rules, not the other way 'round. With the precedent of FSCCA establishing a breakaway National Class, what is now to stop every other manufacturer with adequate numbers in SCCA from petitioning to establish their own private sandboxes?

Please note that I'm pulling the following numbers from my arse, to illustrate a point:

FSCCA (within FA) has 115 cars and 425 annual entries? Separate National Class!
Stohr (within DSR) has 120 cars and 450 annual entries? Separate National Class!
Van Diemen (within FC) has 110 cars and 400 annual entries? Separate National Class!
Spec Mazda (within ITx) has 800 cars and 1600 annual entries? Separate National Class!
Manufacturer (within XX) has XXX cars and XXXX annual entries? Separate National Class!
Ad Nauseum... where does this fragmentation stop, exactly?

Third
We need to start putting serious thought towards the predicament. Now.


Cheers,
Rennie

[RobLav]

Rennie,

Your father has had some ideas wrt FA, FB, FC, etc.... We might be able to make that concept work. But it will require a really good study of the rules because those rules would have to be relatively more open than they are today in order to realistically combine some classes.

My philosophy in keeping the rules more open is that - let the Darwinism work naturally, and over time - and minimize the shocks.

For instance, set a target performance window for FA, then write the rules to allow cars to meet them. It'd be better to write them that way than to write the rules based on specific cars already built. (Although, in the interim for a few years, the rules would necessarily have to provide some temporary equivalency.) And how many formula classes do we want? 5?

Furthering the example - FA should:
- Allow carbon tubs
- WWW < HP / weight ratio < XXX (HP / weight ratio is within some window)
- Max rim sizes and widths are = YYY
- Max length and track are = ZZZ
- Dampers free
- Max Wing size = AAA
- Sequential gearbox allowed without weight penalty
- Max weight = BBB and Min Weight = CCC
- Estimated and desired max speed = DDD
- Specify more modern or generally historical design
etc... basically design a class philosophy first.

Is it worth exploring a committee to do this?

I'd rather control my own destiny than let someone do it for me. In my view, Darwinism is really the best way to do this, but I prefer to call it "Controlled Darwinism" or "Managed Darwinism".