FB at 2008 Runoffs?

[GT1Vette]

Per the recent BoD decision to put GT-3 back into the mix by continuing with 25 races at the Runoffs (http://scca.com/newsarticle.aspx?hub=1&news=3243), the CRB has also been directed to come up with a plan that will allow ALL National classes to participate at the Runoffs. What this means is that FB (along with BP, DP, and ST) will get to go to Topeka for two weeks next October rather than spend four days in Atlanta in November.

Selfishly I'd rather have another year (or two) of FB being invited to the ARRC by GRM, but is that the best thing for the long-term growth of the class? I suppose you could always dual-homologate in FS and run both events, but I'm not sure that's the same thing.

I'm sure Stan will be monitoring the various forums, but regardless of how you feel about this, make sure and let the CRB know.

Butch Kummer
Atlanta Region Competition Director

[Wren]

*123987453298E2342

[stonebridge20]

Cool ! There really is a BIZARO WORLD !

[RussMcB]

That's disappointing from a purely selfish point of view (since I live near Atlanta and I'm already looking forward to another FB race at the 2008 ARRC).

From a wider POV, it's hard to imagine that Runoffs competitors will like having that many extra groups and sessions added to the Runoffs since their biggest complaint is too little track time and a schedule that spans 1-2 weeks.



I guess they think that while the 24 "deserving" (for lack of a better term) classes will suffer from a worse Runoffs experience, the addition of the other classes will add competitors to the Runoffs and encourage entries during the year in National races.

I guess everything's a compromise. Some people win, some lose out. My hunch is the people losing out are going to be a lot more vocal when they express their opinions about this compared to those benefiting from this.

[Rennie Clayton]

[Brands]

Excuse my ignorance but what is stopping us having another F1000 race at the '08 ARRC? I don't have any desire to race at the Runoffs and, like Russ am looking foward to next years Road Atlanta race.

Ben

[carnut169]

Perhaps now is the time to adjust the way the ARRC is organized.

Wonder how many of us would elect to skip Topeka for an unofficial championship at RA? I also wonder how many competitors in other classes would choose the same thing...



I had thought about trying to participate in as many National events as possible... now I guess it just does not matter.

[Purple Frog]

Since both competitor and worker attendence dropped in 2007, Topeka has to come up with some way to get the numbers up.

I propose:

1. That all "Regional only" classes be invited.

2. All seasonal participation numbers no longer be required, both for individuals and classes.

3. Since the Drag strip is unused from 5 pm until...,and it is lit. The club should also arrange to hold drag races for "SCCA National Drag Champions at Heartland Park Topeka".

4. Classes that qualified 25 through 87 (sic) have to run all qualifying and races as one big run group. It will be called the "Blue Flag Spectacular".

5. A bikini contest be held every afternoon (a la Nopi Chicks), with Hazelnut in charge of talent recruitment.

6. Tag and shifter karts be added to the class structure as national classes.

7. All races will now be judged events (like figure skating, Dancing with the Stars, the X games, and dare I say... drifting).

8. There will now be RV national classes. RV-A, RV-B, and RV-C.

[formulasuper]

Perhaps now is the time to adjust the way the ARRC is organized.

Wonder how many of us would elect to skip Topeka for an unofficial championship at RA? I also wonder how many competitors in other classes would choose the same thing...



I had thought about trying to participate in as many National events as possible... now I guess it just does not matter.

So I guess we could just hold two RunOffs, one at Topeka & one at Road Atlanta?

[Wren]

3. Since the Drag strip is unused from 5 pm until...,and it is lit. The club should also arrange to hold drag races for "SCCA National Drag Champions at Heartland Park Topeka".

4. Classes that qualified 25 through 87 (sic) have to run all qualifying and races as one big run group. It will be called the "Blue Flag Spectacular".

5. A bikini contest be held every afternoon (a la Nopi Chicks), with Hazelnut in charge of talent recruitment.

8. There will now be RV national classes. RV-A, RV-B, and RV-C.

I pared your post down to the list of things that I would drive to Topeka and then pay to see.

I say we make him recruit the bikini contest participants from member's wives.

Seriously, I am ready for someone to take an FB to the strip and drag race it.

[Wren]

Perhaps now is the time to adjust the way the ARRC is organized.

Wonder how many of us would elect to skip Topeka for an unofficial championship at RA? I also wonder how many competitors in other classes would choose the same thing...



I had thought about trying to participate in as many National events as possible... now I guess it just does not matter.

I think the BOD may have come up with the one proposal that will have 100% support from the FB community.

[carnut169]

I appreciate the way the BOD is looking after us.... I just think they may be going about it the wrong way.

People already complain about the runoffs format... adding classes won't help. Its also not going to help with National participation if it just does not matter.
We didn't earn National status, not complaining.
We had yet to earn an invitation to the runoffs- I believe we would have in 2010.

My own personal bias is that Topeka reviews are pretty bad and Road Atlanta's are the opposite- (plus its real close). I don't see myself taking 2 weeks off to race at any point in my near future so having "our" championship at the ARRC worked quite well. We were even looking forward to having our own race in 08, and using the pro-paddock!

I guess I'll be there as an FS- I've already got dual homologation.

[stonebridge20]

OK,...So FB goes in as a national class the first year out of the box and nobody want's to go to the Runoffs? Did I miss something?

[Matt Conrad]

I just read the news release for the third time and from what I'm reading it is possible that FB (and the 4 other non-eligible classes) will be invited to run at the 2008 Runoffs WITHIN an EXISTING race group.

The decision now seems to be whether to have these non-eligible classes race for a medal as a seperate class, but within another race group....or run as another class entirely (as the FSCCA cars did in the past as FA's). I think the biggest issue is that many of the other established classes won't want to have a new class of cars thrown into their National Championship race...we'll see.

If they do this.....My choice for FB would be to have us run with FA and have our own race within a race. I don't think the FA guys will mind....they only had 15 starters last year. Hell....there would probably be more FB's than FA's.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[sidney]

I'm with Sean on this one. I'd rather tow for 20 hours to go to Atlanta, run in a single class event over a single weekend versus waste 1-2 weeks of my time in Topeka getting as much track time as I could at Drivers School-Regional in La Junta. Oh yea, and the tow is probably 6-8 hours to Topeka. I have been to the Run-Offs and have little desire to return, unless the format chages drastically. The return on time invested is a joke.

Road Atlanta -- Petite Le Mans, Superbikes, Ferrari Challenge, ARRC

Topeka -- NESBA, oh and the much maligned Run-Ons

[GT1Vette]

When Atlanta Region created the ARRC by GRM back in 1994 after the Runoffs migrated to Mid-Ohio, our agreement with National is we would do nothing to detract from the prestige and importance of that event. As such, the ARRC has ALWAYS been for classes that were not eligible to determine their National Champions at the Runoffs. If FB is invited to Topeka to determine your 2008 National Champion, we will continue to honor that commitment.

Yes we continue to invite cars that closely resemble SpecMiatas even though SM became a National class in 2006, but the ruleset for our class (ASM) is different than the National rules. We also stipulate that any driver participating in SM at the Runoffs cannot run ASM at the ARRC by GRM and yes, that rule IS enforced.

As Sean & I stated above, you might want to look into dual-homologation as an FS.

BK

[Rennie Clayton]

FTFA:

“We are a group that is obviously sensitive to member input, and much of that input has driven these strategic changes,” SCCA Board of Directors Chairman-elect R.J. Gordy said. “The Club Racing climate has changed over the last several years, and it is important to the SCCA that its National Club Racing program remains viable to both its current and future participants.

“G Production fell below the minimum participation level and the cars from that class have been classified elsewhere. We want to make sure that the new classes have the best opportunity to grow, and inclusion in the Runoffs is an important step. Whether the cars that make up these classes race within another class, like Formula SCCA did in Formula Atlantic for years, or they have individual class races within a group, remains to be seen based on CRB and member input.”

I get a perverse kick out of the rampant overuse of the word "strategic" these days. Let us be clear: monkeying about with everybody's track time by adding classes, removing classes, adding run groups, removing run groups, and capriciously changing philosophies about National Class inclusion to the Runoffs on a yearly basis is not strategic. At best it is a tactical choice, but that would imply some sort of overarching organization-level strategy to drive said tactics, and frankly when the first order of an incoming BoD is to flip everything around, I just don't see it.

Merged sessions means crap track time - if you're in the faster class, you never know if the next blind crest is going to contain a nice little -10s per lap present at exactly the point in the track where you're pointed at 25mph closure and no tractive capacity left with which to avoid the poor schmuck, or if you're in the slower class, you never know if some faster class driver is going to come barrelling along with his arrogant sense of entitlement to the line and mow you down. Or merged sessions means effectively no track time if you decide to split them - 20 minute sessions split, ostensibly, into two 10 minute sessions. Oh yeah, but they have to throw in all of the usual track cleaning and milling about making sure everybody is ready, so have fun with your 6 minutes of qualifying each.

But hey, don't let the fact that current competitors are already fed up with the amount and quality of track time, along with the overall time investment to be at the event, and future participants are looking at this whole swirling vortex of suck with a good deal of apprehension impact the decision making process here. Apparently, the only way to ensure the viability of National Club Racing to current and future participants is to screw the pooch for everybody concerned.

Sorry for the rant, resume your normally scheduled thread.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Daryl DeArman]

Rennie

Sounds to me like the ARRC needs an "AFB" class. The possible rule additions; requirement to run a different spec fuel, or spec tire compound, or a 10# heavier minimum weight....

[VehDyn]

Quote of the day "swirling vortex of suck"

Try to use that at work at least one today. Better yet, apply the work strategy before or after aforementioned phrase and receive extra points.

Ken

[Lee Stohr]

I shocked to say I almost agree with Rennie's comments regarding strategic planning. Changing the rules every 6 months doesn't seem to indicate a long range plan. It makes involvement in SCCA a very risky business move. It doesn't seem to address the real problems, which as I see it, are -
SCCA has lost it's position as a training ground for young drivers to FBMW, Pro FM, etc.
SCCA has lost the Vintage and Historic racers to other clubs dedicated to just those classes.
SCCA doesn't know how to attract the Track Day segment.

I'm not saying I have a solution, just trying to define the problem.

[Joefisherff]

The problem is there is no one there willing to take a stand and tell the groups without sufficient participation numbers that they won't be running. Let's be all things to all people and not hurt anyone's feelings. Geez grow up and realize the market is changing and you need the club, the classes and the cars to change along with it. If you are going to introduce new classes then throw out the classes that don't muster the numbers. It's time to elect some folks that will take a stand and help the classes that have the numbers and make the hard decisions on those that don't. Also come up with some folks that will work on strategies to keep and grow the classes that do have the numbers. Who actually occupies that nice new building and what do they do pray to the Steve Johnson memorial?

I apparently stand corrected - I've been told that Topeka has nothing to do with any of these decisions that their role is solely a support role and the issues, decisions and culpability lie elsewhere. Why they have titles like President, Chairman and the like escapes me.

[sidney]

I'm not sure how to set it up, but maybe we coudl have a poll. How many FB guys would attend the Run-Offs assuming you qualified? I'm guessing that the number of entries would not outweigh the number of FA or FC guys that would stay home due to reduced track time with the inclusion of FB and/or other groups beyond the 24.

On second thought, maybe it shoud be a general post asking for folks to look into the crystal ball and determine if they are likely to attend and if they attended last year assuming the format remains relativley the same as 2007.

I'm just guessing, but I bet there are more folks in Rennie's camp than the office in Topeka.

[RussMcB]

I'm not sure I understand or agree, but I think their primary goal is to increase participation at national races during the year. For instance, they think if FB could vie for a national championship at the Runoffs, more FB cars would be entered in national races.

I would have guessed that the dissatisfaction with the Runoffs is a more immediate problem to address than participation at national races, but what do I know? :-)

[Mike B]

For the record, when we proposed F1000, we never asked that it be given immediate national status. Additionally, as far as I know, nobody asked for F1000 to be granted a Runoffs invite without earning it.
Being granted national status was a key factor in the relative health of FB. In hindsight, that was a good thing. It might have been a very long time before reaching national status, if ever.
Based on the projected # of cars competing in '08, every FB that wanted to would qualify for the Runoffs. However, because all FB cars would qualify in '08, there is no incentive to try to grow the class. In foresight, this could be harmful to the future growth of the class. This proposal could have a serious backlash for FB, the Runoffs, and the entire club.

Personally, I think the Runoffs have become the tail wagging the dog. Only a small percentage of all club racers attend the Runoffs but for some reason all the strategic (or tactical) planning revolves around that single event. The Runoffs are a colossal waste of money and time (which equals a further waste of money) for little to no return. There is absolutely no reason it can't be run in 4-5 days. If the June Sprints can do it, why can't the Runoffs? We race in combined groups throughout the year, why make this event different?

After attending my first ARRC this year, I wouldn't mind never going back to the Runoffs unless the format is significantly changed. I was hoping for at least one more year at Road Atlanta. Either way, I won't be at Topeka next year.

[R. Pare]

For instance, they think if FB could vie for a national championship at the Runoffs, more FB cars would be entered in national races.

For some reason I tend to believe that the current and very-soon-to-be new FB owners will go only to the races they want and can afford to go to, irregardless of whether or not FB will allowed to run at the Runoffs next year.

[VehDyn]

I have to agree with Richard. Background....

I put my deposit down on a Stohr at the 06 Runoffs, got the car in spring, put an engine in it, worked on it, bought data acquistion, spares, golf cart, etc. Then there was testing, a little more testing and a race. I love the car, love the class, and have it to where the driver and the car just need development.

Did I spend a lot of scratch. Damn right. More than I planned. In fact, my wife asked me, "Did you ever think you would spend this much when you told me you were buying this car?" Do I regret it? No. But I am down to running what I can afford next year. Not just in terms of money, but more importantly time (family and work). I would love to run as many races around here as possible and maybe a roadtrip or two to meet some of you guys. i just can't justify the time for the runoffs. Maybe some day, but not anytime soon.

I could go either way on whether it is good for the class. I guess it depends on where the next runoffs contract goes.

[996kyle]

For what it's worth, I have been racing in the pacific northwest with ICSCC and CACC (non scca) sanctioning bodies for the past 4 seasons in a Club Ford. I have over 50 race weekends under my belt with no crashes or repremands from stewards. I came 3rd in points 3 years ago and 2nd in points for the past two seasons.
I have on order a Stohr FB (with Feb delivery) for the 2008 season and was planning on running ALL National races in Nor Pac with the possibility of attending other national races outside Nor Pac.
I made a few inquiries to SCCA about the licensing requirements and am being told that my current racing experience is not good enough to race at a National level (even though i run with and beat current National License holders from Nor Pac) without attending 2 SCCA driving schools and regional events prior to getting a National License. All this to help build a group that they want to grow??
I am now considering not even bothering with SCCA and spending my hard earned dollars where they are appreciated and welcomed. Sounds to me like too much BS and politics to go out and have fun at a competitive level??

Kyle

[Purple Frog]

Kyle,
I'm forwarding your post to somebody I know that's in the know. I'm thinking you qualify for a national license, just not asking the right person. I'll let you know what I find out.

[996kyle]

Thanks to all of you who have jumped in quickly to help me with licensing. I look forward to getting this behind me and meeting you all this coming season.

Cheers
Kyle

[Nicholas Belling]

If scca wants to give an invite to FB at the runoffs early I think let them. heck to wait till 2010 possibly for the national numbers to get up to qualify doesnt sound appealing for many national class drivers wanting to compete at topeka in FB.. Even if many new fb owners are not interested in going to topeka in 2008.. the fact is it may help derive more sales to a market of people wanting in on racing a runoffs national class. But I also see how it could be a negative on the impact of the growth of the class.

I have no idea to what level SCCA does there research on these subjects prior to making conclusions but if they did some indepth studies to figure out how to acheive better sustainability and growth to teh classes by inclusion into the runoffs already in 08 I would like to see how they came to them.. with a good explanation.

Does the runoffs have more prestige to it than ARRC.. i would say definitely. But from running at the ARRC event I can say hands down I had far more enjoyment than being in topeka for an entire week+.. The group of FB drivers at the ARRC are awesome.

My personal thoughts since I have run topeka at the 06 runoffs in FC class is that Atlanta is much better of a track hands down.. so much a drivers track.. with so much flow going on. topeka is well just.. HOLY TOPEKA..

If the consensus of all FB drivers is atlanta next year and scca does invite fb to the runoffs I would do my best to attend both events and tow directly from topeka to atlanta and leave the car at the track till the arrc event and run in FS.. If I could only go to one I would go where the masses of FB drivers are for the puriest level of competition.

Lastly if FB does get invite status I would probably not run a full season of national races like I planned to help grow the FB car counts for getting national status.. but instead run the minimum to qualify for the runoffs and then run regionals and locals to fine tune my driver and car development skills.. Basically running the events that give the most return on investment.. meaning track time and running tracks I enjoy more. So for looking at my attendance record for scca on national races it would be way down if it had guarenteed status already at the runoffs already. if not then it would be way up.. dont know how that plays into scca plans of current racers and there forecasts of what they plan on doing and how it will benifit the drivers and club..

But essentially scca is a business that has to profit to succeed.. so they really must always be primarily looking out for there survival and well being more than just the drivers voice at hand.

Does anyone know if there is an official word on invite or not from SCCA for 2008 or if this is all still preliminary and still needing to be voted on ?

[Tom Valet]

Classes for the 2009 Runoffs will presumably be based on 2008 participation numbers (unless they chuck out the whole Runoffs class qualifying rules for good). This move by SCCA could have a counterproductive effect. With a chance to go to the 2008 Runoffs, many drivers here are already saying that they will do only 4 Nationals, instead of doing as many Nationals as possible in order to get the entries up so as to get a future Runoffs invite. That puts future Runoffs invites in jeopardy, possibly at a different venue many people WOULD like to go to.

[bryancohnracing]

For what it's worth, I have been racing in the pacific northwest with ICSCC and CACC (non scca) sanctioning bodies for the past 4 seasons in a Club Ford. I have over 50 race weekends under my belt with no crashes or repremands from stewards. I came 3rd in points 3 years ago and 2nd in points for the past two seasons.
I have on order a Stohr FB (with Feb delivery) for the 2008 season and was planning on running ALL National races in Nor Pac with the possibility of attending other national races outside Nor Pac.
I made a few inquiries to SCCA about the licensing requirements and am being told that my current racing experience is not good enough to race at a National level (even though i run with and beat current National License holders from Nor Pac) without attending 2 SCCA driving schools and regional events prior to getting a National License. All this to help build a group that they want to grow??
I am now considering not even bothering with SCCA and spending my hard earned dollars where they are appreciated and welcomed. Sounds to me like too much BS and politics to go out and have fun at a competitive level??

Kyle

Kyle,

ICSCC licenses are recognised in the GCR in the section on Licenses. Look it up. Many sanctioning bodies licenses are recognised by SCCA for Regional Racing. You must be an SCCA member of course.
You got piss poor info from someone. Don't trust opinion, read the rule book and use it to your advantage.

Yes, its that simple. Your local region could be stupid and not allow a Conference licnese. The National Office can't control Region Stupidity.

Only National Licenses are recognised for Nationals, unless they've allowed SCCA Pro Licenses in recently.

[Matt Conrad]

As of right now I'm not sure if the BOD's decision is a good one or a bad one. I'll hold judgement for a while. I've been a BOD member of racing organizations and non-racing organizations alike and I do have to believe that our BOD is doing what all BOD's do....looking out for the long-term health of the organization. Rennie makes some good points, but I can't really tell you whether their decisions are being made from a "tactical", "strategic", or "flying-by-the-seat-of-their-pants" mode, but I propose that this decision is being made to fix a serious short-term problem....so maybe it's a tactical move with strategic implications.

So here's my hypothesis....

1. The short-term problem is the 2008 RunOffs (and possibly even 2009...see below). I believe the club already sees the writing on the wall that 2008 is going to have even less entries than 2007...substantially less....and they need to try to do something to increase entries. Classes with 10-15 starters at a "National Championship" won't look too good....especially on TV.
2. One main reason behind the declining entries is, for the most part, Topeka. Despite the efforts of the local people behind the effort, which have been great, Topeka is not where most members want to go to race for the National Championship. Yes, it is more centrally located (from a geographical area), but the track itself just doesn't have any cache with the racers.
3. Awarding the 2009 RunOffs to a venue with more history and reverance will help fix this short-term problem, but 2008 still needs to be addressed. I'm a big fan of having the thing at Indy as I feel IMS has all the components needed to draw competitors (facilities, history, location, etc) and I've heard Indy "is in play", but not until 2010. That leaves 2009 open if Indy is really a candidate....a one year extension with HPT? Short-term problem just got extended by one year.

Obviously, the decline in the Runoffs attendance is not limited to Topeka alone. I, like many others, feel the Runoffs as a whole are broken...and here's some more reasons why:

• There should be less invites than the current "Top 10" from each division. I'd like to see only the "Top 5" and make it more "special" to be invited.
• Time. The event is WAY too long. The huge time commitment can't be made by many that have to work....to pay for their racing. The added time also adds huge costs in lodging, food, etc....which, by the way, the local venue wants and needs...to be able to "sell" it to the community.
• Limited track time. For the cost and effort, the RunOffs is probably the worst opportunity to actually get to race.

The facts are that the Runoffs will be at Topeka in 2008....and if SCCA awards FB a National Championship race at Topeka in 2008, there won't be an FB race at the ARRC (yes, you can run in FS) and there will be a National Champion crowned in Topeka. Like it or not.

For us FB racers to split and not bring a strong contingent of racers to Topeka (if it happens) would be a big mistake for the long term growth of the class. We need to get every FB car there that we can and show the Club that they made the right decision to make us a National class right out of the box.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[carnut169]

For us FB racers to split and not bring a strong contingent of racers to Topeka (if it happens) would be a big mistake for the long term growth of the class. We need to get every FB car there that we can and show the Club that they made the right decision to make us a National class right out of the box.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

I hear ya bud, for for many of us its just not a possibility with the current format.... and its not just about money. Its more about the investment in time, second the track, third the expense, fourth... run with the Atlantics??!!

I'm suprised we are not hearing form those guys (maybe they are not following this)- but I'd be PO'd if I had the club stick yet another slower class in with my national championship group.

I think what summerizes the insanity is that instead of both groups (FA & FB) having a championship race to themselves neither of us will. This does not seem like a solution.

Fix the Runoffs by reducing the time and by having it at a track like Indy. Do both and I'm 100% there... do one or the other and I'm 75% there.

[RussMcB]

Fix the Runoffs by reducing the time and by having it at a track like Indy. Do both and I'm 100% there... do one or the other and I'm 75% there.

+ !

My thoughts, too (but it'd probably be 75% & 50% respectively for me).

[andyllc]

If you really look at the lap time comparison between the fastest FB at ARRC, it is more inline with a Cooper Series Zetec time and not so much an atlantic lap time (Give the SAME front running driver). However, I think mixing FA and FB at the Runoffs will have the cars mixed too much. If FB were with FF the speed differential would make it easier for FF's to have their own race and the FB's to have their own race without too much time taken up getting around the slower cars.

[John Robinson II]

Andy,
I think FB and Fa would be a better mix, as the speeds on the tight section would be much closer. Although they should not be holding up FF on the tight section, FF will definitely hold up decent FAs in the same section. I am still in total amazement as to how it goes from we can only have 24 classes to bring em all and we will just combine them. It is bad enough that FF is forced to share qual sessions with F5, to the detriment of each, BUT if FF has to share the race with another class, regardless of what it is, I will not be there, even if it is at Indy.
John

[Jnovak]

This is a pitiful idea as it will only reduce the track time available to many competitors.

We raced F500 & we had 2 split sessions with FF. Both times we were the 2nd group out for what was supposed to be a 10 minute session. The reality was that in the 1st session we got a total of 4 timed laps & in the 2nd session we got a total of 3 timed laps. This is certainly not what we prepared for an entire season to get significantly less than 10 minutes of track time on 2 separate days at the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.

The National Championship should be the premier event of the entire season. The fields at the June Sprints were better in MANY classes.

MORE TRACK TIME & RACE IN SEPTEMBER!

I also suggest that you see this discussion on the Sports Racer Forum at:

http://p081.ezboard.com/fdsrforumgen...cID=2012.topic


Thanks ... Jay Novak

[jim morgan]

John,

Don't worry your in FC now. If you have any"old" FF's you don't want to drive call me!

[Phil Creighton]

OK - with my Directors hat on.
At the end of a conference call on what we were doing with GT3 and GP since both failed to make the numbers, mike sauce threw out an idea that would effectively stop the problem of 24 classes at the Runoffs out of 30 possible. The outline was to allow those classes to compete within another group of similar cars, like we did years ago with FC and FF2000, and FE in FA. This stops the member v member problem at the bottom of the list. It was a discussion idea to be sent to the CRB as a possibility. It got included in the Press Release that was issued perhaps before it should have been released. There was no discussion of trying to make up for lost Runoffs entries, only one related to the future of the National Class structure (less of them) and where we might go. It was not an in depth discussion.We did not even discuss whether it would be a National Championship race within a race or one class with FB allowed to compete in FA, and the Prepared classes in with the GTs.

Thats as far as it has gone folks - input to the CRB and BOD on the subject is welcome before the Convention in February.