CRB Statement on 2.5 Rule and Classes

[Stan Clayton]

CSR/DSR for example gets harder to justify as seperate entities when D is as quick or quicker than C - its not a BOD target Stan, but its an example of where the combination may result in a better racing class. The problem is that combining classes will inevitably lose some members (it did with GTL after the GT4/5 merge). The sedan guys constantly ask why there are 5-6 small wings and things classes splitting the same member pool

You're right, Phil, so let me correct my earlier statement: For a number of years there have been "members of the BoD" who sought to combine CSR and DSR. My first personal experience with this was at Heartland Park when a certain venerable BoD member from Florida tapped me on the shoulder while I was congratulating Mark Jaremko on his silver medal in CSR (earned in his DSR) to ask rhetorically, "Now Stan, tell me again why we can't combine CSR and DSR?" There have been others, as well.

In the spirit of full disclosure, during my time on the CRB I floated that idea a time or two, but there was no burning need and no one in either class wanted to do it. Personally, I concede that one could simply merge the two classes now at their respective displacement/weights and be done with it. At the Runoffs level there is nothing to distinguish their performance.

[VehDyn]

It seems the Formula car classes have at least a reasonable resemblance of logic when you go through the classes and relative speeds. A couple of outliers maybe, but reasonable. There seem to be quite a few sedan classes when you look at the list.

Also, when combined, there will be no way there will be equality. For example. FA and FB. There is so much discussion in FA about not screwing the guys that had an existing motor by adding new spec motors. Can you imagine the discussions by adding in FB. The historical class will win hands down and the FB will be a total underdog unable to compete for the big wins whenever a true FA shows. Kind of like the chances of a Pro
Mazda or FE showing up to win in FA when they were there. It would just end FB.

It would be the same as combining GT1 and GT2. Can't work. At least in that example GT2 actually didn't make the numbers.

[M.Sauce]

No matter what classes are combined there will be winners and losers but something has to change.Many have already.FF numbers are down this year because the Pro1600 series offers something not available in club racing.FC is the same way.Tin tops have many other options than open wheel competitors.Membership is at an all time low or very close to it.I wish the BOD would make the decision to lead rather than keep trying the same things over and over expecting a different result.The future is now from a decision making perspective.Stan,if it were only as simple as combining C and DSR.

[Marshall Mauney]

Ironically, if you just enforce the 2.5 rule, wham! You're down to 21 classes. What's the issue here?

True enough, but the question remains...what do you do with the classes getting cut? The Club doesn't want them to just leave, so in practice they'd be folded into healthier classes.

GTL: 2.3 -> gets folded into GT3 and for those that can...Prod
S2: 2.3 -> gets folded into DSR
SSB: 2.2 -> gets folded into STU/L
CSR: 2.2 -> gets folded into DSR (been a BoD hard-on for years...)
GT2: 2.1 -> gets folded into GT3/STU
T3: 1.9 -> gets folded into STU/L
SSC: 1.9 -> folded into STL

One of the reasons the 2.5 rule was suspended (not abandoned) related to trying to manage the classes that failed to meet the number. Its better to have an overall class structure plan in place rather than just dump a class to regionals or consolidate it - neither of these solutions may give you a rational structure afterwards.

Is this really true?

In all seriousness, a "managed" class structure would probably never have allowed for the creation of SM, would it? The Miatae would have stayed rolled into SSB and would have disappeared for NASA the minute a faster car made it impossible for them to win at the Runoffs.

I would submit that our real goal as a club should be twofold:

1) That we have classes that are well-attended enough to promote "real" racing, and

2) That we have enough total entries at each event to support the costs of those events.

Bluntly put, it makes no difference to the regions if T-3/SSB/GT-2 is within a well-designed class structure if nobody shows up to race. If cutting those classes doesn't radically change the entry count, why would we continue to allow their presence to muck up schedules for and decisions about races like the Sprints and the Runoffs?

Conversely, if a class like F500/F600 (or FE, FM, SM, etc.) doesn't fit the predetermined mold, but yet brings the entries to the races, why would we want to mess with it?

The BOD is tasking the CRB to keep the total number of classes at National level in check to avoid dilution - a recent example: there are only so many members that want to drive an F5 type car so sending a bunch of them out to play with 600 engined F5's will inevitably dilute that pool.

Again, why is that assumption being made? Why would adding an engine option to an existing healthy class automatically dilute the pool?

There is a plan in place for Touring and Showroom stock and ST and there will be some serious looking at other areas.

OK, I get that there is a "plan" for these classes, but why are we spending time on them? T-1 is 20th in participation, T-3 27th; SSB and SSC are 24th and 28th, respectively. Meanwhile, SM and STU are showing us what the majority of tin-top drivers actually are willing to spend the money and time to race.

In managing a successful business, one guiding principle is that time spent on developing and supporting your top performers generally pays far higher dividends than time spent on under-performing staff. Applying this principle to national classes, I would seriously ask why we don't immediately declare the top 20 classes as "Runoffs" classes, and relegate the rest to regional-only competition until such time as they prove through actual entry counts that they should be considered for national status. Instead of trying to impose a pie-in-the-sky managerial plan from Topeka, make the impacted competitors figure out how to either grow their class or shoehorn their cars into one of the selected classes. I honestly believe that this would result in a stronger national racing program. What does it look like?

Open wheel: FV, F5, FF, FC, FA

Sports Racer: DSR (Allow CSR?)

Spec: SM, SRF, FE, FM

GT: GT-1, GT-3

Production-based Sedan: STU, HP, FP, T2, EP, AS, STO, T1

Of the classes that would be eliminated, I would guess that only FB could be considered to be "growing", while the rest are either declining or never really took off to begin with. [I also find it interesting that when we look at the top-participating classes, the "alphabet soup" isn't in open-wheel or wings'n'things - it's in small sedans.]

Would we lose a few drivers at first? Sure, but not very many - that's the reason those classes are in trouble to begin with. Any region that has a large number of those cars can still have a restricted regional paired with a national anyway, right? The flip side is that new national drivers will have a FAR less confusing set of options when they select a national class to compete in - and that answers a lot of the confusion that leads to people going elsewhere, IMO.

[Hardingfv32]

No matter what classes are combined there will be winners and losers but something has to change.Many have already.FF numbers are down this year because the Pro1600 series offers something not available in club racing.FC is the same way.Tin tops have many other options than open wheel competitors.Membership is at an all time low or very close to it.I wish the BOD would make the decision to lead rather than keep trying the same things over and over expecting a different result.The future is now from a decision making perspective.Stan,if it were only as simple as combining C and DSR.

And what decision is that going to be? The club can not compete with these highly focused series such as FC and FF 1600 without completely reorganizing the class structure. Will that IN FACT be a net gain for the club? How large are these pro serious? How long will they last? What is the average life expectancy of these road race based series that have come and gone over the years?

It would be my expectation that there is really little the club can do to arrest the membership decline. Class changes can only increase net membership expenses, why take the risk when you have nothing to support the success of any type of change.

Maybe the focus should be on how the club can manage with less membership?

Brian

[Tom Valet]

I don't understand how SCCA can justify keeping two classed that can't even seem to get 2 cars to show up to race. Don't you need at least 2 cars to call it a race? How many people would they be pi$$ing off in the bottom two classes if almost no one runs them? Should we add classed that have no cars also just in case someone builds one and wants a place to race?

Ed has hit the nail on the head. This is exactly the problem. For no good reason SCCA feels the need to placate classes that have minimal participation, rather than simply doing the sensible thing which would be to say sorry, the continued presence of numerous classes with minimal participation is having a detrimental effect on the entire organization.

What exactly was the problem with the 2.5 Rule in the first place? Why the sudden need to protect cars and classes with almost no participation?

It may be true that you will never get down to all single class run groups, but if you narrow the number of classes in each group to a few classes (2 or 3) from the current 5, 6 or 7 classes per group, you have still improved the racing experience.

Eliminating classes will have a short-term negative effect but it would improve SCCA racing and hopefully in the long run result in more entries.

And to those who say, which classes should we eliminate, it's too difficult to decide. Start with something like the 2.5 rule. It is objective and fair. Below the line and you're out.

[Matt King]

OK, I get that there is a "plan" for these classes, but why are we spending time on them? T-1 is 20th in participation, T-3 27th; SSB and SSC are 24th and 28th, respectively.

What exactly was the problem with the 2.5 Rule in the first place? Why the sudden need to protect cars and classes with almost no participation?

The answer to both of those questions is the same: SCCA is hoping (or praying? or dreaming?) that OE manufacturers will ride in and save the day by throwing money at amateurs racing production based cars.

[Hardingfv32]

Ed has hit the nail on the head. This is exactly the problem. For no good reason SCCA feels the need to placate classes that have minimal participation, rather than simply doing the sensible thing which would be to say sorry, the continued presence of numerous classes with minimal participation is having a detrimental effect on the entire organization.

What exactly was the problem with the 2.5 Rule in the first place? Why the sudden need to protect cars and classes with almost no participation?

It may be true that you will never get down to all single class run groups, but if you narrow the number of classes in each group to a few classes (2 or 3) from the current 5, 6 or 7 classes per group, you have still improved the racing experience.

Eliminating classes will have a short-term negative effect but it would improve SCCA racing and hopefully in the long run result in more entries.

And to those who say, which classes should we eliminate, it's too difficult to decide. Start with something like the 2.5 rule. It is objective and fair. Below the line and you're out.

1) How can you be certain this is the only or even the most significant issue facing SCCA?

2) SCCA might feel something is better than nothing when it comes to classes that have minimal participation. There could also be aspects of this issue that hit some regions harder than others.

3) If there are so few cars in these low subscription classes, they can't be that much of an issue on the track. Even at the Runoffs there should not be an issue. So you have mixed run groups. You raced all season that way.

4)"Eliminating classes will have a short-term negative effect but it would improve SCCA racing and hopefully in the long run result in more entries."

You have absolutely no way to substantiate this statement. No one does. Why take the chance IF this is not the really reason for reduced membership?

Brian

[Northwind]

I keep reading that SCCA is losing racers to other organizations. Shouldn't we be asking what these organizations are doing differently to be more attractive and start implementing some of their programs. Also what kind of car counts are these non SCCA groups actually getting. I have never experienced any other sanctioning group other than SCCA. Does anyone here have any real data or experience backing that these other groups are trending positive growth?

[Steve Bamford]

I posted earlier the car counts from the semi pro series.

[Northwind]

How about other club racing groups. I think we know what makes the pro or semi pro events attractive.

[disquek]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

The people you're trying to kick out of the club are your friends.

How exactly do you benefit if me and my GTL competitors are shown the door?

The small bore run group will still be there. You wont get any extra track time. You will have just screwed over a group of like minded good people for no one's benefit.

Will you be happy then?

Last year I did five races, every one of them a nail biter for who would win GTL. All but one with multiple passes for the lead. I guess we're not "really racing" because a bunch of regions had zero GTL in their events.

Why don't you go back to measuring ride height in nanometers?

-Kyle

[blentz2]

I have been told that NASA is taking market share from SCCA. They had 25 tin top classes at their national championship.

American Iron
American Iron Xtreme
Camaro Mustang Challenge
Camaro Mustang Challenge 2
Factory Five Challenge
GTS1
GTS2
GTS3
GTS4
GTS5
HPD Honda Challenge 1
HPD Honda Challenge 2
PTA
PTB
PTC
PTD
PTE
PTF
Spec E30
Spec Miata
STR1
STR2
Super Touring 1
Super Touring 2
Super Unlimited

[Jnovak]

This is a very difficult problem for EVERY MEMBER of the SCCA and we need to do our absolute best to make sure that all of US have a place to do our thing. I will have been a racing member of the SCCA for 44 years next March so I have some idea of what the club was like then and what it is now.

I started out in sedans and migrated to open wheel after about 15 years so I have a feel for both sides of the fence.

I do agree that the club has way to many classes but I do not think that we should put certain cars out to the dump because there are not enough of them. I think our rules structures are insanely complicated and this single fact makes it very difficult to figure out ways to simplify the class structure.

We need to combine some classes and bust our butts to give as many competitors a chance to be competitive within their classes. How to accomplish this is the issue when so many cars of different classes have very similar lap time but COMPLETELY different rules sets. Of course this does not mean that EVERYONE will be competitive for certainly not everyone is competitive now but it will mean that you have a place to race your car.

So that said, I think we need to work at combining classes that have very similar lap times into classes and at the same time or over a couple of year time period make sure that all the cars in that class have the SAME VERY SIMPLIFIED RULES SET if at all possible.

For example you could have a race prepped closed wheel class that allows for engine displacements between some specific range, perhaps 1.6 to 2.5L (just an example) and then have a sliding weight scale that is based on lbs/cc. Now obviously something like this would not be perfect out of the box but it could be made to work with other slight adjustments. We should also try to consolidate open wheel classes too if at all possible.

We need to work on something or it will not be long before we are so fragmented that the SCCA becomes meaningless and we are all out of a place to race.

Now before someone mentions F5 and the proposed F6 class and the MANY attempts to get this started. Let me state that it was always our intent to be part of F5 but there were, and still are, many factions of power within the club that were trying to prevent this from happening. That said, I now think that F6 will happen and that it will merge with F5 sometime in the near future.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[dalz]

What the hell is wrong with you people?

The people you're trying to kick out of the club are your friends.

How exactly do you benefit if me and my GTL competitors are shown the door?

The small bore run group will still be there. You wont get any extra track time. You will have just screwed over a group of like minded good people for no one's benefit.

Will you be happy then?

Last year I did five races, every one of them a nail biter for who would win GTL. All but one with multiple passes for the lead. I guess we're not "really racing" because a bunch of regions had zero GTL in their events.

Why don't you go back to measuring ride height in nanometers?
-Kyle

Kyle--

Everyone is frustrated with the current situations. I just had to share my Runoffs race with another class like it was some kind of half-a$$ed regional. I was so mad I tried to sell my seat because I was contractually committed. Please don't invent words out of other peoples' keyboards. Noone is trying to kick any racer out of the club, hog track time, or is suggesting another class is not really racing. I don't see much love for OW from my occasional looks at the other classes' forums. Some folks would like to see all of us here in as few as three classes. Instead of infantile potshots, you're welcome to offer any suggestions you think might help solve the Club's problems. Thanks.

[fatdaddy53]

I have seen several viable solutions presented thusfar, note that I didn't say painless. No decision can be made that will please everyone. I would submit however that the reluctance to make any decision has caused much more of a problem. I make this comment because I have been trying for the last two years to comply with the wishes of a group that evidently doesn't know what their wishes are.

[Tom Valet]

1) How can you be certain this is the only or even the most significant issue facing SCCA?

2) SCCA might feel something is better than nothing when it comes to classes that have minimal participation. There could also be aspects of this issue that hit some regions harder than others.

3) If there are so few cars in these low subscription classes, they can't be that much of an issue on the track. Even at the Runoffs there should not be an issue. So you have mixed run groups. You raced all season that way.

4)"Eliminating classes will have a short-term negative effect but it would improve SCCA racing and hopefully in the long run result in more entries."

You have absolutely no way to substantiate this statement. No one does. Why take the chance IF this is not the really reason for reduced membership?

Brian

1. Nobody said it was the ONLY issue facing SCCA, just that it is a major issue for competitors every year and with the recent changes announced by SCCA in the past few years (abandoning the 24 race maximum for Runoffs; mixed class racing at the Runoffs; abandoning the 2.5 rule; making exceptions for classes with virtually no participation to keep them in Nationals and Runoffs; now suggesting they are looking into combining classes to allow completely different cars in the same class etc) things have only gotten worse.

2. Something is better than nothing is exactly the problem. When you try to find a place to race for every class under the sun, that is a recipe for 1 and 2 car count classes.

3. It only takes one car in his own class to ruin the rest of the fields race. With nobody else to race again, he gets mixed up in the middle of somebody else's battle. We have had this happen many times, and on many occasions where Bill was one of only a few FFs in a race, he has gotten mixed up in other people's races too. In Jersey a few years ago this almost resulted in a fist fight, the other guy (in an S2) physically confronted Bill after the race. So yeah, it's a problem.

4. I have no way to substantiate this statement? FC Pro Series and Ff Pro Series, single class racing, huge fields. The number one factor cited by everyone racing there is that they are on the track only with cars in their class.

[DaveW]

...
2. Something is better than nothing is exactly the problem. When you try to find a place to race for every class under the sun, that is a recipe for 1 and 2 car count classes.

3. It only takes one car in his own class to ruin the rest of the fields race. With nobody else to race again, he gets mixed up in the middle of somebody else's battle. We have had this happen many times, and on many occasions where Bill was one of only a few FFs in a race, he has gotten mixed up in other people's races too. In Jersey a few years ago this almost resulted in a fist fight, the other guy (in an S2) physically confronted Bill after the race. So yeah, it's a problem.

4. I have no way to substantiate this statement? FC Pro Series and Ff Pro Series, single class racing, huge fields. The number one factor cited by everyone racing there is that they are on the track only with cars in their class.

I could not have said it better.

After being involved in 2 incidents (the 2nd one ripped off both front and rear RH suspensions) in the July 2010 Nelson Ledges Double National, caused indirectly by the 8-class "wings & things" grouping, I said "goodbye" to club racing, and am now running only the F2KCS series. It makes absolutely no sense to go to races where you can't actually race, but just try to avoid incidents and trundle around to get a finish. To me, that is really stupid. I want to be able to compete, not just drive the car!

[disquek]

Kyle--

Everyone is frustrated with the current situations. I just had to share my Runoffs race with another class like it was some kind of half-a$$ed regional. I was so mad I tried to sell my seat because I was contractually committed. Please don't invent words out of other peoples' keyboards. Noone is trying to kick any racer out of the club, hog track time, or is suggesting another class is not really racing. I don't see much love for OW from my occasional looks at the other classes' forums. Some folks would like to see all of us here in as few as three classes. Instead of infantile potshots, you're welcome to offer any suggestions you think might help solve the Club's problems. Thanks.

Oh my god. That's horrible. You had to share a 4 mile track with a whole other class for an entire other race!!!! How did you survive?

I'm going out to the garage to burn my GTL. I will ask all others to do the same.

Everything I said in my previous post was taken from THIS THREAD. They were not invented. If you eliminate a class, you are kicking the owners of those cars out of the club. It's that simple. We will not have a car with which to participate. Should we just go find another $80k to build a new one, hoping that car wont be eliminated too?

I did notice that you didnt address my point of "why"? Who gains from our "elimination"? No one. But you will have fed your control urge. So maybe it's worth it for me and the 50 odd GTL owners to just go away.

-Kyle

[Matt King]

I don't think anyone is saying the also-ran classes should be kicked out of the SCCA, but they should be kicked out of Nationals racing if they can't bring the numbers. If the club insists on maintaining two divisions of racing (regional and national) then the least it should do is have a meaningful and explainable reason for the split. Nationals could be reserved for the classes that can draw sufficient numbers to provide a credible racing experience. Regionals would be available for the rest of the cars that are basically driving around for the fun of it.

This approach addresses those who want better racing in Nationals and those who insist the club cannot exist without a regional/national split, as well as those who insist that the club must provide a home for everyone with a car.

Under a plan like that the big question would be how many classes make the National cut? I'd argue the fewer the better, no more than the top 8-10, which would allow each class a dedicated run group during an event, which would look a lot like the plan TimW put together.

[blentz2]

This is the same thing that happened the last time the Board pushed for 24 classes. We all turned on one another in an attempt to save our own. It's a sad state for a group of people that fundamentally share the same love of speed and competitive racing. Makes me sick to see.

Kyle's point is that we're not going to go race SM or formula cars. Nothing wrong with them, just not our cup of tea. So, if we get pushed out, we'll probably just end up somewhere else. And if that happens, how does it help you?

I know of multiple people that want to come run GTL that won't simply because it's near the 2.5 rule. The rule is self fulfilling that way. We were just seeing the momentum again until this recent news.

We shouldn't be pitted against each other as we all try to protect our collective substantial investments. We should be upset with the club for creating the situation that encourages this behavior.

It's the SCCA version of the Hunger Games.

[blentz2]

I don't think anyone is saying the also-ran classes should be kicked out of the SCCA, but they should be kicked out of Nationals racing if they can't bring the numbers. If the club insists on maintaining two divisions of racing (regional and national) then the least it should do is have a meaningful and explainable reason for the split. Nationals could be reserved for the classes that can draw sufficient numbers to provide a credible racing experience. Regionals would be available for the rest of the cars that are basically driving around for the fun of it.

This approach addresses those who want better racing in Nationals and those who insist the club cannot exist without a regional/national split, as well as those who insist that the club must provide a home for everyone with a car.

Under a plan like that the big question would be how many classes make the National cut? I'd argue the fewer the better, no more than the top 8-10, which would allow each class a dedicated run group during an event, which would look a lot like the plan TimW put together.

Your assumption is that large classes are the ones with the best competition. I can assure you that the GTL cars in the NE are not "driving around". Do you believe that the CSR racers are "basically driving around"? The fastest class most technologically advanced class in the club?

I dispute your correlation between participation and quality of racing, talent, or commitment.

[Matt King]

Your assumption is that large classes are the ones with the best competition. I can assure you that the GTL cars in the NE are not "driving around". Do you believe that the CSR racers are "basically driving around"? The fastest class most technologically advanced class in the club?

I dispute your correlation between participation and quality of racing, talent, or commitment.

If the goal is to increase participation and draw larger fields, which will definitely result in a higher level of competition, you start by building on the classes that are already at the top of the heap. I'm not saying there is a lack of commitment or skill in the smaller classes, but the fact is that if you can't consistently draw enough cars to even fill a podium, that's not really racing.

[blentz2]

In the Northeast which is the second largest division in the club, my class (GTL) had more entries per national race than FM, FF, FB, CSR, and DSR. We are doing a better job "filling podiums" than all of these classes.

Not all classes are strong all over the country. It doesn't diminish their right to have a national champion.

[Matt King]

Not all classes are strong all over the country. It doesn't diminish their right to be a national class.

Under the concept of the 2.5 rule and the single National Championship Runoffs format, unfortunately it does. You might want to reconsider what the word "national" actually means. What you are describing is a strong regional or divisional class.

[blentz2]

Following your logic through, I see that FE had only enough cars to "fill a podium" in 4 of the 9 SCCA divisions in 2011. Does that make it a "divisional or regional" class?

FA only filled podiums in 5 of 9 divisions.

In other divisions both of these classes are extraordinarily strong. They are awesome cars producing great races. They deserve to have a national champion.

I'm not saying my class is as healthy as these, just that I believe it can be but not with the constant threat of extinction. The fact that it is so strong in the NE and that the competition is so intense at the runoffs suggest to me that we're onto something that can return to being a great class across the country for the club.

I don't think that this can happen at the regional level. The class is a development class requiring constant, high levels of investment and commitment to remain at the pointy end. I don't see competitors putting in this effort for a regional class. My .02

[Jnovak]

Following your logic through, I see that FE had only enough cars to "fill a podium" in 4 of the 9 SCCA divisions in 2011. Does that make it a "divisional or regional" class?

FA only filled podiums in 5 of 9 divisions.

In other divisions both of these classes are extraordinarily strong. They are awesome cars producing great races. They deserve to have a national champion.

I'm not saying my class is as healthy as these, just that I believe it can be but not with the constant threat of extinction. The fact that it is so strong in the NE and that the competition is so intense at the runoffs suggest to me that we're onto something that can return to being a great class across the country for the club.

I don't think that this can happen at the regional level. The class is a development class requiring constant, high levels of investment and commitment to remain at the pointy end. I don't see competitors putting in this effort for a regional class. My .02

Bob, I thought that the creation of GTL was a good idea at the time and would create a better class with more total participation. Do you have any thoughts on why the car count went down (if it actually did as claimed by the BOD)? I think it is very important that we understand why this happened. Your thoughts please.

Thanks ... Jay Novak (a fan of GTL)

[blentz2]

There are many opinions and probably most are correct to varying degrees.

My opinion is that the consolidation of two very different classes was very hard and as a result it took a while to get the class parity back in line. Probably way too long, but I think we are finally pretty close (with some exceptions). During this post consolidation time frame there were two views from the competitors depending on where you were sitting:
1. there was too much instability in the rules as the parity was adjusted so they started to sit out
2. the rate of change in addressing the lack of parity was too slow and competitors (like the GT5 guys) decided to sit out

During this time, the class dragged down toward the 2.5 mark. Being close to the 2.5 mark is a dangerous place for a class which requires investment to remain at the pointy end. It also keeps newcomers from entering since there are really no other classes to take a tube frame car if the class gets below 2.5 (in contrast to tub cars that could be repurposed into some other class). And so it goes...

I think right now we have awesome parity (again, with some exceptions) and I know there are people on the sidelines that would get back in if they had confidence that the class would be here in a year or two. There are a handful that I know are coming back out next year.

One other factor is that oddly our class seems to have an unusual amount of home builders and auto repair shop owners in the mix that are all taking it on the chin for the last few years.

I'm sure you'd get many views on this if you asked around. This is my perception. I am on the GTAC and working hard to turn this around.

[VehDyn]

I tend to agree with Blentz2 to a certain degree on this issue. Look at FB. Its strong in the SEDIV and the nortwest, but basically nowhere else. Luckily the numbers in those two regions keep it at or above 2.5. His numbers are strong in some regions but not in others so it drags it downs. Perhaps too many Nationals spreading the numbers so thin is an issue. Perhaps smaller number of Nationals with higher quality events is the answer if your metric is purely a per event average.

[Marshall Mauney]

In the Northeast which is the second largest division in the club, my class (GTL) had more entries per national race than FM, FF, FB, CSR, and DSR. We are doing a better job "filling podiums" than all of these classes.

Not all classes are strong all over the country. It doesn't diminish their right to have a national champion.

OK, then how would you suggest deciding what method should be used to determine what classes do or do not merit "national" status? I think it's clear that if a class is only well-attended in a single division or region, then that championship is a regional or divisional championship, even if it is decided at the Runoffs. On the other hand, a class that has a handful of top-level drivers in each division who all show up and race each other once a year at the Runoffs would seem to be a true "national" class.

The current method to determine this is average entry count over the total nation - you apparently disagree with this, so let's talk about other options.

Should it be total number of active cars in a class? Total number of drivers? Should there be a minimum number of Divisions that hit some average entry count?

I did notice that you didnt address my point of "why"? Who gains from our "elimination"?

The entire club benefits when our national championship titles hold meaning. If the perception in the rest of the racing community is that we are a "catch-all" club that will declare a national champion for any group of a dozen or so guys who show up, then that "championship" holds no value. If, OTOH, a SCCA Runoffs win means that you had to compete with a large group of the best drivers and cars in your class from all around the nation - both in the regular season and in the main event, then we are relevant.

From my perspective, I'm one of the guys who has to work pretty hard to get a Runoffs invitation (CenDiv is tough in FE), and I have little chance at getting a podium finish there. Now, I could get a car in a marginal class and probably finish a lot closer to the front - but it wouldn't mean anything, and everyone else would know it. Finishing 5th at the Sprints this year was an accomplishment for me - finishing 3rd in a group of 5 cars would mean far less. YMMV, but I think that most competitors would agree.

So, I think it's safe to say that it means a lot more to win the Runoffs in SM or SRF today than it does to win in T-3 - does anyone disagree? Given that, the question is simple - how far down do we want to lower our standards in our National racing program? Do we want to be all things to all people, or do we want to be the premier racing sanction in the US?

[Rennie Clayton]

The problem with SCCA is not the proliferation of classes, it is the packaging of the race weekends.

[Marshall Mauney]

The problem with SCCA is not the proliferation of classes, it is the packaging of the race weekends.

???

In what way?

[disquek]

I'm going to ask this for a third time. Maybe someone can get through the complex language of my question. Here it is:

"why?"

If every class under 2.5 in 2011 were eliminated, who would benefit? Who cares how many classes there are? Why do you care if my class has 2 cars in every race?

The run groups will not change even if you get your destructive self centered pointless wish.

So you will have booted us for no benefit to yourselves.

I find it telling that no one has even tried to answer my simple question in three pages of posts.

This is one of those ancient wars that started so long ago no one remembers why it started in the first place. Let me remind you. It started because Speed would only broadcast 24 events. That limitation is gone.

-Kyle

[Hardingfv32]

The entire club benefits when our national championship titles hold meaning. If the perception in the rest of the racing community is that we are a "catch-all" club that will declare a national champion for any group of a dozen or so guys who show up, then that "championship" holds no value. If, OTOH, a SCCA Runoffs win means that you had to compete with a large group of the best drivers and cars in your class from all around the nation - both in the regular season and in the main event, then we are relevant.

1) Why this might sound logical, there is no evidence that the Runoffs has anything to do with falling participation. Or that improving that status of winning a Runoffs will help either. As an example, the inconvenience of the Runoff's location has made the Runoffs a non event for most participants West of the Rockies. We have shunned it for so long that it has no importance in our minds.

2) There is no evidence that improving the National race program and the Runoffs will help overall SCCA Club Racing participation. West of the Rockies the Regional program is much more successful the National Program as far as participation numbers.

3) In a way you really are not suggesting anything new with the National racing system and the Runoffs. This is just the same old model being reworked. Maybe the club should consider a complete change of strategy?

Brian

[Marshall Mauney]

I'm going to ask this for a third time. Maybe someone can get through the complex language of my question. Here it is:

"why?"

Post #110 above - I made a pretty serious attempt at answering that exact question.

I'll add to it the issue of forcing combinations of classes at the Runoffs. There was no good reason whatsoever to combine two classes both in the top 15 in participation at the Runoffs this year - except to make room for a bunch of under-subscribed classes. To top it off, it seems that those under-subscribed classes won't tolerate being combined themselves, but instead want to force the well-subscribed classes to move aside for them - seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I live 45 miles from Road America. I withdrew my entry and did something else with my time in September this year. Draw your own conclusions.

[disquek]

Draw your own conclusions.

Done.

-Kyle

[Matt King]

If every class under 2.5 in 2011 were eliminated, who would benefit? Who cares how many classes there are? Why do you care if my class has 2 cars in every race?

I think your question has been addressed throughout this thread. The response is that a wholesale reworking of the National program to reduce the number of eligible classes and improve the quality of the racing and track time for the highest participation classes would vastly improve that program. Yes, it would come at the detriment to the lower subscribed classes, and for those classes, a healthy regional program would welcome them with open arms. So your class would not be "kicked out" of the SCCA under this scenario.

[Rennie Clayton]

I find it telling that no one has even tried to answer my simple question in three pages of posts.

That's because the answer isn't terribly relevant to the issue at hand.

???

In what way?

In the way you've already articulated yourself: dilution (at best) of the quality of racing experience for all participants. SCCA made a commitment a long time ago to an enterprise scale, nationwide organization, and turning membership away isn't in its DNA.

The F2000 series of the world have concentrated on event quality, which is what makes them so attractive to participants, but the approach will not scale nationwide. Zero practical effort has been made to address event quality at a national-capable scale. More's the pity.

[Hardingfv32]

The F2000 series of the world have concentrated on event quality, which is what makes them so attractive to participants, but the approach will not scale nationwide.

And how long does this F2000 series model last on average? How many of these pro model series have come and gone? Are they really a model worth copying?

Don't these series usually involve a promoter with a profit model involved? Some kind of motivation to keep doing the hard work require to make the series successful (high quality events).

Brian

[Steve Demeter]

The F2KCS (I hope I got it right) has been around for about 6 years and only seems to get stronger in terms of participation and relevance to the rest of the racing world.

A model that rewards the competitors participation with lots of track time, good racing and meaningful piblicity when you do well, will flourish.

Only wish I had the time and funds to participate.

About the funds, it seems to be about the least expensive game in town for the level of quality the participants get, just that I am a very budget kind of guy. I make Purlpe Frog seem to be a spendthrift with my cheapness.