CRB Statement on 2.5 Rule and Classes

[disquek]

The answer of "it will improve it" is not an answer at all. Improve it how?

Still using GTL as the example: The small bore run group will still be there. It will just have about 6 fewer entries in NEDIV events. How is this an improvement?

To address the ridiculous idea of improving the "quality" of the national championship, I'd say this, to win GTL you will need to beat five prior national champions with a total of 12 championships between them (most of them not in GTL). Can ANY of your open wheel classes match that?

There are no spectators. There maybe friends and family of the racers, but the number of actual spectators that dont know anyone in the event (nationwide) would not fill my living room. So there is no issue of "spectator" experience. It's just us.

I think that many of you guys aggrandize amateur road racing. There is no vast hoard of new racers waiting for the next big change to bring them out to spend $50k to start and $20k per year. It's pretty much just us. Let's try to stop pissing on the people who have already demonstrated a devotion to this sport, shall we?

BTW: You people above all should be looking for this elimination based on participation thing to go away. Do you realized that open wheel racing in America is dead and has been dead for a decade. When all of you were kids (like me) the Indy 500 was a big deal. Those days are over. Kids today think of tin tops when they think of race cars.

Amateur road racing will lag pro by about 25 years. The time it take for the people who thought it was cool when they were 18 to make enough money to do it themselves.

How long before your numbers are in the toilet and tube frame stock car look alike seems like a great idea to the kids that grew up on the Daytona 500?

Careful with those stones.

-Kyle

PS: I wonder if most regions could even survive if they lost the entry fees from the classes under 2.5. Most regions are scraping by or losing money as it is.

[Hardingfv32]

1) May I assume their events are not stand alone? Do they exist without a host?

2) What is the business model for the promoter? What makes him tick and how long will he last? Does he want to get bigger to the great American capitalistic tradition?

3) With the normal limited life expectancy of most pro series, I just don't see this being a model the club can derive much from.

Brian

[Rennie Clayton]

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).

I'm quite serious when I ask this: are you disagreeing with the notion that the quality of racing experience in SCCA needs to be improved, and we can learn from the approach taken by series like the F2KCS - or are you simply being pedantic?

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

Ayup.

To address the ridiculous idea of improving the "quality" of the national championship, I'd say this, to win GTL you will need to beat five prior national champions with a total of 12 championships between them (most of them not in GTL). Can ANY of your open wheel classes match that?

My last trip to the Runoffs ('09) was in FA - 5 prior national champions in the field. What's your point?

1) May I assume their events are not stand alone? Do they exist without a host?

2) What is the business model for the promoter? What makes him tick and how long will he last? Does he want to get bigger to the great American capitalistic tradition?

3) With the normal limited life expectancy of most pro series, I just don't see this being a model the club can derive much from.

You sound concerned. Again, see my question above.

The key ingredients to improving the quality of events have been mentioned often enough in this thread, and similar threads, that it's almost ludicrous that the SCCA has not yet stumbled on a potentially viable solution by mere accident of chance by now.

Everybody concentrating on the problem, rather than the solution.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Matt King]

BTW: You people above all should be looking for this elimination based on participation thing to go away. Do you realized that open wheel racing in America is dead and has been dead for a decade. When all of you were kids (like me) the Indy 500 was a big deal. Those days are over. Kids today think of tin tops when they think of race cars.

And yet all but one of the open wheel classes are in the top half of the class participation rankings. GTL? One spot above DFL.

[Tom Valet]

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.


-Kyle

At the June Sprints last year (2010 or 09, cant remember), the fastest FFs were the same lap times as the slowest FCs. They were faster at different parts of the track, however. The FF leader got past the slowest FCs, the second place car did not. End of FF race. People towed hundreds or even thousands of miles for what? A chance to race against someone not in your class?

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

Kyle, I answered your question in my post above, I guess you just dont like the answer.

I have no animosity toward any class in SCCA, including GTL. When I raced years ago I raced tin tops. What I have a problem with is the SCCA model for conducting its races.

When we raced NE Division regionals, I hated it. The run group was FF, FC, FE, FM, S2, CSR, DSR, FS, and FB and most of the races were held at 1.5 mile Lime Rock. Most of these classes had 1 or 2 participants. Everybody got a trophy. The racing was a joke, you never saw any two cars in the same class racing against each other. It was also incredibly dangerous.

When we moved to Nationals, it was a big relief to at least see the run groups down to 3 classes. Now, with the new management philosophy of SCCA, I see that Nationals will before long resemble the regional model I described above.

If you were starting a new racing organization from scratch, you would have only a limited number of classes, none of which overlapped. Can you seriously question that this would be the soundest business model and would produce the most enjoyable racing? SCCA should at least try to move in that direction, even if it will never get to the ideal number of classes.

[blentz2]

And yet all but one of the open wheel classes are in the top half of the class participation rankings. GTL? One spot above DFL.

GTL was 22nd out of 28 classes last year. FB was 21st. CSR was 25th.

[blentz2]

...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.

Taking the top 10 would leave FA, FB, FE, and FC as regional classes. Top 8 and you lose F5 and FM too.

[Tom Valet]

Taking the top 10 would leave FA, FB, FE, and FC as regional classes. Top 8 and you lose F5 and FM too.

Bob, this is exactly the problem (and I find it unfortunate that for whatever reason "GTL" somehow became the whipping boy in this thread; "GTL" is not the problem any more than the classes named above are the problem in and of themselves). It is the proliferation of classes which ensures that other than the "cheapest" classes (FV and SM) that have their own attractiveness, the participation numbers of all other classes will suffer. On the other hand, if you give those who want to race a limited number of classes from which to choose, participation numbers in each class will be larger, the racing will be more enjoyable and this will feed on itself to bring more racers into SCCA.

[blentz2]

Bob, this is exactly the problem (and I find it unfortunate that for whatever reason "GTL" somehow became the whipping boy in this thread; "GTL" is not the problem any more than the classes named above are the problem in and of themselves). It is the proliferation of classes which ensures that other than the "cheapest" classes (FV and SM) that have their own attractiveness, the participation numbers of all other classes will suffer. On the other hand, if you give those who want to race a limited number of classes from which to choose, participation numbers in each class will be larger, the racing will be more enjoyable and this will feed on itself to bring more racers into SCCA.

This assumes that we're the only game in town which is absolutely not true. You might not get larger participation, you might just get a way smaller club.

[Matt King]

Taking the top 10 would leave FA, FB, FE, and FC as regional classes. Top 8 and you lose F5 and FM too.

Obviously if National status is reduced by any number of classes there will be winners and losers. Some will be open wheel and some will not, but I wouldn't bet on amateur open wheel racing going away. The club can let the market determine the winners or it can manage the process by other means.

[Tom Valet]

This assumes that we're the only game in town which is absolutely not true. You might not get larger participation, you might just get a way smaller club.

Perhaps, but at least those left would have meaningful and enjoyable racing.

Not sure if I am kidding with that response or not.

[Amon]

What's the point in establishing a rule if it's not going to be enforced?


Mark / Protoform P-2/05 FV

[Hardingfv32]

I'm quite serious when I ask this: are you disagreeing with the notion that the quality of racing experience in SCCA needs to be improved, and we can learn from the approach taken by series like the F2KCS

On the contrary, I see a bigger picture than this class reduction discussion. Of coarse I can improve the quality of the SCCA racing experience if cost is no object, but that is not the case.

COST is the most important factor in club participation numbers. Everyone assigns a cost to the pleasure they derive from this form of entertainment. That cost/benefit equation is affect by many things, age and the economic environment as an example. It would be my opinion that the average club participant is in their 50's and very intolerant to what they consider to a inferior racing experience when compared to the past. Just human nature, things are usually view as better in the past. The economic environment is challenging for most participants, so that pushes the cost/benefit balance a little more to the cost side.

So it would be my opinion that you can not do anything that increases cost above the normal creep that the members are use to. Reducing class will in the short term increase costs, no way around that. Will that addition increase in cost be a negative for participation numbers, in addition to the lost class numbers?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

Perhaps, but at least those left would have meaningful and enjoyable racing.

But will they be able to afford it?

Brian

[Tom Valet]

But will they be able to afford it?

Brian

Your implication then is that SCCA had to abandon the 2.5 rule in order to continue to put on races and that it needed a class for every single car that wished to enter, even if it was the only car in its class, in order to continue in business. I am fairly certain that is not true.

[Dave Gomberg]

... On the other hand, if you give those who want to race a limited number of classes from which to choose, participation numbers in each class will be larger, the racing will be more enjoyable and this will feed on itself to bring more racers into SCCA.

Many of us would simply have to stop racing if our class went away because we could not afford to throw away the car we have and buy something else. (And, for some of us, there simply is no other venue than SCCA.)

Dave

[Hardingfv32]

Your implication then is that SCCA had to abandon the 2.5 rule in order to continue to put on races and that it needed a class for every single car that wished to enter, even if it was the only car in its class, in order to continue in business. I am fairly certain that is not true.

There is nothing available to indicate that fewer classes is going to increase participation. It was just an unknown that the Board was agreeing to. The politics of the Board could have change and it was decided that now it might not to the correct way to go. There is no bases on which the Board can make a correct decision on this subject.

You simply can not make a direct correlation between class reduction and increased participation. There are to many other factors that come into play. Just because you increase the pleasure of the remaining participants does not mean that pleasure increase is great enough to over come other participation obstacles faced by possible new entrants.

Brian

[Rennie Clayton]

On the contrary, I see a bigger picture than this class reduction discussion. Of coarse I can improve the quality of the SCCA racing experience if cost is no object, but that is not the case.

COST is the most important factor in club participation numbers. Everyone assigns a cost to the pleasure they derive from this form of entertainment. That cost/benefit equation is affect by many things, age and the economic environment as an example. It would be my opinion that the average club participant is in their 50's and very intolerant to what they consider to a inferior racing experience when compared to the past. Just human nature, things are usually view as better in the past. The economic environment is challenging for most participants, so that pushes the cost/benefit balance a little more to the cost side.

So it would be my opinion that you can not do anything that increases cost above the normal creep that the members are use to. Reducing class will in the short term increase costs, no way around that. Will that addition increase in cost be a negative for participation numbers, in addition to the lost class numbers?

I stated quite plainly in my first post in this thread that I don't consider the problem with SCCA to be the proliferation of classes - and I have not suggested class consolidation or elimination, but that seems to be all you can speak to.

Thanks for your time.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Daryl DeArman]

Many of us would simply have to stop racing if our class went away because we could not afford to throw away the car we have and buy something else. (And, for some of us, there simply is no other venue than SCCA.)

Dave

I disagree. If 100's of cars no longer had a place to race with SCCA, you would have other options.

In my opinion we want to race, we look at the choices available and choose something that suits our needs. If the choices were fewer, we'd still find something that met our needs. To suggest otherwise implies that folks just fell in love with the performance of the 1985 Dodge Omni, 1987 Honda Accord, or an open wheel car with 60HP and drum brakes and are just thankful they have a place to race such a beast.

[Hardingfv32]

I stated quite plainly in my first post in this thread that I don't consider the problem with SCCA to be the proliferation of classes - and I have not suggested class consolidation or elimination, but that seems to be all you can speak to.

I missed the significance of your statement. So let us talk about 'the quality of racing experience for all participants.' Can you expand on this a little? I am happy to leave class consolidation behind.

Are we talking about event management at the Regional level? Does SCCA have much control over local events?

Are we talking about the pro series having a very small participation group to manage, usually by a promoter with a profit motive?

Brian

[Sean Maisey]

I have enjoyed reading through all 4 pages of this debate this evening almost as much as the "Hitler learns the 2.5 rule has been suspended" Youtube video.

I would love to figure out a way for all of us to work constructively towards solving the long decline of National Racing, but I question if it is really possible.

Many people fail to truely understand that in the SCCA almost all power (and money) is concentrated within the individual regions. They organize the races, promote them, get the workers out for them, and run the events. It is not like the SCCA National Office or even Divisional staff are sent out en-mass to travel the country running the National race schedule with a "professinoal crew".

So it is reasonable to expect that the Regions have the greatest incentive to cater to the local racers. They primarily race Mazda Miatas right now in my part of the country. They want more track time, 2-3 hour endurance races, 12 hour races, chances to share the same car in multiuple run groups etc...

Most of them have little interest in Nationals or treking all the way out the Road America for the RunOffs. Many of them see Nationals as a wasted event on their Region's schedule, and the Wings and Things run group as a waste of a run group where the Miatas and RX-7s outnumber the Formula/Sportsracers more than 10 to 1.

So it is not suprising that most regionals only grudgingly put on Nationals at all. What is in it for them afterall?

So this is Issue #1 that I think needs to change to make National Racing more healthy. I have several more "key" issues, but didn't want this to turn into a manifesto... So more later if warranted...

Thoughts?
Sean

[Todd Butler]

There were/are a number of issues with the 2.5 rule:

1. It’s a National rule and spread like peanut butter across all Regions. As noted multiple times in this thread, some classes are stronger in some regions than others. It takes a lot of large fields in a class in one place to balance out a 0-1 car similar class elsewhere. Lots of reasons why this happens, many of them self fulfilling, like you want to race, you look at what’s popular locally and you jump in. IMHO this does not mean a class should not have National status.

2. There has been a proliferation of Nationals. There are some divisions where nobody wants to hold Regionals, they want Nationals. And splitting divisions not long ago in the mid-west added +6 more National races to the schedule, and some of this is proliferation of Double Nationals driven by sheer economics required by Regions putting on events. Tracks are not getting cheaper to rent and events are not getting cheaper to put on.

3. The 2.5 rule is counted/averaged over *all* divisions (see #1 peanut butter above). Previously under the 3.5 rule I believe it was 7 of 9(?) Divisions which helped to some degree to take the regional inconsistency in class participation into account.

The BoD basically recognized that the 2.5 rule as written and as it was heading to enforcement, was not working, and thus as Phil noted the suspension in favor of active class management. There is a presumption that active class management will give us a better balanced class structure, fewer overall classes, and ultimately better quality events that will attract more racers.

Todd Butler
NorPac Area 13 Director

[Tom Valet]

Todd, thanks for your explanation for the reasons why the 2.5 rule was abandoned, which makes sense in the context in which you have stated it. However, the reason I think this explanation for the move away from the 2.5 rule (or something similar which objectively determined which classes continue and which classes fail) makes no sense, is that the 2.5 rule set the bar so low that any class with any meaningful participation anywhere in the country could continue as a class and didnt have to worry about the 2.5 rule affecting it.

So yes, there may have been classes where there was weak participation in some regions but healthy participation in others. But to fall below 2.5 (think about how incredibly low a participation number that is) meant participation was weak everywhere. The argument that healthy participation in one region alone should allow a class to retain National status, to the detriment of all other regions, and therefore we need "active class management", does not hold water to me.

"Active class management" sounds great on paper, but when the immediate result since its inception has solely been to retain classes with weak participation, allow multiple class run groups at the Runoffs and now even to allow classes to race at the Runoffs where fewer than 10 cars have entered, suggests to me that "active class management" is not being managed as it should be.

[Tom Valet]

Many of us would simply have to stop racing if our class went away because we could not afford to throw away the car we have and buy something else. (And, for some of us, there simply is no other venue than SCCA.)

Dave

Dave, many years ago I raced with a group called EMRA, which still puts on race events here in the Northeast. EMRA had open wheel classes, but only enough participation for a single run group. A regular entrant in EMRA open wheel races was a guy named Eddie Claridge, who owned a 1970s Formula 5000, a car that he could not race anywhere else but EMRA would allow Eddie to enter its races. So out on the track would be lots of FFs, lots of FVs and Eddie's F5000. He was always very respectful of the other cars on the track and I never saw Eddie do anything dangerous (he was not racing anyone else so he could afford to be extra safe), but to see him ripping around the track in that car while the FFs and FVs were trying to race always made me shake my head.

But hey, we wouldnt want to pass a rule that F5000s cant race any longer, because then the single F5000 that wants to race would not have anywhere else to go and that guy would have to "throw" his car away.

Is it nice to continue to provide a place for as many cars as possible to race? Sure it is. But is it in the best interest of the majority of racers to do so? You decide.

[John Nesbitt]

As one who drives in a top 10 class (FF) and who has access to the pro series if I tire of Club Racing, I can read this thread with a certain detachment. Whatever comes out of the current exercise will likely not hurt me, and may even benefit me.

That said, I am saddened by the readiness – eagerness, even - of some Club members in well-subscribed classes to kick other members to the curb.

Club Racing is sailing into some strong economic and social headwinds. Our product, especially at the National level, is stale. Deleting a few poorly subscribed classes will not solve our problems.

As others have pointed out, the core problem at the National level is the organization, structure, and management of our events. Until that improves, firing fellow members won’t help a bit.

[Tom Valet]

John, what I think you are overlooking, in my opinion, is that the continued necessity of including all of these poorly subscribed classes into the "program" is what is itself creating the "event management" problems that you cite as the core issue of SCCA's probems.

I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest that anyone is "eager" to kick fellow racers out of the club. I could just as easily say that I am "saddened" by the selfishness of those in poorly subscribed classes to insist that a place continue to be held for them on race day even if it is detrimental to the other members of the club. That is playing to emotions which really have no place in the decisions that have to be made.

If you, or SCCA management, is not willing to make tough decisions that will unfortunately negatively impact certain members then the club will continue to suffer from the problems identified in this thread.

Take care.

Tom

[Purple Frog]

I just reread all 4 pages.

I have read some exaggerated rhetoric.

No one is saying to kick anyone out of the club. All that is being said is that low subscribed classes race in regionals. They still have a place to race. The regional races are already practiced at holding events for 70 classes. This of course would mean no more Rationals, or you defeat the purpose of the rule.

If Z Prod has an average of 10 cars in the Great Northern Division and no other division sees those cars, then that Division can have a separate championship for Z Prod. And... the ARRC will have a National Championship trophy for a Z Prod driver that shows up. Simple.

My point being, National classes should be classes that are accepted nation wide. If a class only has acceptence in a few divisions, it is a regional class.

[Hardingfv32]

1) How do you know that class reduction will increase net participation?

2) Assuming that class reduction does improve "event management" what evidence do you have to show that this would have a great enough influence over the other negative issues (cost,etc.) to increase participation?

3) How do you control the Regions that put on the events? Here in the West, CalClub and SFR have their own tracks and are capable of operating without SCCA sanction. CalClub's track actually put on it's own non SCCA sanctioned event last season. SFR is almost purely a Regional race program, why do they need to be concerned with the National Club Racing program?

I just don't see how SCCA controls the situation under these circumstances?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

[color=purple]
No one is saying to kick anyone out of the club. All that is being said is that low subscribed classes race in regionals. They still have a place to race. The regional races are already practiced at holding events for 70 classes. This of course would mean no more Rationals, or you defeat the purpose of the rule.

Why do the Regionals need the National Club Racing Program? Although not valid in every case, isn't the Regional programs where the big participation numbers are these days. If a small Region can afford only one race a year, is it not a Region event in MOST cases?

I am not saying abandon the National program, but configure it to represent its second tier status with most Regions. The National programs status at the SCCA organizational level is not relevant to the Regions.

Brian

[Tom Valet]

1) How do you know that class reduction will increase net participation?

2) Assuming that class reduction does improve "event management" what evidence do you have to show that this would have a great enough influence over the other negative issues (cost,etc.) to increase participation?

3) How do you control the Regions that put on the events? Here in the West, CalClub and SFR have their own tracks and are capable of operating without SCCA sanction. CalClub's track actually put on it's own non SCCA sanctioned event last season. SFR is almost purely a Regional race program, why do they need to be concerned with the National Club Racing program?

I just don't see how SCCA controls the situation under these circumstances?

Brian

Brian, I dont "know" anything as far as what would happen, I can only offer an opinion. The only thing I "know" is that for me at least the current situation is not working and that ideas to improve SCCA are needed. If you and others are happy with the status quo then by all means keep going down the road you are going. Just know that you are currently losing as many racers by keeping the status quo as you claim you will lose by trying to clean up this mess.

[cooleyjb]

Cutting classes isn't the answer IMO.

Making things dramatically cheaper is. That is the one and only thing that will dramatically increase car counts.

If competition was key for everyone then the classes with 4-5 entries and under per race would self select themselves to extinction. People are racing the cars they like. They understand that SRF and SM are where the big fields are.

It won't make the run groups any better either. Slow drivers are going to be slow drivers no matter which car they run. Lap traffic is a part of racing and on average ruin just as many races as the guys right next to you on grid do. Stupid racing knows no skill level. Everyone laments that the stupid stuff happens in midpack but that isn't true. It happens everywhere.

[nulrich]

More numbers.

The F2000 pro series had 402 entries over 14 races (an average of 29 entries per race).

That is more entries than 23 of 28 National classes had in 72 races.

Racing in the F2000 pro series is more expensive and requires more travel than racing in Nationals.

To me, it seems like SCCA Club could learn something from them.

Nathan

[Hardingfv32]

Just know that you are currently losing as many racers by keeping the status quo as you claim you will lose by trying to clean up this mess.

Say cost, the economy indirectly, in the real issue. I KNOW there is very little that SCCA can do to reduce the costs of racing. Travel, lodging, race car expenses are out of their control. Those are the big cost drivers. You might argue entry fees, but the majority of that is associated with event costs, mainly track rental fees. The Regions have no bargaining power when it comes to rental fees. You can certainly trim some here, but simply makes little difference to the over cost schedule.

Based on that, I say there is little the club can do to stop declining membership. It would be wiser to accept it and plan accordingly.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

More numbers.To me, it seems like SCCA Club could learn something from them.

But can we apply what we learn at Regional run events?

1) Are the 30 or so entrants being coddled by a promoter with a profit motive? Adding 1600's for more profit and maybe a little less coddling. Slippery slope developing here?

2) What is the cost of entry? Can't find that readily on line.

3) These races all always in conjunction with other events. What does SCCA learn from that?

4) What is the average life expectancy of pro road racing series? What does SCCA learn from that?

What should we be learning form these this series? I say that there is nothing off value in these pro series models for the Regions to use.

Brian

[fatdaddy53]

I just reread all 4 pages.

I have read some exaggerated rhetoric.

No one is saying to kick anyone out of the club. All that is being said is that low subscribed classes race in regionals. They still have a place to race. The regional races are already practiced at holding events for 70 classes. This of course would mean no more Rationals, or you defeat the purpose of the rule.

If Z Prod has an average of 10 cars in the Great Northern Division and no other division sees those cars, then that Division can have a separate championship for Z Prod. And... the ARRC will have a National Championship trophy for a Z Prod driver that shows up. Simple.

My point being, National classes should be classes that are accepted nation wide. If a class only has acceptence in a few divisions, it is a regional class.

Very well said and IMHO eough said

[starkejt]

What should we be learning form these this series? I say that there is nothing off value in these pro series models for the Regions to use.

One thing every region could learn from that series is how to treat people.

[Hardingfv32]

One thing every region could learn from that series is how to treat people.

Ah yes, everyone wants to be coddled at the Regional level... the common refrain.

Well try some Prozac! The pro series have a promoter, 'coddler', managing 30 entrants motivated by a profit motive. That is NOT the structure at the Regional level and there is nothing SCCA National can do about it.

Most Regional events are managed by a group of volunteers that is seldom the same between events. Maybe 100 to 200 entrants, so there is no 'coddler' to be found. If you can't live with a rude volunteer once in a while, the find a different club. To many people involved at the
regional level to expect 100% 'niceness' from all the officials.

I have race in many Regions and have had a run in or two, but I can not think of any Region I would avoid just because of the volunteers.

All the Regions have their 'niceness' programs in place, it is the current hot event management trend, but they would get better results administering Prozac to the drivers.

So NO, the Regions do not need to 'learn how to treat people'. There is 'no crying in racing'.

Brian

[starkejt]

With respect, sir, you are without a clue. Good day.

[Hardingfv32]

"My point being, National classes should be classes that are accepted nation wide. If a class only has acceptence in a few divisions, it is a regional class."

Why do we need a National program or classes, just to feed the Runoffs?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

With respect, sir, you are without a clue. Good day.

I hit a nerve? Which of my assumptions do you dispute and why?

Brian