CRB Statement on 2.5 Rule and Classes

[Steve Bamford]

"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

My bet is if you used the 2.5 rule, the well subscribed regions for under 2.5 National average will start to suffer as it seems most want to have the ability to have a National Champsionships at the Runoffs.

Reality here everyone is SCCA can't possibly make everyone happy all the time & stay together.

Doing nothing is not working & changes albeit hard need to occur.

[R. Pare]

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.

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'.

And this sort of attitude is exactly why so many other racing clubs have sprung up - people get tired of being treated rudely and as if the local Club officials could do without them.

Amazing concept : People actually want to have fun associated with the $1k+ they spend on a weekend for their hobby.

[starkejt]

It's not that you hit a nerve, it's that IMO you are so completely wrong (I'm sure you'd say the same about me) that neither of us will ever convince the other of anything.

[Rennie Clayton]

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

This was not in relation to me, but if I had to hazard a guess it stems from the fact that you have offered precisely zero constructive and progressive input to the discussion, aside from trotting out reasons why you think nothing will work, ever.

In internet parlance, you've concern trolled the hell out of this thread. Try suggesting what you see as a solution.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Daryl DeArman]

In internet parlance, you've concern trolled the hell out of this thread. Try suggesting what you see as a solution.

I beleive he did; we should take prozac, accept paying $1K+/- a weekend to get treated like we aren't a customer and ignore the other sanctioning bodies/clubs that pop up and do a much better job of things. SCCA should continue to try to be all things to all people.

[Matt King]

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.

It's really pretty simple, Brian. Most of the costs of running an event are fixed. If you increase the number of entries, those costs are spread across more participants. Here is where the club's not for profit status can work to its advantage, because they can pass the savings along in the form of lower entry fees, keeping a reasonable profit to support its future operations, whereas the crass capitalist promoter would be more likely to just pocket the extra profit.

The current status quo does not seem to present a ripe opportunity for the SCCA to grow participation. Many people want to blame the economy or other external factors, but it may be that the SCCA is selling an uncompetitive product. IMO, SCCA is the Eastman Kodak of racing--a one-time innovator and dominant player that has been passed over by technology and its competition.

[Hardingfv32]

This was not in relation to me, but if I had to hazard a guess it stems from the fact that you have offered precisely zero constructive and progressive input to the discussion, aside from trotting out reasons why you think nothing will work, ever.

I clearly stated that I think there is nothing the SCCA can do short of improving the economy. I need a conversation to help me formulated a solution if it is indeed possible. This is my style.

My statements have gone unchallenged, so I can only assume they are correct. I depend on counter arguments to modify my thoughts on a subject.

I feel most people are lacking in effort when it comes to posting. It is my hope that strong statements on my part will motivate a response and further the discussion. Again, this is my style.

So expand on the issue.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

I beleive he did; we should take prozac, accept paying $1K+/- a weekend to get treated like we aren't a customer and ignore the other sanctioning bodies/clubs that pop up and do a much better job of things. SCCA should continue to try to be all things to all people.

That is not how I interpret my statement. It would be my opinion that everyone is normally (99.9% of the time) treated just fine. But if they are not, how can SCCA do anything about it. Do we need to spend time and money on the last .1% of 'niceness'? The perception of rudeness is very subjective and difficult to measure.

So you are going to tell me that other NON PRO sanctioning bodies using the same US population for volunteers as SCCA would not have the same rudeness issues? How is that possible?

Pro series have a promoter, 'coddler', motivated by a profit motive, so they are not a usable model.

Brian

[Marshall Mauney]

I clearly stated that I think there is nothing the SCCA can do short of improving the economy.

Sorry, but this statement is VERY narrow-focus. From a basic business viewpoint, the only way you ever find yourself in this situation is when you have a monopoly. Given that other organizations such as NASA and the various pro series' have been growing over the past several years, it is clear from even a cursory analysis that the economy is NOT the primary factor at work here. Thus, the idea that the only thing we can hope for is macro-economic growth is just silly.

"Hope is not a strategy" is a well-worn business truism - and for good reason. SCCA needs to do a few things:

1) Figure out why other series' are thriving and/or growing
2) Investigate methods of demand creation
3) Do some basic market research and start talking to the people racing with the competition, instead of continuing to follow the lead of those who think that nothing is wrong.

[nulrich]

IMO, SCCA is the Eastman Kodak of racing--a one-time innovator and dominant player that has been passed over by technology and its competition.

I would say the SCCA is more analogous to one of the legacy airlines (American, United, etc) that had many different types of aircraft, expensive labor costs, and flew many unprofitable routes. Low cost carriers like Southwest and JetBlue came in and "cherry picked" the most profitable city pairs, standardized on one or two aircraft types and used them more efficiently. JetBlue in particular concentrated on a better experience for their customers.

The legacy airlines reorganized under bankruptcy protection, shed their pension obligations and cut salaries to compete. Very painful, especially if you were a retired pilot, but necessary.

If the SCCA were to "reorganize" without any obligations to its existing members, and the only goal was an organization with the best and most active racing in the country (which implies attracting many new members) what would the class structure look like?

Here's another interesting way to look at the numbers:

The top two classes (SM and SRF) represent 27% of all National entries.

The top eight (add STU, FV, EP, FF, FP, GT1) represent 54%.

The top twelve classes (add FM, F5, FC, FE) represent 66%.

The top sixteen (add T2, HP, FA, AS) represent 77%.

Nathan

P.S. Brian, you need to learn more about the F1600/F2000 series, since you clearly don't understand the primary motivation of the owners (hint: it's not profit!) or how their events are run.

[Hardingfv32]

It's really pretty simple, Brian. Most of the costs of running an event are fixed. If you increase the number of entries, those costs are spread across more participants. Here is where the club's not for profit status can work to its advantage, because they can pass the savings along in the form of lower entry fees, keeping a reasonable profit to support its future operations, whereas the crass capitalist promoter would be more likely to just pocket the extra profit.

The current status quo does not seem to present a ripe opportunity for the SCCA to grow participation. Many people want to blame the economy or other external factors, but it may be that the SCCA is selling an uncompetitive product. IMO, SCCA is the Eastman Kodak of racing--a one-time innovator and dominant player that has been passed over by technology and its competition.

1) It would be my opinion that there is only a small % of the entry fee that the Regions have actual control over and that reductions in this area do not solve the cost issue enough to stem the downturn in participation. There is nothing wrong in cutting expenses, it just is not enough to solve the issue.

2) And in the case of Kodak, there were a lot of smart people working for them that could do nothing to stop the down trend from happening. Why would SCCA be any different? Maybe there is no correct solution in either for case.

Brian

[Rennie Clayton]

I clearly stated that I think there is nothing the SCCA can do short of improving the economy. I need a conversation to help me formulated a solution if it is indeed possible. This is my style.

My statements have gone unchallenged, so I can only assume they are correct. I depend on counter arguments to modify my thoughts on a subject.

I feel most people are lacking in effort when it comes to posting. It is my hope that strong statements on my part will motivate a response and further the discussion. Again, this is my style.

I think you just proved my point about the lack of constructive or progressive input to the discussion. Let's be clear: you rely on the inputs of other people to modify your thoughts on a subject, but they are the lazy ones? Mkay.

I do not think that the cost of going racing is ridiculously exorbitant, but I do believe that the value derived is paltry at best. There are three issues to fix, from my perspective, in order:

1. Lack of track time quantity
2. Lack of track time quality
3. Lack of customer-focused attitude on the part of the club

My opinion: fix the first, and the second one will sort itself out over time. Not sure what to do with the third element as the club has entrenched power bases which run contrary to the notion of a customer-focused club. That will likely require concerted individual political efforts across the country to affect change from within, but can be done - it does require proper motivation, however.


Cheers,
Rennie

[Hardingfv32]

Brian, you need to learn more about the F1600/F2000 series, since you clearly don't understand the primary motivation of the owners (hint: it's not profit!) or how their events are run.

I have made a point to make a big issue out of the 'cuddlers' and yet you are the first to say anything. Why don't you take the time to explain to everyone what makes this promoter tick and how it might translate to SCCA.

This is how I learn.

I have seen a few non profit promoters, they did not last long. 'Cuddling' is not free.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

1) Figure out why other series' are thriving and/or growing
2) Investigate methods of demand creation
3) Do some basic market research and start talking to the people racing with the competition, instead of continuing to follow the lead of those who think that nothing is wrong.

1) Do we know is fact that the other series are growing? Maybe there are some dynamics involved that apply to a new organization that do not apply to an establish organization. I think we are talking apples and oranges.

2) Examples of demand creation for SCCA?

3) I am all for research, just no action until supported by research.

Brian

[RobLav]

Anyone who calls the F2KCS treatment of their customers "cuddling" has not a clue.

Essentially, the semi-pro series and Regionals are two entirely different markets - with Nationals sort of (potentially) fitting in between. When Nationals are run like Regionals, then the incentive for crossover diminishes.

[Steve Bamford]

I have made a point to make a big issue out of the 'cuddlers' and yet you are the first to say anything. Why don't you take the time to explain to everyone what makes this promoter tick and how it might translate to SCCA.

This is how I learn.

I have seen a few non profit promoters, they did not last long. 'Cuddling' is not free.

Brian

Formula Tour 1600 Series is, from what I know, a not for profit club racing for FF in Quebec, Canada. Marcel runs the series & have more the 30 FF's running on average & over 40 cars in some events. Now this occurs in a province that has a total population barely over 8 million people. There are a few imports who run this series but that is not the majority. Oh ya & the economy is nothing fantastic here either.

The reason for their success is a number of things but offering great tracks with big events has helped draw support. They continue to look at ways to keep the series successful & make changes when needed even if not all members of the club do not agree 100%.

No 'Cuddling' Brian, just great tracks & great events organized by good people trying to make a difference & willing to make tough decisions from time to time.

[Hardingfv32]

I think you just proved my point about the lack of constructive or progressive input to the discussion. Let's be clear: you rely on the inputs of other people to modify your thoughts on a subject, but they are the lazy ones

That is my style, I learn from others inputs. I ask challenging question to to solve challenging problems.

1) "I do not think that the cost of going racing is ridiculously exorbitant" Not a relevant statement.

2) "I do not think that the cost of going racing is ridiculously exorbitant"
This is at the heart of the issue. Is is an equation the each individual solves for themselves, cost=entertainment (benefit/value?). SCCA has little control over much of the equation.

It would be my opinion that SCCA was doing its best to improve the improve the value BEFORE the recession. Why would we expect better improvement now verses then. Are the value problems any easier to solve now? No. SCCA has never had a handle on the value problems if that is how you want to frame the issue. I think the recession has just changed the cost side and increased the sense of urgency.

3) I see absolutely no answer to the the track time quantity topic when carefully related to cost. This is a well research subject. It holds no solution to the participation issue.

4) "Lack of track time quality", same as above. There is subjectivity to this issue that each driver must decide for them selves, cost=value.

5) "Lack of customer-focused attitude on the part of the club" More of the same, cost=value. If I am financially well off then I might be prone to accept less value and a touch of rudeness. If I am on my last nickel then anything will push me to quite. How 'nice' do you think we can make the Regions. What is the cost=value breaking point of the volunteers? This is a two way street. What is in it for the volunteers to be 100% 'nice'?

Brian

[Matt King]

5) "Lack of customer-focused attitude on the part of the club" More of the same, cost=value. If I am financially well off then I might be prone to accept less value and a touch of rudeness. If I am on my last nickel then anything will push me to quite.

I totally disagree with that. If you are well-off financially, you will spend the money it takes to find the experience you desire, hence the success of the pro series that are generally more expensive to run than SCCA races. OTOH, if you are a low-buck racer with limited resources, you don't really have much choice other than to put up with what you can afford. It's kind of like health care and education.

[Steve Bamford]

That is my style, I learn from others inputs. I ask challenging question to to solve challenging problems.

1) "I do not think that the cost of going racing is ridiculously exorbitant" Not a relevant statement.

2) "I do not think that the cost of going racing is ridiculously exorbitant"
This is at the heart of the issue. Is is an equation the each individual solves for themselves, cost=entertainment (benefit/value?). SCCA has little control over much of the equation.

It would be my opinion that SCCA was doing its best to improve the improve the value BEFORE the recession. Why would we expect better improvement now verses then. Are the value problems any easier to solve now? No. SCCA has never had a handle on the value problems if that is how you want to frame the issue. I think the recession has just changed the cost side and increased the sense of urgency.

3) I see absolutely no answer to the the track time quantity topic when carefully related to cost. This is a well research subject. It holds no solution to the participation issue.

4) "Lack of track time quality", same as above. There is subjectivity to this issue that each driver must decide for them selves, cost=value.

5) "Lack of customer-focused attitude on the part of the club" More of the same, cost=value. If I am financially well off then I might be prone to accept less value and a touch of rudeness. If I am on my last nickel then anything will push me to quite. How 'nice' do you think we can make the Regions. What is the cost=value breaking point of the volunteers? This is a two way street. What is in it for the volunteers to be 100% 'nice'?

Brian

How do you keep writing the economy is the issue when people are coming out in big numbers & supporting semi pro series? Is it only these people who are not affected by the economy & it is just people who own cars in other classes who are affected by the economy?

If the SCCA provided better value there would be no need for a semi pro series but they don't allowing these series to grow & thrive.

[Hardingfv32]

just great tracks & great events organized by good people trying to make a difference & willing to make tough decisions from time to time.

I am suspect of the Pro Series model. This gives me something to work with.

1) "Great tracks" Well, we know every Region has a access to a great track! Even those with actual 'great' tracks in their area are hard pressed to to get decent dates. Even those of us with our own tracks do not always get good dates. We are often out bid by other organizations.

2) "Great events" Does this mean tagging along with some kind of Pro or Historic event? Not a useful SCCA model.

3) "Good people trying to make a difference & willing to make tough decisions from time to time" And where do the Regions find that many people? We are not talking about a 10-14 event schedule staffed by the same people each time. This certainly does not transfer to SCCA?

Any attributes of the Pro Series model that does transfer???

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

I totally disagree with that. If you are well-off financially, you will spend the money it takes to find the experience you desire, hence the success of the pro series that are generally more expensive to run than SCCA races. OTOH, if you are a low-buck racer with limited resources, you don't really have much choice other than to put up with what you can afford. It's kind of like health care and education.

Well, this is not a point that I can be resolved. It is a matter of consumer psychology where I lack research in to defend my position.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

How do you keep writing the economy is the issue when people are coming out in big numbers & supporting semi pro series? Is it only these people who are not affected by the economy & it is just people who own cars in other classes who are affected by the economy?

If the SCCA provided better value there would be no need for a semi pro series but they don't allowing these series to grow & thrive.

And why is my Tiffany's stock doing so well while the other general retailers are not. Why the all the 'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrations? Fact, the wealthy are not affected by this recession.

I challenge anyone to name one entrant in the FF2000 series that is making the standard US middle class income of around 55-60k? Anyone even close? I doubt that after taxes there would be enough to race on even if you applied 100% of the income to the racing budget.

This is all about the economy, cost side of the equation. The club is trying to influence the value side because they think that is their only option to save the low hanging fruit.

Brian

[Steve Bamford]

I am suspect of the Pro Series model. This gives me something to work with.

1) "Great tracks" Well, we know every Region has a access to a great track! Even those with actual 'great' tracks in their area are hard pressed to to get decent dates. Even those of us with our own tracks do not always get good dates. We are often out bid by other organizations.

2) "Great events" Does this mean tagging along with some kind of Pro or Historic event? Not a useful SCCA model.

3) "Good people trying to make a difference & willing to make tough decisions from time to time" And where do the Regions find that many people? We are not talking about a 10-14 event schedule staffed by the same people each time. This certainly does not transfer to SCCA?

Any attributes of the Pro Series model that does transfer???

Brian

You are right Brian, nothing transfers over except competitors choosing other places to race other then SCCA. Leave everything status quo & just blame the economy, bury your head in the sand & all will be ok.

[Hardingfv32]

I think the Pro Series model works on the same principle as the discount long distance phone serves. They buy unused track time from Pro events at a discount to a true series operating cost model. How many block of track time is available for SCCA to use?

The Pro Series model simply has nothing of value to add to SCCA's Club racing program.

Brian

[Steve Bamford]

And why is my Tiffany's stock doing so well while the other general retailers are not. Why the all the 'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrations? Fact, the wealthy are not affected by this recession.

I challenge anyone to name one entrant in the FF2000 series that is making the standard US middle class income of around 55-60k? Anyone even close? I doubt that after taxes there would be enough to race on if you applied it 100% of the income to the racing budget.

This is all about the economy, cost side of the equation. The club is trying to influence the value side because they think that is their only option to save the low hanging fruit.

Brian

I don't know the numbers but I would argue a large portion of the racers earn above the average income you list or have some business in racing itself that already gets them to the track.

I paid $700.00 or more to enter the double national last year in Homestead not including my practice day. The Pro Series was right around the same entrance fee i believe yet I had my own run group with 29 cars. Entrance fees end up being the smallest part of my racing expense.

You missed the point altogether though, as there are plenty of people with or without money willing to race & are not showing up at the SCCA events. Maybe you can answer why?

[Steve Bamford]

I think the Pro Series model works on the same principle as the discount long distance phone serves. They buy unused track time from Pro events at a discount to a true series operating cost model. How many block of track time is available for SCCA to use?

The Pro Series model simply has nothing of value to add to SCCA's Club racing program.

Brian

They don't buy unused time at a discount. You think wrong.

[Hardingfv32]

You are right Brian, nothing transfers over except competitors choosing other places to race other then SCCA. Leave everything status quo & just blame the economy, bury your head in the sand & all will be ok.

Make a conversation... What do you think transfers over?

I am not burring my head. I am simply challenging these unrealistic options that are being proposed. Challenge my statements and then we might be able to develop the correct solution.

This does require that you think a little.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

They don't by unused time at a discount. You think wrong.

Please expand. Phone service or Pro series? All the pro series I was involved with, that was the case. Is this a semantics issue? Is the FF2000 series ever the primary promoter? I think not.

Brian

[starkejt]

How much will it cost in site donations to get this thread nuked? I move we take up a collection. I'm in for $100. Anyone else?

[Steve Bamford]

How much will it cost in site donations to get this thread nuked? I move we take up a collection. I'm in for $100. Anyone else?

I second that!

[Hardingfv32]

How much will it cost in site donations to get this thread nuked? I move we take up a collection. I'm in for $100. Anyone else?

To much thinking for you? Can't go beyond your opinion?

How do we learn anything if you Nuke every subject that requires a constructive conversation? And you wonder why the Board has a hard time making a decision.

Brian

[Wren]

How much will it cost in site donations to get this thread nuked? I move we take up a collection. I'm in for $100. Anyone else?

At least it started out productive before it was trolled.

[Bill Bonow]

The mods are monitoring, but as long as it doesn't get personal, we'll just let it run out of gas.

[starkejt]

To much thinking for you? Can't go beyond your opinion?

How do we learn anything if you Nuke every subject that requires a constructive conversation? And you wonder why the Board has a hard time making a decision.

Brian

Yes, it is beyond my comprehension. As many who know me will tell you, I am not very bright.

The mods are monitoring, but as long as it doesn't get personal, we'll just let it run out of gas.

No pressure, but...

[John LaRue]

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

[starkejt]

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Or just part of the landscape.

[Hardingfv32]

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

So do anything, even though I can demonstrate that it will be a failure.

Why is demonstrating that something is going to fail any less valuable than proposing something that I can not demonstrate will be successful.

Are we not here to learn?

Brian

[tstarke4]

If I hadn't taken that Prozac earlier, this thread would have given me a headache.

[Jnovak]

I would like to change the tone of this discussion. We are all members of the SCCA and I am certain that we want the club to prosper. So instead of the blame game, how about a few more actual constructive ideas to discuss?
(this post may not be thought of as constructive by many)

Since this forum is primarily focused on Open Wheel racing I will keep this discussion to what we all know and love. My goal here is to think outside the box. Throw ideas out the that may or may not help. They are simply ideas to start a real dialog on how to make club racing better.


Here are all the open wheel classes in the SCCA including regional classes, in no particular order)

FS (regional only)
FST (regional only)
CFF (regional only)
CFC (regional only)
FA
FB
FC
FF
FE
FM
FV
F5


That is 12 classes of which 8 are existing National Classes. Some of the above classes are pretty well subscribed while most others are not. Is there ANY WAY that a few of these classes could be combined or organized differently that makes any sense at all.

How could open wheel be orgainized differently or perhaps it cannot?


1. Your basic very lowest cost open wheel class (NO WINGS). This is very nicely filled by FV & FST. You can go faster in an open wheel car but you simply cannot go racing for less $$. Now it still costs a fair amount of $$ to race at the very front but this is true of every class. The most amazing thing about FV is that there is SERIOUS racing for every position on the track. Is FV perfect? Absolutely not but the question is how can you make it more relevant to modern racing? Probably you can't. The only thing that you could do is to figure out a way to combine FV and FST. This would certainly increase the car count and should be seriously considered if it is possible.


2. Open wheel class that is much faster than FV and costs more but is still relatively low cost (NO WINGS). This niche is filled by 2 classes that are very different and both are pretty popular. The 2 National classes are FF and F500. (Sorry to not include CFF in this list). While these 2 classes are totally different the top cars from both FF and F5 turn essentially the same lap times. The question is: Can these 2 classes be combined in anyway that would allow for effective competition? I certainly think this is technically possible but might just piss both sides off. This could result in a very well attended class but the politics might be overwhelming.


3. Medium speed open wheel class with wings. This group is filled by 3 existing classes and really needs some attention. The classes are FC, FE and FM. If you look at the lap records for each of these classes it is pretty obvious that they are very similar from a best lap time perspective. These 3 classes could be combined for Nationals with weight adjustments and or other adjustments as needed.


4. Super fast open wheel class with ground effects and wings. This grouping is composed of 2 National classes, FA and FB. Both FA and FB cost a lot of $$ to run at the front with FA being probably 2 times the $$ required to race at the front. This should be possible from a competitive perspective. FB is just getting it's legs and will continue to get faster from a speed standpoint so some adjustments will be needed to equalize the classes.

The above is simply an idea starter and not a proposal. As I or my son have raced in a total of 4 of the current open wheel classes I do understand the complexities involved. So the question is: What if anything can be done with the structure of open wheel racing in the SCCA to make for a better racing experience than what we have today?

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[problemchild]

This thread has gotten so far off track ....

One point that I would like to make ..... the problems of SCCA are not about individual people, but the flawed system those people are working within. Yes, there are some bad apples, but I have met hundreds of people that are just as "coddling" as Mike Rand or Purple Frog, and they are paying to be there. If there is a way to repair, rework, or re-invent the system, which will allow these fine people to productively serve in the name of our club, we need to find it.