CRB Statement on 2.5 Rule and Classes

[thomschoon]

Tried to delete, I think Jay added a strong topic to discuss

[Bill Bonow]

I would like to change the tone of this discussion.

Thank you.

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.

I'd just like to focus/speak about this portion of your post. FST was concieved and developed by FV racers as a solid way to upgrade FV. This was started in 2001 (correct, 11 years ago). Our goal was initially to update/merge/combine/whatever the 38 year old (at that point) class. Much like you very well know (F5/F6), the old class (FV) did not appreciate the update (FST) at all. We fought the battle until it was decided to become a sesparate regional class. We have attempted repeatedly (through the FVAHC) to figure out a way to combine these two classes with absolutly zero results. The last attempt was made at a FV meeting at the Runoffs 2 years ago. We had prepaired a detailed plan on how to combine FST and FV. This plan included the elimination of FST.We were told don't try to make any presentation. The FVAHC would not hear any part of it. The general statement from the class was we will maintain until the class dies, no changes.

We obviously have something to offer. The market has allowed us to exist for 11 years, even becoming a GCR class 3 years ago. 48 cars have entered and competed in hundreds of races.

I would love to combine as would a large portion of the Formula First Drivers Association. I think it would do wonders to strengthen this low budget entry level catagory within SCCA. But as the saying goes, It takes two to tango.

Thanks again for making this suggestion.

OK, off the soapbox and back to monitoring this "out of control" thread.

[Matt King]

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.

I have no doubt that FV and FST could be merged into a great entry level class that would actually improve both current classes, but politics will make it difficult if not impossible. Same goes for all of the rest of the proposed combinations. This is a where a (not-so) benevolent dictator is needed.

[Roux]

I have raced primarily regional races in CF/FF. The North East had great FF fields 18 years ago and those have dwindeled. I have always had nasty inexpensive cars with home built engines, so consider me very low budget. I have quite precociously entered a few pro races with my old car and small team. Notably the Quebec series races with Champ Car or F1 and last year I jumped on the opportunity to race with Rand's F1600 Series 'Pro" series. I can contrast the Pro to regional experience and why I would choose pro every time, in spite of the bigger entry fees and severe beating that I take racing with the big dogs.

I enjoy the cuddling/coddling, but I am not insecure, so it must be something else. It is ALL about 1) the track time 2) running in a large field of cars of the same class 3) running at great venues

I have raced at regionals where there were lots of fords (Glen Fun One and NARCOFFS come to mind) and had just as good a weekend. The races where I went home unimpressed were always related to Mickey Mouse tracks, mixed class races with severe impact to the quality of the race, and very little track time. Sadly if you choose carefully you can get all three of those problems on the same weekend.

I have only had one bad experience with an official at an SCCA weekend and I understand the level of stress the poor guy was under. So coddling factor at SCCA events = adequate

Things to fix. Track time. Track time quality.

I am not complaining about cost. I don't need anything more than basic politeness.

So back on topic. Should SCCA try to reduce the number of classes? I think so.

Should SCCA try to reinvent itself. Yes. Do I have great answers to offer? No, but there are tons of problem solving techniques to try and see what has the higher likelyhood of success

[Rennie Clayton]

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

/fin


Cheers,
Rennie

[SOseth]

/fin


Cheers,
Rennie

Not even Josh could do better!!!

SteveO

[starkejt]

Not even Josh could do better!!!

SteveO

Without violating the rules of this site, I could not. Well played, Rennie.

[Sean Maisey]

For what is is worth, I am one of the many FF racers that have more or less defected to the F1600 Series. In 2011 I ran 8 of their racers vs. 1 SCCA National. The difference was SO striking after the initial VIR race, that I just lost all motiviation to continue the SCCA schedule. This year will likely be the same kind of schedule again.

What the F1600 Series does right: (in no particiular order)
1) Communications - They talk to you one on one and make it clear that they want you there. Stewards/Tech Inspectors/Registrars seek you out if they need to.
2) Great Tracks (VIR, Watkins Glen, MidOhio, LimeRock)
3) LOTS of track time
4) Double Race Weekends - I traveled 4 times for 8 races
5) Incredibly Strong Fields at EVERY race - 4-5 National champs, meaning you knew how you stacked up
6) Friendly atmosphere of like-minded racers
7) Hand picked staff - Best people from all over racing and consistent from event to event. Everybody is always VERY nice to deal with (and I have little doubt that if a bad actor got in, they would be quickly and unceremoneously booted)
8) Great Spec Tire - Thanks to Bruce and the guys at Hoosier
9) Fair Rules adminstered by a benevolent dictatiorship
10) The ability to adjust on the fly to maximize competitor satisfaction

Could National Racing Adopt some of this? I think so, but I think we need to start thinking outside the box. Way outside, because this old box is getting musty and stiffling.

- Who says we couldn't have more double Nationals over fewer weekends?
- Who says we couldn't share weekends with other organizaitons (karters or pro?)
- To do this maybe not all classes run all weekends. Formula and SportsRacers share a weekend with the Karters for instance, The sedans share a weekend with the Nascar traveling series... like I said out of the box
- What about a limited number of "SuperNationals" with double points. Just invite the 16-8 best subscribed classes and have MUCH more attractive run groups - Think June Sprints for an example...
- I think ideas like Jay's about simplifying the rules to create 4-5 Formula classes with specific performance envelopes have a lot of merit - we should discuss them more...
- Attending the RunOffs has become an enormous time and money committment - too much for me at least. Split the event and put a month long moratorium on testing. Make it a 3-5 day event for each individual class. Move the event on a regualr basis (both coasts and the mid-land) to keep people interest in trying to get there. Stop creating a contract situation that forces the tracks to collect enormous testing and parking fees to break even...What part of member-driven includes the club making a killing putting on this event?

So anyway - I have tried to keep this as constructive as possible, and I hope we can seriously discuss some of these ideas in an open and honest fashion...

Sean

[Marshall Mauney]

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.

Seems like a good idea - from the outside - but the performance difference would seem to be significant.

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. [...] The question is: Can these 2 classes be combined in anyway that would allow for effective competition?

Jay, I've driven in both of these classes. While I agree 100% that with only minor adjustments we could get to equal lap times nearly everywhere, I simply cannot see a viable way to get the FF guys to accept the F500/600 cars running in the same class - the perception gap is just plain huge, regardless of the reality. That said, if it were imposed as a rule from "above", how could the result be any worse than the current migration to the Pro series?

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.

OK, here's where I strongly disagree with you (which is an unusual occurrence). There is a BIG difference between a spec class like FE or FM and an engineering class like FC. I think it's reasonable to ask why we have two spec classes with similar purposes, but I don't think that combining FC with either of the two spec classes is a good idea - the guys in FE and FM are there primarily BECAUSE they are spec cars, and forcing them to race with non-spec FC will result in a loss of many of those drivers. Since these are our only spec open-wheel options, I don't think it makes sense to do away with them or to eliminate the value of their being a closed class. It might, however, makes sense to put in place a timeline to move towards supporting a single spec formula car, or make a radical enough performance adjustment to really separate them.

[Jnovak]

Seems like a good idea - from the outside - but the performance difference would seem to be significant.



Jay, I've driven in both of these classes. While I agree 100% that with only minor adjustments we could get to equal lap times nearly everywhere, I simply cannot see a viable way to get the FF guys to accept the F500/600 cars running in the same class - the perception gap is just plain huge, regardless of the reality. That said, if it were imposed as a rule from "above", how could the result be any worse than the current migration to the Pro series?



OK, here's where I strongly disagree with you (which is an unusual occurrence). There is a BIG difference between a spec class like FE or FM and an engineering class like FC. I think it's reasonable to ask why we have two spec classes with similar purposes, but I don't think that combining FC with either of the two spec classes is a good idea - the guys in FE and FM are there primarily BECAUSE they are spec cars, and forcing them to race with non-spec FC will result in a loss of many of those drivers. Since these are our only spec open-wheel options, I don't think it makes sense to do away with them or to eliminate the value of their being a closed class. It might, however, makes sense to put in place a timeline to move towards supporting a single spec formula car, or make a radical enough performance adjustment to really separate them.

Thanks Marshall, a very good point that I had not considered. No doubt that combining all 3 is a stretch but at least we are discussing things. Certainly 5 groups is better than 8.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Rob E]

SCCA will never begin rebuilding its racing program until it does the at least the following and even more will be necessary to decrease the number of classes to accomodate the 6 or 7 run groups possible for the time available.(use data based on National participation)Create ways for the like classes to be combined so that the least amount of competitors are disfranchised.(There will be winners and losers in that.)Decrease the number of Stewards necessary to hold an event.The bureacracy of the clubs officials ultimately adds to the weekend costs as well as National costs so the events are run leaner and more efficiently.(ask the Regions what the costs are for those officials that we have little oversight over as competitors.)Decide that the end user(the competitors) should have oversight(real oversight) as to how the events,rules and general competition program is implimented.Start there and the market effects will be less of an issue.SCCA had a monopoly on road racing events for years and all it did was get fatter and more lethargic running it's business.I have seen it first hand and been a part of the decision making process.Never have I seen a more disfunctional group that was more concerned about their postion and their peer group than the future of this club.Sorry but I call it they way I see it.

This all sounds really good. But it is just a way for SCCA to pick winners and losers and pi** off half the affected parties. Two examples; 1) elimination of GP. It was logical that the GP cars would migrate to either HP or FP. There are examples of the same car or very similar cars being classed in all three classes, yet most of the GP guys just quit racing and a very few have converted. 2) creation of GTL. Take two classes that are virtually identical, with the exception of engine size, add restrictors to the "big" cars, take a little bit of weight off of the "little" cars. Easy fix, right? Hasn't worked out as such. Both classes had sort of a 3ish Nat'l participation average and 15 or 18 cars at the Runoffs. (3.5 was the limit back then) Now GTL barely makes 2.5 one year and falls below the next and gets 15 or so at the Runoffs.

What the club needs is a "managed plan" to deal with all of the classes, not a "look and see what happens" mentality. The problem is that no one likes that either. Reference; Steve Petty hired as Club Racing VP back in the early '90's. Made a shocking statement that people should actually have to race someone to earn a bid to the Runoffs. If there are not enough Formula Z's to constitute a race then the ones that are there must move up to Formula Y and then can receive points for their finish. Pandemonium, outcry, gather torches, burn down the Headquarters. How could someone suggest such a thing.

The problem has become that there are too many other ways for guys to spend their racing $$$. SCCA used to be sort of the only game in town. If you weren't SO serious about dancing on the razor's edge of competitiveness you still came to SCCA. Now there are NASA, BMW Club, Porsche Club, Chin Driving (track time) and a host of others. Most guys just want to drive their car fast and they recognize that they aren't going to be the Nat'l champion.

[Rob E]

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.

Bobby, If we take the "Bonus Nationals" out of the number of events, how does that affect the GTL #'s? My perception is that while a "bonus national" sounded like a cool idea, it actually dragged the participation number down.

[Dave Gomberg]

Bobby, If we take the "Bonus Nationals" out of the number of events, how does that affect the GTL #'s? My perception is that while a "bonus national" sounded like a cool idea, it actually dragged the participation number down.

That was simply not true because 3 GTL cars showed up for those races.

Dave

[blentz2]

We were worried about the bonus nationals dragging down the numbers since ours was so late in the year, but as it turned out it was good.

I think there are too many nationals and probably too many divisions for national racing. If I were king my preference would be to have 4-5 national weekends in each division with the top 5 in points earning a runoffs qualification. Fewer, higher quality events that actually mean something. Not four starts and you are in the runoffs.

I would then make runoffs qualifying into a knockout format. Dropping some portion of the field each day so that only the top 3 plus any division champions not in the top 3 are on track on Thursday. Sessions would be just long enough for a warmup, 2 fliers and the checker. All previous times would be wiped out. One class on track at a time. Pole Day!

EDIT - or probably more reasonable would be letting everybody qualify everyday except Thursday which is pole day. The goal being to give some meaning to the division championship.

[Marshall Mauney]

I think there are too many nationals and probably too many divisions for national racing. If I were king my preference would be to have 4-5 national weekends in each division with the top 5 in points earning a runoffs qualification.

Fewer, higher quality events that actually mean something. Not four starts and you are in the runoffs.

How is that different from what we have today? How many divisions have more than 5 or 6 nationals per year? The "four starts" rule was gone after 2009; given the revised Runoffs qualification limits, I think we're pretty close to what you're suggesting here......?

I would then make runoffs qualification into a knockout format. Dropping some portion of the field each day...

Sounds great in principle, but how would you feel if you had a legitimate shot at winning, towed 1000+ miles, and then got knocked out by someone else's mistake on your first session?

I'd propose something a bit different. I'd like to see us run one day of timed qualifying, then use those times to set the grids for 2 or 3 days of qualifying races, leading up to the final main event. Some of us wouldn't be in the final race, but we would all still get to qualify and race - and everyone would have a reasonable chance at getting some real track time with guys we don't normally race against. Isn't that the point of the Runoffs?

One class on track at a time.

Absolutely! The only way to do this and stay within a week-long event, though, is to reduce the number of classes.....isn't this where we started?

[Matt King]

I'd propose something a bit different. I'd like to see us run one day of timed qualifying, then use those times to set the grids for 2 or 3 days of qualifying races, leading up to the final main event. Some of us wouldn't be in the final race, but we would all still get to qualify and race - and everyone would have a reasonable chance at getting some real track time with guys we don't normally race against. Isn't that the point of the Runoffs?

You just described EXACTLY how NASA conducts its national championship races, which means SCCA could never do it--because it's the SCCA and they can't learn from anyone else because they are the original and invented everything.

[disquek]

The reason the runoffs dont fit in a week has little to do with the number of classes.

The whole concept of four days of qualifying is crazy. Who needs four days to qualify?

I know ... what if it rains/is cold/is hot/snows/meteor shower. That's racing. Same thing can happen with 50 qualifying days as two (just less likely). Big deal.

Two qualifying days is plenty. Make sure there are REALISTICALLY priced test days before the runoffs to give folks a chance to learn the track.

Forget this dirt track/F1 knock out/feature race stuff. It's great for TV coverage (qual) or to keep the concession stands busy (feature), but it has no place in club racing. Everyone is only interested in their class. We have no coverage of qual, and no real spectators to speak of.

Keep it simple. Two days of qualifying and one race day. Break the event into two groups so the whole thing takes six days (2x3) and so that folks who need to get home can do the event in half the time. The folks that want to stay and socialize, are more than welcome to.

My .02

-Kyle

BTW: Here in the NEDIV the semi-pro series have drawn off quite a bit of the national competitor base. I wonder how long before those classes run afoul of the 2.5 car rule not because their not popular, but because Mike knows which side his bread is buttered on. For example, I only checked two events from last year (BR and WGI). In both cases GTL had about the same number of entries as FF and more entries than FC. How about them apples?

[Speed Sport Engineering]

The reason the runoffs dont fit in a week has little to do with the number of classes.

The whole concept of four days of qualifying is crazy. Who needs four days to qualify?

I know ... what if it rains/is cold/is hot/snows/meteor shower. That's racing. Same thing can happen with 50 qualifying days as two (just less likely). Big deal.

Two qualifying days is plenty. Make sure there are REALISTICALLY priced test days before the runoffs to give folks a chance to learn the track.

Forget this dirt track/F1 knock out/feature race stuff. It's great for TV coverage (qual) or to keep the concession stands busy (feature), but it has no place in club racing. Everyone is only interested in their class. We have no coverage of qual, and no real spectators to speak of.

Keep it simple. Two days of qualifying and one race day. Break the event into two groups so the whole thing takes six days (2x3) and so that folks who need to get home can do the event in half the time. The folks that want to stay and socialize, are more than welcome to.

My .02

-Kyle

BTW: Here in the NEDIV the semi-pro series have drawn off quite a bit of the national competitor base. I wonder how long before those classes run afoul of the 2.5 car rule not because their not popular, but because Mike knows which side his bread is buttered on. For example, I only checked two events from last year (BR and WGI). In both cases GTL had about the same number of entries as FF and more entries than FC. How about them apples?

So you expect people to toe half way across the country for 2 sessions plus a race? If you're counting on the test days prior to the event you just extended the time requirement back to what it already is.

The only way to improve the runoffs schedule is to reduce the classes. The strong classes should not suffer for the weak.

[disquek]

The time requirements for the first of my two groups are significantly reduced (assuming the same number of test days). Sure the second group has to socialize for three days. How is that all that different from now? If you do the test days now, you will still have several days off.

I thought the idea was the "quality" of the championship? The number of qualifying sessions has zero bearing on the quality of the championship.

Your attitude of the "strong should not suffer for the weak" has a long and storied past. I suggest you look into it. This is not how society, clubs, or even capitalist business is run in America. Frankly I find that position sickening.

When I raced in the most well attended class in our club (SM - the strongest) and the WDCR folks tried to eliminate the wings and things group (the weak), I made calls, sent emails, canvased the paddock to stop this ridiculous notion that wings and things was a waste of time. So I'm sure that some of us understand that that this is not the open wheel club or the spec miata club, but an amateur hobby club for people who love sports cars. It disgusts me to know that some members are so self interested as to try to eliminate other members of a hobby club to get another 10 minutes of track time (if that).

By the way, I'm about 99% sure that eliminating the under 2.5 classes will result in bankruptcy for some regions. At minimum, you'd force them to eliminate nationals all together. Most, if not all, regions run on the thinnest of margins. In a region where some of <2.5 these classes are strong, you'd be immediately reducing their revenue by a significant percentage. They cannot survive with a loss for very long (like at all).

-Kyle

[Speed Sport Engineering]

The time requirements for the first of my two groups are significantly reduced (assuming the same number of test days). Sure the second group has to socialize for three days. How is that all that different from now? If you do the test days now, you will still have several days off.

I thought the idea was the "quality" of the championship? The number of qualifying sessions has zero bearing on the quality of the championship.

Your attitude of the "strong should not suffer for the weak" has a long and storied past. I suggest you look into it. This is not how society, clubs, or even capitalist business is run in America. Frankly I find that position sickening.

When I raced in the most well attended class in our club (SM - the strongest) and the WDCR folks tried to eliminate the wings and things group (the weak), I made calls, sent emails, canvased the paddock to stop this ridiculous notion that wings and things was a waste of time. So I'm sure that some of us understand that that this is not the open wheel club or the spec miata club, but an amateur hobby club for people who love sports cars. It disgusts me to know that some members are so self interested as to try to eliminate other members of a hobby club to get another 10 minutes of track time (if that).

By the way, I'm about 99% sure that eliminating the under 2.5 classes will result in bankruptcy for some regions. At minimum, you'd force them to eliminate nationals all together. Most, if not all, regions run on the thinnest of margins. In a region where some of <2.5 these classes are strong, you'd be immediately reducing their revenue by a significant percentage. They cannot survive with a loss for very long (like at all).

-Kyle

No one is talking about eliminating classes under 2.5 so there is no where for them to race - they can be reduced to regional status. The whole point is to improve the quality of the national program.

I have some good friends in classes near the minimum. It would suck to not have them at a national event. I understand the pain it will cause. But for years and years people have been trying to come up with a solution to this problem, and in the mean time those in the strong classes are suffering due to it.

I stand by my statement that the strong should not suffer for the weak. It's one of the fundamental laws of nature - the strong survive improving the species as a whole.

[Steve Bamford]

Maybe I am missing the point altogether but what I believe I have heard many times in this thread relates to car counts in National racing & the ability to have a national championship at the Runoffs.

What it seems in most cases (but not all) is the average car count for the Runoffs is decent but some regions are pulling down the car counts of some classes & overall the National events are not the most popular due to mixed running classes. I have also heard that most regions do a good job of putting on their own events & the Nationals are a little fragmented. Maybe I am wrong but this is what I seem to be hearing.

Why not change up the program & do away with National events & come up with a new set of rules allowing people to qualify for the runoffs based on their own regional events?

If each class continues to have its own track time at the runoffs wouldn't it be better to have the ability to have 40 car fields instead of just 20 or so for the National Championship?

Maybe this would allow for less towing for National events for some who could spend more time making regional racing stronger & helping to rebuild.

I am sure there was a need for the Nationals at one time, just not sure there is today but that is just my 2 cents. I haven't been around long enough to know all the interworkings so forgive me if I am totally off base.

[CenDiv4]

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

If anyone needs to break away from this thread anytime soon.... Interesting article posted on MSN/money this a.m. regarding Tiffanys....

http://money.msn.com/business-news/a...10&id=14678917

[disquek]

No one is talking about eliminating classes under 2.5 so there is no where for them to race - they can be reduced to regional status. The whole point is to improve the quality of the national program.

I have some good friends in classes near the minimum. It would suck to not have them at a national event. I understand the pain it will cause. But for years and years people have been trying to come up with a solution to this problem, and in the mean time those in the strong classes are suffering due to it.

I stand by my statement that the strong should not suffer for the weak. It's one of the fundamental laws of nature - the strong survive improving the species as a whole.

Moving a national class to regional status is eliminating it. Let's not mince words.

What do you think you're going to improve by eliminating these classes? You will not get more track time (the run groups will not change).

The cache' value of a national championship will not change if there are two classes or 200. Let's face it, the "value" of an SCCA national championship to a person outside the club is approaching to zero. Even to a non SCCA car guy it's of little value. It's valuable to us. Sure. But the "value" of a FF national championship is not changed by the number of classes. It's just as easy or hard to win the FF runoffs regardless of the existence of T3. When was the last time a runoffs win translated directly to a pro ride (other than the Mazda deal)?

I also cannot imagine that it's worth it to boot that many people for the dubious benefit of a single race (runoffs).

I'm curious. I looked you up Alan. When I google your name, I get zero race results. Every other racer I know, I get some hits. Do you even hold an SCCA comp license? Or am I in one of those internet arguments.

-Kyle

[R. Pare]

Your attitude of the "strong should not suffer for the weak" has a long and storied past. I suggest you look into it. This is not how society, clubs, or even capitalist business is run in America.

Umm... That's exactly how society and capitalism has evolved over the millennia - the strong survive and the weak go by the wayside. It's call Survival of the Fittest, or better known as Evolution. Yes, some regulation has always been necessary to ensure that the strong do not run roughshod over the weak, but even then it is almost always the strong (or the smartest) that have persevered.

My 2 cents on the subject:

The Club has for too long tried to be all things to everybody, and has now arrived at the inevitable point where that philosophy almost always ends up : satisfying no one. It needs to pare back the number of classes and change it's basic operating model.

If you look at all of the various racing organizations and classes over the years, you will see a common thread : those whom were ruled by a dictator have usually survived all of the various economic downturns and technological revolutions. Those whom tried to be as inclusive as possible, or went "spec", have pretty much all died.

1 - Knock back the number of classes substantially. Probably no more than 8 classes each for tin-tops and formula cars are necessary to cover the full performance and cost spectrum.

2 - Come up with rule sets that aren't constantly tinkered with in the name of "parity" - if you chose to try to campaign a car that has no chance of being competitive, don't expect the rules to be modified to your favor - you are the one who screwed up, not the Club. Granted, this will be a lot easier for the formula cars since they are purpose-built, but the same philosophy should extend to tin-tops.

3 - Assign a "dictator" for each class (or a group, one for each division, with a dictator head of the group) that has final word on rules implementation and interpretation. For many years the FF guys had Frank Schulthies as their guru, and his word was law within that class. And no one complained, except for the Stewards who thought that he was encroaching on their territory. Outside of that political part, it was amazing how well it worked.

4 - Shut up and go race!

[Speed Sport Engineering]

Moving a national class to regional status is eliminating it. Let's not mince words.

What do you think you're going to improve by eliminating these classes? You will not get more track time (the run groups will not change).

The cache' value of a national championship will not change if there are two classes or 200. Let's face it, the "value" of an SCCA national championship to a person outside the club is approaching to zero. Even to a non SCCA car guy it's of little value. It's valuable to us. Sure. But the "value" of a FF national championship is not changed by the number of classes. It's just as easy or hard to win the FF runoffs regardless of the existence of T3. When was the last time a runoffs win translated directly to a pro ride (other than the Mazda deal)?

I also cannot imagine that it's worth it to boot that many people for the dubious benefit of a single race (runoffs).

I'm curious. I looked you up Alan. When I google your name, I get zero race results. Every other racer I know, I get some hits. Do you even hold an SCCA comp license? Or am I in one of those internet arguments.

-Kyle

Careful what you google. Alan is my father. SCCA member since the 1960's. Raced sedans and production cars in the 70's and 80's. Still an active SCCA member supporting me, his son Michael. Feel free to google that.

[CenDiv4]

Now this is humorous.....

[starkejt]

LMFAO

Speed Sport Engineering is Michael Varacins. Many would say he and his car are the benchmark in FV.

[Amon]

Kyle,

Regarding Alan and Michael, I hope you're not suffering from "Hoof & Mouth" disease!

Regards,

Mark / Protoform P-2/05 ( And yes I'm an active racer!)

[Speed Sport Engineering]

Just to be clear, I understand we all want a place to race and I have no personal issues with anyone in any classes. I have very strong opinions and feelings on this subject, as I do think it is the underlying cause of the decay in our club.

I grew up at the race track watching my father race, and I have been in cars since 1994. FV's, FC's, and a few races in an SRF. I've watched the classes I've competed in dwindle in numbers, and it kills me to see it. Racing is most of the life I know, and I want to see it revived and restored to what it could be before it's gone.

It frustrates me to see the CRB constantly come up with a plan, then scrap it. The 2.5 rule was put in place exactly to prevent what this whole topic as turned into. It's a simple and effective method. Like R. Pare said, we can't please everybody....and sometimes it takes a dictator like approach to survive.

I want the club to survive and flourish. I want to race in a field of 25 cars again at a regular national event. The odds of that happening when there are 45 different classes to choose from are much less then when there are only 20 classes for people to pick from.

Edit - I wanted to add that I enjoy watching ALL the races at a national or the runoffs, not just open wheel. I want to see about 20 highly subscribed classes with good car counts and competition on a given weekend...to me that's what brings the joy to everyone involved. From the stewards to those standing on the corners.

[Steve Bamford]

Now this is humorous.....

It is funny but lets not let this thread get off track once again...how about eliminating the National races & coming up with a new protocal to enter the Runoffs by way of the regionals some how? Not everyone wants to spend the week at the Runoffs but it seems many do.

[DaveW]

...
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...
Brian

This is somewhat off track, but:

FWIW, my annual racing budget over the last 10 years has ranged from a low of $21K to a high $32K last year, which includes my first Zetec rebuild.

This includes expensive wrecks in 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2011. It includes EVERYTHING - tires, travel, lodging, parts, engine rebuilds, tow vehicle maintenance, fuel for racecar and tow vehicle, you name it. Of course, it does not include my (or Sherrie's) time - I probably spend 500+ hours a year working on racing-related stuff, not including time spent at the track..

So, it CAN be done on a reasonable budget, if you do a LOT of your own work.

I am now semi-retired, so I have more time and less income, but even when I was working full time, I still managed to get everything done.

[disquek]

Umm... That's exactly how society and capitalism has evolved over the millennia - the strong survive and the weak go by the wayside. It's call Survival of the Fittest, or better known as Evolution. Yes, some regulation has always been necessary to ensure that the strong do not run roughshod over the weak, but even then it is almost always the strong (or the smartest) that have persevered.

This is simply untrue outside of the jungle. You run a small business Richard. Maybe you'd like to rethink that. You are protected by many laws that favor small businesses. Without those laws, I'm tempted to think you might be working for Quaife.

Should we eliminate all businesses with fewer than 2.5 employees or less than 2.5M in revenue? After all, the amount of time spent administering their paperwork is disproportionate to their size.

I'm curous how your bottom line have been affected by eliminating the sale of Varilocks for GT2, GT4, GT5, and GTL? Not for the better, I suspect.

There have been many dictators that thought eliminating the weak was a good idea. None have succeeded much less survived. All are remembered the same way by history.

1 - Knock back the number of classes substantially. Probably no more than 8 classes each for tin-tops and formula cars are necessary to cover the full performance and cost spectrum.

If we go by participation numbers, all open wheel and sports racers (inc SRF) would get 7 and tin tops would get 9. I'd love watch Rome burn when they try to enact that plan.

I'm done here. Reality has long passed this thread by. If this is what passes for the membership of a club meant to promote a hobby, maybe elimination would be an improvement.

-Kyle

[disquek]

Careful what you google.

When you don't sign your posts you leave no choice but to try to look you up. This is why I asked. I could not find a website for your business and most online business listing have your last name spelled wrong. Trust me, I can sympathize. But dont get your panties in a wad when most people dont know who you are.

Far too often forums are trolled by those with strong opinions and no actual skin in the game. I'm glad that you, at least, have some vested interest. Although, I strongly believe that those with a financial profit motive should have no part in club decision making. The CRB and BOD have way too much to gain from how they govern club operations. I'm sure that have been those with a spotless record of abstaining from decisions that impact them, and I'm sure there have been cases of the opposite. This kind of conflict of interest should be avoided.

As I said, I done here.

The thought that people would happily sacrifice whole groups of fellow members for the CHANCE at improving the "quality" of the "value" that the winner of ONE race MIGHT get is beyond any reasonable person's tolerance. This is a hobby club. Get over yourself.

See you at the track.

-Kyle

[starkejt]

If you click on his username, you will see his full name.

[Sean Maisey]

I don't really see this problem as "fixable".

Several people have tried to steer this discussion in the right direction over these 6 pages. To fix the problems with National Racing we need an open and honest discussion of what the problems are and what can be done to address them.

Instead of this discussion, we get a bunch of emotional appeals for why nothing needs to be changed, don't touch my class, everything is just fine, leave me alone.

There is a word for this and it is DENIAL.

I guess it is not suprising given that it seems to be a national epidemic. Just keep kicking that can down the road...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Li0no7O9zmE

[Marshall Mauney]

It is funny but lets not let this thread get off track once again...how about eliminating the National races & coming up with a new protocal to enter the Runoffs by way of the regionals some how? Not everyone wants to spend the week at the Runoffs but it seems many do.

I'm having trouble seeing how this would work operationally at the regional level.

Simply put, there are a number of classes that are big in nationals but not regionals (FE and FA come to mind - I'm sure that there are others), and a number of classes that are regional-only (ITx, SpecRX, SSM, CF, vintage groups, etc.). Trying to cram them all into one weekend would create an absolute nightmare for race scheduling in most regions, or would at best drive creation of some unsafe groupings. The current division between national and regional events helps with that to some degree.

For example, trying to add a bunch of national open-wheel and SM cars into an already packed-full MARRS event schedule wouldn't be pretty - and I don't think that the SSMs or ITs are going to just step aside politely and give up their run groups to make room (they shouldn't have to). We wouldn't have had room/time for a bunch of IT cars to show up at the double nationals at Blackhawk or Grattan last year, either. Grattan, in particular, was so jam-packed on track in the wings'n'things group it was INSANE (lots of fun, but really nuts) - no room for further class mixing, IMO.

That said, I can see where this would be attractive to regions with low car counts trying to fill the track and pay for the event. Maybe we could make a mixed regional/national schedule an option for regions if they show that there are few enough entries to create a problem?

Far too often forums are trolled by those with strong opinions and no actual skin in the game. I'm glad that you, at least, have some vested interest.

I think that most of the people participating in this thread are serious participants, and I also think that most are honestly concerned about what is best for the club as a whole.

[John Nesbitt]

I'm having trouble seeing how this would work operationally at the regional level.

Simply put, there are a number of classes that are big in nationals but not regionals (FE and FA come to mind - I'm sure that there are others), and a number of classes that are regional-only (ITx, SpecRX, SSM, CF, vintage groups, etc.). Trying to cram them all into one weekend would create an absolute nightmare for race scheduling in most regions, or would at best drive creation of some unsafe groupings. The current division between national and regional events helps with that to some degree.

For example, trying to add a bunch of national open-wheel and SM cars into an already packed-full MARRS event schedule wouldn't be pretty - and I don't think that the SSMs or ITs are going to just step aside politely and give up their run groups to make room (they shouldn't have to). We wouldn't have had room/time for a bunch of IT cars to show up at the double nationals at Blackhawk or Grattan last year, either. Grattan, in particular, was so jam-packed on track in the wings'n'things group it was INSANE (lots of fun, but really nuts) - no room for further class mixing, IMO.

That said, I can see where this would be attractive to regions with low car counts trying to fill the track and pay for the event. Maybe we could make a mixed ragional/national schedule an option for regions if they show that there are few enough entries to create a problem?

I want to underline Marshall's point.

When we consider alteratives, it is critically important to recognize the vast diversity in Club Racing across the country, both across Divisions and between (neighboring) Regions.

We see this in the variety of Regional programs and classes, and in the different approaches to Nationals (Single Nationals, Double Nationals, added Restricted Regionals, Bonus Nationals, Rationals, etc.)

[Steve Bamford]

[quote=Marshall Mauney;327613]I'm having trouble seeing how this would work operationally at the regional level.

Simply put, there are a number of classes that are big in nationals but not regionals (FE and FA come to mind - I'm sure that there are others), and a number of classes that are regional-only (ITx, SpecRX, SSM, CF, vintage groups, etc.).

quote]


Suggestion on this would be cut out the Nationals as they are, eliminate maybe one total race weekend a year that would be in a region including the national events. So if a region has 6 weekends total year including a few national races now they have 5.

Come up with groupings for the FE & FA & others that are strong at nationals (as there is no nationals now in my scenario ). Break your weekends up to allow equal time for all classes you have that you can run safely together in a region. Due to the number of classes you have 4 weekends for each class as one weekend out of the year the race organizers in the region will have to drop off a few classes to make room for all competitors & give fair track time. No class is left out, all have the option to race, just might not be every single weekend there is a regional event but it would be fair to all everyone would get equal time.

[R. Pare]

This is simply untrue outside of the jungle. You run a small business Richard. Maybe you'd like to rethink that. You are protected my many laws that favor small businesses. Without those laws, I'm tempted to think you might be working for Quaife.

I'd like to know what those laws are so that I can consciously take advantage of them (and by the way, those laws fit in the category of "preventing the strong from running roughshod over the weak" as I pointed out) - I know of no laws that would prevent say, GM, Ford, Speedway, Frankland, Winters, Extrac, Hewland, Hewland, Auburn, DANA, AP, Alcon, Brembo, PFC, or even you, from making what I make, in greater volume and at a lower selling price and put me out of business in those areas.

The only place I have any "protection" in is the hydraulic perches - and that is because of the same patent laws that ALL businesses, big and small, have to protect their intellectual property.

And some day that protection will have run its course. If I don't find another product to replace that one, that portion of my income may be gone or severely diminished, and survival not so assured.

PS: Quaife IS a "small business".

So far I have survived by not being a direct threat to any company who could easily squash me if they wanted to - call it the "being smart" part of the survival equation of the business jungle - whether or not I survive over the next few years with whatever changes there are to the racing parts business is an unknown, and most likely will be more dependent on my "smarts" rather than some new law being passed to protect me (in Club parlance, a "competition adjustment")

If you believe that business isn't a "survival of the fittest" game, you are sadly mistaken - businesses constantly come and go, with the "go" part being that they could not adapt and survive against the competition in most cases.

And it is the same for "big" businesses - Kodak being the latest example of what was once THE dominant company in its arena that couldn't/didn't adapt and survive its competition.

Hell, even this forum could be supplanted if another, better, forum came along!

I'm curous how your bottom line have been affected by eliminating the sale of Varilocks for GT2, GT4, GT5, and GTL? Not for the better, I suspect.

Not sure that I ever sold any to GTL,4&5 (GT2 is still alive, and sales are OK), but as in any business, as the customer base changes, so does the business focus or it doesn't survive.





The Club, while not a "business" in the sense of being "for profit", it is still in competition with other entities "selling" the same thing - a place for the racing hobbyist to spend their time and money. If the Club does not adapt to the changing market conditions, it may not survive.

I'm done here.

Thank you.

[Tom Valet]

The thought that people would happily sacrifice whole groups of fellow members for the CHANCE at improving the "quality" of the "value" that the winner of ONE race MIGHT get is beyond any reasonable person's tolerance. This is a hobby club. Get over yourself.

See you at the track.

-Kyle

Why is there no sympathy for "whole groups of fellow racers" that are dropping out of SCCA racing, not because their race class on average only has one or two other cars, but because the money they spend is not worth the track time and race experience they receive in return?

If you want us to mourn the loss of fellow racers whose class would be eliminated from National status when they are undersubscribed, why arent you mourning the loss of racers who decide to stay home because the race product that SCCA offers is not worth the cost to them?

In 2011 we did the bare minimum number of Nationals just to qualify Bill for the Runoffs. In 2012 we will be doing ZERO Nationals. So in effect, you are willing to sacrifice us, and others like us, but not willing to make any sacrifice yourself. Why is my absence from the track tolerable, but not yours?