The "I hate RA" thread... ;^)

[flat tappet]

You must mean this one. The number below each track is the average highway driving distance to that track from the notional center of the other Divisions. All y'all feel free to share this with your respective BoD members...

Doesn't take a genius to see that Topeka is the most fair location for almost everyone....being at the geographic center of the country.......LOL.

I don't get it.....no matter what track we choose, there will be folks unhappy with the choice. It may be all sweetness and light talking about a new track, like INDY....but, it too will have all the problems(cost,too far to drive from the west coast, track conditions,etc).Why not move it back to Heartland?

[Stan Clayton]

Doesn't take a genius to see that Topeka is the most fair location for almost everyone....being at the geographic center of the country.......LOL.

...Why not move it back to Heartland?

You've never heard of the weighted mean, have you?

[flat tappet]

You've never heard of the weighted mean, have you?

Stan...I Wikied it but still don't know how it applies in this situation.....LOL.

[CSHAW]

Hey Corey, I understand your points and suggestions, but SCCA being SCCA (not just corporate, but the members, too) there is a lot of history goes into this triennial decision.

Heartland Park Topeka is about as close to centrally located as one can get, but the members just about revolted about having it there, so that criteria for choosing a location is now discredited.

Likewise, splitting the Runoffs has a long discussion history. Short version? It's dead in the water. Not gonna happen anytime soon.

Since splitting the Runoffs and having them out West are out of consideration, that leaves changing the business model to try to make the members happier. Up to now (at least for the past decade or three), tracks have bid for the rights, then been left to their own devices to recoup their costs...hence member dissatisfaction with being dinged for dollars for every little thing.

The potentially better model, and one I am told is under active BoD consideration, is to put out RFQs to straight-up rent the track. That way the track gets its price per day, and the pressure is off for it to act like a crack hooker on payday.

Of course, that leaves it to SCCA to recoup what it pays the track. And as is says in the good book, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Anyway, once thing is certain...the members are ready to move on from RA. Where we end up nobody really knows yet, but my money is on VIR.

How's that for sticking my neck out!?

Thanks Stan, I like Road America a great deal but I don't know the total financial picture being a recent convert back to Club Racing. That is good to know that they put it out for bid, I was under the misunderstanding that the track was being rented. In that light you have really brought some reality to this whole conversation for me, Thank You !!!

Central location is important but the bottom line is that it has to make business sense too for the club, but as a club, its members business sense should also be taken into account and I wonder if the members feel that they are?

Stan, since you brought this thread into being, is there some behind the scenes debates going on currently at the upper levels? Or did you create this thread simply as a means for racers to vent some frustrations and un-clutter another thread that seemed to be hijacked by this subject?

The most major concern to me is that overall, it seems the club is attempting to jam too much content, much that is unrelated to the other, into each event. In management training, we were trained on "SPAN of Control" management concepts. I think that the club suffers, in spite of itself, from over consolidation. A lion tamer maybe be able to put on a great show when limiting to three or so lions, but if that same tamer is tasked with controlling five lions, two tigers, four cobra snakes, six loud mischievous monkeys, and ten bunny rabbits, there is bound to be some confusion and disappointment.

Better, higher quality events will do more to grow the club and build enthusiasm than the issue of location. Less complexity at the events makes it easier to manage anf focus on the quality of the event. That is why I bring up the format as being a more significant issue than location.

Thanks Stan,
Corey
SCT Sports Cars

[Stan Clayton]

Stan...I Wikied it but still don't know how it applies in this situation.....LOL.

I applies because the distribution of likely Runoffs drivers is nearly identical to the case under basic example, only instead of students in each classroom and their scores, we're talking drivers in each Division and how far from the Runoffs track they are.

In the map I produced above I list the arithmetic mean distance, with no accounting for how many drivers there are from each Division. The simple way, as I did it, distorts the importance of racers from, say, NorPac, compared to racers near Mid Ohio.

One could construct a much more accurate map by accounting for how many racers from each Division actually attended recent Runoffs rather than presuming equal participation from each. That would allow SCCA to very accurately know which track is actually the "fairest" for all to actually get to.

On the presumption that member distribution approximates the US population distribution (that map was lifted from the US Census website), and darker is more populated, Indy, MO and VIR appear to all offer the lowest average travel distance for competitors, even though they're further from the west coast than other choices.

Of course, average distance is only one factor in the decision to award the Runoffs to a given track, but it's not an unimportant one given our membership's prerogatives.

[Charles Warner]

How 'bout we get Mr. Peabody and the Way Back Machine and go back to when we had a reasonable and manageable class structure? (I know, I know - not possible, but a grand fantasy - all those pseudo-race cars rusting away.)

There is no acceptable solution other than to share the pain somewhat equitably. That involves either alternating coasts or punishing all of the outlyers by having the thing centrally. Or, by having Left Coast and Right Coast Championships.

[KevinFirlein]

I would very much like VIR as a Runoffs venue. Please dont tease me like that.

[TimW]

I

One could construct a much more accurate map by accounting for how many racers from each Division actually attended recent Runoffs...

Or, more accurately by accounting for how many nationally licensed drivers and where they're located then the surveyed 'likely participants' and where they're located. Recent attendees skews the data by excluding people who'd go if it was easier but didn't (closer, shorter schedule, cheaper gas, whatever).

[Rick Kirchner]

One could construct a much more accurate map by accounting for how many racers from each Division actually attended recent Runoffs rather than presuming equal participation from each. That would allow SCCA to very accurately know which track is actually the "fairest" for all to actually get to.

That would pretty much ensure that the participation in those areas grows, and the others declines.

[Stan Clayton]

Collecting data from actual Runoffs competitors is the only ready way for non-insiders to attempt a more accurate map from actual data without a great more effort being expended. We plebeians generally just don't have access to finer grain data.

[Peter Olivola]

There is another issue with the approach of counting nationally licensed drivers. There are many nationally licensed drivers who complete in regional only classes and others who only compete in local nationals with no intent of ever going to the Runoffs regardless of location. It would be challenge to sort them out.

Or, more accurately by accounting for how many nationally licensed drivers and where they're located then the surveyed 'likely participants' and where they're located. Recent attendees skews the data by excluding people who'd go if it was easier but didn't (closer, shorter schedule, cheaper gas, whatever).

[Charles Warner]

Predictive data of any kind based on polling for future events is notoriously inaccurate at best.

[TimW]

Wow, lots of debbie downers around here. Sorry for trying to help.

It doesn't exactly take a quantitative researcher PhD to divide a population into 'eligible participants' and 'likely participants.' Its the likely participants (those attending and not) who likely have the most valuable information. Finding answers to the question 'I'd be a participant if...' across a population of people who are reasonably committed to their hobby will undoubtedly show some trends (absolute accuracy is not important). The list of nationally licensed drivers is known and crafting questions that help identify individuals in the population as likely participants (i.e. going or wanting to go and compete but aren't getting the reward on the time/money investment) would be pretty valuable to decision making. And the tools to do so are easier to use and readily available to armchair statisticians than ever.

The previous national runoffs surveys were great, but I believe they only reached out to previous attendees.

The guys with a legitimate shots at winning will likely go through a lot of aggro and nickel an dime pain to participate. Its getting the field fillers (like me) who are there to have a good experience that will make or break the event financially. Right now, it appears a line has been crossed for those drivers, near or far.

[JohnPaul]

SCCA should send out a survey asking national licensed club members if they would attend the Run offs if it was held within a 1 day tow. Then take those members that said yes and map them. find and rent a track that would accommodate the most members that said yes and call it a night. They'd have the biggest attendance possible based on actual data. You'd still get the crazies that would travel anywhere anyway...

[S Lathrop]

The big problem with the Runons(sorry Mike) is that too few people are having to cover an ever increasing cost of staging the event. And the bulk of those costs fall on the participants.

Turning the Runons into a big money making spectator event is not going to happen.

In the early days at Atlanta, there was a decent vendor display as you went down the hill from the main gate to the paddock area. Maybe people could think in terms of an Oshkosh type event with racing and a strong trade show to attract a larger spectator following.

For the Riverside run offs, Ed Zink would rent a car hauler to transport all the East cost Zink FV to Ca.

[Christopher Crowe]

"Maybe people could think in terms of an Oshkosh type event with racing and a strong trade show to attract a larger spectator following."

This is a great idea, Steve. Use Oshkosh as the model. A mini PRI or SEMA combined with a race event. What a great way to spread the cost over many instead of a few. A deal where everyone wins.

This is idea should NOT be allowed to slip between the cracks... It's the best idea for the Runoffs since someone had the idea of having the Runoffs -- !

Chris

[swiftdrivr]

I like Steve's idea. I went to Atlanta as a spectator during the times he speaks of, and really enjoyed it, rain or shine. And I second / third the VIR idea too. i like RA, but VIR is more fun.Having said that, my wife would divorce me if i tried to take her on a 3 day tow to RA again. VIR I can do.

[Amon]

Let's see:

Road America: 10 hours away and must go through Chicago!

M-O : 60 miles away and track has new owners, so maybe an improvement over old.

Indy: 5 hours away and would love it....but what's the chance?

Road Atlanta: 10 hours away but don"t have to deal with Chicago!

V.I.R: 8 hours away so well within the range.

Glen: 6 hours away but with that track management, I'd hate to see what they'd
charge for parking and camping, plus the qual. & race groups would always
run behind.

Topeka: Nope.....

Laguna Seca: $2000 in fuel bills so forget it!

Peace..out!

Mark

[problemchild]

Collecting data from actual Runoffs competitors is the only ready way for non-insiders to attempt a more accurate map from actual data without a great more effort being expended. We plebeians generally just don't have access to finer grain data.

Collecting opinion from people that still do go, despite all the reasons not to, is not going to provide the answers.

Polling the people that have stopped going in the past 10 years would be best ..... no idea how you do that. I would fall into that group. From 1987 to 2002, going to the Runoffs was all that mattered. Now, I don't even know when it is. It became irrelevent once it left Mid-Ohio. I attended at RA once as a casual competitor and twice as a spectator. Mid-Ohio is geographically most accessable for the most racers, but most importantly, it is the best track to conduct our National Championship. NASA knows that, BTW.

[Stan Clayton]

Collecting opinion from people that still do go, despite all the reasons not to, is not going to provide the answers.

I agree that opinions are not data, and none of my comments should be taken to mean I think more polling of members should be done. No, I mean "DATA"...as in, "what is the home Region/Division of the competitor?"

So when I wrote "Collecting data from actual Runoffs competitors is the only ready way for non-insiders to attempt a more accurate map from actual data without a great more effort being expended.", I literally meant looking at the list of entries to see where they are from.

For planning purposes an even better approach would be to glean the region of record info for all competitors who qualify for an invitation to the Runoffs. SCCA automatically collects that info every year, but a non-insider has to do so by manually collecting the data from the results of the 70-odd Nationals run each year. It's certainly possible, but not very practical.

In any case, I presume it roughly corresponds to the population distribution of the country. Not perfectly, of course, but close enough to tell us that MO is a better 'weighted mean' choice than, say, Sebring.

Mid-Ohio is geographically most accessable for the most racers, but most importantly, it is the best track to conduct our National Championship. NASA knows that, BTW.

[DaveW]

...In the early days at Atlanta, there was a decent vendor display as you went down the hill from the main gate to the paddock area. Maybe people could think in terms of an Oshkosh type event with racing and a strong trade show to attract a larger spectator following...

That is a very good idea, and I hate to be negative on this, but...

IMO, the main reason the "trade-show" aspect died (IIRC, it WAS pretty extensive at Road Atlanta) is that paid spectators found other things they would rather do and track income decreased, along with operating costs, etc., climbing. As a result, the tracks started overcharging vendors to make enough money so they could make a profit. This and the lower number of potential customers got to the point that many long-time Runoffs vendors tired of losing money, and quit going.

This problem would have to be corrected so that the old vendors would return and numerous new vendors could be enticed to participate. Hopefully enough PAYING spectators could be attracted for the track and the vendors to profit. Otherwise, I don't see how it would work.

It is a vicious circle, just like the race groupings in local races being so bad people don't want to enter, and the situation deteriorates further.

So, while it sounds good, whether it would work rests with the profit potential of the situation. With the economy still faltering, it would be difficult.

[Christopher Crowe]

The Runoffs are already being run, being underwritten by the racers and their crews and their families and their friends... and a few spectators to boot.

That's a grand platform for a trade-show to build on! The vendor doesn't build a trade-show from zip. He starts with a large gathering of folks -- many of whom that are at least somewhere near his perfect target-audience. He also starts with a functioning facility with the crowd-handling functions already in place. And even a basic promotional mechanism he can probably piggy-back onto -- reducing costs for all concerned.

From here, of course, he vendor can add-on -- bringing in his own audience. Think of it. A PRI with Brats to eat, beers to drink... and some of those road-race cars to get a chuckle out of...

In some shape or form, Steve's idea is just a natural.

-- Chris

[DaveW]

Well, Chris, I sure hope you are correct, and that I was overly pessimistic.

[Purple Frog]

When the vendors fees exceeded what they could reasonably expect to make, the vendors bailed.

Thus, one of the sports largest vendors, takes orders on-line or by phone, and then delivers to the track.

Some vendors sneak around in ummarked vehicles.

[andyllc]

I dont have a perfect answer but I feel like I will be ruffling some feathers...
SCCA expects to make a certain amount from the Runoffs. Currently that is paid by Road America and then Road America charges the competitors an arm and a leg to recoup their cost and make their profit. If SCCA went back to renting the track, they still will expect to make the same profit. Instead of the track charging an arm and a leg for things I am sure SCCA will in order to make that same dollar. Those that think having SCCA rent the track are probably in for a rude awakening if that ever happens again.

Also, Mid Ohio is a good track...to drive....not necessarily race. The number of good races at a track like Road America, VIR, Road Atlanta are going to be far greater than the number of great races at Mid Ohio. Mid Ohio is just too tight of a track for a lot of competitive passes (certainly fewer than Road America). If Mid Ohio made the keyhole a few hundred yards closer to the main entrance then that could change but right now Road America is definitely a better RACE track..... YMMV

[jim morgan]

No clear answer but I really like the Mr.peabody and the wayback machine reference. How come sherman got left out. Areas with the highest participation reflect the most active members focus on them.

[Daryl DeArman]

No clear answer but I really like the Mr.peabody and the wayback machine reference. How come sherman got left out. Areas with the highest participation reflect the most active members focus on them.

Yes, but are they the most active because they intend on going to the runoffs and need to earn an invite?

If the runoffs moved to Sears Point, how much more active would the SoPac and NorPac divisions become? How would that effect the SEDiv? I imagine racers in the SEDiv who don't intend to go to the RunOffs might be more selective about the events they participate in and may even choose to run more out of Division Nationals just to run somewhere else.

[JohnPaul]

based off this:
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...tion-FINAL.pdf
isn't it reasonable to say that the run offs should be in the southeast?
[FONT=Verdana]specifically an hour [/FONT]down the road from my house at homestead where my wife can't say **** to me???

[Bruce]

Been to the Runoff at R.A., am there now. It's too cold, the weather sucks, the new schedule sucks. They just threw the dinner tonight and there are still a lot of competitors that haven't even arrived. Needs to go to the West Coast.

[tahoez]

i would have been there with FC and STL cars but in augst scca said STL would be non runnofs champion class /u lost 2 cars this year from me 1st in nor pac STL and 2nd FC but im not going to take less $$$ as exibition class in STL scca get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Matt King]

Been to the Runoff at R.A., am there now. It's too cold, the weather sucks, the new schedule sucks. They just threw the dinner tonight and there are still a lot of competitors that haven't even arrived. Needs to go to the West Coast.

Welcome to Wisconsin weather--last week it was in the 70s and 80s! This morning it's 38 and the high will be in the upper 50s. But I think some other place is going to have to get a LOT colder before the Runoffs move to California.

[glenn cooper]

"Roadracing is not a winter sport"

OR,

"Which of these do not belong:
Super G Slalom
Two Man Luge
Figure Skating
Bobsled
SCCA Runoffs at Road America in late September"


I guess until it friggin' snows, Mid Ohio will still be remembered as THE most miserable Runoffs weather...

PS I just got a set of new Hoosier Snow Tires.






Oh crap, what have I wrought on myself now?

[Purple Frog]

From down here in the swamp "highs in the upper 50s" sounds delightful.

If the fields get any smaller, there will be lots of tracks that can hold the Runoffs.

[KenT]

Man, those participation numbers are pretty poor. Quite a few classes didn't meet the 2.5 rule. I know, there is no 2.5 rule. But still.

[Amon]

Ken:

We'd only have 16 classes next year if they'd follow the 2.5 rule since
17-29 didn't make the participation requirements....with FE just making
it by a hair at 2.52 per race.

Mark

[JohnPaul]

the best place to have the run offs (IMO) would be Road Atlanta (or Barber). It's pretty central to the top 5 regions for National car counts and good weather. Plus we can throw a big bash and Coop's house (or Wren's). check it out:

http://www.scca.com/about/index.cfm?cid=44433

[Beartrax]

From down here in the swamp "highs in the upper 50s" sounds delightful.

If the fields get any smaller, there will be lots of tracks that can hold the Runoffs.

Lime Rock! (I know it's your favorite, Frog)

[flat tappet]

Man, those participation numbers are pretty poor. Quite a few classes didn't meet the 2.5 rule. I know, there is no 2.5 rule. But still.

For our North American road race championship runoffs(NARRC) this weekend at LRP, we only have 175 entrants!

[Daryl DeArman]

Ken:

We'd only have 16 classes next year if they'd follow the 2.5 rule since
17-29 didn't make the participation requirements....with FE just making
it by a hair at 2.52 per race.

Mark

...and the problem with that would be ?

[Amon]

Nothing