Why us?

[Steve Demeter]

It is the Runoffs.

It is unfair to BOTH classes not to mention being hazardous to everyone involved.

Do you think that there had been the tremendous FF race of last year if there were F5's to get in their way. I think not.

Smarter thinking MUST prevail.

I do not have a dog in this hunt, but I hate to see people's year long efforts get screwed over by an apparently random decision made by an administrator.

[Daryl DeArman]

Daryl
Very good points. Would you not also agree that the density (cars/mile track) plays a significant role in risk? A car density of 22 cars for 2.3 miles of track is less risky than 39 cars on the same 2.3 miles.

Yes, agreed. But then I've raced with 80 open wheel cars per mile with lap times in the sub 13 second range...so my risk/reward calculator may be a bit skewed. Granted they were all the same class, and no, not a lot of consecutive green flag laps.

Rather than just bitching, how about a possible solution? This gives those supporting the event and the club a better experience. It also may eliminate some MAJORS classes through attrition over time.

The current schedule allows for 24 run groups total:

The highest 19 classes by number of run-off entries 1 month prior to green flag get their own race group PERIOD.

The 1 class with the highest majors participation totals not in the above top 19 get their own race group.

The remaining 4 race groups will be comprised of the 8 classes that don't meet the above criteria.

If that were the case this year:

All classes would have their own run groups except:

FE, P1, T3, T4, BSPEC, STU, GT1 and AS.

Putting those in 4 run groups I would put:

(1) FE and P1 together.
(2) T3 and T4
(3) Bspec and STU
(4) GT1 and AS

If people don't like their combined run group, stay home. Get your numbers up for next year or change classes if the RunOffs are important to you. SCCA has too many classes anyways....let Darwinism work.

[Jnovak]

Yes, agreed. But then I've raced with 80 open wheel cars per mile with lap times in the sub 13 second range...so my risk/reward calculator may be a bit skewed. Granted they were all the same class, and no, not a lot of consecutive green flag laps.

Rather than just bitching, how about a possible solution? This gives those supporting the event and the club a better experience. It also may eliminate some MAJORS classes through attrition over time.

The current schedule allows for 24 run groups total:

The highest 19 classes by number of run-off entries 1 month prior to green flag get their own race group PERIOD.

The 1 class with the highest majors participation totals not in the above top 19 get their own race group.

The remaining 4 race groups will be comprised of the 8 classes that don't meet the above criteria.

If that were the case this year:

All classes would have their own run groups except:

FE, P1, T3, T4, BSPEC, STU, GT1 and AS.

Putting those in 3 run groups I would put:

(1) FE and P1 together.
(2) T3 and T4
(3) Bspec and STU
(4) GT1 and AS

If people don't like their combined run group, stay home. Get your numbers up for next year or change classes if the RunOffs are important to you. SCCA has too many classes anyways....let Darwinism work.

Good thinking Daryl. Will not work unless the class mix is workable.

[Matt King]

It may work in this example, but the problem with a hard and fast rule is that when it forces you to combine two incompatible classes, you have a big problem. Then you have to break the rule and people cry, "What is the point of having the rule?" That's why there isn't always a rule.

A better solution would be to reduce the number of classes so the schedule can accommodate single class run groups, but that will just result in more bitching. Hence the current location of the SCCA between rock and hard place.

[David Locke]

It may work in this example, but the problem with a hard and fast rule is that when it forces you to combine two incompatible classes, you have a big problem. Then you have to break the rule and people cry, "What is the point of having the rule?" That's why there isn't always a rule.

A better solution would be to reduce the number of classes so the schedule can accommodate single class run groups, but that will just result in more bitching. Hence the current location of the SCCA between rock and hard place.

You are exactly right about having a hard and fast rule.

The number of classes can be sufficiently reduced by consistent application of a minimum participation number. If underperforming classes are taking up space in the schedule (at Majors events and the Runoffs), they need to give way to classes that are pulling their weight.

[Daryl DeArman]

Good thinking Daryl. Will not work unless the class mix is workable.

It may work in this example, but the problem with a hard and fast rule is that when it forces you to combine two incompatible classes, you have a big problem.

"Bottom 8" classes, if you will and 4 groups to do it with. Point is that if people aren't happy, it's going to be the fewest and unhealthiest classes that are upset. If somebody is always going to be upset, you might as well make certain it's the group with smallest impact to your bottom line.

At the same time you are continuing to ensure that your best customers remain your best customers. Seems simple to me. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Daryl DeArman]

You are exactly right about having a hard and fast rule.

The number of classes can be sufficiently reduced by consistent application of a minimum participation number. If underperforming classes are taking up space in the schedule (at Majors events and the Runoffs), they need to give way to classes that are pulling their weight.

It's like raising a kid, or teaching a class. No sense in having rules you don't intend to enforce. If you need subjectivity/discretion, then write that into the rule.

The issue I have with consistent application of a minimum participation number is the formative years of some classes. Without a venue to attract them, how is it ever going to get off the ground?

Consistently having sucky run-groups at the RunOffs will effectively "kill the weaker classes" while still giving the budding classes the opportunity even if the first couple of years are painful.

[David Locke]

The issue I have with consistent application of a minimum participation number is the formative years of some classes. Without a venue to attract them, how is it ever going to get off the ground?

The formative years of classes? Are we planning on having still more classes to get off the ground? Don't we already have way too many classes as it is? Why not focus on the classes we already have, that have already been through their formative years? SCCA club racing is being diluted by spreading the talent and money an inch deep and a mile wide, rather than having depth in good classes. My $0.02.

[Daryl DeArman]

The formative years of classes? Are we planning on having still more classes to get off the ground? Don't we already have way too many classes as it is? Why not focus on the classes we already have, that have already been through their formative years? SCCA club racing is being diluted by spreading the talent and money an inch deep and a mile wide, rather than having depth in good classes. My $0.02.

In the next 5, 10, 20 years NEW classes will be introduced. What we don't need is MORE classes. We must have a method to let old sick classes die while not retarding growth of new classes.

I'm totally on board with your statement regarding an "inch deep and a mile wide".

[GAC]

One of the things that would make it easier for FEs to race with F5s is that the horsepower advantage will make it easier for the FE leaders to pass the F5s. The leaders of both F5 and FF will catch the back of the other field but have more trouble passing because they accelerate nearly the same. Also, with the smaller fields, the track would not be as crowded, so it is less likely that catching the F5s would cause as much trouble.

[cory mcleod]

Just sent my request to Terry Ozment, requesting that FF and F500 be separated, and that FE be combined with either FM or FC.

Posts on an Internet forum mean nothing. Make your voices heard!

Cory

[SStadel]

I looked at the original post on this and saw that it was put up on August 29th at 11:56 PM. I then looked at the schedule. It says revised August 25th, 2014. The schedule also says the Chief Steward may alter the schedule at any time before August 29, 2014 for any reason. Just curious, where was everyone for 4 days? I could personally care less, but I do have to schedule flights, etc. and at some point I'm hoping the schedule is set and can't be changed. I'm assuming it can't be changed now for any reason and I can schedule flights, etc. Any insight to this?

Also, even though Steve Grundahl mentioned this earlier Mr. Pitt, FE did run a combined Runoffs two years ago with FM and we weren't happy either but it went off just fine (unless you wanted at least some of the FE race on the internet which didn't happen). Plus FB was awarded a National class status before FE even though there were over a hundred FE's and only 2 (yes two) FB's at that time (yes I know they were both a National class in 2007, but the board made FB a class before FE). So Mr. Pitt, you either have a short memory or you're a troll. Either way you couldn't be more off when it comes to SCCA handling FE with some sort of preferred status.

[KAMcDonald]

well.. in the supps section 6.1, in addition to the chief steward modify before 29 Aug, it also has

Additionally, SCCA reserves the right to modify the schedule based on the number of entries in each class.

does not say anything about dates, so it could change again.....

[Spengo]

I'm not an open wheel racer (yet!) but I race actual go karts. On the big road tracks we always do mixed classes for every group and I never really thought much of it, just another part of racing. Usually 125cc shifters (what I race) gets combined with the 250cc superkarts. A properly tuned superkart will book it in the straights on to 140mph or something but the 125ccs are slightly faster in the corners due to lighter weight and a more flexy chassis. If some superkarts pass us near the end of a straight we'll usually end up going side-by-side a couple corners past that and get around them making them have to pass us again. Makes things a little interesting I thought, especially when you're right on the bumper of a rival, but not particularly dangerous, just gotta be an aware racer. Heck, you guys even have mirrors! To be honest I find it more dangerous passing backmarkers in the corners because they often take weird lines, drive like they're wearing horse blinders, and do unpredictable things.

[SStadel]

Thanks Keith. Sunday night it is!

[GAC]

Here is the response to the letters sent to Terry Ozment. As I noted above, one of the concerns is FE not being able to qualify iwth F5 before racing together. The other one is F% being lapped and having a shorter race.I think the F5 guys would have to speak to how they feel about about those two things. If they would rather have a shorter race with the FE's without qualifying with them, let Terry know. I do understand her concerns, and it is a tough call to make.

"If you are getting this message, it is because you have sent me an email in the last couple of days regarding the FF/F5 run group at the Runoffs this year. I wanted to share this information with all of you and it seemed to make more sense to do it in one concise email.

I apologize for the situation we find ourselves in. First and foremost, I do understand the issues you have raised about lap times, how they are achieved, run group ideals, safety and the lateness of the changes. These decisions have been made by a number of people including drivers, CRB members, Event operational staff and National Office Staff. What our event organizers are faced with is having to make decisions with information that changes, figuring out the best solution given a number of conditions.

The biggest starting challenge is that at this venue, the amount of time we have to fit in all our testing and qualifying sessions is the shortest we’ve ever had at the Runoffs due to sound constraints Monday-Thursday. We have an 8:30-4:30 day instead of our usual 8-6. Additionally, the following had to be considered:
· 27 classes
· GCR allowed class combinations
· Track limit of just over 60 cars per group
· Sessions no less than 20 minutes
· Sufficient clean-up time between sessions
· Sessions balanced across all class categories to allow sufficient space and man-power in tech
On August 26th, we had 500 cars registered and in order to meet our printing deadline for event materials, the posted schedule was determined. Five days later, at the early registration deadline on the 29th, here is what the numbers look like:

Class Subscription

Qualifying Groups

# Cars

FA

17

AS/T1

29

FB

15

Bspec/T4

24

FC

23

EP/GTL

45

FE

11

FF/F5

39

FV

32

FA/FB

32

FF

27

FC/FE/FM

52

F5

12

FP/HP

39

FM

18

FV

32

GT1

12

GT1/GT2/GT3

45

GT2

18

SM

46

GT3

15

SRF

48

GTL

18

STL/T2

44

EP

27

STU/T3

27

FP

17

P1/P2

29

HP

22


531

AS

13

SM

46

SRF

48

T1

16

T2

19

T3

14

T4

13

B-SPEC

11

STU

13

STL

25

P1

13

P2

16

531

For races, we try to give everyone their own race group. With 27 classes and 24 possible race sessions, 3 races have to be combined. The starting schedule uses knowledge from the Runoffs previous years regarding class subscription rates. As our venue changes, there will be changes in this picture as some classes have stronger presence in some parts of the country than others. This year we found that out regarding F500. We have also learned that if you have to change Race run groups, it is better to move a group up in the schedule rather than back due to travel commitments that have already been made. Race run group factors that need to be considered are:
· Class subscription rates
· Balance of open wheel, closed wheel and sports racing classes on each day
· As much balance between group sizes as possible with no race being under the 10 car minimum needed to declare a National Champion
· No back-to-back class categories to allow sufficient space and man-power in tech
· No class should race with a class they haven’t qualified with
o Number issues (can’t have duplicate numbers in the same sessions for purposes of calling in incidents and timing (timed by transponders, scored visually)
o Experience with the other class drivers on-track
The schedule we now have represented the best option given all the factors that had to be considered. Is it ideal. Probably not, but the ideal may be impossible given the constraints we’re under.

To your specific situation in FF, I’d like to add a couple of points.
· F5 was under the 10 car minimum and needed to be combined
· F5 usually runs with either FV or FF on regular race weekends
· FV had over 30 cars entered, FF had under 30
· F5 runs lap times closer to FF than FV, so with a split start, should maintain more separation between groups than if combined with FV
· Combining with FE would mean FE would race with a different class than they qualified with
· Combining with FE would likely shorten the F5 race length by a full lap

We think this is the best solution given all the constraints that had to be considered. We do keep track of all the data from year to year and will do what we can tonot impact either class in this way going forward.

Sincerely,

Terry

Terry Ozment
Vice President, SCCA Club Racing"

[problemchild]

That is SCCA logic for you.
F500 cannot fill their grid, FE barely made theirs, but we don't want to combine them because that would shorten the F500 race by a lap ........ so we will ruin the race of a well-supported class that have been a huge part of the Runoffs for 50 years!

Will they have more cancelled FF entries than racing F500 entries?

[bobmelvin]

Working all year toward the Runoffs and then this? Opinions are like *******s. Granted, But I'm with (strongly) the dissenters on this. I have run with F500 this year and had races ruined because of the difference.

Pueblo Major I got beat to T1 due to the windup of a top shelf F500 and then waited half a lap on the twisty bits to get by. 1,000 feet lost. Spoke to the driver and he said it's damn near impossible to beat his/any top F500 engine to many T1's. He said if he beat me again he'd lift. Next day, he did and all went perfectly for the FF race.

I'm a regional BoD member and even I may not return. 26 plus entries and the combination is Prime BS from Kansas. $5-8,000 (all expenses in) to run combined.

When will They surprise us with a smart well-thought through decision? Hmm? I've liked what I've seen from Terri until the post here---- trying to sell ice to an Eskimo.

Bob Melvin
COR

[Jnovak]

If every FF entrant sent a letter I suspect that something would happen.

[GT1Vette]

The issue is being discussed right now on tonight's CRB call. It still needs to go through the 15 layers of the review process, but we may have a solution that pisses off the fewest number of people.

Stay tuned...

[John LaRue]

FWIW this is an issue that it is being looked at very seriously despite the fact it is raised at the 11th hour. Terry has outlined a number of concerns that are in play in her response. Two issues which seem to really get people wound up would be in play if something is to be done: 1) a change in the schedule and 2) car number conflicts (requiring numbers which have previously been assigned to be changed)

There is no perfect answer, but your concerns are being taken seriously.

John

[bobmelvin]

I don't give a damn about a number. I want to race.

Bob

[Matt King]

If they decide to combine FE and F5, are the numbers even an issue? Is it really that hard for a corner worker to tell the difference between classes when only one has wings?

[efoxfield]

I just got an email from Chief Steward Dennis Dean. He was very diplomatic but, in so many words said it is what it is. I told him he has one less car to deal with as I'm out. I'm sure more than half the F f entrants aren't even aware of the yet.
The SCCA has painted themselves into a corner with no way out and FF and F500 are paying the price.
Ed Midgley

[efoxfield]

I was involved in the March 2013 COTA Major fiasco where we had sixty cars on a 3.5 mile track and only had four green flag laps in what was just a rush our traffic jam. In forty years of racing that was the worst event I ever was involved in.
I won't put myself through that again.
Forty cars at Road America, no problem. Forty cars at Laguna, no go.
Ed

[problemchild]

If they decide to combine FE and F5, are the numbers even an issue? Is it really that hard for a corner worker to tell the difference between classes when only one has wings?

At my local oval track, a quarter of the cars run #42 and another quarter run #7. They all seem to be red. That was not a problem, even before transponders were used. That F500 losing a lap, and numbers, are factors in this process is scary.

Most scary, is the lack of ability to react and adjust to seemingly trivial schedule changes. It is a good indicator of why nothing ever seems to get done on important issues.

The inference that it is the FF drivers fault for making this an "eleventh hour problem" is typical.

[Brian.Novak]

I understand the SCCA's points, and I understand why F500 got combined as we were late to the party, have a low car count, and we paid for it. I honestly don't care who we run with, I'll deal, I just think FF got the short end of the stick.

FWIW I'm ok running with the FEs, even if that means losing a lap.

The process of all this does bother me though. I don't quite understand why the schedule get's changed BEFORE the late entry deadline. I know the 29th is in the supps for the limit on schedule changes but the process doesn't make sense. Seems to me this could have waited a few days.

Entries open
Entries closed
FINAL GROUPINGS POSTED....

[David Locke]

The process of all this does bother me though. I don't quite understand why the schedule get's changed BEFORE the late entry deadline. I know the 29th is in the supps for the limit on schedule changes but the process doesn't make sense. Seems to me this could have waited a few days.

Entries open
Entries closed
FINAL GROUPINGS POSTED....

Unless I'm mistaken, August 29 was the early entry deadline, and September 29 is the late entry deadline.

[Brian.Novak]

Unless I'm mistaken, August 29 was the early entry deadline, and September 29 is the late entry deadline.

Yes, you are correct, sorry. Well, I guess I still stand by my thought, could have waited a few days to make the decision.

[Dave SanF 50]

Just got an e-mail from Terry Ozment,VP of Club Racing:

This message is going to drivers currently registered for the SCCA National Championship Runoffs in FF, F5, FM and FE classes.

As a result of considerable thoughtful input from drivers impacted by a previously announced scheduled change, an RFA has been issued by Dennis Dean the event Chief Steward to the Chairman of the SOM’s asking for a change that affects your Race run group. The Chairman of the SOM’s (Jim Averett) is convening a court to determine whether or not this change will be approved and he’d like input from the drivers affected to help in their deliberations. This decision needs to be made quickly to provide you with adequate time to adjust your event plans accordingly. If you want to provide your input, please do so by using “reply all” to this message by 8 am tomorrow morning, Thursday, September 4th.

Specifically, in order to better balance run group size and compatible lap times, here are the changes being considered (Race Groups Only - these changes will not impact the currently published qualifying schedule):


For reference, here are the current entry numbers for your classes:
F5 12
FF 27
FE 11
FM 18

Our goal is to render a decision and have it communicated (email to this distribution list and posted on the SCCA website) before the end of this week. Time is short, please respond quickly if you want to provide input.

Sincerely,


Terry

Terry Ozment
Vice President, SCCA Club Racing
785-862-7104
785-861-1704 fax
tozment@scca.com
PO Box 19400
Topeka, KS 66619

[Jeff Read]

Here is my two cents worth as an FE driver. I couldn't care less if we run with the F5 guys, but only if we are combined for qualifying also. I don't want our race to be the first on track with these guys.

And for those of you complaining about being on track with 38 cars consider that FE,FC and FM are combined for all qualifying sessions putting 50+ cars on track at the same time. Get over it and realize that everyone has some grouping issues .

I for one will deal with the conditions handed to me without crying on the internet about it.

[racinray]

Just got an e-mail from Terry Ozment,VP of Club Racing:

This message is going to drivers currently registered for the SCCA National Championship Runoffs in FF, F5, FM and FE classes.

As a result of considerable thoughtful input from drivers impacted by a previously announced scheduled change, an RFA has been issued by Dennis Dean the event Chief Steward to the Chairman of the SOM’s asking for a change that affects your Race run group. The Chairman of the SOM’s (Jim Averett) is convening a court to determine whether or not this change will be approved and he’d like input from the drivers affected to help in their deliberations. This decision needs to be made quickly to provide you with adequate time to adjust your event plans accordingly. If you want to provide your input, please do so by using “reply all” to this message by 8 am tomorrow morning, Thursday, September 4th.

Specifically, in order to better balance run group size and compatible lap times, here are the changes being considered (Race Groups Only - these changes will not impact the currently published qualifying schedule):


For reference, here are the current entry numbers for your classes:
F5 12
FF 27
FE 11
FM 18

Our goal is to render a decision and have it communicated (email to this distribution list and posted on the SCCA website) before the end of this week. Time is short, please respond quickly if you want to provide input.

Sincerely,


Terry

Terry Ozment
Vice President, SCCA Club Racing
785-862-7104
785-861-1704 fax
tozment@scca.com
PO Box 19400
Topeka, KS 66619

Am I missing something or does this email not specify the proposed changes?

Ray

[efoxfield]

Jeff, I don't think you would feel the same if your race group brought twenty seven cars to the event.
Ed

[AlecksonRacing]

I agree with Jeff. No problem being grouped with F5 for the race but I want all sessions to be with them so we can all figure out how to play nice with each other.

And not really sure how FF got "the short end of the stick." You're grouped with cars that you will never lap during the course of a race so how does that effect your event? Don't cry to me about car count for qualifying either. FC, FM, FE guys aren't happy about 50+ cars for their qualifying but they're not on here b**ching like a bunch of little girls. There's too many classes and SCCA did the best they can. If you don't like it, don't go.

Or here's what we can do, replace FE on the schedule with FF and call it a deal. That way FF can be with "real" race cars and then no need to change the schedule.

[SStadel]

Food for thought. I proposed this to Terry just now. Looking at car counts it does make sense for the FE's & F5's to combine for the race. It also makes sense to qualify together. Move the FC's to the FF qualy and the F5's to the FE/FM qualy and move F5 to FE for the race. FC, FM & FF get their single class race and the two smaller classes run together, after having been on the track at the same time during qualy. It also lowers the number of cars that were in the combined FC/FE/FM which was a ton, but it does increase the car count in the FF's qualy.

Would the FF's agree to this?

Would the F5's agree to this?

I'm pretty sure that most of the FM/FE/FC crowd will be fine with this.

[Jeff Read]

Ed, What part of us being on track with 50+ cars and not whining about it don't you get?

[cory mcleod]

Food for thought. I proposed this to Terry just now. Looking at car counts it does make sense for the FE's & F5's to combine for the race. It also makes sense to qualify together. Move the FC's to the FF qualy and the F5's to the FE/FM qualy and move F5 to FE for the race. FC, FM & FF get their single class race and the two smaller classes run together, after having been on the track at the same time during qualy. It also lowers the number of cars that were in the combined FC/FE/FM which was a ton, but it does increase the car count in the FF's qualy.

Would the FF's agree to this?

Would the F5's agree to this?

I'm pretty sure that most of the FM/FE/FC crowd will be fine with this.

Terry just sent an e-mail to everyone in the potentially effected classes, asking for feedback on the following proposed race schedule (no changes to qualifying).

FF 10:30 Friday
FE/FM 1:30 Saturday
F500 11:30 Sunday

If the F500 race is on Sunday, I will have to withdraw, so at this point I will support any alternative that keeps the F500 race on Friday or Saturday. That's the feedback I sent Terry.

[GAC]

The letter has the schedule change. Let's see if copies correctly here.

Currently posted schedule:

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP RACES

ALL RACES 20 LAPS OR 40 MIN., WHICHEVER ELAPSES FIRST.

RACE TIMES ARECARS ON COURSE TIMES.

FRI 10/10

SAT 10/11

SUN 10/12

8:15

Anthem

Anthem

Anthem

8:30

T1

STL

BS/T4

9:30

GTL

P2

FV

10:30

FF/F5

EP

GT1

11:30

SM

GT2

FM

12:30

LUNCH

1:30

FP

FE

SRF

2:30

AS

GT3

FB

3:30

P1

FC

HP

4:30

STU/T3

T2

FA

PROPOSED Changes in Red

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP RACES

ALL RACES 20 LAPS OR 40 MIN., WHICHEVER ELAPSES FIRST.

RACE TIMES ARE CARS ON COURSE TIMES.

FRI 10/10

SAT 10/11

SUN 10/12

8:15

Anthem

Anthem

Anthem

8:30

T1

STL

BS/T4

9:30

GTL

P2

FV

10:30

FF

EP

GT1

11:30

SM

GT2

F5

12:30

LUNCH

1:30

FP

FE/FM

SRF

2:30

AS

GT3

FB

3:30

P1

FC

HP

4:30

STU/T3

T2

FA

[GAC]

That did not work too well, but it changes FF to being by itself in its original slot, FE and FM combining on Saturday at 1:30 in FE's slot, and F5 at 11:30 on Sunday. I do not remember what the original time slots were for F5 or FM, so they may be back in their original slots.

[efoxfield]

Jeff, if I had to qualify with fifty cars I would be making plenty of noise. When the club realized the noise restraints and shortened day it would have been better to add an extra day to the schedule.
By the way I'm entered in the regional next week out there and it looks like our group will have close to fifty cars. I probably didn't think that one out too well.
Ed