Runoffs schedule

[M.Sauce]

I just was wondering if anyone who was not in SM or SRF2 or SRF3 thought that robbing 2 minutes from all the other sessions to make two new groups was pissed about loosing the time. I thought that it was very clear early on that there would be a limit to some groups and in those larger groups it was possible not all competitors would get to race. Our group was terrible with 76 cars on the track every session but one. It also seemed unfair that F500 got to go out first every day. I know it is only a couple of minutes difference but that is one lap 3 days in a row. I would have thought they would have let FF go first at least one day.

[Lotus7]

My impression after 11 days on site was that the runoffs will always be a compromised event in many ways until one of two things happen:

1) the unimaginable : SCCA gets the b*lls to axe a whole bunch of the lower participation classes (yeah, that's a whole 'nuther thread; Indy car counts were an anomaly)

2) the imaginable : split the event into three 3-day events run consecutively. Nine groups get two private 25 minute practice sessions, two private 25 minute qual sessions, and a race on day three. This is supposed to be the cream of the crop (yeah, and that's another whole 'nuther thread), so if you aren't ready to race after four sessions, should you really be there? Costs for every participant go down, and no one actually believes there's a "weekend races" fan base to support do they?

Personally, have never met any competitor who thinks the current format is the way to go.

[RussMcB]

I *think* (could be wrong, don't really know), SM, SRF and SRF3 individuals also lost the same two minutes each day, right?

[problemchild]

I just was wondering if anyone who was not in SM or SRF2 or SRF3 thought that robbing 2 minutes from all the other sessions to make two new groups was pissed about loosing the time. I thought that it was very clear early on that there would be a limit to some groups and in those larger groups it was possible not all competitors would get to race. Our group was terrible with 76 cars on the track every session but one. It also seemed unfair that F500 got to go out first every day. I know it is only a couple of minutes difference but that is one lap 3 days in a row. I would have thought they would have let FF go first at least one day.

It was a mess. And compounded by the a-hole first day fast qualifier who was playing games in pitlane to back up the field and knock another minute or two off of other racers already short session. It was 4 mins into the 18 minute session before we started our first timed lap.

In typical SCCA fashion, they set the group run order based on fastest times, which totally discounted average times, which in this case, would have swapped the order. Yes, they should have alternated the group order, but as was suggested by several, de-segregating the classes after day 1, and gridding by time, regardless of class, may have been best. There was no perfect solution but probably a better solution.

The issue was no surprise. People wanted to run at Indy, and they did. I thought the whole event went about as well as one could hope, considering the logistical issues and track configuration. Why twice as many people chose to go to Indy as went to Mid-Ohio just amazes me. Clearly, the quality of track and the competition on it, is not the dominant drawing factor for the current SCCA racer.

[andyllc]

I can't say I blame the first car out on track for backing up the field. I would do that in a heartbeat to try to get a clear lap or two. Maybe I am an A hole too but from a competition point of view, why wouldn't you do it?
I get why the F500's were first out on Monday. However for Tuesday and Wednesday I think it would have caused fewer (didn't say zero) problems if they mixed the classes and went out based on fast time for the week even if it meant the order was F500, FF, F500, FF, etc.

[M.Sauce]

I *think* (could be wrong, don't really know), SM, SRF and SRF3 individuals also lost the same two minutes each day, right?

I think my point is they made another race group for those who would have had to go home if not fast enough. I thought that is what a National Championship race was all about. If I don't go fast enough I go home. Makes perfect sense to me. I understand those groups were too large to run all at once. In the original entry it said certain groups that were over subscribed would have entries that may not be accepted.

[Lotus7]

I think my point is they made another race group for those who would have had to go home if not fast enough. I thought that is what a National Championship race was all about. If I don't go fast enough I go home. Makes perfect sense to me. I understand those groups were too large to run all at once. In the original entry it said certain groups that were over subscribed would have entries that may not be accepted.

The very notion of 80, 90, even 100 guys vying for the "national championship" suggests the process isn't primarily focused on the racing, its more on the participation?

[DaveW]

The very notion of 80, 90, even 100 guys vying for the "national championship" suggests the process isn't primarily focused on the racing, its more on the participation?

Agreed.

Back in my early days with the Runoffs (early '70's thru the '80's), getting there was a major part of the challenge. Only the top 3 or 4 from each division in each class were firm entrants, and there was 1 alternate. Plus there were not so many classes. You really had the cream of the crop competing at the Runoffs. In those days it was the competition, not "bucket-list" tracks that attracted competitors.

[Agitator]

Agreed.

Back in my early days with the Runoffs (early '70's thru the '80's), getting there was a major part of the challenge. Only the top 3 or 4 from each division in each class were firm entrants, and there was 1 alternate. Plus there were not so many classes. You really had the cream of the crop competing at the Runoffs. In those days it was the competition, not "bucket-list" tracks that attracted competitors.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

There were "competitors" who were 20 seconds off pole time in certain classes. And it wasn't because of mechanical issues. If you've been there for a week, and can't straighten your car or your driving ability out, then you shouldn't be there. There were more than a few drivers who clearly had no idea what the racing line was, after over two hours on the course. Maybe the bucket list tracks can hold a week long "track day" type of event for those that just want to drive historic or famous race courses, but have no interest in competing or being competitive. A national championship is not the platform for it.

[Jim Nash]

The very notion of 80, 90, even 100 guys vying for the "national championship" suggests the process isn't primarily focused on the racing, its more on the participation?

Let's make the number 72 as that is how many could have started the race. The large fields of SMs and SRF3s that needed to be split had very few wankers in them. If we went by Q3 times to qualify for the race, the last qualifier (72nd) in SM would have been 3.71 seconds off the pole and the 72nd GEN3 driver would have been 3.036 seconds off the pole. 3 seconds off the pole in FF was 18th.

So how many people in the SM and SRF3 groups were vying for a national championship and how many were in the FF group? It's a rhetorical question.

I think my point is they made another race group for those who would have had to go home if not fast enough. I thought that is what a National Championship race was all about. If I don't go fast enough I go home.

Easy for you to say when the bar for you was 115% of the pole and not head to head competition with a bunch of other drivers. Just saying.

Jim

[Agitator]

Ok, I'll bite.

Three (almost four) seconds in a spec class is not the same as FF, period, no matter how many cars are in the field. Not all FFs even use the same power plant, much less chassis, tires, shocks, or bodywork. No one gets any sizable advantage in a spec class besides the person behind the wheel. Yes, some spec cars are prepped better than others, but put a good driver in the worst prepared spec car, and they're gonna turn a pretty close time. They use the same power plant, same tires, bodywork is the same, and so on. Mike Sauce's car bears very little resemblance to a Mygale or a Swift, and I'm sure his setup is different than those cars. The only way to tell a SRF apart from another SRF is the paint job. Not belittling those cars at all. In fact, it's what I started in 30 years ago.

In my opinion (and that's all it is), you shouldn't be competing for a National Championship in a spec class if your laps times put you more than a minute behind the winner in a 19 lap race. Maybe I'm just "old school", but I remember far less issues with qualifying, clean laps, or lapped traffic when the Runoffs were limited to the best 3 or 4 drivers from each division. Trust me, I understand that the Club feels like they have been forced into the "run 3 events and you're in" model. It makes more money for the club and the track, and (hopefully) encourages more people to participate. In the southeast, we have the ARRC and SIC for non-national classes or those who don't have the financial means, desire, or driving ability to run at a National level.

I went to college on a track scholarship, and later raced bicycles professionally. I had to qualify to compete for a national championship in each. In fact, I know very few sports that don't require some sort of tangible qualification process outside of just showing up and writing a check.

[Robert Finlayson]

Ok, I'll bite.

Three (almost four) seconds in a spec class is not the same as FF, period, no matter how many cars are in the field. Not all FFs even use the same power plant, much less chassis, tires, shocks, or bodywork. No one gets any sizable advantage in a spec class besides the person behind the wheel. Yes, some spec cars are prepped better than others, but put a good driver in the worst prepared spec car, and they're gonna turn a pretty close time. They use the same power plant, same tires, bodywork is the same, and so on. Mike Sauce's car bears very little resemblance to a Mygale or a Swift, and I'm sure his setup is different than those cars. The only way to tell a SRF apart from another SRF is the paint job. Not belittling those cars at all. In fact, it's what I started in 30 years ago.

In my opinion (and that's all it is), you shouldn't be competing for a National Championship in a spec class if your laps times put you more than a minute behind the winner in a 19 lap race. Maybe I'm just "old school", but I remember far less issues with qualifying, clean laps, or lapped traffic when the Runoffs were limited to the best 3 or 4 drivers from each division. Trust me, I understand that the Club feels like they have been forced into the "run 3 events and you're in" model. It makes more money for the club and the track, and (hopefully) encourages more people to participate. In the southeast, we have the ARRC and SIC for non-national classes or those who don't have the financial means, desire, or driving ability to run at a National level.

I went to college on a track scholarship, and later raced bicycles professionally. I had to qualify to compete for a national championship in each. In fact, I know very few sports that don't require some sort of tangible qualification process outside of just showing up and writing a check.

So, if you're 3 seconds/lap and a minute behind after 19 lap race in a spec class you don't belong there but you do in FF? Interesting statement.

[problemchild]

You guys are combining two complex but separate issues.
The SCCA leadership has decided that the Runoffs will be a festival that is very inclusive, with invitation based on participation.
The team of people responsible for operations at the Runoffs decided how to manage over 1000 entrants in about 30 classes on a crappy track with about 9 hours x 7 days.
These issues become connected when people are unhappy about the tracktime management, but they really are separate issues.

While many elitist formula racers have contempt for the most successful classes, it really seems unfair to penalize racers in those classes for "oversubscribing". Perhaps that contempt should be directed at the leadership that invites everybody to the runoffs.

[Agitator]

You guys are combining two complex but separate issues.
The SCCA leadership has decided that the Runoffs will be a festival that is very inclusive, with invitation based on participation.
The team of people responsible for operations at the Runoffs decided how to manage over 1000 entrants in about 30 classes on a crappy track with about 9 hours x 7 days.
These issues become connected when people are unhappy about the tracktime management, but they really are separate issues.

While many elitist formula racers have contempt for the most successful classes, it really seems unfair to penalize racers in those classes for "oversubscribing". Perhaps that contempt should be directed at the leadership that invites everybody to the runoffs.

You're right, Greg, they are two separate issues. I have had problems with the participation qualification for years, and, yes, the responsibility lies solely with the leadership. When 100+ drivers "qualify", then it falls on that same leadership/management to figure out a way to handle it without penalizing other classes.

As far as oversubscribing classes; there will always be classes that have more nationwide participation than others. I might suggest a formula based on those participation numbers for qualifying for the Runoffs as a compromise. Maybe the large classes DO get more invites...but not everyone that shows up at a few races and strokes a check. Did FV or FF get more invites in the 70's and 80's, when it was common to have 35-45 cars at a single national race?

I don't have contempt for successful classes at all. I just think a championship race should involve the best drivers.

In reply to whether a FF running 3-4 seconds off the pace qualifying compared to a spec car; I'm not saying the FF "deserves" it. In fact, back when there was a qualifying standard, a FF running 4 seconds off the pace would probably not be in the field. My response was to the comment that compared the two classes as though they are the same. They are not, for all the reasons I explained. I personally love the spec classes. They are popular because they do not take the same amount of effort to be competitive. The field is more level than a class that is open to different chassis, engines, tires, and aero packages. Now, to run up front and contend for the win, that's a whole different story. The driving, analysis, and minute setup tweaks to get the most out of a spec car are what separates the guys contending for the win from the field fodder...which brings me back to why I think only the best drivers should be competing for a national championship.

[Steve Davis]

.... Did FV or FF get more invites in the 70's and 80's, when it was common to have 35-45 cars at a single national race?
...

In fact they DID. All classes got FOUR invites . except FV and FF which each got 6.

[John Nesbitt]

"Spec" vs. "non-Spec" is a red herring. SM is 'spec' in the same way that FF is 'Ford' (i.e. it may have been true once, but no longer). The hallmark of a truly spec class is a dynoed and sealed engine. The only real spec classes are SRF, SRF3, and FE.

If you really want best of the best, then top 3 or 4 per class per division is not the way to go. We all know drivers who changed their division of record to a 'soft' division for their class so that they could qualify in the top 6 or whatever.

If you really want best of the best, replace the fixed points-per-finishing-position scheme, with a points-per-car-beaten scheme. Thus, last in class gets 0 points, second-last gets 1 point, third-last-gets 2, and so on in an open-ended scale. The driver who wins in a 50-car field gets 49 points.

Set a total points score necessary for a Runoffs invite - 25 or 50 or 100 or ... Whoever makes that numbers gets an invite.

Guess what? SRF3 and SM will still have large competitive fields; FF will be tiny.


Be careful what you ask for - you might get it.

[Agitator]

In fact they DID. All classes got FOUR invites . except FV and FF which each got 6.

I stand corrected, Steve. However, If I recall that did not start until '81 or '82. I'll trust your memory over mine, though!

I'll get off my soapbox. The reality is that it does not appear that the qualification process will change. In fact, after Indy, SCCA has all the evidence they need to reinforce that car counts and $$ will increase with their current formula. And those stats are what truly drive the boat ( or car). I wish that they could somehow limit fields to 60 cars, regardless of the national participation numbers, and regardless of what the track says it can handle. I think it's only fair to those truly competing vs those that are just there to participate. As always, this is just MY opinion. I don't think having 100+ invites in any class is truly good for competition or fair to the drivers that want to run at the pointy end of the field.

I will say that I was very impressed with the job that the Indy crew and SCCA staff did with the situation they had. Given the 1000 entries, it was handled as well as I could have imagined. For the most part, the drivers cooperated too. Bets in the grandstands were that neither the SRF3 race, nor the SM race would make it past the first corner without a red flag. There was some amazing driving by the entire field, and I can't remember the last Major or Runoffs that had so few full course yellows.

[Terry Abbott]

i don't see SCCA going backwards and putting limits on any class after what was just pulled off at Indy. it was better than what we expected for sure.

BUT.....what saved SCCA's face here was the pure hustle and outstanding job by the IMS safety crew. Daytona was ah ok but i dont think we will see that kind of support from another track, They TRULY saved the the week.

[jchracer]

JMO, but I think anyone that thinks the car counts achieved at Indy this year will EVER be repeated is delusional. There is only one Indy and only one time to be the first time running there (check and check). There is not another venue on the planet that will have the draw…..even if they do Indy again some time.

Next year will be back to the same issues that have plagued the Run-offs for years and unless some new thinking is employed and some significant changes are made, the event will continue the downward slide.

[Daryl DeArman]

If you really want best of the best, replace the fixed points-per-finishing-position scheme, with a points-per-car-beaten scheme.

What about the guy/gal who's really good but from a small division with poor attendance?

You want the best of the best, open it up to anybody with current SCCA license in good standing. If the track supports 50 cars, and you get more than 50 cars entered then qualifying sessions are shortened and split by draw. Combine Q1 and Q2 times and everybody not in the top 50 loads it back on the trailer, no refunds, no discount. That will eliminate people showing up that shouldn't really be there. Q3 and Q4 will be cleaner sessions with more closely matched cars.

18 out of 28 races had a podium that was separated by more than 1/4 mile at the finish. :thumbsdown

[Hardingfv32]

Be careful what you ask for - you might get it.

Because what we have now is exactly what the 'majority' of SCCA competitors asked for a few years back.

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

…the event (Runoffs) will continue the downward slide.

All of motor sports is in decline. The decline of the Runoffs is just one way this issue presents itself. Make the best with what we have to work with.

Brian

[BLS]

"If I recall that did not start until '81 or '82."

Mid 70's as I recall. I know it was 6 at least by 1978, as I was the 6th one...
And that was hard work.

[andyllc]

Regardless of how people qualified to be able to attend the event I do think that it was put on very well. It would be very easy to get way behind schedule every day and that never happened.
We can all complain about the run groupings and all that, all would be valid, but to put 1000 cars on track a day is a pretty impressive feat.
Back to racing and fun....I don't have video of the Runoffs as my SD card crapped out (probably for the best) but here are my races from the Pro series earlier this year at Indy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkvFGYBlXg Race 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVar7gobdys Race 2

[Ray Rivard]

Just reference for the need for 1,000 cars at this event..... I heard, while at Indy, that the cost for renting IMS was $1.2M. That means that all entry fees covered the rental and test days covered the rest of the expenses. Knowing these high costs, SCCA had no choice but to make “qualification” for the event a trivial detail.

I really enjoyed the event and thought it was well-run, too, but I don’t believe I’d be inclined to enter another event like this with 1,000 cars and over 70 on track during my session - even at COTA..... Now if they were to have the Runoffs at Spa Francorchamps.......


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[racerdad2]

Regardless of how people qualified to be able to attend the event I do think that it was put on very well. It would be very easy to get way behind schedule every day and that never happened.
We can all complain about the run groupings and all that, all would be valid, but to put 1000 cars on track a day is a pretty impressive feat.
Back to racing and fun....I don't have video of the Runoffs as my SD card crapped out (probably for the best) but here are my races from the Pro series earlier this year at Indy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkvFGYBlXg Race 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVar7gobdys Race 2

Great fun to watch. I won't spoil it for those tuning in...

[Jim Nash]

What about the guy/gal who's really good but from a small division with poor attendance?

You want the best of the best, open it up to anybody with current SCCA license in good standing. If the track supports 50 cars, and you get more than 50 cars entered then qualifying sessions are shortened and split by draw. Combine Q1 and Q2 times and everybody not in the top 50 loads it back on the trailer, no refunds, no discount. That will eliminate people showing up that shouldn't really be there. Q3 and Q4 will be cleaner sessions with more closely matched cars.

18 out of 28 races had a podium that was separated by more than 1/4 mile at the finish. :thumbsdown

Isn't this basically what was done this year? With the exception of having a LCR for 2 classes the "best of the best" were there/welcome to come. No class with more than 50. Everybody races. That was this year.

Never happen but...free entry and tow money for the top 10 in the nation based on a BCS like computer ranking and the rest can challenge the best by paying. That would make for some good forum threads!

Jim

[Agitator]

Never happen but...free entry and tow money for the top 10 in the nation based on a BCS like computer ranking and the rest can challenge the best by paying. That would make for some good forum threads!

Jim

That's actually a pretty cool idea. I like a qualification process, and if you want to attend (and didn't qualify) you pay entry, plus contribute a $$ amount to a fund that is distributed to the top 5 or 10 finishers. Sure, there are some guys that don't need it, but most racers I know wouldn't pass up a chance to break even for the Runoffs.

Somebody will have to remind me of history again, but there used to be a tow fund with reimbursement. I don't know when that stopped. There also used to be pretty darn good contingencies, with some of them essentially paying your Runoffs entry fee. Valvoline, Recaro, Goodyear, Champion, Bilstein, Bosch, Lucas, and almost every car/engine manufacturer (even in classes where only one brand of engine is allowed), are just a few that come to mind.

I'm only 50...Can't believe I'm referencing the "good ol' days"!

PS - sorry for going off topic.

[Steve Demeter]

There was a significant tow fund paid for by a $5 addition tacked onto every National entry fee. It helped.

There were significant contingencies as well as lots of free product.

[Steve Davis]

There was a significant tow fund paid for by a $5 addition tacked onto every National entry fee. It helped.

There were significant contingencies as well as lots of free product.

IIRC, that "additional fee" was dropped with the implementation of MAJORS.. and the attendant "additional fee" of $60 to every Majors entry fee. The $60 was used to fund TRAVEL for multiple members of National to attend Majors events as well as pay for the Victory Circle celebrations ... and maybe the trophies... and who knows what else.

[Daryl DeArman]

Isn't this basically what was done this year? With the exception of having a LCR for 2 classes the "best of the best" were there/welcome to come. No class with more than 50. Everybody races. That was this year.

Sort of. . .

No participation requirements. If you want to race against the best of the best you open it up to any member with a license in good standing. Folks who race in other series may decide to show up for this one event per year.

Also, no last chance races really would make folks consider just how they may stack up before sending in their entry. When they don't know whether their group is going to be oversubscribed or not, are they going to enter if they believe they may just get the 2 Q sessions and that's it? Likely not, unless they believe that come 51 or 151 entries, they will be fast enough to make the cut.

[BLS]

"I'm only 50...Can't believe I'm referencing the "good ol' days"! "

Some of us still remember a small boy