Where are we now

[Jnovak]

The numbers don't appear to support this conclusion. Setting aside last year's extraordinary participation due to the Runoffs at Indy, the formula classes aren't dying. The FB guys need to switch their shadow championship back to Majors to bring their numbers back up in a visible way. But other than that I don't see us dying. The growth is certainly elsewhere in the Club, but don't give up!

i agree Stan that there have been VERY SLIGHT improvements in entries in OW racing in the last couple of years. I suggest the the entries in OW entries and SCCA overall are WAY down from 10-15 years ago. Not good trends imo.

[David Locke]

This may well be a stupid question but here goes! Why does it matter if FB is merged with another formula? Surely it’ll still be an FB class within FA or FC? All of these classes run together in the same races anyway. It’s not like any one class has it’s own dedicated run group. A merged FB and FA would still produce a nation champ in each wouldn’t it? Just curious.

Adding FB to the FA class spec lines (as suggested in post #4 above) would not produce separate national champions. The FA class spec lines currently include Pro Formula Mazda, Formula 3, Ex-Fran Am 2000, Ex-Pro Formula Super Vee, US F2000, Formula Speed 2.0, and FIA certified F4 cars. These spec lines do not crown separate national champions.

[Thomas Copeland]

I think you guys missed the joke and the hidden meaning in my last post. Anyway....

If NAF1000 had run Majors this year FB would have had over a hundred Majors entries in 2018. But we still would have been short of making the criteria.

Look, if the SCCA tries to implement the car count criteria for the the 2019 Runoffs by backdating it a year and a half they are going to get sued. Several of us have already made that decision. I for one am certainly going to be a party to it. I've already talked to a lawyer. Sorry if some of you don't like that.

There are those of us that have investments in this class and we are not going to sit by while those are destroyed by some dishonest decision making on the part of SCCA leadership. If we had been given proper notice and time to react to this new rule then we wouldn't be in this situation. But you don't back date rules. You don't do things in a underhandedly way. The SCCA leadership needs to understand that they need to operate in an honest and above board manner. It's just that simple.

Talking about combining classes now is a waste of time because there is so much that's going to go on before that can even begin to happen.

I would imagine this is going to court. I think the SCCA leadership is stubborn and and will not do the right thing on their own. I've lost complete faith in their honesty.

[Stan Clayton]

Adding FB to the FA class spec lines (as suggested in post #4 above) would not produce separate national champions. The FA class spec lines currently include Pro Formula Mazda, Formula 3, Ex-Fran Am 2000, Ex-Pro Formula Super Vee, US F2000, Formula Speed 2.0, and FIA certified F4 cars. These spec lines do not crown separate national champions.

I saw that too, David, and of course you are correct. While the spec line cars don't crown separate champions, the list does show FA continuing to support a broad swath of cars that don't fit into other classes, or whose participation levels never did or can no longer support a separate national class. At least they have someplace to race at the national level, with or without performance adjustments.

Remember folks, the last purpose-built new FA (a Swift 016a) was delivered in 2006...12 years ago. The older FAs are slowly going away to NZ & OZ, Europe, Latin America, and Vintage, with only the 2 latest generations of Swifts still appearing in any numbers in SCCA. While FBs are not "cheap" I can deliver a brand new one for about half the price of a 12-year old used Swift 016a, not to mention the abundant convertible FC chassis. It's something to keep in mind.

[ghickman]

The numbers don't appear to support this conclusion. Setting aside last year's extraordinary participation due to the Runoffs at Indy, the formula classes aren't dying. The FB guys need to switch their shadow championship back to Majors to bring their numbers back up in a visible way. But other than that I don't see us dying. The growth is certainly elsewhere in the Club, but don't give up!

Finally someone with some true sense of what is going on. FB guys on the East Coast read this and understand running Regionals is the path to destruction of the class.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Finally someone with some true sense of what is going on. FB guys on the East Coast read this and understand running Regionals is the path to destruction of the class.

The dying is in the eyes of runoffs. NAF1000 is running regionals because the Majors won't give them a separate run group.
The NAF participants appear to believe they shouldn't have to run Majors because they aren't going to the runoffs (being out west). It was a perfect year to push that series since the east coasters didn't need the majors for runoffs qual.

Can NAF sustain next year with the runoffs at VIR? Maybe FB participation in Majors on the east coast is done for good.

It's funny. Us west coasters ALWAYS run the Majors - even with the runoffs are on the east coast.
For us its where the racing is.

[ghickman]

The dying is in the eyes of runoffs. NAF1000 is running regionals because the Majors won't give them a separate run group.
The NAF participants appear to believe they shouldn't have to run Majors because they aren't going to the runoffs (being out west). It was a perfect year to push that series since the east coasters didn't need the majors for runoffs qual.

Can NAF sustain next year with the runoffs at VIR? Maybe FB participation in Majors on the east coast is done for good.

It's funny. Us west coasters ALWAYS run the Majors - even with the runoffs are on the east coast.
For us its where the racing is.

The Promoters of the NAF1000 Series were under the impression that since the path to the RO's could go through the Regional Path that all was good for the class, nope. Then they get the shock that SCCA doesn't count them as Class Participation. It's really very simple run majors or risk low car count.

[Thomas Copeland]

Thing is Gary, we didn't feel like we were very welcomed at the Majors last year. We stepped on a few toes. We had better trophies and we were giving out cash awards on the podium, (btw you should see the trophies at Mid-O this weekend!! Wow!!). What I heard was it pissed off a certain SCCA VP. Now I wasn't at that event, but I was at VIR and I know we had to redo the podium ceremony there. I saw angry faces.

Avoiding that kind of static is part of the reason why we went the regional only route this year. That and we get better track time, our own run group at some events, all at less cost. Plus we still had a path to the runoffs if we wanted to go. We never expected them to change the rules half way through the season.

Nobody expected this underhanded move on the SCCA leadership part. And let's be honest, it was sneaky and it was underhanded. I don't know how anybody can see it any other way. Moaning about the fact we are running only regional races this year doesn't help with solving the problem. Even before this season started we were planning to return to doing Majors races next year. This regional only plan was suppose to a one year thing.

Once again, this doesn't solve the problem. And the problem is the dishonest and deceptive way the SCCA leadership is behaving. There are those that think we should wait and see how the SCCA leadership treats us on January 1 when they decide runoff groups for the 2019 Runoffs. But I don't trust them anymore. I say lets file a lawsuit now. I really don't want to wait and see how they treat us. I see how they are treating us now and that's enough for me.

There are certain people in the main office I'm very suspicious of their motives. I'm not naming names in a public forum you can probably deduced who they probably are. I've left enough hints behind. I noticed the groups they participate in aren't in any jeopardy and weren't in any jeopardy from the day they released that car count criteria as they had already "achieved" runoffs status. Now how convenient is that? How some groups managed to achieve runoffs status before the car count criteria was even published? Like it was all done behind our backs and and in secret (which it was!!)

Now, do you really want to trust them to do the right thing after what they done and how they have mismanaged this? Really? Really?

[LarryWinkelman]

Does anyone know if the BoD has met since this has been announced? Do they publish meeting dates in advance?
I wrote my letter against the Runoffs criteria change (even though it frankly doesn't direclty impact me) and emailed it to the entire BoD, plus my area director explicitly. Have not received any acknowledgement of any kind, not even a "we received your email". Nothing. Followed up with my director... crickets. And, no BoD report in the latest Fastrack. Since we (members) didn't get any advance notice of this - no survey, no "what do you think" in Fastrack - one might hope that they would at least be responsive to directly communication, which I assume would be overwhelmingly opposed to this change, particularly the timing thereof.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Does anyone know if the BoD has met since this has been announced? Do they publish meeting dates in advance?
I wrote my letter against the Runoffs criteria change (even though it frankly doesn't direclty impact me) and emailed it to the entire BoD, plus my area director explicitly. Have not received any acknowledgement of any kind, not even a "we received your email". Nothing. Followed up with my director... crickets. And, no BoD report in the latest Fastrack. Since we (members) didn't get any advance notice of this - no survey, no "what do you think" in Fastrack - one might hope that they would at least be responsive to directly communication, which I assume would be overwhelmingly opposed to this change, particularly the timing thereof.

Submit here. Nothing else is official or gets a response.

https://www.crbscca.com/

[LarryWinkelman]

That URL is for the CRB. Used for things like competition adjustments. This rule came from the Board of Directors; they don't have a submission form online, only email addresses.

[David Locke]

That URL is for the CRB. Used for things like competition adjustments. This rule came from the Board of Directors; they don't have a submission form online, only email addresses.

The BoD reviews member comments submitted through the CRB letter log system.

[LarryWinkelman]

Well when last I submitted a comment about the Runoffs (a couple years ago) I actually got an email from the club racing technical manager stating, specifically, "the BoD manages the requirements for Runoffs qualification, not the CRB. You should email your director with input."