OW racing future

[Jnovak]

OK I know that i am not alone in my worry about the future of OW racing witthin the SCCA. This post is an attempt to create a dialog about how to help the future ofOW racing WITHIN THE SCCA.

I want to discuss possible solutions that will help OW racing wthin the SCCA because I have been an SCCA member for over 51 years and i am not starting over.

It is my opinion that OW racing is in trouble in the SCCA. Too many classes and not enough entries. Here goes.

Here are the entry numbers for all classes for 2013 to 2018.

https://www.scca.com/pages/majors-participation-2

Plesse be paitent as I am trying to get the earlier entry numbers too and will post a lot of data later.

[Thomas Copeland]

I would start by asking why do class entries numbers matter so much? It was SCCA club racing obsessing over class entry numbers that caused the entire made up crisis over FB. You can have 60 classes. Doesn't matter. It should only matter on how many cars are allowed in a single run group on track at the same time. Get as many cars on track as you can so you can pay your bills. SCCA club needs to stop obsessing over how many classes there are and how many entries there are per class. Class entries will ebb and flow. Concentrate on filling the run groups. Save the highest subscribed classes per year as runoff classes (no backdating).

[RobLav]

The obsession with Nationals / Majors and Runoffs is a root cause problem itself. Entries in every single SCCA sanctioned event should be how it's counted. Only then can an analysis and assessment of the past, present, and predicted future of OW racing be accomplished.

Otherwise, any analysis will be the typical sub-optimal effort.

BTW, I just rejoined SCCA yesterday in preps for this season. Does my opinion matter any more now? I doubt it.

On edit, one more item. People usually don't respond well to extortion. The way SCCA only counts Majors and runoffs entries amounts to that. It goes basically like this: "The only way we count you is if you submit and enter the events (and pay the money) for the ones we want you to."

[DanW]

OK I know that i am not alone in my worry about the future of OW racing witthin the SCCA. This post is an attempt to create a dialog about how to help the future ofOW racing WITHIN THE SCCA.

I want to discuss possible solutions that will help OW racing wthin the SCCA because I have been an SCCA member for over 51 years and i am not starting over.

It is my opinion that OW racing is in trouble in the SCCA. Too many classes and not enough entries. Here goes.

Here are the entry numbers for all classes for 2013 to 2018.

https://www.scca.com/pages/majors-participation-2

I am trying to get the earlier entry numbers too and will post that later.

Entry numbers for 2018 OW classes are as Follows in order of number of entries
Rank class. total entries average race entries
1. FV

Re: Majors Participation @Sonoma, only 71 total entries due to a Sunday/Monday schedule and predicted rain. No FFs entered, only one FC. 5 FA's that were actually F4s from out of region. 4FV entrants who put on a good show.

Regards,
Dan

[Jnovak]

The obsession with Nationals / Majors and Runoffs is a root cause problem itself. Entries in every single SCCA sanctioned event should be how it's counted. Only then can an analysis and assessment of the past, present, and predicted future of OW racing be accomplished.

Otherwise, any analysis will be the typical sub-optimal effort.

BTW, I just rejoined SCCA yesterday in preps for this season. Does my opinion matter any more now? I doubt it.

On edit, one more item. People usually don't respond well to extortion. The way SCCA only counts Majors and runoffs entries amounts to that. It goes basically like this: "The only way we count you is if you submit and enter the events (and pay the money) for the ones we want you to."

i agree Rob, we should be counting all races. However the rest of that data is simply not available.

Please give me some time to put the massive amount of data that i have together I am not making any conclusions at all right now. I am simply trying to put the info in 1 place. So that us racers can discuss it.

On another note a previous post asked why the focus on entries.
1. That is essentially the only data that is available.
2. Imo a 30 car race is much more interesting "to me" than a 2 lor a 3 car race.

[Steve Demeter]

The way IMVHO is to make it fun again.

Double weekends, while I know offer more track time are a bit pricey. More importantly they cause one to constantly thrash to get ready for the next session and the last group doesn't get done to late Sunday afternoon which makes it a long trip home.

Personally I am exhausted at the end of a double weekend then have to tow home, unload etc. Way too much like work.

It also cuts way down on the time available to socialize, which is one of the things I really loved about single weekends.

Making racing affordable is not going to happen unless you want to run IT.

Open wheel racing is by nature expensive compared to other kinds due to the very nature of it.

Make it fun again and I think people will start coming back.

Just one persons thought.

[DanW]

The way IMVHO is to make it fun again.

Double weekends, while I know offer more track time are a bit pricey. More importantly they cause one to constantly thrash to get ready for the next session and the last group doesn't get done to late Sunday afternoon which makes it a long trip home.

Personally I am exhausted at the end of a double weekend then have to tow home, unload etc. Way too much like work.

It also cuts way down on the time available to socialize, which is one of the things I really loved about single weekends.

Making racing affordable is not going to happen unless you want to run IT.

Open wheel racing is by nature expensive compared to other kinds due to the very nature of it.

Make it fun again and I think people will start coming back.

Just one persons thought.

True, IT is relatively cheap until you bend your car. Then its bodywork and yelling.

Spec tires, engine longevity have helped FF&CF costs from getting out of hand. I happen to like the extra track time of a double weekend since it's pretty much the same transportation and lodging cost as a single weekend. YMMV.

Regards,
Dan

[RobLav]

Jay,
I'd be happy to analyze any data you can find... since that's my profession. But I would say the first thing for SCCA to do is gather all SCCA sanctioned Road Racing entries (includes club and Pro). Optimally, we'd need enough data to provide multiple partitions: year, class, Division, Region, entry cost, Major/National/Regional/Pro, DNF, age of entrant, etc. It'd be worthwhile seeing if any correlations exist. For example, Does a relatively high percentage of DNFs in a class correlate with fewer future entries? (Personally, my gut feel is that this happened in FB.)

A cartel typically exists to maintain the status quo or to benefit a designated group. In effect, the CRB has been acting as a cartel. And I point specifically to FA here (the OW dumping ground). That dumping ground needs fixed, and right now. How is it that the Honda Civic K20Z types of engines can be purchased fairly inexpensively, put out decent FA power, and run a long time - and yet FAs current competitive engines are generally very expensive time machines? FA ought to follow the lead of FIA F3 in use of restrictors. Maybe cap it at 250HP? Or go back to a real "formula" and pick a common engine - similar to what FF did with the Honda. Or do both.

I grew up in the days of old statistical quality control. If a system fails, and it's within +/- 6 sigma, then it's management's responsibility. IMO and experience with 6 sigma, SCCA management is responsible. One of the first things to do to start fixing is to identify and collect pertinent data... which is where Jay is rightfully heading.

[EricP]

I second Steve: make it fun. Things that help that:

-Relatively stationary rules (which is why I lean toward running vintage...)
-Make all events “equal” (as opposed to Majors etc)
-Scrutineering... it can be very inconsistent and onverwhelming which seems to scare away newbies.
*->Somehow focus on the comradarie which is probably the most important aspect.

[LenFC11]

The way IMVHO is to make it fun again.

Double weekends, while I know offer more track time are a bit pricey. More importantly they cause one to constantly thrash to get ready for the next session and the last group doesn't get done to late Sunday afternoon which makes it a long trip home.

Personally I am exhausted at the end of a double weekend then have to tow home, unload etc. Way too much like work.

It also cuts way down on the time available to socialize, which is one of the things I really loved about single weekends.

Making racing affordable is not going to happen unless you want to run IT.

Open wheel racing is by nature expensive compared to other kinds due to the very nature of it.

Make it fun again and I think people will start coming back.

Just one persons thought.

And this is what makes club racing difficult.. I prefer more track time for the time and money spent.. double race weekend... Or even more ideally 3 races as FRP does with FF

As been stated in other threads.. can't try to cater to everyone.

[John LaRue]

There was an interesting presentation on bracket racing presented at the convention.

[Stan Clayton]

I would start by asking why do class entries numbers matter so much?

And I would start by reminding you that National class entries are SCCA's way of determining which classes get invited to the Runoffs. That's it.

The Runoffs by the numbers:

Three days of qualifying. Three days of racing. Eight races per day, with each class wanting its own race...24 races. 28 classes in 24 races means 4 races have 2 marginal classes each. In the formula category right now that's FA and FB, with FB being merged into FA after this year's Runoffs.

Oh, and the Majors exist to provide those 28 classes, plus selected likely alternative National classes, the opportunity to show their support for their classes and to provide a clear qualification route.

That's it. Any questions?

[Thomas Copeland]

Probably should have been clearer. Entries as a determination as to maintaining a class. My post states Runoffs invite based on top class entries. I can't see why the club can't have 50 classes if it wants to. That doesn't mean they have to have 50 classes at the Runoffs. Only the top number of classes based on entries.

So I'll ask again..Why do the number of class entries matter (when deciding whether to keep a class or not). Because I don't see that they do. Use entry numbers to to determine the Runoffs classes, but that's it. They should just concern themselves with how many cars whatever the class it takes to fill a run group.

[Garey Guzman]

2019 Majors race at Road Atlanta = $650
2017 Majors race at Road Atlanta = $549
2016 ARRC = 300
2016 Barber = 470

2019 SVRA Vintage race at Roebling = $350

Majors continued cost increases seem like too much. Fortunately, we have choices. I'll still race my FF with SCCA but I got a Vintage FF (and an FSV accidently) for more track time and likely less cost. Regionals are also cheaper with about the same track time. I'm not planning on going to the RunOffs at well over $1k plus the several sets of tires required. I want to have fun so I'll race with other in Regionals, RCFF and the various Vintage organizations nearby.

[RobLav]

My comment here affects everyone, not just OW.

Is this the true cost of these things?

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...183#post576183

If so, it needs fixed. Technology has come a long way (and a lot cheaper) since 2001.

[Stan Clayton]

Probably should have been clearer. Entries as a determination as to maintaining a class. My post states Runoffs invite based on top class entries. I can't see why the club can't have 50 classes if it wants to. That doesn't mean they have to have 50 classes at the Runoffs. Only the top number of classes based on entries.

So I'll ask again..Why do the number of class entries matter (when deciding whether to keep a class or not). Because I don't see that they do. Use entry numbers to to determine the Runoffs classes, but that's it. They should just concern themselves with how many cars whatever the class it takes to fill a run group.

Fair enough, but be careful what you ask for. Last year FB had 39 Majors entries, plus another 65 Regional entries (which includes all the NAF1000 entries), plus 7 Runoffs entries, for a total of 111 entries.

That puts them at about the middle of the 79 classes SCCA tracks currently, nowhere near enough to qualify for the Runoffs.

Moreover, by moving NAF1000 to FRP for 2019 you will cut 30-40 entries off those totals, dropping the class well down into the bottom half of SCCA classes.

Seems to me merging FB into FA for Majors and the Runoffs is looking better and better all the time.

[dereklola]

Is this the true cost of these things?

Asking price is in line with recent sales. Supply versus demand.

[924RACR]

A few random thoughts/replies to the stream...

I very much agree with including ALL races (IOW, Regionals) to the calculations. Since they are, after all, supposed to be the path to Nationals/Majors/Runoffs. An "oversight" that no longer makes sense.

Why do the number of classes matter, can't everyone go out and race? Sure, until it's 20 cars in 20 classes. What's the point then?? Might as well call it Time Trials...

There was another thread a while back IIRC pointing out why "formula" classes are fading away. Apologies if I get this wrong; I'm paraphrasing someone else citing a change from before I got into racing entirely. But the gist of it was that formula cars were built to a formula - not unlike the 20m yacht formula, a set of rules, do what you will. And there were manufacturers making cars to that formula, and every now and then you'd have a Swift or the like come along and find a better way to skin the cat, making everyone else's cars old news. Furthermore, this would lead to a nice trickle-down from pro racing into club racing, as pro cars became obsolete and thus affordable for us amateurs.

But no manufacturers build cars this way anymore, to formulae - as the business model is all about spec deals. So now we have to try to shoehorn new spec cars into the existing structure, hence F4 into FA.

Did I get that right?

Any discussion of the future of OW racing seems to need to have a way to handle or at least work around this point, no?

Of course, this doesn't really speak to the proliferation of closed-wheel classes...

As for the single vs. double regional schedule - I see the points about the schedule etc... but I'm firmly in the camp of maximizing my return on investment of travel and entry costs. I never run a single event for exactly that reason. I'd stay away from a quad, and even triples would be tough with my prototype - just don't have the reliability/uptime to be comfortable signing up for that - but when it's the IT car, hell yeah, let's race, screw running time trials all weekend long!

[924RACR]

Asking price is in line with recent sales. Supply versus demand.

...and last I checked, there no longer is a supply of wired, for-life transponders.

Though the point remains, this is for sure a monopoly that directly drives up the cost of racing. There are alternatives, look at the RC car world; the club needs to include this in the cost of racing discussions. Maybe AMB is funding the Club Racing program adequately???

[Farrout48]

SEDIV has a popular Regional series - SARRC. Some ~3000 entries per year if I remember correctly. Entry data is available from the SARRC championship points.

SARRC entry fees can be less than the Majors fees. You can argue the 3 day nature of most Majors against the 2 day Regional. The Majors/SARRC at Roebling last year was $370 whereas a SARRC was $245.

[RobLav]

On the AMB units, I've no problem with a price in a "free market" supply and demand. But this is not the case here, What we have is the "cartel" artificially inflating the price. My point here again is that the customers, those of us who spend our bucks doing what we love, get it unnecessarily jammed up our butts by "management". Clearly, an automated timing system is so much better than the old manual system (that was an eye-opener for me working T&S back in the day). But it's time this gets fixed too.

[BorkRacing]

2019 Majors race at Road Atlanta = $650
2017 Majors race at Road Atlanta = $549
2016 ARRC = 300
2016 Barber = 470

2019 SVRA Vintage race at Roebling = $350

Majors continued cost increases seem like too much. Fortunately, we have choices. I'll still race my FF with SCCA but I got a Vintage FF (and an FSV accidently) for more track time and likely less cost. Regionals are also cheaper with about the same track time. I'm not planning on going to the RunOffs at well over $1k plus the several sets of tires required. I want to have fun so I'll race with other in Regionals, RCFF and the various Vintage organizations nearby.

Gary,
Check your costs. Only Roebling is discounted because it's a school.
SVRA is typically $600-$700 for a weekend.

BUT! if you come to Mosport for the Canadian Vintage GP with the OW discount and great US to CDN $ exchange you can race for $350!

[Steve Davis]

On the AMB units, I've no problem with a price in a "free market" supply and demand. But this is not the case here, What we have is the "cartel" artificially inflating the price. My point here again is that the customers, those of us who spend our bucks doing what we love, get it unnecessarily jammed up our butts by "management". Clearly, an automated timing system is so much better than the old manual system (that was an eye-opener for me working T&S back in the day). But it's time this gets fixed too.

I also find it interesting .. the original AMB units were EXPENSIVE @ ~$300 each.. and EVERYONE had to buy at least one. (There were a couple of competing potential vendors, but AMB campaigned with HQ and jumped in at most of the tracks to install their 'trip wires' at no cost to the tracks. Then SCCA CHOSE them and EVERYONE had to 'pay the piper'.) That was a massive influx of cash for AMB, since we all know that there is only a few bucks in each unit after the development costs are paid. After, what? 15 years of success, AMB decided they were not making enough money .. because almost everyone had already bought a Transponder ... so.. discontinue the old Trans260 and introduce a NEW MODEL.. that requires a never ending subscription that costs about the same initially, but generates income for AMB forever. Such a deal!! Now any new purchases (including replacements of the old units) eventually cost infinitely more for us racers. Therefore, paying 2 or even 3 times as much for an older model that is non-subscription makes sense since it is ultimately LESS EXPENSIVE if you plan to continue to race for at least 3 or 4 more years.
Sounds like it's time for one or more of us to get together and build our own transponders ... or find another vendor - but it needs to work with the existing large investment that has been made by the Regions to purchase all of the equipment that grabs the transponder ID and converts it to Driver info and time data.

That said, this post should probably be in another thread rather than here, be cause that is an issue for ALL CLASSES - not just OW.

[Daryl DeArman]

...and last I checked, there no longer is a supply of wired, for-life transponders.

Though the point remains, this is for sure a monopoly that directly drives up the cost of racing. There are alternatives, look at the RC car world; the club needs to include this in the cost of racing discussions. Maybe AMB is funding the Club Racing program adequately???

Yep. For approx. $45 entry fee there are at least 2 motocross races 50 weekends a year within 45 minutes of my house. They utilize AMB transponders which are included in that entry fee. There are AMA GP races once a month for about the same entry fee and they issue each rider a one time use sticker that goes on the underside of the visor. It's an RFID system so proximity required and speed wouldn't work in road racing situation. However, it does show that there are other companies and organizations that have come up with cost effective alternatives.

[Bob Wright]

There are so many different threads at work affecting OWR (and all amateur racing for that matter). To highlight a few from my perspective (~45 years racing, 39 in OW):

1) Too many classes (FA, FB, FC, FM, FE, FE2, FF, F600, F500, F1st, FV [F4, F3], did I miss any?) create confusion and dilution both to existing and more importantly, potential new participants. I believe there is more or less a finite number of drivers out there interested in OWR.

2) Too much resistance to modernizing or updating cars, motors, etc. to keep up with changing technology resulting in 20 year old chassis which are unappealing to new participants. (note, this is not a universal issue- FV eg, however even FE and SRF have been updated recently)

3) Costs: A big one. If you look at the list above, there are classes you can join very inexpensively (relative) or others which are inherently very expensive both to initial purchase and operating cost. Two very visible costs are tires and entries, but I don't believe they constitute the majority cost of racing a car.

A) With tires, I believe you get what you pay for in terms of expense vs racing experience. You want slicks and g force? You want longevity? The two seldom match up. Its a valid argument and there are advocates on both sides. Some classes have already acted with an acceptable spec tire, others haven't but should.

B) Entries are a different matter. Track rental costs keep going up -you wouldn't believe what it costs to rent certain tracks- for example WGI for a FRP weekend is about $78 per live minute of track time, less desirable tracks are in the $55 per minute range. The club (regions?) has little control over that thanks to car clubs and track day event organizers who will simply continue to pay whatever the tracks charge, or rents so many days they have leverage to negotiate. I would hope SCCA can negotiate.

4) Changing demographics: Fewer people are willing to spend the time or have the skills to make a formula car competitive. It takes effort to get a car to the pointy end of the grid in any class, but maybe more specific skills in OW. Maybe that's some of the reason for the proliferation of SRF and SM...

I'm sure this thread will add more reasons. The solutions are going to be a bit painful, in my opinion, but very necessary. The reference about breaking eggs to make omelets comes to mind. I have some possible solutions which I submitted to the CRB in a white paper about 2 years ago. I didn't expect them to simply adapt my suggestions, but start the conversation within the FSRAC and CRB. I believe that to be the case and the change in FB the first public indication they are taking this issue seriously.

[Daryl DeArman]

Why do the number of classes matter, can't everyone go out and race? Sure, until it's 20 cars in 20 classes. What's the point then?? Might as well call it Time Trials...

The 2018 Open Wheel Majors classes averaged 3.7 entries per major event. That's headed towards the 20 cars in 20 classes you speak of.

It takes a fair amount of time and effort to campaign a car with any regularity. Many folks simply don't do that, not because of the expense, but rather they can't justify the expense.

I believe the fix is not making it less expensive. You can't, over the long run, keep a lid on the cost it takes to be competitive. See Scott Turner and his CSR/P2 effort or SpeedSource and their IT efforts. The fix, I believe, is in making the time and effort worth it. Not making it cheaper, but rather, more quality track time and larger, closer, fields.


There's a tipping point somewhere in the numbers where above that number more cars brings out more cars, and below that number fewer cars brings out fewer cars.

The healthiest open wheel class couldn't even average 7 cars per event in 2018.

SM was the only class that had at least 3 cars at every major in 2018. It's not just an Open Wheel problem. Maybe the answer isn't in looking how to fix open wheel, but maybe the solution is how to fix the SCCA product.

[Daryl DeArman]

Entries are a different matter. Track rental costs keep going up -you wouldn't believe what it costs to rent certain tracks- for example WGI for a FRP weekend is about $78 per live minute of track time, less desirable tracks are in the $55 per minute range. The club (regions?) has little control over that thanks to car clubs and track day event organizers who will simply continue to pay whatever the tracks charge, or rents so many days they have leverage to negotiate. I would hope SCCA can negotiate.

Another tipping point issue. Fewer entries mean higher entry fees which means fewer entries.

Last number I heard about AutoClub Speedway puts the ROVAL significantly above $78/minute mark. Yet, entry fee this past weekend was $595. When you get 200+ entries, those events can make sense.

Fewer people are willing to spend the time or have the skills to make a formula car competitive. It takes effort to get a car to the pointy end of the grid in any class, but maybe more specific skills in OW. Maybe that's some of the reason for the proliferation of SRF and SM...

The easier it is to prep and drive the car at 95% of its limit the more people you'll find that are both willing and able. I don't believe that creating another class is the answer (perhaps an entry-level electric formula car in the next decade would attract the next generation of racers). When these classes are being combined, maybe some effort should be made to not just slow the faster class down, but slow them both down a bit through rules that make the cars easier to drive near the limit and less maintenance intensive. Longer lasting tires, lower rpm limits, spec wings with more downforce AND drag. I don't know. Just throwing out unpopular suggestions that may be less painful than class elimination all together.

[Steve Bamford]

And I would start by reminding you that National class entries are SCCA's way of determining which classes get invited to the Runoffs. That's it.

The Runoffs by the numbers:

Three days of qualifying. Three days of racing. Eight races per day, with each class wanting its own race...24 races. 28 classes in 24 races means 4 races have 2 marginal classes each. In the formula category right now that's FA and FB, with FB being merged into FA after this year's Runoffs.

Oh, and the Majors exist to provide those 28 classes, plus selected likely alternative National classes, the opportunity to show their support for their classes and to provide a clear qualification route.

That's it. Any questions?

I keep hearing about the Runoff's as being so important & drives a lot of class decisions for consolidation. Do the majority of racers care that much about the Runoff's that decisions on the classes should be made so that one weekend a year they have their own race group? Does the membership really care about the Runoffs as much as the people making decisions within the SCCA? Is this one race weekend causing issues for the other hundred or so races held per year?

[TDI PILOT]

I keep hearing about the Runoff's as being so important & drives a lot of class decisions for consolidation. Do the majority of racers care that much about the Runoff's that decisions on the classes should be made so that one weekend a year they have their own race group? Does the membership really care about the Runoffs as much as the people making decisions within the SCCA? Is this one race weekend causing issues for the other hundred or so races held per year?

I agree with this! Why not do away with the Runoffs? Run the SCCA, just like every other racing championship, with points accrued during the season to determine Regional or District champions? It seems like way too many poor decisions are made that affect everyone, to push the agenda of the winner takes all single race, that many within the group don't attend. Why cant the SCCA focus on fan/spectator activation? That is one path to make the racing cheaper, and sparking new interest from young people.

[Daryl DeArman]

IWhy cant the SCCA focus on fan/spectator activation? That is one path to make the racing cheaper, and sparking new interest from young people.

Because the 98.64% of the racing is b-o-r-i-n-g to watch. The fields so spread out, so many different classes on track at the same time. The way to fix it so that the SCCA racing is exciting to watch is too unpleasant to those putting on the show.

[swiftdrivr]

Asking price is in line with recent sales. Supply versus demand.

It is my understanding that this is $25 worth of tech that is price-supported by an exclusive contract with SCCA, resulting in lots of cash out of my pocket due to no-competition-allowed.


[OOPS! Somebody already said that!]

[TimH]

But no manufacturers build cars this way anymore, to formulae - as the business model is all about spec deals. So now we have to try to shoehorn new spec cars into the existing structure, hence F4 into FA.

An interesting point nobody else has specifically addressed.

My only reply would be that the FF spec was originally developed not as a racing class but as a school tool. Fleet orders from several different schools were the lifeblood of more than one manufacturer. Students these days want to jump right into winged things before they even learn the traction circle, which I see as a bad thing for racing AND for learning. I wish I had an answer.

[Farrout48]

B) Entries are a different matter. Track rental costs keep going up -you wouldn't believe what it costs to rent certain tracks- for example WGI for a FRP weekend is about $78 per live minute of track time, less desirable tracks are in the $55 per minute range. The club (regions?) has little control over that thanks to car clubs and track day event organizers who will simply continue to pay whatever the tracks charge, or rents so many days they have leverage to negotiate. I would hope SCCA can negotiate.

Barber is one of the expensive tracks.

But Barber does look like a PGA golf course and the track pavement is great.

But then every weekend is booked and there is a waiting list. Drop off the schedule and you will not get back on it. You have no negotiating power. Forget about changing the weekend you have for another one. Forget about getting a Friday for testing - Porsche has them all booked and it would be too expensive anyway.

For the Regional/Nationals we ran at Barber, the absolute bare bones budget was $30K per day by the time you paid the track, paid workers, fed workers, sanction/insurance/volunteer fees, extra ambulance/wreckers, inexpensive trophies, etc. That is 150 entries at $450 to just break even. Add a test day with 75 drivers at $300, and the weekend entry fee would have to go up $50.

Go look at the entry fees Chin or other groups charge for a HPDE weekend. Mostly more than SCCA charges. They have plenty of drivers. They do get more track time than we do racing - more on a par with a Test Day format. They do put more cars on track in a session than we do at a race. I did HPDE with a 93 RX7 for 5 years. It is not racing but still fun. My costs were mostly roll bar, harnesses, extra rims and tires, a tire trailer, brake pads and the extra fluid flushes. Definitely less expensive than the Stohr, etc. I can see why it appeals to drivers who do not have the time/funds to spend for a race car/trailer/tow vehicle, etc. It is fun but not racing.

Rising race expenses is a fact of life. But while it has probably forced a few drivers to depart, there are still plenty of groups renting the tracks.

[Bob Wright]

Ah...You have a handle on what we are up against with track costs, scheduling, etc.. Its just part of the equation, but a vital part.

[swiftdrivr]

I don't think the SCCA is likely to tell anyone currently racing anything that they are no longer welcome, so class consolidation is going to be a rare and mostly inconsequential thing. Cost can be helped with spec tires, some restrictions on new stuff, but nobody is going to take off their aluminum brakes of other wizzy bits they paid big green for, so retroactive cost control isn't going to happen, Numbers lower cost, and make competition, and increase the fun, so that is where we should focus our efforts.Track-nite has been good for the club, but what we really need is advertising, and that is not happening, as far as this social-media disconnected old guy can tell. They say F-1 can't produce Villeneuve vs Arnoux on a regular basis [or once a year even], but FRP seems to do it three times a weekend. If we could get that on TV, in front of the right audience, that would do OW racing a ton of good. Just a thought that came to mind.

[Stan Clayton]

I keep hearing about the Runoff's as being so important & drives a lot of class decisions for consolidation. Do the majority of racers care that much about the Runoff's that decisions on the classes should be made so that one weekend a year they have their own race group? Does the membership really care about the Runoffs as much as the people making decisions within the SCCA? Is this one race weekend causing issues for the other hundred or so races held per year?

The Runoffs is certainly important to the competitors who enter Majors and the Runoffs, who account for almost exactly one third of all SCCA entries, plus who account for an unknown (to me), but significant number of Regional entries. For nearly 60 years the National (now Majors) races have on feeding competitors into the Runoffs

I agree with this! Why not do away with the Runoffs? Run the SCCA, just like every other racing championship, with points accrued during the season to determine Regional or District champions? It seems like way too many poor decisions are made that affect everyone, to push the agenda of the winner takes all single race, that many within the group don't attend. Why cant the SCCA focus on fan/spectator activation? That is one path to make the racing cheaper, and sparking new interest from young people.

Are you not aware that the Regions and Divisions DO have their own points championships? In fact, it was the competitors dissatisfaction with not having a true national championship that led to the ARRC and eventually the Runoffs.

SCCA's explanation for why it does not focus on spectators is because we are a 'participatory club'.

[reidhazelton]

Beating the drum I always do - I know...

It's simple economics. The more it costs, the fewer people can afford to race. It's not a coincidence that the classes with the highest participation numbers are the classes that offer lower cost and cost controls.

When I raced, I'd always caution against rules changes that make racers pay $X for everyone to go the same amount of speed faster. I once said to a group of BoD members that if rules changes make it so that racers have to keep spending money to keep up, many will fall off over time. They told me, if I can't afford it, then I should take a year or two off and buy a new car. Yup. Stop racing. Stop adding to SCCA revenue. Good solution , If tell people have to stop racing in order to afford to race, that should set off an alarm bell. You've lost that entry fee.

If you want anyone under the age of 55 to join, it has to be cheaper. As I have said many times, I'm the only one of my friends who raced wheel-to-wheel. I was the only one dumb enough to spend that much money to do so. My friends stick to autocross. During an event, typically in the afternoon after they have had some runs and are having a good time, someone says "Man, I'd love to go wheel to wheel." Another person always quips, 'hey Reid, what's an entry fee?" Me, "$500 on a cheap weekend."

Crickets.

If you could buy a race car for $13,000 and run a full season for $8,000, how many people would you have at an average event? If a competitive used car costs $25,000 and it costs $20,000 a year to run it, how many will you have?

The cost is such that generations who come after can't afford to do it. The costs of racing keeps increasing, but incomes remain stagnant. You can make it as fun as you want, it won't matter. I can't think of anything more fun the driving Schumacher's 2001 F1 car, but there is no way in hell I can afford that. Even if it's the best value on the planet, if you can't afford it that does not matter one bit. A Honda Civic is likely the best value, but if you don't have $22k you're still going to keep your 2000 Ford Focus.

It's not value. It's not 'fun'. It's not younger people don't have a desire or passion to race. It's not younger people don't like cars. It's the cost. That's the barrier.

[Steve Bamford]

The Runoffs is certainly important to the competitors who enter Majors and the Runoffs, who account for almost exactly one third of all SCCA entries, plus who account for an unknown (to me), but significant number of Regional entries. For nearly 60 years the National (now Majors) races have on feeding competitors into the Runoffs

The line of 60 years is part of my point, because it was valid in the past is it now?

Has anyone polled the membership to see how important the Runoffs are to them? What is the % of entrants in FF as an example who attended the last Runoffs? I believe the percentage of participation as a whole is very low & I picked one of the more popular well subscribed classes. I have raced FF in SCCA for the past 5-6 years & not once did I attend the Runoffs. How many others did the same? To say the Runoffs were the reason I entered the Majors does not line up. I entered the Majors because weekends happened to work for me at tracks I wanted to drive. Nothing to do with Runoffs.

My whole point on my question in previous post is to ask why this one event defines much of the decision making by the people who have the power to make the decisions? What has been done for 60 years doesn’t seem to be working today so to say because we have always done it this way doesn’t seem to be adding value anymore.

[Bob Wright]

Reid, you are not wrong, but what you're effectively saying is there is no fix because the economics aren't there. You can buy a club FF for $13,000 and run a season (what is a season? 4 or 5 weekends?) for $8,000 in certain parts of the country. Roebling Road is an inexpensive track and there's a series that caters to that group if you live close enough. There are also drivers who don't want to race on 20 heat cycle tires with a tired kent motor and want the experience of WGI, Road Atlanta, Barber or Mid Ohio. They will pay more. In my opinion, there is no lack of money, even among the millennials; it is more where they want to allocate discretionary dollars and the current SCCA OW environment is not appealing enough right now. That is what needs to be fixed.

I might also note that I don't think the club SCCA is specifically in "trouble". Track night America is a huge success, Autocross is vibrant, I suspect the new time attack events will be equally successful. SM, SRF are both very well attended at most events.

[Teuobk]

As a newcomer to the sport, I'm hoping I might provide a bit of an outsider's perspective.

(Yes, this is long.)

First, some background. I'm a 36-year-old engineer. No kids. I own a house with a 2-car garage and a smallish driveway. I've been a "car guy" as long as I can remember, but my first experience driving on a proper race track at speed was in my Porsche Boxster S about three years ago. That was a DE event put on by the local PCA chapter here in Denver, and it was at High Plains Raceway (HPR), which is about an hour east of my house. That first time got me hooked, and I went to many more DEs and open lapping days in the following years. Eventually, I decided I wanted a dedicated track car, and I didn't want to convert my Boxster.

Somewhere along the way, I started watching F1 races, and I thought the cars looked SO COOL. Yes, call me a sucker for sexy looks and sexy tech. The race cars with production/sedan silhouettes just didn't stir my soul like the open wheel cars did. I was sold on the idea of my track car being a formula car of some sort.

Finding a class

At first, I was set on the idea of FB, since they looked and sounded a lot like a little F1 car. Just as important, I really liked the idea of modern tech in the form of a bike engine! And paddle shifters! Woo! After more research, I came to appreciate them even more because of their aero package, especially the use of ground effects, which was lacking in some of the other OW classes. And from there, I began to see the appeal of FC, despite the lack of paddle shifters and screaming-high revs.

I started playing a lot of sim racing, specifically rFactor (for which somebody has made my local track, HPR) and rFactor 2 (for which there is a close approximation of FC, as the "nationals" variant in the 2016-era USF2000 car pack). I drove for hours, around and around HPR, Road America, COTA, and various other road courses. Always in open-wheel cars, usually the club-level ones rather than the F1-class ones.

In other words, I was really excited about getting a FB or FC to replace my Boxster on the track. Cars were available, I had the funds, and I had the motivation. And then, I ran into four letters that soured me on the idea: SCCA.

The SCCA

I appreciate what the SCCA has done for the sport, but the product they're offering now is not appealing. For better or worse, accurate or not, my perception of the SCCA is that of a stodgy, old, bureaucratic, pedantic behemoth.

People in the SCCA races seemed to love the sport, but they were taking it so seriously that it didn't look like any fun to my eyes. I just wanted to drive on interesting tracks and race against similarly minded people in similar cars. I didn't care about a "national championship". I wanted to have a high probability of bringing my car home again in one piece. I didn't want to worry much about on-track incidents. I wanted to drive onto the track, go around a bunch of times, make some great passes, learn more about my car, finish the race win or lose, and then drive back into the pits. I didn't want to bother with impound or scales or whatever -- not because I wanted to be able to cheat, but because I didn't want the hassle of such things and didn't want there to be enough at stake that anybody would want to bother.

A sea of paperwork, an organization trying to be all things to all people, and a bunch of cutthroat insular angry old people wondering why the young people don't think they're any fun. That's how I saw the SCCA.

I was turned off by the topic that kicked off this forum thread: an existential crisis among open wheel racing in the SCCA. I appreciated how people were passionate about their cars and their classes, but I was disheartened by the lack of solutions. Or at least, the lack of solutions that hadn't already been tried. ("What we need is a new class!" "We need fewer classes!" "We need to allow a new engine!" "We need to stop allowing new engines!" "What we need is to get rid of the tech that makes our class interesting and unique so that people who haven't driven with us in a decade and have moved on to other hobbies will dust off their cars and come out again." "It's those darn millennials! They're spending their money on avocado toast and video games instead of race cars! Never mind that they're actually far worse off financially than their parents; that's an invention of the media. No, they're not actually broke, they just want to do frivolous things instead of driving in races. But don't worry; we'll win them over by being angry and misunderstanding their finances and interests, because back in my day things were expensive too and they shouldn't have taken out those student loans. Why is the crowd at Lemons so young?!")

Whew... sorry, got on a bit of a tangent there.

I was increasingly sour on the prospect of racing with the SCCA, so I started investigating alternatives. While there were some exciting options on the coasts, the SCCA is the only game in Colorado for modern formula cars. I began contemplating the option of getting a FB or FC anyway and using it just as a track toy on open lapping days -- no racing.

The winning alternative

While all of this was happening, one of my friends, also a 30-something engineer, got involved with the local vintage racing club, Rocky Mountain Vintage Racing.

He was having a blast, the people were friendly, and the vibe was more like a summer BBQ and less like the IRS. On-track incidents were rare; over-aggressive driving or metal-to-metal contact was punished. There was a lot of gray hair in the paddock, but there was a sizable and growing contingent of youthful faces as well. People would go out, have a friendly race, and come back in right to the paddock. Simple. People raced to win, but they didn't pursue that goal to the exclusion of all else. When somebody had a mechanical on track -- not uncommon -- other racers would be falling over themselves to help fix whatever ancient part broke. I'm not saying any of that is exclusive to vintage racing, but overall it added up to a more friendly, relaxed, and fun atmosphere than I had seen elsewhere.

Also, entry fees were cheap (relatively speaking), at about $350 per weekend, though I'm fortunate to be in a position that money wasn't actually the deciding factor (though I do think it's very relevant to other people in my generation considering racing).

What I really wanted was the vintage racing experience with a more modern car. However, when forced to choose between what seemed like a much better experience and newer tech, the experience won.

And so, I started looking at vintage open-wheel cars. The air-cooled Super Vees looked neat, but there aren't many of them, and they have their own set of risks. After coming close to buying an FSV, I shifted my gaze to what I had previously dismissed as too antiquated and under-powered: Formula Vee. I began to see the appeal. The cars were plentiful, cheap to buy, cheap to run, and easy to work on. Run groups were large in RMVR, and the people were friendly. I drove simulated Vees in rFactor around HPR for a while and started to appreciate the mix of a small engine and light weight. Also, I liked the idea of having a flat-four engine parked alongside the flat-six in my Boxster.

And so, I got a vintage Formula Vee and will be racing it with RMVR starting this spring.

Jeff

(n.b. - There are lots of good people in the SCCA, and the SCCA might be right for lots of people! Just not me, at least not right now.)