Runoffs survey - fill it out!

[John LaRue]

The SCCA Runoffs Surveys have been emailed. Be certain to complete the survey (long version) and indicate your intent with regard to VIR Runoffs 2022. Historical entries and survey information forms a basis for scheduling and grouping.

[DaveW]

I have not received a survey - was this only sent to recent Runoffs entrants?

[M.Sauce]

The SCCA Runoffs Surveys have been emailed. Be certain to complete the survey (long version) and indicate your intent with regard to VIR Runoffs 2022. Historical entries and survey information forms a basis for scheduling and grouping.

John- I know from experience the Runoffs is very tough to schedule time but 18 minute session especially when mixed with another large group and then no session by yourself is a poor value and makes no sense for my racing budget.The venue is only thing that attracted me.The Runoffs is good for SCCA but not good for SCCA competitors.

[SvenUSA]

I have not received a survey. Is this for certain people only?

[mmi16]

I have not received a survey. Is this for certain people only?

Were you getting Runoffs updates from SCCA in the weeks preceding the Runoffs?

[SvenUSA]

Were you getting Runoffs updates from SCCA in the weeks preceding the Runoffs?

Yes I did. I did just unsubscribe from a lot of email lists, so SCCA may have been one of them which would explain that I suppose. Thanks!

[M.Sauce]

I have been a racer in SCCA since 1974 and been in the bowels of the bureacracy that makes the decisions.Ultimately things will not change for the experience of the racer unless the the financial picture suffers. I have filled out survey after survey and then decisions are made by people who are not invested(not racers)in the sport except to be a decision maker.Until track time issues are addressed the club will bleed racers to other organizations.

[John LaRue]

I have been a racer in SCCA since 1974 and been in the bowels of the bureacracy that makes the decisions.Ultimately things will not change for the experience of the racer unless the the financial picture suffers. I have filled out survey after survey and then decisions are made by people who are not invested(not racers)in the sport except to be a decision maker.Until track time issues are addressed the club will bleed racers to other organizations.

Mike I very much respect your tenure as an SCCA member and as a BOD. I agree with you wholeheartedly concerning the track time issue which I describe as a run group problem. I disagree that the decisions are being made purely for the financials, at least from my limited perspective. I do however think that decision making concerning event weekends and Runoffs is very much a prisoner to the past - with a fear of what the downsides might be if a different course is taken. I can sympathize however as generally speaking the events are well subscribed.

Of course we can't rest on our laurels and we need to consider how 26 classes are best accommodated over a race weekend. There is a limited amount of track time and class combinations for run groups. How can it be done better? We need to think outside of the box. I am open to suggestions and will gladly carry any good ideas forward!

[aims20]

... and we need to consider how 26 classes are best accommodated over a race weekend. ...

Well that's just it, isn't it? until someone invents a way for us to simultaneously navigate parallel universes, we have X # of cars, 24 hours per day, and one race track.

I know this will stir a ton of flak and be perhaps the first or 2nd most unpopular post on this forum, but the reality is that the car class counts need to come down before track time goes up.

In the rest of the world there are very expensive things like shift work to solve these problems. (emphasis on expensive).

So in practicality there's only a number of paths forward:
1) push out all track inspection/maintenance, service work, registrations, etc. to be maximally beneficial to "track time/cost" (mostly done already?).

2) Reduce number of classes/reduce performance disparities and combine) (Think more BoP or a Forza Motorsport type class system).

3) Split the runoffs groups up to different tracks and/or multiple weekends, etc. (i.e. Open wheelers and sports-racers at one venue or weekend, tin-tops at another. This makes the runoffs go from a 2 to 3 week event).

4) People like to praise the FRP model but I'm not always sure if thats because we roll onto the track any more effectively or not. The reality is that there's only ~6 run groups or so to deal with on any given weekend.

Not sure anyone wants to do any of the above, but SCCA is at a cross-roads if its going to remain relevant.

I don't have anywhere near as much stake in the game as others, but I'd rather see this conversation be productive than go down some rabbit hole we don't need to waste our time with. Tough situations tend to spawn some great ideas.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I just finally received a survey.

Someone needs to reconsider/redesign the questions.
They have the opportunity to gather critical info (because someone is clicking and actually completing it) but if you answer NO to participation, you are done.

If I was on the other end I'd want to know more about my customer's lack of participation.

[GrahamLoughead35]

I just finally received a survey.

Someone needs to reconsider/redesign the questions.
They have the opportunity to gather critical info (because someone is clicking and actually completing it) but if you answer NO to participation, you are done.

If I was on the other end I'd want to know more about my customer's lack of participation.

Completely agree. If someone says no - you would think they would want to know why. Maybe distance, cost, etc.

[924RACR]

Completely agree. If someone says no - you would think they would want to know why. Maybe distance, cost, etc.

+1 to that - it's not a meaningful survey, these should actually be the most important answers yet the club is willfully turning a deaf ear.

[problemchild]

This is totally consistent with club policy on all decisions made. Clubmembers, not to be confused with customers, are only invited to submit input if active in the class or event. You can have a jug of kool-aid in your garage, but if you have not sampled it recently, then your input is not welcome.

People can manipulate the survey however, if they want to have input. And it is worth noting, that survey results will only be used to forward the agenda of those asking the questions. That is not uncommon with any surveys. Survey results that do not support the appropriate agenda are generally deemed "inconclusive".

[DaveW]

The answers to Runoffs surveys should be wanted from all SCCA members who have a current SCCA racing license, not just those who have attended a recent Runoffs or say they are going to attend the next one. As said above, the answers from non-Runoffs drivers could provide very useful guidance as to what would attract more competitors to the Runoffs.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The answers to Runoffs surveys should be wanted from all SCCA members who have a current SCCA racing license, not just those who have attended a recent Runoffs or say they are going to attend the next one. As said above, the answers from non-Runoffs drivers could provide very useful guidance as to what would attract more competitors to the Runoffs.

Not only related to the runoffs, but the Majors and Regional races too.
I typically attend 3-4 Majors Weekends, and I'm sure there were questions related to those weekends.
Am I not a customer of the path to the runoffs whether I go or not?

It's going to be very interesting to see how attendance is this year since the qualification path has changed (reverted).

If my calculations are correct, it's going to be more difficult for 'geographically pocketed' classes to fill the grid since there will likely be divisions with 0 to 1 qualified attendees.

No matter what the criteria for attending the runoffs, the best always rose to the top.

[problemchild]

It's going to be very interesting to see how attendance is this year since the qualification path has changed (reverted).
.

It all but eliminates the FRP route. Complicated by all the schedule conflicts, it will be all but impossible to run FRP and find 3 Majors in the same division. Maybe two Majors will get you there, but you won't know until it is too late. Other than FV, it will be tough to get 15-20 Runoff entries in our Formula classes.
RiceRace had 5 Runoff entries in 2019, 3 in 2020, 4 in 2021. I expect zero in 2022. I am trying to support club racing but the scheduling won't allow it with the new eligibility requirements. Will these new requirements force people to support more Majors events, or convince people not to bother? Time will tell.

[Bob Wright]

Mmmm...I'm not sure how it "all but eliminates the FRP route. See:

Microsoft Word - 2022 Runoffs Qualification Criteria v2 (connectsites.net)

If I read it correctly, it requires a minimum of two finishes in a Majors race weekend and up to two Pro weekends.

Example: Go to Road Atlanta Super tour in March and do reasonably well, then run FRP- you should qualify. Go to the Sprints in June, and also run FRP -same thing.

The points component may make it a little more difficult.

[problemchild]

Mmmm...I'm not sure how it "all but eliminates the FRP route. See:


The points component may make it a little more difficult.

I have studied this extensively. Winning both races at a Super Tour event is unlikely to get you the points needed in FF. Perhaps 4 podiums at two Super Tour events will, but you won't know until July, when there are no more Super Tour events. If we run both Road Atlanta Super Tour and the June Sprints, those will be tough events to score points. And they are different conferences, so you don't score them toward the same conference, only Super Tour points. If we run NJMP for our 3rd event, which is no longer a Super Tour, then it is a 3rd conference. The FRP component may help the odd entry, but people that really want to do the Runoffs need to plan on three Super Tour events or 3 Majors in the same conference.

We certainly won't see the FA and FC Runoff entries we saw in 2021.

[reidhazelton]

I just finally received a survey.

Someone needs to reconsider/redesign the questions.
They have the opportunity to gather critical info (because someone is clicking and actually completing it) but if you answer NO to participation, you are done.

If I was on the other end I'd want to know more about my customer's lack of participation.

If you only ask the happy customers you won't get any negative feedback. By that process, SCCA has had a flawless track record!

[BeerBudgetRacing]

If I read it correctly, it requires a minimum of two finishes in a Majors race weekend and up to two Pro weekends.

Example: Go to Road Atlanta Super tour in March and do reasonably well, then run FRP- you should qualify. Go to the Sprints in June, and also run FRP -same thing.

The points component may make it a little more difficult.

That is 2 finished over 2 weekends. IIR You only get 1 qualifying finish per weekend.

You can skimp on entry fees

[Bob Wright]

You get two credited races a weekend at the Majors/Super tour events.

I concede F1600/FF points might be a bit of an issue, depending on events (interesting, COTA has two FFs entered this weekend and zero FC's). It would be much less an issue for FA or FC vis a vie FRP. It just takes some planning and a hard look at the schedules.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

You get two credited races a weekend at the Majors/Super tour events.

The count is for an "Event Weekend", not a races. For the "Event Weekend" to count you must finish 1 of the races.

1 weekend, finish 2 races = 1 Event Weekend
1 weekend, finish 1 race = 1 Event Weekend

When Pro races are involved, you must finish both races for the 1 Event Weekend count. (*fine print).
If you just run Majors or SuperTour, finishing 1 race per weekend (3 total races!) = which seems a bit

[Bob L.]

When I got the "final" reminder to fill survey out, decided based on this thread and other, that I should at least make the effort. So:

First question, would you go: yes, possibly, no. Answered: possibly.

2nd question: what effects if you'll attend>>write in box>> Wrote: if I qualified and had money.

3rd question was a table of which classes, which you might do, and how certain you'd be as to that class >> marked: FP, 95% for that class......haven't any other cars/aspirations at this point......

After that answer, if came back: "thank you" and logged me out. NOTHING FURTHER.

So, can't say there was much data exchanged, not much to inspire me to get serious with SCCA racing, ...yet: it didn't take very much time or thought.

Rather a pointless exercise from my point of view. But no longer guilt ridden, about not responding..

On we go.

Okie