FA @ 2022 Runoffs

[Stan Clayton]

Why do they all have to go into a single class? Just make it requirement that FA, F1000, PFM, FR, FM, F4, F3, etc. must always be in the same run group. They can each then run their own race within a race without affecting a typical weekend schedule. Then it's up to each individual class to encourage more entrants so there is more competition. This is what happens on a typical race weekend anyway. Why get all wrapped up in combining cars into a single class?

I know, this is where someone points out that it won't work at the Runoffs. At some point we have to stop letting a single race dictate what a majority of competitors do during the other 51 weeks of the year.

Why do they all have to go into a single class? Because if the Runoffs is "just another weekend race" with all the wings-n-things thrown together into a single race group what justifies driving so far and spending so much time, energy, and money? The Runoffs has to offer something special to attract the serious competitors in the classes, and single-class races have been the ticket to that for decades.

Ignoring this year's FX race, the last time I recall the Club combining two formula classes in the same race at the Runoffs was the 2004 FA race, which featured FE cars packed into FA to give them a place at the Runoffs. On lap 13 of 20 Dan Cobb, FA pole sitter and race leader had contact with Keith Grant's FE while lapping Grant, and both were out of the race.

The root of the problem was that the FEs were 10-20 seconds a lap slower than the FAs. If the cars are closely matched, like say FA, FB, F3, and PFM, and there are a reasonable number of entries (<30?), then it can work and be enjoyable to watch. But as this year's VIR majors race taught us, you can't throw 69 cars on track together and not expect a lot of carnage.

This is just discussion and not an answer, so don't read too much into it.

Disclaimer: at the F/SR tent meeting this year I did suggest P1 & P2 could be combined to produce a a good race, and along the same lines FA & FC could race together. Again, it's just a conversation starter. YMMV.

[Stan Clayton]

Just like every issue that arises with SCCA,they are late to realize and slow to react.Although VIR is a great racetrack logistically it is difficult except for those on the east coast and it has only been a few years since the Runoffs was there.Next year could be worse than this year.As far as FA the Runoffs has never seen big numbers from that class. I have a PFM and was at Indy.The Indy FA race was poorly handled and I chose not to run this year.

Mike, it's only one hour more to drive from Dallas to VIR than to drive from Dallas to Mid Ohio.

Please come next year.

[Charles Warner]

In any case, the original FA cars were not outlawed following the 1982 Runoffs. They were relegated to Regional status and presumably entered as FS cars, since every car must list a class.

Don't let the nomenclature confuse. The "FA" Stan is talking about were Formula A - 5 liter V8 powered. The "Atlantic" verbiage spawned from the pro series - I.e. Formula Pacific - when the BD series engines came into the fray (BDN, BDA, BDD, etc.). The original Formula B cars were, as mentioned, tube-frame (for the most part) and could be powered by a myriad of twin cam engines (BMW, ALFA, LOTUS, etc.) In the transition they became incorporated into, and overwhelmed by, the Cossie powered class.

The original Formula C cars mimicked the FIA F3 standards, and were overwhelmed by the new 2 liter Formula Continental.

As always, people wanted the latest and greatest toys and did not want to play within the established rules, instead lobbying for changes without understanding or caring what their efforts might do to the system. Then there is politics - can you remember the entry into Atlantic by Toyota? And the dumbing down of the Ralts because the Swifts couldn't win against them?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Mike B]

Why do they all have to go into a single class? Because if the Runoffs is "just another weekend race" with all the wings-n-things thrown together into a single race group what justifies driving so far and spending so much time, energy, and money? The Runoffs has to offer something special to attract the serious competitors in the classes, and single-class races have been the ticket to that for decades.

There it is. The answer to everything is "The Runoffs". Let's ignore the 100 or so other races throughout the year and let all the rules revolve a single race.
Judging by the entries this year, I'd say nothing justifies spending the time, energy, and money for a lot of drivers that were qualified. I'll ask this in part rhetorically and in part because I honestly don't know: How many active or licensed drivers at both national and regional level are in the club today? And how many attended the Runoffs? My SWAG is it's about 5:1, maybe more. So those 500 drivers decide what the other 2,000 (or whatever) get to race throughout the season. One dumb race dictates everyone else's personal enjoyment of motorsports throughout the year. That defies logic.
If you think about the Runoffs objectively, it's really sort of ridiculous. A driver can have a stellar season, win or podium throughout the summer, but he isn't the national champion because that's decided by a winner-take-all event. If he gets punted by another driver, too bad, so sad. It's held late in the year when the weather is always a crap-shoot (nobody could've predicted a hurricane), and regardless of the location, it will favor the entrants from a certain geographic area. I've done the Runoffs, had some moderate success, and will likely do them again but they're still ridiculous. There, I said it.

Ignoring this year's FX race, the last time I recall the Club combining two formula classes in the same race at the Runoffs was the 2004 FA race, which featured FE cars packed into FA to give them a place at the Runoffs. On lap 13 of 20 Dan Cobb, FA pole sitter and race leader had contact with Keith Grant's FE while lapping Grant, and both were out of the race.

Apparently you forgot about 2012 when FA and F1000 were grouped together. I don't think there was any FA vs F1000 violence in the race and it worked out okay for me.
My point is that FA and F1000 lived harmoniously for almost a decade so why lump them into the same class? Why can't they just run together and have a race within a race? Oh, that's right, because "The Runoffs".

[problemchild]

Disclaimer: at the F/SR tent meeting this year I did suggest P1 & P2 could be combined to produce a a good race, and along the same lines FA & FC could race together. Again, it's just a conversation starter. YMMV.

I am sure all the people in FA, FC, P1. and P2 love you as much as the F1000 competitors do. What is your problem? Why are you trying to kill more classes? MYOB!

[Stan Clayton]

I am sure all the people in FA, FC, P1. and P2 love you as much as the F1000 competitors do. What is your problem? Why are you trying to kill more classes? MYOB!

Good morning, Greg. If you were in the Tent Meeting you know that the context was the CRB passing along the BoD's threats of relegation, warnings about low attendance classes, and the need to get back to 24 classes and races, and then asking for suggestions and input. As an alternative to FA/FC and P1/P2 relegation I suggested they be allowed to race together in the same race. After all, they had qualified together for 3 days without major issues...why not race together as well to both save track time time (always a major concern at the Runoffs), and to give the classes time to rebuild.

What do YOU suggest?

[rockbeau25]

...warnings about low attendance classes, and the need to get back to 24 classes and races, and then asking for suggestions and input. As an alternative to FA/FC and P1/P2 relegation...
What do YOU suggest?

Why are these 4 classes even being discussed when FX still exists?

[Phil Creighton]

I dont think that anybody on the current BOD knows what an FR2 is or its history and that probably a good thing.

On the comment about the Club 'arbitrarily' speccing a different hoop on carbon cars in the late 90's it was a minimum tube size in response to manufacturers designing and self certifying hoop designs with the FIA and then asking the SCCA to allow them here. I was the Tatuus FC importer in 97etc and still have three FIA approved SCCA non-compliant hoops that I had to change upstairs

We had some impact failures that scared us on the CRB at the time eg 7/8 x .060 wall main tubes with steel cladding over the top. A number broke at the base (without impact) due to top motor mount plates flexing the tubs. The FIA also responded to the situatuion by introducing crash tests so they werent happy either.

Now FIA specs are pretty good and get revised pretty quickly if something needs it.

[Mike B]

If you were in the Tent Meeting you know that the context was the CRB passing along the BoD's threats of relegation, warnings about low attendance classes, and the need to get back to 24 classes and races,

No, we need to get to 24 RUN GROUPS at the Runoffs and 8-9 RUN GROUPS at all the other races. I wish the CRB and BOD would get over the need for an arbitrary number of classes. Can we please stop letting the Runoffs be the tail that wags the dog?

As an alternative to FA/FC and P1/P2 relegation I suggested they be allowed to race together in the same race. After all, they had qualified together for 3 days without major issues...why not race together as well to both save track time time (always a major concern at the Runoffs), and to give the classes time to rebuild.

That's a fantastic frickin' idea. Where have I heard that before? Where were you when the CRB got rid of F1000 at a moment's notice? This would've been a perfect solution that wouldn't have destroyed two classes in one action.

[Stan Clayton]

There it is. The answer to everything is "The Runoffs". Let's ignore the 100 or so other races throughout the year and let all the rules revolve a single race.

At the risk of irritating you, Mike, I would just remind you that the title of this thread is "FA @ 2022 Runoffs". Read it again. Say the words out loud if you need to. Then answer your own question.

I remind the readers that the SCCA National Championships started in 1964 with an invitational race at Riverside, California that served as the model for the next year's first 'Runoffs' at Daytona. Before that there were Regional champions and presumably Divisional ones, but no uncontested nat'l championships or champions. With the spread of SCCA all over the country in the late 40s and throughout the 50s the itch started to hold a national championship, culminating in today's Runoffs. So yes, there it is. The answer to everything SCCA IS the Runoffs. The "100 or so other races" are just the annual buildup to the Big Show.

Don't blame me, Mike. I didn't create it and I don't have any power over it. It's just the way it is, and I've always tried to get the best deal I could for the classes I have an interest in.

I've done the Runoffs, had some moderate success, and will likely do them again but they're still ridiculous. There, I said it.

Good. You've got that off your chest. Now let it go.

My point is that FA and F1000 lived harmoniously for almost a decade so why lump them into the same class? Why can't they just run together and have a race within a race? Oh, that's right, because "The Runoffs".

Why can't they? Simple. F1000 failed to make the participation requirements of the time to remain a nat'l class. And when faced with relegation I, and a lot of other folks argued that merging into FA was better than the slow death of relegation. We begged the BoD to merge us, and I'm glad they did. Otherwise both classes would be gone today.

Want to help? Enter some more nat'l races.

That's a fantastic frickin' idea. Where have I heard that before? Where were you when the CRB got rid of F1000 at a moment's notice? This would've been a perfect solution that wouldn't have destroyed two classes in one action.

It didn't happen " at a moment's notice", it took two years for F1000 to go under. And where was I? I was there to beg the CRB and BoD to merge FB into FA rather than lose its National status. Be glad I was.

[Mike B]

At the risk of irritating you, Mike, I would just remind you that the title of this thread is "FA @ 2022 Runoffs".

And I will remind you that this is Apexspeed, where we answer questions that we thought were asked and we take our off-season discussion very seriously, regardless of which thread it starts in. Adding the winking thing so you know this is tongue in cheek:

I remind the readers that the SCCA National Championships started in 1964 with an invitational race at Riverside, California that served as the model for the next year's first 'Runoffs' at Daytona. Before that there were Regional champions and presumably Divisional ones, but no uncontested nat'l championships or champions. With the spread of SCCA all over the country in the late 40s and throughout the 50s the itch started to hold a national championship, culminating in today's Runoffs. So yes, there it is. The answer to everything SCCA IS the Runoffs. The "100 or so other races" are just the annual buildup to the Big Show.

I'll paraphrase what you said: "that's just the way we've always done it."
That's why other clubs continue to poach members every year. I still believe there are a couple thousand competitors that disagree with you and couldn't care less about the Runoffs but yet their entire season is beholden to it.

Want to help? Enter some more nat'l races.

In FA? No thanks. We created a class with near-FA performance at a fraction of the cost and the club lumped it into one of the most expensive classes so I get to spend another $20K on my $20K car to bring it up to FA competitiveness. I'll still be running for P4 if some good 014 or 016s show up.

Now let it go.

Good advice. Thank you for the dialog.

[Stan Clayton]

Thank you for the dialog.

Thank YOU. Hope to see you at a race one of these days, especially now that I'm on the east coast.

[Thomas Copeland]

At the risk of irritating you, Mike, I would just remind you that the title of this thread is "FA @ 2022 Runoffs". Read it again. Say the words out loud if you need to. Then answer your own question.

I remind the readers that the SCCA National Championships started in 1964 with an invitational race at Riverside, California that served as the model for the next year's first 'Runoffs' at Daytona. Before that there were Regional champions and presumably Divisional ones, but no uncontested nat'l championships or champions. With the spread of SCCA all over the country in the late 40s and throughout the 50s the itch started to hold a national championship, culminating in today's Runoffs. So yes, there it is. The answer to everything SCCA IS the Runoffs. The "100 or so other races" are just the annual buildup to the Big Show.

Don't blame me, Mike. I didn't create it and I don't have any power over it. It's just the way it is, and I've always tried to get the best deal I could for the classes I have an interest in.
Good. You've got that off your chest. Now let it go.

Why can't they? Simple. F1000 failed to make the participation requirements of the time to remain a nat'l class. And when faced with relegation I, and a lot of other folks argued that merging into FA was better than the slow death of relegation. We begged the BoD to merge us, and I'm glad they did. Otherwise both classes would be gone today.

Want to help? Enter some more nat'l races.

It didn't happen " at a moment's notice", it took two years for F1000 to go under. And where was I? I was there to beg the CRB and BoD to merge FB into FA rather than lose its National status. Be glad I was.

Once again it seems I have to remind everyone that the participation requirements that you mentioned that were part of that car count criteria back in 2018 were BACKDATED BY A YEAR AND HALF!!!! making it impossible for F1000 (Formula B) to meet the participation requirements as we only had less than 6 months to make up the numbers.

No surprise that open wheel racing is dying in the SCCA. They screwed practically everyone involved in it over at one time or another (and not just F1000). Even though I'm out (thank GOD!! no more SCCA politics!!!) I still follow and am still passionate about F1000 and I don't want to see any re-writes about its history especially when it comes to its demise as a class in the SCCA. We know what happened. It was one of the most dishonest acts I ever witnessed from an organizing body. Utterly disgusting.

The problem with open wheel racing in the SCCA is not open wheel racing. Its the managment at SCCA. They created this crisis when one didn't exist. Nothing will get fixed until they are ALL GONE. In the SCCA office. In the CRB. In the BOD. All of them. Gone. The SCCA needs new management.

[E1pix]

Yeah, again, that’ll help...
Edit: this post started in response to a common instigator (removed), not at Thomas just above.... ^^^

I believe that things always trickle down from those in charge — as seen by following the money — to those with none, typically over a very long period of time.

The Pro levels always seek the new game, the *better* game, THEIR exclusive game — and nearly every time, it eventually trickles down and then morphs into yet another chassis/engine combination to further splice Club classes that follow. If some of these Series had started with collective mindsets over monopoly seekers, we wouldn’t have thirty types of near-useless formulae collecting dust.

Add issues of parts support, too small a sample size to truly equalize cars, and a hundred other complications once Club racers own them, and what we get is a ton of cars with nowhere to race with a fair chance at success that drives new entries to start with.

So here we are. I fail to see a path to betterment unless the constituents work together instead of apart. I get that buying an Atlantic and having to drop a couple seconds from its potential feels like a compromise.

But what if the original speed was two seconds slower? Would anyone notice? Wanna race or not?

I submit that if any power whatsoever still exists within us, the only way to solve this is compromise — and that’s not on the Administrators.

We might all consider how the CART/IRL split was solved, taking or wasting about 20 years, and how that’s gone since.

[problemchild]

The SCCA needs new management.

Yes, the "club" is operating on a 1950s business model. It is an "old boys club". Like our governments, the old boys love their power. So rather than reforming the SCCA process, they fight to maintain the status quo, and stifle all attempts to be creative and modern. Old men "killing classes" is much easier than "old men" bringing in creative "young men and women" to solve problems. Young people worth having, won't stick around if not given the ability to be effective.

The 2022 Runoffs actually had some creative people in race control who instituted some neat ideas while communicating those ideas very well. The mid-lap timing line and multiple pace cars with FCC yellows in test/qualy are two examples. I thought they went too far in extending races without pre-race warning (possible running out of fuel and being underweight being potential problems) and I thought the SM extension was unfair, but that can be addressed in the future. It will be interesting to see if the people behind this creativity and communication can influence the "old boys" or will get put into their proper place.

[DanW]

Yes, the "club" is operating on a 1950s business model. It is an "old boys club". Like our governments, the old boys love their power. So rather than reforming the SCCA process, they fight to maintain the status quo, and stifle all attempts to be creative and modern. Old men "killing classes" is much easier than "old men" bringing in creative "young men and women" to solve problems. Young people worth having, won't stick around if not given the ability to be effective.

The 2022 Runoffs actually had some creative people in race control who instituted some neat ideas while communicating those ideas very well. The mid-lap timing line and multiple pace cars with FCC yellows in test/qualy are two examples. I thought they went too far in extending races without pre-race warning (possible running out of fuel and being underweight being potential problems) and I thought the SM extension was unfair, but that can be addressed in the future. It will be interesting to see if the people behind this creativity and communication can influence the "old boys" or will get put into their proper place.

I can assure you the Race Director and Operating Stewards busted their collective asses to keep the races finishing under green flags. As previously noted conditions and emergency vehicle crews were challenged.

[Stan Clayton]

Once again it seems I have to remind everyone that the participation requirements that you mentioned that were part of that car count criteria back in 2018 were BACKDATED BY A YEAR AND HALF!!!! making it impossible for F1000 (Formula B) to meet the participation requirements as we only had less than 6 months to make up the numbers.

I told you then and I tell you now that you had 'less than 6 months' to recover because you and others spent the previous year racing with non-SCCA organizations. And then you wanted SCCA to overlook that dangerous liaison to give you another year to recover.

Inconvenient Fact: F1000 (FB) posted a grand total of 39 National/Majors entries for 2018. Read that number again: 39. There were 35 qualifying races that year, with a requirement to retain National status of just 2.5 per race, or 87 entries. FB had less than half that and looked like it was headed to zero. What did you expect? At least the Club gave you 6 months.

And what did you (Thomas Copeland) do? You bragged about flying back to the East Coast to these great non-SCCA races.

Greg Rice (problem child) posts that nobody in FA FB FC P1 P2, loves me. So what? At least I try to get their classes the best deal I can. What are YOU doing to help this class you profess to love and support?

[problemchild]

I can assure you the Race Director and Operating Stewards busted their collective asses to keep the races finishing under green flags. As previously noted conditions and emergency vehicle crews were challenged.

I appreciate that Dan. But it needs to be a policy so that people need to plan fuel quantity and general strategy accordingly. Without knowing all the facts, it appears the SM race restarted as the 35 min announced window expired. It became a 40 min race and the finishing order changed significantly. Had our FF race been extended, we would have been underweight.

To all those involved, do some fine-tuning, but keep up the great work. The 2022 Runoffs were a big step forward and I make my comments as positive input.

[problemchild]

Stan. If you were active in those classes that you are so proud to be killing off, then you would know my involvement in trying to preserve them. The first obvious step is to get the USF van Deimens included in FC.

Stan. SCCA killed off Thomas's class. So you both disagree about the "facts", none of which can be proven or will convince others. He 9and the rest of the F1000 community) is rightly bitter and disenfranchised. Let the guy vent. Your contempt for the class is evident in reading your posts.

[Thomas Copeland]

I told you then and I tell you now that you had 'less than 6 months' to recover because you and others spent the previous year racing with non-SCCA organizations. And then you wanted SCCA to overlook that dangerous liaison to give you another year to recover.

Inconvenient Fact: F1000 (FB) posted a grand total of 39 National/Majors entries for 2018. Read that number again: 39. There were 35 qualifying races that year, with a requirement to retain National status of just 2.5 per race, or 87 entries. FB had less than half that and looked like it was headed to zero. What did you expect? At least the Club gave you 6 months.

And what did you (Thomas Copeland) do? You bragged about flying back to the East Coast to these great non-SCCA races.

Greg Rice (problem child) posts that nobody in FA FB FC P1 P2, loves me. So what? At least I try to get their classes the best deal I can. What are YOU doing to help this class you profess to love and support?

Stan, you got your facts slightly askew.


2017 when we started the NorthAm F1000 we competed in SCCA Majors. I know because I did two of them. One at Road Atlanta and another at VIR.

In 2018 we decided to compete in SCCA Regional events. We did this after consulting the competitors. We did this for a couple of reasons. We thought doing the regionals would offer a better experience. More track time. Also it still provided a path to the runoffs. Also remember, they didn't have that car count criteria until May 2018, after we set our schedule and started our events.

Also there were some issues with certain SCCA staff out of Topeka apparently losing their friggin' minds over our podium ceremonies. We were giving out cash prizes and other contingency prizes in a separate ceremony beyond what the SCCA was doing and it pissed some of these people off. Never mind the fact that we had been doing this since way back with the West Coast F1000 Championship and throughout the USF1000. Never had a problem. But suddendly the right person, with the right amount of power in the Topeka office, and now it's a major friggin deal.

Also there was a certain incidence that went down during the 2017 runoffs at Indy. I wasn't there. I didn't see it. Heard about it later. We thought we should keep a lower profile after that. Doing the regionals kept us out of the path of certain people from Topeka.

So there was never any "non-SCCA" events as you put it.

Until that is, they starting pulling their Bulls*it.

The reason why most of the F1000 drivers were upset over the car count criteria when it came out in May 2018 was because we, the NorthAm F1000 were doing the regionals at the time and this didn't give us a chance to make up the numbers in the Majors before the end of the year. It was a real ambush.

Because they backdated the Major's requirement to January 2017. We were trying to build our numbers up, only to have the entire effort sabotaged by this car count criteria crap.

I wasn't bragging about flying to compete in non-SCCA events. I was writing about flying to compete in SCCA Majors and Regional events first, telling people if I could do it, so could they. If did write about going to "non-SCCA" events then it was only after the series went to FRP. These FRP events didn't occur or even cross our minds to do them until they came out with the car count critera and decided arbitrarily to take away our class.

One thing else to remember. I quit the sport before 2017. Because I was sick and damn tired of SCCA politics amougst other things. They (the SCCA) were always on us (F1000) about some damn thing. It took a lot to get me back in (Thanks Jose. You're a true friend. Unfortunately our enemies seem to be greater in number). I did this knowing what I was probably getting myself into. Organizing the two earlier F1000 series I'd seen the power plays. Been threaten with lawsuits. Even got a cease and desist letter once. So I guess I expected something fun to happen. But the underhandedness. Jeez, I didn't expect them to stoop that low.

I have a feeling the real animosity from certain powerful people in the SCCA towards F1000 started at the 2010 runoffs at Road America when Nicholas Belling and I brought in the Geartronics air shifter. Four of the top five cars that year had our shifter installed. That didn't sit well with some of them. Then they tried to ban it. The pushback from that really pissed them off. And it just went from there. To something else. Then something else. And then something else again.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan. If you were active in those classes that you are so proud to be killing off, then you would know my involvement in trying to preserve them. The first obvious step is to get the USF van Deimens included in FC.

Stan. SCCA killed off Thomas's class. So you both disagree about the "facts", none of which can be proven or will convince others. He 9and the rest of the F1000 community) is rightly bitter and disenfranchised. Let the guy vent. Your contempt for the class is evident in reading your posts.

So did I kill off FB or did SCCA kill it when the class failed to make the numbers? You can't have it both ways.

And second, I can prove my fact: 2018 Participation Data. 39 entries.

Moreover, Tom confirmed it when he wrote that they quit racing at Nationals/Majors, the only entries that matter to saving the class and its place at the Runoffs, having taken the conscious decision to enter Regionals and FRP events instead.

[david oleary]

So did I kill off FB or did SCCA kill it when the class failed to make the numbers? You can't have it both ways.

And second, I can prove my fact: 2018 Participation Data. 39 entries.

Moreover, Tom confirmed it when he wrote that they quit racing at Nationals/Majors, the only entries that matter to saving the class and its place at the Runoffs, having taken the conscious decision to enter Regionals and FRP events instead.

IMHO FB-F1000 was killed because the UPPER people in the class wanted their own race group but did not enough cars to make that happen in SCCA so rather than try to get the car count up they decided to go to run regionals and SCCA does not use car count for MAJORS classes in Regionals races, so and guess what!! They did not get their own class running regionals either and still today run with FA and FC at some Pro Races. Yes, I still own a F1000-FB and I made it a P2 and ran both classes at the Indy 2017 runoffs. I was not totally happy with the atmosphere with the Pro F1000 and at 68 years old I just decided not to be part of that group. today it is parked in FA trim in the shop. IMHO

[Thomas Copeland]

Stan,

Just to answer your question about participation:


From the 2017 CGR:

9.1.13 Runoffs-Eligible Class Participation Requirements
A. A class retains its Runoffs-eligible status as long as it's annual average number of entries achieves 2.5 or higher per Runoffs-eligible races.


From the 2018 GCR:
9.1.12 Runoffs-Eligible Class Participation Requirements

A. Annually, The Club Racing Board shall review participation numbers for Majors and Runoffs classes. Classes that do not maintain sufficent participation numbers will have one year to improve their participation level.


We were competing in Runoffs-eligible races. The Regional races were eligible for the runoffs in 2018. So they were "Runoffs-eligible." They didn't specify that they had to be Majors. They didn't do that until they came out with that car count criteria in May 2018.

Also, when were we ever given one year to improve our participation numbers?

We were given less than 6 months. Not even a full season. Because they backdated the participation numbers to January 2017. You can't snowball me. I lived through this Stan. You're just catching up.

[Peter Olivola]

Stan,

Just to answer your question about participation:


From the 2017 CGR:

9.1.13 Runoffs-Eligible Class Participation Requirements
A. A class retains its Runoffs-eligible status as long as it's annual average number of entries achieves 2.5 or higher per Runoffs-eligible races.


From the 2018 GCR:
9.1.12 Runoffs-Eligible Class Participation Requirements

A. Annually, The Club Racing Board shall review participation numbers for Majors and Runoffs classes. Classes that do not maintain sufficent participation numbers will have one year to improve their participation level.


We were competing in Runoffs-eligible races. The Regional races were eligible for the runoffs in 2018. So they were "Runoffs-eligible." They didn't specify that they had to be Majors. They didn't do that until they came out with that car count criteria in May 2018.

Also, when were we ever given one year to improve our participation numbers?

We were given less than 6 months. Not even a full season. Because they backdated the participation numbers to January 2017. You can't snowball me. I lived through this Stan. You're just catching up.

Can you cite an example of Regional race participation counting toward Runoffs eligibility for a car class?

[Stan Clayton]

Stan, Just to answer your question about participation: The Regional races were eligible for the runoffs in 2018. I lived through this Stan. You're just catching up.

Bull...****!

There was never a time when Regionals counted as Participation for National class recognition and Runoffs eligibility. Never!

The most charitable interpretation I can give is that sometimes SCCA would accept Regional entries as substitutes for National/Majors entries for individual competitors to gain admittance to the Runoffs, but that is NOT AT ALL a substitute for SCCA's mechanism for determining which classes were invited to the Runoffs.

Prove me wrong.

[tige00]

2018 people were allowed to run 2 regional weekends to qualify for runoffs.
2022 even, 2 super tours or conf.major weekend plus 2 regional events. To qualify for runoffs

[John Nesbitt]

2018 people were allowed to run 2 regional weekends to qualify for runoffs.
2022 even, 2 super tours or conf.major weekend plus 2 regional events. To qualify for runoffs

This is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

For drivers to qualify for the Runoffs, there was, indeed, a Regional path (via Division championships).

For classes to qualify, it was Majors and Super Tour entries that counted.

[tige00]

Correct let's get everybody's wording correct, regionals didn't count for class numbers but it was a path to the runoffs. So if it was a path that scca allowed to get to the runoffs then it should have counted towards car numbers. Jmoo

[Peter Olivola]

Correct let's get everybody's wording correct, regionals didn't count for class numbers but it was a path to the runoffs. So if it was a path that scca allowed to get to the runoffs then it should have counted towards car numbers. Jmoo

Maybe wanting something to be so isn't the best way to read rules.

[jchracer]

This is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

For drivers to qualify for the Runoffs, there was, indeed, a Regional path (via Division championships).

For classes to qualify, it was Majors and Super Tour entries that counted.

I really don't know in which alternate universe this might make logical sense.....oh yeh, the SCCA rules-making alternate universe!

Possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in quite some time.....

[Peter Olivola]

I really don't know in which alternate universe this might make logical sense.....oh yeh, the SCCA rules-making alternate universe!

Possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in quite some time.....

I realize everyone starts from the position closest to home on controversial issues, but there is logic to this if you're willing to consider other factors.

Regions have been complaining since the inception of the Majors/Super Tour program that it is stripping away competitors from regional race programs. The alternate path to the Runoffs is, in part, a response to that.

At no time was there ever inclusion of regional participation in the calculation of class car counts. Not before Majors and not after. If someone thought otherwise they applied their own interpretation that was clearly understood otherwise by the overwhelming majority of SCCA competitors and officials.

[Stan Clayton]

I really don't know in which alternate universe this might make logical sense.....oh yeh, the SCCA rules-making alternate universe!

Possibly the dumbest thing I've seen in quite some time.....

And yet, here we are. From 1944 until 1964 SCCA had ONLY Regional and eventually Divisional points-based class champions. There were no National champions or championships.

In the fall of 1964 the top 4 or 5 Divisional points earners from each Division were invited to Riverside, California to contest an unofficial National championship for 17 classes in 14 races, which became official the next year and started alternating between Daytona and Riverside until taking up residence at Road Atlanta for 27 years and eventually being named the "Runoffs".

An invitation was still required and originally was based on points earned in Regional and Divisional (later National) races. There was no 'turned a wheel in 4 (or 6) National races' and one automatically qualified for the Runoffs option. And as Peter notes, even later there came a provision for competitors to earn an invitation from Regional-only points. That option still exists today, albeit in modified form.

In organizing a National Championship SCCA felt they needed to figure out which classes to invite and eventually settled on (first) a Divisional race participation model, which eventually morphed into a National race model, and today our familiar Majors model. It may seem 'dumb' at first glance to separate individual vs class qualification, but that is how it evolved. If I have gotten the details wrong it is entirely my fault, but this is the basic story line.

[jchracer]

And yet, here we are. From 1944 until 1964 SCCA had ONLY Regional and eventually Divisional points-based class champions. There were no National champions or championships.

In the fall of 1964 the top 4 or 5 Divisional points earners from each Division were invited to Riverside, California to contest an unofficial National championship for 17 classes in 14 races, which became official the next year and started alternating between Daytona and Riverside until taking up residence at Road Atlanta for 27 years and eventually being named the "Runoffs".

An invitation was still required and originally was based on points earned in Regional and Divisional (later National) races. There was no 'turned a wheel in 4 (or 6) National races' and one automatically qualified for the Runoffs option. And as Peter notes, even later there came a provision for competitors to earn an invitation from Regional-only points. That option still exists today, albeit in modified form.

In organizing a National Championship SCCA felt they needed to figure out which classes to invite and eventually settled on (first) a Divisional race participation model, which eventually morphed into a National race model, and today our familiar Majors model. It may seem 'dumb' at first glance to separate individual vs class qualification, but that is how it evolved. If I have gotten the details wrong it is entirely my fault, but this is the basic story line.

Irrational attachment to tradition does not make something logical or smart.

A major shakeup is needed in the objectives and thought processes at SCCA leadership as it relates to the Formula/Sports classes or members will continue to drop out or move to other organizations that are more "customer" focused such as FRP. At this point, SCCA Formula/Sports Racing is quite literally dying off and it may be too late to save.

[david oleary]

Was there any talk about where the 2024 Runoffs may be at this year's Runoffs

[Steve Bamford]

At no time was there ever inclusion of regional participation in the calculation of class car counts. Not before Majors and not after. If someone thought otherwise they applied their own interpretation that was clearly understood otherwise by the overwhelming majority of SCCA competitors and officials.

I believe you are incorrect on your statement based on Rational's.

Once upon a time there were regionals with nationals called Rational's how were they counted?

[John Nesbitt]

I believe you are incorrect on your statement based on Rational's.

Once upon a time there were regionals with nationals called Rational's how were they counted?

IIRC, Rationals were Nationals, with added (and separate) Regional race groups. As you would expect, the National component was counted for Runoffs purposes, and the Regional component not.

[Stan Clayton]

Once upon a time there were regionals with nationals called Rational's how were they counted?

Only the National entries at Rationals counted towards participation.

[Steve Bamford]

Only the National entries at Rationals counted towards participation.

Ya so same crap, you enter rational & compete in National division & thus counts towards National entry. Hopefully this helped the regions. Anyways seems like a silly discussion overall what counts & what doesn't...aren't all these entries part of SCCA regardless of National (Major's now), Regional, Rational, whatever?

[Stan Clayton]

Ya so same crap, you enter rational & compete in National division & thus counts towards National entry. Hopefully this helped the regions. Anyways seems like a silly discussion overall what counts & what doesn't...aren't all these entries part of SCCA regardless of National (Major's now), Regional, Rational, whatever?

You asked a question, got two polite and correct answers. Why pitch a fit, Steve?

By the way, there was no entering a "Rational". Competitors had to choose whether they were entering the Regional or the National, or a mix if they were double (or more) events. To complain now, years after the fact, just seems silly.

But yes, the events were designed to help Regions, who often (maybe 'usually'?) get fewer entries to National events. Better now?

[Steve Bamford]

You asked a question, got two polite and correct answers. Why pitch a fit, Steve?

By the way, there was no entering a "Rational". Competitors had to choose whether they were entering the Regional or the National, or a mix if they were double (or more) events. To complain now, years after the fact, just seems silly.

But yes, the events were designed to help Regions, who often (maybe 'usually'?) get fewer entries to National events. Better now?

No fit on my side. Must be interpreted differently then it I saw it on my side. I just saw something saying regional events never counted, I was simply pointing out that is not the whole truth. I'm not complaining now years after the fact, I am correcting the incorrect info posted.