2023 Runoffs Proposed Format Option

[BrianT1]

I have not seen any discussion on this option for the 2023 Runoffs. So I am wondering how many people know about it.

2 Cumulative Qualifying Sessions + Qualifying Heat Race (QHR) + Championship Race




Tuesday - Qualifying 1

• Q1 Grid is set based on finishing positon from the Hoosier Super Tour points with the driver with the greatest
number of HST points on pole. The remaining grid positons will be filled by those entering the Runoffs from all
other paths based on Registraton date. (Same as previous years)
• Fastest lap from Q1 sets the grid for Q2


Wednesday, Qualifying 2

•Q2 Grid set by fastest lap from Q1


Thursday, Qualifying Heat Race (QHR)

• • Q1+Q2 = Grid QHR...The fastest lap from Q1 and Q2 are combined (added) to set the grid for the Qualifying Heat Race, with the lowest combined ????me on the pole for each class.
• • The QHR will use the scheduled combined qualifying groups and not single class heat race format (like the Championship race) unless a class is already qualifying alone.

• • Combined class heat races will have a split start.

• The finishing order of the qualifying heat race will set the race grid order


National Championship Race

• • The finishing order of the QHR will set the race grid order.
• • Winner-take-all race – first one to finish wins.
  
  
  Alternatives:
  
  1. Modified Knock-out qualifying format: Q1+Q2 ????mes set grid for QHR; Drivers in positions 1-10 will compete for those positons in Championship Race; drivers in positions 11-20 will compete for those positions in Championship Race; and so on for remaining field.
  2. Average the qual times across 3 qualifying sessions, no heat races
  
  
  
  

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I did watch the meeting. I don't like the knock-out idea (where if you finish the heat race in position 11 you can only complete for 11-20 in the championship).

If they simply want to try a heat race format for 1 year I think most people would be willing to try it.

There was a discussion about increasing participants participation (some people have skipped Q1 and/or Q2 and just run Q3). Maybe the FIRST change experiment would be to add all 3 Q's together to grid the race - that way you have to run all 3.


The most common question was regarding the desire to condense the calendar from 6 days to something else.
Sunday racers have to sit for 3 days - that's a long time!

There was a mention of load-in and out, BUT if the venue has the capacity to host everyone for 6 days, why can't they host half for 3 and have room for the other half to arrive?

How about this:

Group A
Tuesday - optional testing
Wednesday - Q1,Q2
Thursday - Q3, Race

Group B
Friday - optional testing
Saturday - Q1, Q2
Sunday - Q3, Race

Rotate classes annually between A and B based on numbers prior grouping.

Just a thought!

[Steve Demeter]

What is this F1 or NASCAR. My recommendation ( I do not have a dog in this one) is to keep the format as it is. Maybe set the grid for the Q sessions like was proposed but drop the knock out crap.

Remember this might just "trickle down" to al club races.

[Lotus7]

surely can't be serious?

[problemchild]

M -I-C-K-E-Y ..........

[Darren Brown]

All these options seem like a bad idea.

With combined qualifying times, if you have an issue in one of the two sessions you are now starting towards the back of your heat race.

Also what about weather, if it rains and you want to save your tires (or car) you are now at the back of your heat race.

Knock out qualifying and racing for a set positions just seems stupid. How many times has someone had a bad week and turned it around for the race. I know I did, qualified 14th and finished 4th. With the knock style I could only race for 10th. If I understand this correctly.

Of course I haven't been to a runoffs since 2009, but I have run 13 or so of them fairly successfully. I do plan to run it again in the next couple years, but not with these crazy formats.

Just leave it as is would be my opinion

Darren Brown

I do like the idea of of 2 qualifying session one day and a third session and race the next day.

[Lotus7]

30+ years of this nonsense, and all I've ever heard is "the runoffs are too long";

so now someone's decided to force you to run every day.... for what?

What if a really fast guy has a minor mechanical issue on one of the days and can't run? Does he start at the back?
What if it rains one day? Forced to run and risk the car...?

sheesh, sports car clowns of america
anyone at scca who thinks the runoffs is a "show" that matters is delusional, its for the drivers, that simple.
the Club is for the members.... yeah, right.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

30+ years of this nonsense, and all I've ever heard is "the runoffs are too long";

The thought of most people on the webinar. I hope they ask during follow up.

[924RACR]

Disclaimer: I didn't watch the town hall. Didn't see the point, expecting it to be a lot of aimless venting. If there were a serious desire for input, a survey or request for input would seem a far more effective and meaningful method. This seems more like lip service.

Aside from the above: this all seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. Someone's come up with some ideas for change, and is trying to justify them.

Instead, in my opinion what should be happening is the board needs to redefine the problem they're trying to address (since the responses are muddled and unclear).

The problem(s) could be one or more of any of the following:
Reduce the length of the Runoffs
Attract more racers to the Runoffs
Improve the "spectacle" (which immediately must be followed by a definition of what constitutes an improvement)
etc etc. - the above are just the ones that come to mind to me, from previous discussions

Until we have a clear, concise statement of a problem needing a solution, all we can expect is change for change's sake, which almost inevitably pisses off some contingent of the few remaining who are willing to play the game of spending large amounts of money for plastic trophy glory (and yes, I count myself in that deluded group, at least some years), further reducing the pool of entrants.

[GT1Vette]

Many years ago (back when I thought I could make a positive difference in how things operated Nationally) I offered a number of proposals to shorten the time required to compete at the Runoffs. All were summarily pooh-poohed by the PTB. This is decidedly NOT a way to shorten the time required to compete at the Runoffs.

[andyllc]

I like the heat race idea. I suggested it on here a few years ago, formula ford festival style.
Ban all testing at the track for the 3 weeks before the event. Day 1 practice, day 2 qualify, day 3 heat race which determines starting order for feature race, day 4 race.

[problemchild]

It would be great if we could have 100+ entries in a class so we could have a FF festival like heat races. I believe the only over-subscribed class SM runs a LCQ, which is essentially a qualifying heat.

The Runoffs is an over-subscribed event that targets quantity over quality. It means such different things to so many different people, so any real change in format is going to be a tough sell. I certainly do not have the answer, but this proposed format is not turning my crank. Like Max, I don't like the Sprint format in F1, and I see no reason to copy it for the Runoffs.

[CheckeredFlag]

<snip>Like Max, I don't like the Sprint format in F1, and I see no reason to copy it for the Runoffs.

I'm with Max and Greg. The qualifying sprints in F1 are for the spectacle; 10's of thousands of fans in attendance and millions on TV and streaming. Who's gonna watch amateur racers do a qualifying sprint? The whole proposition sounds like the SCCA recognizes the problem (six days + 1 to 3 in testing/practice) is too darn long, but a solution is escaping us so we replicate F1?

The 3+3 format isn't gonna work for the broadcast team because they and their equipment will sit idle for two days between race days. Qualifying sprints and races add to the cost of the broadcast for little benefit to club members. Prep shops and teams doing different classes may not benefit at all from 3+3, but some single-class shops/teams could. The 3+3 format doesn't take into account practices and tests for TWENTY-SIX CLASSES, each needing a 50-minute or so race window in the broadcast; maybe a 4+4? But a 4+4 exacerbates the broadcast team's time and equipment problem.

Darren and Lotus7 summed up the Q1+Q2 problem really well. Forcing amateur competitors to qualify in bad weather or with a mechanical issue just for the spectacle is nonsense.

I've only been around this for a little over four years, so I'm "new" but we did do Indy. I live relatively close to Indy, so I could go home on days off if I wanted to; others were stuck. It feels like a different format isn't going to please enough people, so we stick with the tried and true that we all hate. It feels like we're stuck; put in "checkmate", as it were, so we throw up our hands and surrender.

[JoshuaJustice]

I haven't been to the Runoffs, and I have no plans to go to the Runoffs this year for the simple reasons that:

1. I am not a national-level Really Fast Guy (yet?), so I have no hope of winning a championship (this year?).
2. Towing and taking a whole freaking week off work is expensive. (That vacation time can be used for FIVE Fridays off work for Fri/Sat/Sun race events!)
3. One track session a day, for 3 or 4 days, is not worth item #2.

Frankly, the format is inherently unappealing to me because of item #3, and item #2 makes it even more punishing. This new proposal doesn't fix that.

A format that's "chunked" more so people don't have to take a whole week off work would be better. My proposal, if getting the track for two weeks in a row is impossible, would be to split into 3 groups, do 2 qualifying sessions per class Tuesday, races Wednesday; 2 qualifying sessions Thursday, races Friday; 2 qualifying sessions Saturday, races Sunday. This way people running in only one class only have to be at the track for 2 days. You could also make the first 4 days be Monday-Thursday, and if there's inclement weather you have a buffer day built into the schedule.

There's a lot of ways to do things that would be more appealing to me as a driver than the status quo, I hardly think I've come up with the "perfect answer". Personally, I don't understand why the Runoffs is structured the way it is (aside from "that's how we've always done it"), and I don't think anyone sensible would come up with the current structure if they were designing it from scratch. The proposal doesn't seem like it fixes any of the problems I have with the Runoffs structure and I'm also skeptical that anyone would design it this way if they were coming up with something from scratch rather than trying to tweak the existing thing.

[CheckeredFlag]

My proposal, if getting the track for two weeks in a row is impossible, would be to split into 3 groups, do 2 qualifying sessions per class Tuesday, races Wednesday; 2 qualifying sessions Thursday, races Friday; 2 qualifying sessions Saturday, races Sunday.

If we're gonna have TWENTY-SIX CLASSES, this splitting into 3 sessions gets us close.

Group 1:
Friday: Group 1 load-in
Saturday: Testing/Practice
Sunday: Q1 + Q2 (some combined grouping will be required; Q2 false grid set by Q1 times; single fastest lap in either session is your race grid spot)
Monday: Group 1 races; Group 2 load-in after noon

Group 2:
Tuesday: Testing/Practice
Wednesday: Q1 + Q2
Thursday: Group 2 races; Group 3 load-in after noon

Group 3:
Friday: Testing/Practice
Saturday: Q1 + Q2
Sunday: Group 3 races

Weekend Groups 1 & 3 preferred to the larger fields and participation classes (BSpec, FE2, FV, SM, SRF3, STL, STU, etc). Smaller fields (AS, CSpec?, GT1, F6, FA, P1, P2, T1) in Group 2.

The broadcast team won't like it. The F&C folks may not, either. For non-tire marking classes, only as many as 3 sets of new tires needed (Q1+Q2+Race) vs 4 today (Q1+Q2+Q3+Race).

[JoshuaJustice]

Well, your proposal requires having the track for two consecutive weekends, and if that's possible, things already become considerably easier. There's also other, more radical, possibilities out there - like splitting the entire field and going to two or three different tracks with different sets of classes for each track.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I was on the town hall meeting. They took real time surveys to get a feel for opinions. There were about 130 people on the Zoom call. The most striking poll was 27% of the people on the call had never competed at the runoffs.

There was surprisingly more support for a radical format change then I expected. Perhaps it was from the 27% who had never been.

I suggest those who oppose this change in format write letters. I've already sent mine in.

There was no solid reason for making this change, other then the board feels compelled to react to comments they've received that the runoffs format needs updating.

My concern is for the large spec classes like SRF and SM, there may be enough to create a majority of those who approach the event differently then most.

[LarryWinkelman]

I wasn't able to join the call. Is a recording or the briefing material available?
Is there a particular contact email or URL, or just normal "To the BoD" method?

[Amon]

I was on the town hall meeting. They took real time surveys to get a feel for opinions. There were about 130 people on the Zoom call. The most striking poll was 27% of the people on the call had never competed at the runoffs.

There was surprisingly more support for a radical format change then I expected. Perhaps it was from the 27% who had never been.

I suggest those who oppose this change in format write letters. I've already sent mine in.

There was no solid reason for making this change, other then the board feels compelled to react to comments they've received that the runoffs format needs updating.

My concern is for the large spec classes like SRF and SM, there may be enough to create a majority of those who approach the event differently then most.

The change of those AGAINST the new proposal went from the initial vote total of approximately 27% to around 56% once opinions on the subject were made during the discussion. The No Opinion vote was around 20% (?) if my memory is correct, so only around 20-25% of those in attendance were in favor of the format change.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I wasn't able to join the call. Is a recording or the briefing material available?
Is there a particular contact email or URL, or just normal "To the BoD" method?

roadracing@scca.com is what they sent in a followup email.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I was on the town hall meeting. They took real time surveys to get a feel for opinions. There were about 130 people on the Zoom call. The most striking poll was 27% of the people on the call had never competed at the runoffs.

There was surprisingly more support for a radical format change then I expected. Perhaps it was from the 27% who had never been.

I suggest those who oppose this change in format write letters. I've already sent mine in.

There was no solid reason for making this change, other then the board feels compelled to react to comments they've received that the runoffs format needs updating.

My concern is for the large spec classes like SRF and SM, there may be enough to create a majority of those who approach the event differently then most.

I was on the call.
I've never run the runoffs.
Maybe, I'm open to listening about changes. IIR the questions were YES for change, NO for none, Maybe for will consider.
BUT, my primary concern is NOT qualifying, heat races, etc. and I was hoping for other format changes.

My issue is days. I had to back out of the 2018 Sonoma runoffs because of work commitments. Other friends went (and complained about the down time). I was able to go watch the race, but I couldn't commit to the week.
That may have been my only chance as distance and time commitment are now only worse for guys out West.

So, my only question during the meeting was "Is there any consideration for reducing the 6 day commitment?"
Others asked similar questions. The mandatory Q attendance increases the commitment.

To me THE NUMBER OF DAYS is the format change that needs to happen (and I've suggested so in post 2) to even give me a chance of attending in the future.

I'm sure others have similar thoughts.

[John Nesbitt]

...

A format that's "chunked" more so people don't have to take a whole week off work would be better. My proposal, if getting the track for two weeks in a row is impossible, would be to split into 3 groups, do 2 qualifying sessions per class Tuesday, races Wednesday; 2 qualifying sessions Thursday, races Friday; 2 qualifying sessions Saturday, races Sunday. This way people running in only one class only have to be at the track for 2 days. You could also make the first 4 days be Monday-Thursday, and if there's inclement weather you have a buffer day built into the schedule.

...

SCCA tried something like this at one of the Road America Runoffs (2011? 2012?) - split the week in two groups. Participant reaction was such that they did not repeat the experiment.

As Greg mentioned, every time a new idea comes up, there are people for and against. In life generally, Againsts tend to be more vocal than Fors. No doubt most new ideas are not worth the doing, but it does make breathing life into a new idea very difficult.

[Amon]

I just wish the SCCA would follow the rules they implemented, such as the Runoff's participation rule where a
group has to meet a certain number of entrants on average in order to be eligible to run at the following years Runoff's. They've ignored this rule (unless it was rescinded?), but I thought several race groups raced at last years championship without making the participation requirements? In addition, if you can't get 10+ cars to attend the Runoff's from your group, then you should be mixed safely with other groups in the same situation. The participation rule was brought up at the webinar this past week, but the three SCCA officials brushed over it when asked about it during the discussion. They (SCCA) need to address many aspects of the Runoff's, and not just heat races etc...

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Well, your proposal requires having the track for two consecutive weekends, and if that's possible, things already become considerably easier. There's also other, more radical, possibilities out there - like splitting the entire field and going to two or three different tracks with different sets of classes for each track.

They usually do. Testing Saturday Sunday Monday then QQQRRR

[924RACR]

Don't ya just love it when there's that one guy in the next class up who isn't quite all that fast in the corners, but has a bigger motor, and then decides he's having so much fun in quali that he wants to race you out of class?

Oh, wait, let's make that experience even more fun by calling it a qualifying race! Now he's got an actual reason to fight you off and hold you behind him!!

Yeah, great idea.

[Mike B]

I just wish the SCCA would follow the rules they implemented, such as the Runoff's participation rule where a
group has to meet a certain number of entrants on average in order to be eligible to run at the following years Runoff's. They've ignored this rule (unless it was rescinded?), but I thought several race groups raced at last years championship without making the participation requirements? In addition, if you can't get 10+ cars to attend the Runoff's from your group, then you should be mixed safely with other groups in the same situation. The participation rule was brought up at the webinar this past week, but the three SCCA officials brushed over it when asked about it during the discussion. They (SCCA) need to address many aspects of the Runoff's, and not just heat races etc...

Amen, Amon. They have a history of selective enforcement of their own rules. IMO it's directly related to the make-up of the CRB and some conflicts of interest.

[Lotus7]

Couple of thoughts on the 20 posts since my earlier comments:

1. Should the "broadcast team" aspect have any influence vs what the competitors want? Is there any real audience?

2. While I would like to see changes, should people who have never been to the runoffs be influencing which changes might get implemented? UNLESS, the vast majority of the "never been's" didn't go because of the current format, AND equally, would absolutely attend if some changes went through?

3. In my mind, heat races really only apply when there are too many entrants to accomodate in a single championship race and eliminations are required. Having the same group of guys race each other twice or three times, then arbitrarily declare a champion based on the outcome of one of those races seems odd.

[teamfun]

Hi,
Here is the link to the video replay of the Town Hall: https://www.scca.com/videos/2044968

As for me I like the heat race idea, I don't see it as copying F1, I see it as matching the normal Friday/Saturday night format at our local tracks.
Cumulative qualifying - no way.
Probably won't go to VIR as it is all the way across the country but will be at Road America next year.

[mmi16]

SCCA tried something like this at one of the Road America Runoffs (2011? 2012?) - split the week in two groups. Participant reaction was such that they did not repeat the experiment.

As Greg mentioned, every time a new idea comes up, there are people for and against. In life generally, Againsts tend to be more vocal than Fors. No doubt most new ideas are not worth the doing, but it does make breathing life into a new idea very difficult.

It was 2012 - I participated - 4 or 5 classes were loading up and going home and our class had yet to get their first session on track.

It SUCKS.

[mmi16]

I just wish the SCCA would follow the rules they implemented, such as the Runoff's participation rule where a
group has to meet a certain number of entrants on average in order to be eligible to run at the following years Runoff's. They've ignored this rule (unless it was rescinded?), but I thought several race groups raced at last years championship without making the participation requirements? In addition, if you can't get 10+ cars to attend the Runoff's from your group, then you should be mixed safely with other groups in the same situation. The participation rule was brought up at the webinar this past week, but the three SCCA officials brushed over it when asked about it during the discussion. They (SCCA) need to address many aspects of the Runoff's, and not just heat races etc...

Don't forget SCCA wants to create a new class for each individual that can't win in an existing class and thinks if he tweaks this and that to create a new class he can win.

[CheckeredFlag]

No Runoffs Format Change for 2023 - Sports Car Club of America (scca.com)