SCCA reaching out to members

[IDSRacing]

Who would have thunk it. The SCCA is actually reaching out to talk directly to their members! Bravo I say.

From the FV Site:

'Got a call from Jim Julow, CEO SCCA, yesterday. Seems Topeka is working the phones trying to talk to folks that did not enter this year. He asked why and I told him about the cost, track time and track revisions. As usual, everything seemed to be a bit of surprise to him but I respected the fact that he did call."

"I too spoke to Jim. Seemed like a good guy who really wanted the input. Glad to see SCCA is paying attention"

Full thread from FV site is here:
http://www.formulavee.org/interchang...=1539&start=15

[stonebridge20]

How funny is that? Our CEO is cold calling to try and boost sales ! Move the Runoffs to a more "interesting" track and he can go back to napping !

Agnif

[kea]

Make the "Run-Offs" an event that you truly have to qualify for (10 cars per class/division, give me a break), and maybe the event will then regain some importance and people will want to come to it.
Keith

[M.Sauce]

Hey Mike- This President has not ever been napping.We are lucky to have this guy.Show a little respect, he works very hard for this club.I thought that at the Runoffs it was who you beat not where you beat them.HTP is certainly not Watkins Glen but it's got a couple of corners that will test you just as much as any corner at much higher profile tracks.The track with the new changes is much more challenging.

[Purple Frog]

I like the idea that Jim Julow is calling people. He will have some insight when the next Runoffs site contract comes up for bid. Looks like a positive step to me.

I'd love to be tapped into the line when he calls Tim Minor.

[John Robinson II]

I like the idea that Jim Julow is calling people. He will have some insight when the next Runoffs site contract comes up for bid.

Arent they supposed to announce the site for '09-'11 at this years event?

John

[sarrcford]

I was also wondering about this John. It is a three year contract right, two years down (this year) with next year being the third and hopefully last? It isn't a five year contract is it?

I would love to hear any rumors about a different track for the Runoffs.

Rob Poma

[stonebridge20]

Hey Mike- This President has not ever been napping.We are lucky to have this guy.Show a little respect, he works very hard for this club.I thought that at the Runoffs it was who you beat not where you beat them.HTP is certainly not Watkins Glen but it's got a couple of corners that will test you just as much as any corner at much higher profile tracks.The track with the new changes is much more challenging.

Ok,...your right Mike. Julow is a HUGE step up from Johnson!

As far as HPT,....Not my cup of tea! Sorry I'm spoiled bye places like Watkins Glen,VIR,Mid O, ect! Yea, the "new corners" may be more challenging but if they don't move the light pole and wall that comes RIGHT to the track edge in T2, the "new" medical facility will be a busy place! I think that "change" in T1 and T2 has made the track even less appealing if that was possible!

Mike Agnifilo

[D.T. Benner]

After the HP contract is up the RunOffs will move to Thunderhill Raceway Park in Northern California! To bad for me as I only run in a Regional Only Class.

[M.Sauce]

OK Let's change the question. Where would you want to go if you had the choice of Runoffs locations?

[John Robinson II]

OK Let's change the question. Where would you want to go if you had the choice of Runoffs locations?

Maybe this should be a seperate post...

Road Atlanta
Barber
VIR
Laguna Seca
Sears Point

John

[Steve Demeter]

I second Keith's emotion: make it a major accomplishment to qualify for the Runoffs (not to diminish anyone who has been there) but 10 per division per class just does not convey the honor of the top 3 or 4 per class that it used to.

700 cars is fine for making money, but this is supposed to be the olympics of motor racing, and only the best of the best get to go to the Olympics.

Mid OPhio and Road Atlanta both did yoeman's jobs for about 30 years total (they were not perfect but they were darn good) and either one would be a great place. The Olympics of motot racing needs to be in a truly magnificent majestic track.

[captaineddie1975]

If we want a beautiful track that is more centrally located than on either coast how about Road America. That certainly is a majestic track with a long history. My final suggestion (although I know contractual items might stand in the way) is to make the Runoffs at a different track each year with the schedule known in advance the way they due with the Superbowl.
Capt E.

[John Robinson II]

I agree with the Captian, if given enough notice, move it from coast to coast year to year. A different track every year would truely lessen the home track advantage. I also remember when only the top 3 went and the battles that took place in the division to get an invitation.

John

[TimW]

Do it at the Speedway. No hometrack advantage and even car counts at the Runoffs would go up; even if I'm not prepared to run toward the front this year I'll want to get track time there for future years where I'd hope to be going quicker.

Yes, its a bland track as well, but at least its had significant races there previously; which is part of the appeal of MO and Road Atlanta.

Tim

[Stan Clayton]

Tim,

I think I read somewhere that IMS have stated that all future road racing there will use the Moto GP course, which frankly looks better than the F1 course. It may not be Road Atlanta or VIR, but I'd go in a heartbeat!

Stan

[Bob Devol]

If it has the paddock area to handle the cars, and if track management would have us, IMS would be the best place to hold the Runoffs. A centrally located, one-event/no home track advantage venue with a solid layout.

[SSpiffytoo]

700 cars is fine for making money, but this is supposed to be the olympics of motor racing, and only the best of the best get to go to the Olympics.

Cue video of the Jamaican bobsled team?

[KevinFirlein]

IMS is actually a prett good compromise. The track might not be all that great but the facility and area would be a perfect fit. However the biggest compromise would have to be made by the SCCA BoD as I see it pretty far fetched that Tony George would pay to have the race.

[Stan Clayton]

Bob, I think the light blue area inside the track is all paved. At that scale, I'll bet there's room for 1000 cars or more. And yes, it's nice and centrally located. Maybe not quite as good as MO, but certainly better than Topeka. Stan

[Bill Steele]

I think the luster of a National Championship is still pretty bright. On the other hand, making the Runoffs something every club racer aspires to participate in should be the primary goal of National.

Taking the race on the road to a different world class race track each year is a fabulous idea. It would incur greater expense on SCCA National's part which would have to paid for somehow, not to mention the greater expense in those years for competitors that find themselves living far from the upcoming event. Initially I think it probably would hurt participation numbers until everyone made adjustments to their planning and word started to circulate on how terrific the event was to attend. In the long run I think it really could elevate the event.

I also think finding ways to elevate the importance of the Runoffs might help motivate the best drivers to attend the event. I don't think cutting the number of invites from each division is the answer. I think getting more drivers wanting to compete at the National level is the answer. Out here on the West Coast, in Nationally eligible classes, many local drivers don't even think about the Runoffs and as such may or may not race even at a locally held National event. In many cases, if they do race at a local National event it is really just to be racing (track time) with no thoughts of points.

In one class with which I am familiar the guys from the West Coast that will most likely attend this year's Runoffs would be 2 or more seconds off the pace in a local SF Region event. These same guys will probably be 2 or more seconds off the pace at this year’s Runoffs as well. To my knowledge, none of the SF Region front runners in this class have been to the Runoff's in years.

[TimW]

I see it pretty far fetched that Tony George would pay to have the race.

So, does Tony George really need to have to pay to hold the race? Yes SCCA currently gets a fee from the promoter to host the runoffs, but virtually little income other than reserved paddock, $3000 garage rentals, manufacturer row rentals (and state TIF funds) is available to the host. There is little gate money to recoup that fee so essentially most of the fee SCCA gets comes from the attendees/members anyway. Forego the promotors fee and create some kind of revenue share for the club and the venue so its equitable for both.

Since Tony wants to be the most influential man in North American motorsports, if you can convice him this is an important event to North American motorsports he'll entertain the idea, even if the revenue upside to him is not large.

Tim

[KevinFirlein]

Tim thats why I said the BoD would have to compromise. They would just have to get used to the fact that the track isnt paying. SCCA should negotiate a rental for the facility just like the regions do for every other event we hold.

I wold be willing to bet the entries level would easily beat the record set at Mid O a couple of years back.

[stonebridge20]

OK Let's change the question. Where would you want to go if you had the choice of Runoffs locations?

Well,...There's a way to light a fire under this thread !

Go to the poll I posted and VOTE !

[Ken Rozeboom]

So, do we want 700+ entries or just the top three in points for each class which would result in maybe 250 (there will some who can't make it)? Sears and Laguna cannot host 700 cars, but can with only 250. What about the reduction in entry fee income ($120k+)?

[Greg Mercurio]

Some of you are geographically challenged if you think the Indianapolis is "Centrally Located". It is if you define the USA as stopping at the eastern border of New Mexico!

It would be a hoot to race there though.

[Stan Clayton]

Anything west of the Hudson...

[Larry]

...long, long ago the SCCA had a system that seemed to work well. They alternated the runoffs location between the east coast and the west coast. I attended the runoffs at Riverside, CA (I told you it was a long, long time ago!). The following year I think they were at Mid-Ohio.

We have several tracks in the country, and a rotating schedule would help share the pain of the trek to the track. It would also offer some advantages in pulling in workers, since a new venue has more interest than--let's say, Kansas.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[GT1Vette]

The first four years of the Runoffs ('66-'69) they alternated between Riverside and Daytona. In 1970 they moved to Road Atlanta. Purple Frog (he was just Mike back then) and I first attended in 1971. In 1972 there was ice on the ground and I remember it being 34 degrees when the AS (A Sedan, not American Sedan) race got the green flag on Sunday morning.

Up until that time it was always Thanksgiving week. After the ice storm of 1972 it was moved to the last weekend in October. Our kids probably have traumatic memories of going trick-or-treating among the tents of our enclave while the "adults" drained bottles of Boone's Farm and told tall tales of how we were going to run at the Runoffs some day (hence the emotion exhibited by Frog when he finally made it - assisted GREATLY by those here on ApexSpeed - at Mid-Ohio in 2005). Eventually the date moved to mid-October.

When the Runoffs moved to Mid-Ohio in '94 it retained the mid-October date. In 2000 there was ice on the ground and carburetors were icing during the Sunday morning warm-up (my only occasion to run GT-1 at said event). The next year it was moved to late September. With the move west and south last year, the date was moved back to October because the weather in Kansas was historically better that that in Ohio during that month.

Although there are VERY few tracks in the US that can support a 500 car race week, I fully support the concept of a rotating Runoffs. Few, if any, among the BOD share those feelings.

[M.Sauce]

If you have not polled the BOD you would not know for sure. I personally favor a change in venue for the Runoffs every year.Let me tell you why it is not practical.The tracks need 3 years to get all the issues for an event of this size in order.Name me one event in the country that has to park 700 plus trailers.The local municipalities almost have to buy into this and they have been typically slow to react to the events economic possibilities.Topeka has excelled at being friendly,reasonable prices on motels and an abundance of them and they have been the easiest group to work with.I am sorry to say that many of last years competitors did not like the track and it's lack of history and ambience.I personally under estimated that particular points importance.I have been to the Glen,Mid Ohio, Road Atlanta,Road America etc.HTP will never be those tracks.The National Championship must be somewhere like that to make many of our competitors happy.As far as where do we go from here?Our BOD must work hard to find a more attractive venue for the Runoffs.I hope all concerned understand the task before us.We have created an event that offers very few options because of the sheer numbers involved.Please understand that we(BOD,CRB,SEB etc.) all donate our time and that we give many days a year away from our work and our families to help govern this club.Not all decisions ultimately prove correct but all our made with the best of intentions.There are no black helicopters.

[GT1Vette]

Mike,

I certainly didn't mean to belittle yours or any Director's efforts. I am heavily involved in the adminstrative side of our club (Competition Director for Atlanta Region) and ran for the Area 12 Director position three years ago. I get just as steamed by those that criticize without knowing the issues behind the decision.

One of the things I proposed during my campaign was THREE Runoffs events, two weeks apart, with eight classes at each event. The classes would rotate between venues each year - FC might be at VIR in 2010, HPT in 2011, and Laguna in 2012.

The advantages:
. MANY more tracks are capable of hosting a 300 car event than a 700 car event
. "your" championship would be decided at a relatively local track every three years
. the whole thing could be done in a three-day weekend
(two practices on Friday, two qualies on Saturday, warm-up & race on Sunday)
. the tracks still get a three-year contract to build momentum
. reduces (or spreads out) the home track advantage

The negatives:
. no more "gathering of the clans" for one big event
. Steve Johnson doesn't get his "feature race" for the media
(oh wait, he's gone now isn't he?)
. more logisitics for the National staff
. TV hassles (not that we have much of a TV package now)

I sent in this suggestion to Jim Christian (head of the "Revise the Runoffs" Committee at the time) back then, but if you think the mood has changed since then I'd gladly formalize it again.

If the objective of the Runoffs is to be a "major event", then this dilutes the product.

If the objective of the Runoffs is to determine the National Champion in each class on an annual basis, this proposal deserves consideration.

Butch Kummer
Member #76908
Atlanta Region Competition Director

P.S. - and NO, I will never run for Area 12 Director again. Fool me once...

[Mark H]

The 3 year per track deal is the idea I like. Last year I was actualy looking foward to going to a new track (to watch) and diden't think that HPT was as bad as everyone said? Not driving I can't say how the track drove but it looked like you had to work for it?
Giving the western drivers a 3 year deal seems more than fair to me?
We can dream about all these tracks but most of them diden't even put in proposals to host the race? Take The Glen, I think that the France family owns that place...why would they want to host a big SCCA race?

[M.Sauce]

Butch- I wish you would run for the BOD.We need more racers involved.I think your proposal deserves listening to. The BOD realize what an immense resource member input can be.We have gotten many good ideas from the membership.I personally like the idea of crowning a true National Champion rather than just having a big event.I do think that the economics for having multiple events would be the greatest challenge.The events don't make a ton of money as it is.Thanks for the comments.

[Chas Shaffer]

Mike,
I appreciate the logistical issues associated with a track hosting the runoffs but if it is announced 2-3 years in advance what the next track will be doesn't that give them sufficient time to prepare? For instance this year announce where the race will be held in 2009 and 2010, next year 2011, and so on. That gives time to prepare and allows for the event to move annually.

With that said if the speedway will step up then I would vote to make it the permanent home. Especially with the new MotoGP configuration.

The bottom line is if it's announced that HPT won another 3 year contract I suspect SCCA national racing will suffer tremendously and may not survive.

btw.... I believe they had 1200 trailers at the US Nationals at IRP over the labor day week. (but please don't move the runoffs to IRP, go east about 15 miles to the big track).

Oh btw... Don't worry if HPT is announce for another 3 years you won't have to worry about 700 trailers showing up, it'll be much less.

Thanks for your help and dedication to the club.

[Bill Steele]

Not that I doubt the veracity of the many who have posted their feeling about HPT but I wonder if anyone has done an analysis of the negative responses about HPT (in particular those competitors that usually attend the Runoffs, that now have indicated they will not attend because of the venue of HPT).

It is hard to phrase this without potentially offending those of pure heart, but I wonder how many of the people really don't want HPT because it is too far to drive? Specifically, are the largest numbers of "no shows" from those on the east coast where Mid-Ohio might have been kind of the limit of their towing patience?

I just bring this up as a possibility, as I know a number of very fast guys out here that don't do the Runoff's because it always means a drive of many thousands of miles each way. To some degree I think those of us on the west coast have just taken the haul as a given, maybe the guys on the east coast have not.

My theory is the crankiness about the HPT experience might die down some and people start attending again after the shock of what a multi-day tow means, wears off.

Although I tend to agree with the arguments many have put forth about how nice it would be to be racing at a course with world class history, course layout and amenities, I can't shake the feeling much of the grousing comes from guys that never had to tow that far before.

Sorry if I offended anyone, OK, I got my Nomex on..

[TimW]

[COLOR=black]It is hard to phrase this without potentially offending those of pure heart, but I wonder how many of the people really don't want HPT because it is too far to drive? Specifically, are the largest numbers of "no shows" from those on the east coast where Mid-Ohio might have been kind of the limit of their towing patience?

Its not that its too far to drive, its not worth a drive thats that far.

I drove to Montreal & Mont Tremblant from Chicago and it was a great experience, especially with a stop at the Glen on the way home for the national. Would do it again if time/money permitted. I did drive to HPT last year and chose to go elsewhere this year, and to go where I felt the experiences would be better.

[Dave Gomberg]

Its not that its too far to drive, its not worth a drive that's that far.

BINGO!

Dave

[Chas Shaffer]

Bill,

Tim is spot on! I live less than an hour from the Atlantic and I would go to Laguna Seca in a heartbeat for the Runoffs. It's all about the venue, prestige, etc. NASCAR doesn't hold it's banquet at the Mooresville firehall, they have it the Waldorf Astoria in NYC, why, because it's the crowning event of the season. To make your crowning event meaningful it needs to be at a world class venue!

[DaveW]

It is hard to phrase this without potentially offending those of pure heart, but I wonder how many of the people really don't want HPT because it is too far to drive?

We debated quite a bit on whether to go to the Runoffs this year - we haven't missed one since 1974 - and some of the reasons that we might not have gone were:

1. Lousy weather - freezing AM temperatures, a relentless wind full of silt and dust
2. Disregard of racers' needs - poor announcers and a lack of pertinent announcements, grid officials refusing to wait for a few moments while the grid was in a panic trying to get ready for an unexpectedly early rollout, etc.
3. Money grubbing by HPT - having to pay for paddock spaces, even on grass; garages not as useable as Mid-Ohio's costing over $3K, and they're not even renting them all...
4. Lack of racecar-supply vendors due to HPT's exorbitant fees
5. And more...

The long tow was not even discussed.

What made us decide to return was the competition and the possibility of winning another championship, period.

[Bill Steele]

We debated quite a bit on whether to go to the Runoffs this year - we haven't missed one since 1974 - and some of the reasons that we might not have gone were:

1. Lousy weather - freezing AM temperatures, a relentless wind full of silt and dust
2. Disregard of racers' needs - poor announcers and a lack of pertinent announcements, grid officials refusing to wait for a few moments while the grid was in a panic trying to get ready for an unexpectedly early rollout, etc.
3. Money grubbing by HPT - having to pay for paddock spaces, even on grass; garages not as useable as Mid-Ohio's costing over $3K, and they're not even renting them all...
4. Lack of racecar-supply vendors due to HPT's exorbitant fees
5. And more...

The long tow was not even discussed.

What made us decide to return was the competition and the possibility of winning another championship, period.

Dave,

Man, you make the extra 545 miles the trip from here to Indy represents sound like time well spent.

It does seem like items 2-4 on your list should be able to be addressed. As far as the weather and blowing silt, hmmm, I guess you can’t take the Kansas out of Kansas.

It is great to hear you are still going to contend. Not that it is any less troubling to hear that guys who might be mid-packers are not coming (it still is the National Championship), it would be a major blow if one of the perennial contenders decided not to attend because the place sucked.

Thanks to all who have responded to my hypothesis, so much for that idea, another great thought exposed for what it is, nonsense.

Bill