Revamped National Racing Program and Runoff???

[jim_oseth]

Peter,

Doing this could increase the talent pool for the Runoffs, but I suspect the same people would win the Runoffs, whether the field was 5, 10 or 20 cars. I don't think the message in this thread is that the wrong people are winning the Runoffs (is it?).

Nope...except for the guy that won formula vee this year. I forgot his name...thanks jimo

[Lee Stohr]

I don't know what are the goals or problems the planning committee is supposed to be working on. If it is the declining participation in SCCA and it's events, then perhaps one has to ask - what is the purpose of the SCCA? What services does it provide?
Basically, the SCCA staffs roadracing events. It provides insurance and workers and so forth. But this is not a unique service, lot's of other clubs and organizations do the same thing. SCCA has a subsidiary Enterprises that may break even selling a couple dozen cars a year. SCCA has the Runoffs, where National Champions are determined in a few classes. About 500 people participate in that event. Few spectators show up, and TV has to be paid for and shown many months later. Other clubs crown National Champions as well, in other classes the SCCA doesn't include in it's Runoffs. So what does the SCCA provide? Anything special?
We are living in an era of increasingly fragmented audiences, where people want to participate in their own narrowly targeted communities. SCCA tries to provide one stop shopping for everyone with a roadrace car. But that just isn't enough anymore. For instance, if Historic racing is your thing, organizations exist that specialize in putting on events for those people. Young drivers who want to get into pro racing are targeted by Formula Mazda, BMW, Barber, Russell, etc. Those organizations are going to do a better job in their little niches than SCCA can do when it is trying to be everything to everyone.
SCCA seems to try and give every car made a place to race. They try to equalize different cars by giving favors to one, and then changing the rules later. This just chases away old competitors as fast as new ones are suckered in.
SCCA has a nice little collection of classes and diehard enthusiasts who like things the way they are. SCCA is unlikely to make inroads into the many other road-racing splinter groups. So what is the answer? Does SCCA just keep going as is, or does it try and grow ? If growth is desired, is it even possible?

Midnight ramblings from Lee. . .

[Dave Gomberg]

The rules currently dictate that a Doubles weekend has to have 2 regions as hosts, so there would be zero issue there. There might, however, need to be a change in the rules to allow 2 regions in the same division to pair together to host that weekend ( not currently allowed - the regions have to be from 2 different Divisions).

That's not correct. What you've cited is the new provision for a dual National the first of which will be over Memorial Day weekend at Nelson Ledges hosted by Mahoning Valley (NEDIV) and Northeast Ohio (GLDIV). A dual National must involve regions from two divisions (GCR 3.1.3) Double Nationals (GCR 3.1.2) are (as I mentioned) quite common in various parts of the country, but less so in others. They are simply two races crammed into a weekend put on by the same region (occasionally, there are multiple sponsoring regions within the same division for those).

So, within NEDIV or SEDIV, where lots of regions put on Nationals, if there was a move toward (mostly/all) double Nationals, something would have to give. This year in NEDIV there are 9 Nationals (including one double) put on by 8 regions. If they all became doubles that would be 16 Nationals (and one or both of the regions involved with the new track in NJ will probably want to do Nationals next year). This year in SEDIV there are 13 Nationals put on by 7 regions (including 3 doubles). 13 is already too many races. If they all became doubles, there would be 20 Nationals in SEDIV! Good grief!

Dave

[R. Pare]

Yep - a mis-read on my part!

Still, there is nothing in the rules stating that a Doubles weekend cannot be hosted by 2 regions, so your concerns are moot. I agree, however, that it would be desirable to insert specific language into the GCR rather than rely on the old "if it doesn't say we can't, then we can" thought process.

As to the number of races vs the number of race weekends - if 2 regions choose to co-host a Doubles weekend, the obvious thing is for it to be 2 regions that would normally host separate weekends at the same track. In the case of the divisions that host, say, 10 races over 10 weekends, if 8 of thos races were combined to Doubles (with the entry fees doubled for those doubled weekends - ie - same entry fee per race), that would drop the number of weekends down to 6 - a definite savings for the racers (travel, hotel, food), as well as an increase in income for the regions (lowered track rental and ambulance fees, etc).

[Raceworks]

Reducing the amount of Nationals is not the problem. Quality track time at those nationals is. When you go to a race and have to contend with S2000, CSR, Atlantics and other Formula Continentals all in the same group it gets to be pretty busy. That was the way it was at the last Topeka National in 07' This year they are having it as a Double National. Can't wait to see the groupings for that one.

Also at big races such as the June sprints they pair groupings and have way to many yellow flags.

Maybe the SCCA needs to get rid of the Regionals.

The only good thing about being at the Runoffs is that it allows each group to race alone. I guess we need to start to eliminate classes??

Brian Tomasi

If you eliminate or consilidate classes, all you're doing is making the problem different. If, say, we consolidated FM, FC, and FE into a single class, your test day is still going to be just as busy and crash-ridden. The only difference is gong to be the lettering on the various cars.


And no, dumping Regionals is not a good idea, unless you suddenly want to to give NASA a whole bunch of new members. Contrary to what some may think, even in "poorly subscribed" classes the competition & prepration level is much higher at the National level. Lap times that got me pole position in Regionals in FM won't even get me in the top 3 for Nationals.

[Bill Steele]

I have been in and around SCCA racing for longer than I would like to admit. I tend to be a cynic by nature and particularly cynical when it comes to anyone holding an elected office.

Even saddled with the prejudices noted above I hope the committee formed that is at the root of this thread makes some good choices and things are improved. I love SCCA racing and for the most part the kind of people that are involved in it. Nothing would make me happier than to see SCCA national racing become so compelling that guys start putting it back on their "must do" list.

[Raceworks]

I don't know what are the goals or problems the planning committee is supposed to be working on. If it is the declining participation in SCCA and it's events, then perhaps one has to ask - what is the purpose of the SCCA? What services does it provide?
Basically, the SCCA staffs roadracing events. It provides insurance and workers and so forth. But this is not a unique service, lot's of other clubs and organizations do the same thing. SCCA has a subsidiary Enterprises that may break even selling a couple dozen cars a year. SCCA has the Runoffs, where National Champions are determined in a few classes. About 500 people participate in that event. Few spectators show up, and TV has to be paid for and shown many months later. Other clubs crown National Champions as well, in other classes the SCCA doesn't include in it's Runoffs. So what does the SCCA provide? Anything special?
We are living in an era of increasingly fragmented audiences, where people want to participate in their own narrowly targeted communities. SCCA tries to provide one stop shopping for everyone with a roadrace car. But that just isn't enough anymore. For instance, if Historic racing is your thing, organizations exist that specialize in putting on events for those people. Young drivers who want to get into pro racing are targeted by Formula Mazda, BMW, Barber, Russell, etc. Those organizations are going to do a better job in their little niches than SCCA can do when it is trying to be everything to everyone.
SCCA seems to try and give every car made a place to race. They try to equalize different cars by giving favors to one, and then changing the rules later. This just chases away old competitors as fast as new ones are suckered in.
SCCA has a nice little collection of classes and diehard enthusiasts who like things the way they are. SCCA is unlikely to make inroads into the many other road-racing splinter groups. So what is the answer? Does SCCA just keep going as is, or does it try and grow ? If growth is desired, is it even possible?

Midnight ramblings from Lee. . .

Rambling as it is, Lee, it's one of the better posts on here. And it's what SCCA needs to really focus on (not just the folks in Topeka, but EVERYONE).


WHAT IS SCCA FOR?

I've said it before. The first the we as a club need to do is figure out what it is we're doing here before we start messing around with class structures or national championship formats.

Honestly, I think the "one stop shopping" concept is what's hurting us. Not just in terms of class structure, but with the club in general: We have a relatively open format for "fun racing" (Regionals), a more structured National racing program, a Pro racing series, and we manufacture race cars (Enterprises). Lately we're getting into doing the "track day" thing for street cars, in my opinion simply because the other clubs are doing it.

So what are we? Are we a club racing series, a vintage racing series, an entry-level professional race series, or a car manufacturer? Each one of those options has some aspects that are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive of the others if you're going to have the organization run optimally.

The main reason NASA, PCA, BMWCCA and all the other various car clubs are growing much more rapdily than SCCA is because of niche marketing. NASA grew primarily out of the fact they catered to cars that weren't competitive in SCCA. I think if you really want to help the club out in the long run we need to play to our strengths instead of trying to ape the more successful clubs. To that, I look at some things like:

1) Retain and even strengthen the two-tier (Regional & National) structure. Maybe instead of keeping some classes separate, we allow the bigger Regional classes into the Runoffs. However, we prohibit anyone who either gets a Runoffs invite or is in the top 10 in their divisional points from earning any points in the regional level races. Yes, you can still run if you need practice, or just need the ego boost of beating up on the little guys, but you aren't going to be both a regional & a national champion in the same year.

2) One thing SCCA offers that isn't really done very well by other clubs is purpose-built racing cars. I think this is a strength we should play to (i.e., this is the only amateur racing where you can run "real" race cars). The only problem is that some of these classes have some overlap. For the record, I actually liked the original open-wheel class restructuring that was proposed at the formula car meeting at the 2006 Runoffs. My problems with some of the actual execution of the plan later on was that it differed greatly from the original intent.

3) The problem SCCA has isn't "too many Nationals" it's too many events, period. Just glancing at the SEDIV schedule for 2008 I see about a dozen National or National/Regional weekends, plus over 20 Regional weekends. That doesn't include things like driver's schools, hill climbs, or time trials events. We are having chronic problems getting workers, and it's hard to even get decent entries for some of these events. If we're going to take a serious look at consolidating classes, maybe we need to consolidate some of these events as well. I don't see the point of having events where you barely get over 100 entries period, especially when some events have to be canceled because they can't get workers for them. Realistically I think our divison needs to pare down to 20-25 weekends period and focus on fewer but bigger events.

4) Work on communicating with the general membership better. The Formula car consolidation was suggested at a meeting at the Runoffs. From what I could tell the vast majority of particpants had no idea anything of the kind was being discussed until the Fast Track issue was put out. Apart from being radically different than the original proposal, there was essentially no mention of the discussion for the majority of people being affected. They got blind-sided by a "surprise, we're going to make a huge change to your class in less than a year!" It's no wonder the reaction was so hostile. This kind of discussion needs to be more open, and reaction might not be quite so hostile if there's a longer window of opprotunity.

5) If we really want to re-structure the classes. about the only thing I'd really be interested in is a complete overhaul, phased in over a 3-year period (1 year for each group: F/SR, GT, and P) with a 2-year minimum lead-time to gather member input and research data:

FA (combine existing FA & FB cars, class intened for top-performance formula cars)
FB (lower performance winged formula cars: combined FC, FE, & FM performance. Come up with a set of rules severlely limiting technological innovation to avoid "car of the year" type issues).
FC (wingless formula cars: combination of existing F500 & FF, as with FB, severely limit innovations)
FV (this class is still extremely popular, look at working Formula First into this class?).

SRA (High performance sports racer type cars, like exising ASR/CSR, maybe the newer-style DSR as well)
SRB (Mid-range performance sports racers, like existing DSR cars but with some limitations placed on them to separate them from SRA)
SRC (Low performance SR cars. This would be something similar to DSR but with much greater restrictions on technology, or you simply put the SRF's here).

Alternativley, maybe even looking at combining sports racers and formula cars (FA with SRA, FB with SRB, FC with SRC. In any case, combining an Enterprises-built car with other chassis would mandate the chassis & parts be sold by someone OTHER than the SCCA (thus avoiding conflict of interest issues).

GT1 (High performance GT cars, existing GT1 cars, plus look at equalizing with "GTA" and certain "SPO" prep cars)
GT2 (Lower performance GT cars, combine existing GT2, GT3, EP & maybe FP cars, as with the lower formula cars, innovations would be limited. Possibly throw some SPU-type cars in here as well, update these cars slightly with an actual rear wing)
GT3 (Very low performance GT or lower-prep GT & Production cars. Exsting GTL, GP, & HP cars, keep rules as close as possible to old GTL rules with regards to aerodynamics).

PA (High-performance modified production cars, something along a more limited AS class with ITR-type cars thrown in)
PB (Mid-performance production cars, similar to ITA/ITS)
PC (Low performance production-based cars, slow ITA/ITS).
SM would be made to fit somehwere in the PB/PC range.

In general, come up with with some practical rules for some of the lower-tiered classes where possible to limit cost. This would include a variety of spec parts: shock packages, gearbox, brakes, and engine management computer where applicable.

The overall idea here is you'd have basically 3 types of cars: Slightly modified production cars, heavily modified production cars, and totally purpose built cars. Within each class you'd have differing performance levels and prep levels so as to accomodate various manufacturers and tastes.

Look at phasing out older chassis (20-25+ years old) into vintage racing. (Yes I know the FM's are ancient designs, but my oldest car is a 1999, making it newer than most of the Spec Miata's & IT cars out there, I'm talking about actual age on the chassis).

Regional-level classes would be the same, with the addition of some "catch all classes" that are nationall recognized in the rules (SPO, SPU, ITO, ITU, FSO, FSU. Basically a class each for "GT" type cars, "Production" type cars, and "Formula/Sports racer" type cars. This would facilitate a proving ground for new cars, as well as allow cross-overs from other clubs). Still allow the local regions to run their own regional classes.

The downside is the admittedly painful transition. On the plus side, you'd have a greatly streamlined class structure, a package that's not only easier to explain either to spectators or prospective new members but also a lot easier to adjudicate, and a proposal that might lead to increased depth of competition (thus making the Runoffs less "easy to get to").


Regardless of what plan the club comes up with. We need to stick to it. We don't need any more stupidity like saying we have to cut down the number of National classes, come up with at least one plan (the formula consolidation I mentioned) to consolidate, and then suddenly add six new Natinonal classes and muck up the consolidation so that instead of being an actual attempt to streamline the class structure and improve depth of competition it ends up looking like a crass attempt to keep a couple of dying tin-top classes from being cut from the Runoffs.

It also needs to be explained well, and ahead of time. This time, it looks like it's getting done right. I actually don't mind the vague nature of the annoucement, because it looks like they're actually going to look for some input.

[rickb99]

After pondering all the deck shuffles, rearranging the dominos, the "cannots & cans" and the what's wrongs, it brings me back to my 'old' theme song.

NOTHING will be a change to make the SCCA amateur program a better show until the club harkens back to its roots of 40 years ago (nearly 50 now) and what made the SCCA GROW. There were 35 to 40 guys who wanted to hold an SCCA race at an airport. So, they found a few bucks and made up a nice poster to ADVERTISE the fact that they'd be racing. It went in the window of ever auto parts store and most of the gas stations in town. So there they were, 35 or 40 cars running on the track at different times and 300 to 450 people PAYING to watch. Some of whom actually became members of the club afterwards and started racing. That was how the SCCA grew to what it is today or, was 15 to 20 years ago any way.

I know the early "directors" of the club envisioned Pro racing as a source of income (revenue stream) to promote the growth of club racing. That should be true today as well as income generated by Enterprises (sic). Not the other way around.

It doesn't take a whole lot of investment in advertising to get the public back out. A few 100 posters placed in restaurants catering to racers of ALL types, key auto parts stores, racers shops that the non-road racers visit and I'm SURE every region has some car show on the radio who will give them a FREE on air promo over the weekend. Most regions will say they don't have the budget (no matter how small). But, instead of doing nothing but TAKING, Topeka should find the money for Divisions to at LEAST promote their Nationals.

P.S. Yes there's one club here that does exactly that once a year. How many people show up? Multiple THOUSAND's. So why not for the Double National?

Now some will say it's the insurance, Hmmm. At our National track, it isn't a 'spectator event' either. But, the track has members of the general public sign a waiver at the gate and lets them in keeping that revenue for themselves! It's just people who happen to 'wander' in and it isn't many but, it is the 'public'. So why not promote and 'share' in that gate?

If I were a member of the public and discovered (somehow) the SCCA was holding a race somewhere I'd want to go. But, if I drove up to the track gate and was told I couldn't come in because it was a 'closed event', my reaction would be..... @#*$ the heck with you guys.

P.S. Instead of the rude turn away, how about offering them a trial family membership??? "I'm sorry, due to insurance reasons, this event isn't open to the public. But, if you would like a 3 month family trial membership, you can come in" That sure sounds a lot better then go away!

Sports Car needs more articles about road racing (the events themselves) both national and regional. If open to the public, promote by getting the local TV station to come out and do a spot and a newspaper sports person to do a story. Harken back to Autoweek when it used to cover even regional races with a very thorough article with pictures. That's what Sports Car magazine SHOULD be. Every region has a wanna be Hemmingway and plenty of photographers wandering the track. Or SCCA, start up a new (as in old style) version of Autoweek! Call it "Road Racing Monthly" or something.

The above doesn't address track time or the format of the runoffs but it address's A core issue of what's happening to the SCCA. If you want to be the premier road racing club in the U.S.A. act like it at the grass roots level. We sure have plenty of Soloists and promotion of that form of racing. But road racing (the clubs essence in the beginning) seems to take a back seat.

So what's it worth? Perhaps helping to 'contain' the cost of entry fees, perhaps expose potential new road racing members to what we do, perhaps enhance even amatuer racers ability to get a "local sponsor" to shell out for a logo on the car. Yes, that's why the public was invited in the past. Charlie's Gas Station logo on the side of a Formula Junior got exposure to the public.

P.S. have you noticed it works at your local drag strip? Local business decals all over those cars. Why? Because the public is there! The Friday night drags have no more entry's then a road race event. Yet the public is there in the 100's. Why? Because they KNOW it's going on.

I am still just AMAZED at the number of people I run in to who have a REAL interest in road racing but have NO CLUE where it's happening or who's doing it. That includes people who just wander by my garage and see the car being worked on. Of course I give them the $100 talk about who, what, when and how much fun it is to come out and watch. Cause I know they can get in to our track even though it isn't promoted to the public.

Okay, now I'll get ready for the PM's and E-mails telling me to stop living in the past. It can't be done any more. Times have changed. So, we'll just continue to 'shuffle the deck', wring our hands about declining racers and brood over which 'other club' SCCA racers are leaving to race with.

There, I said it.

[TimW]

So why not promote and 'share' in that gate?

Because there is no elevator speech that describes sufficiently what actually is occurring at an SCCA event due to all the complexity that exists. I agree, we do need to decide on who we want to be and build a plan to be the best at that There are too many other diversions taking time & money from us an d any prospectives for SCCA to grow and improve its viability the way it operates in an all things to all people mode now.

[Lee Stohr]

Thanks Sam.
I too would like to go back to the old days of simple class structures like FA, FB, FC etc. Unfortunately it seems times have changed, better or worse, it doesn't matter - today racing has splintered into a million little groups. I don't think you can pull them together. In sports racing alone, you have the Radical guys, the Diaso guys, the V de V enduro guys, IMSA lites, DSR, CSR, Spec Wreck - few of these guys want to race together with some kind of flaky restrictor plate that won't ever properly equalize the different cars. And I'm sure I've missed another 5 or 10 sports racer groups.

Have you ever looked in the back of Formula Car magazine?
Here are some of the open wheel niche series in North America -
Star Mazda
F2000
Pacific F2000
Formula BMW
Skip Barber National
Formula TR Pro
Formula Pro
Formula Tour
Southwest FM
Formula Ford the Series
Formula Russell
Bertil Roos F2000
Euro FF Challenge (Firebird Intl Raceway)
Cendiv east vs West Challenge
FCM Pacific FV Challenge
Great Lakes FC / CFC Championship
New England Challenge
Ontario FF Challenge
Formula First/FV Cup
Bridgestone F2000 Series
DC Energy Formula Supercup
Ontario F1200 Championship
Formula Race Car Club of America
Formula Enterprises
F1000
ARRC
Club Ford in ICSSC
Spec Ford
etc.

Get the picture?

[Larry]

Perhaps I'm contentious by nature, but I start to worry when I find myself agreeing with people...and here I am, agreeing with Lee and Sam. SCCA is wandering, searching, trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up. Does it want to be pro racing, a retailer of products, amateur racing with family and friend, semi-pro racing paying purses--or all of the above?

The best definition of leadership that I ever heard was "having a vision and then motivating others to help you achieve your vision." I just don't think the management (can't call it the leadership) of SCCA has any such vision. Without having a clear idea of where you want to go, you can't develop a plan on how to get there...so SCCA wanders, hoping to bump into something or someone that will provide a vision.

...and yes, I agree that the politics cause paralysis. "We need change, but not in my group" is too often the cry.

So what's the forecast? A few inconsequential changes.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[DaveW]

...SCCA is wandering, searching, trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up. Does it want to be pro racing, a retailer of products, amateur racing with family and friend, semi-pro racing paying purses--or all of the above?

The best definition of leadership that I ever heard was "having a vision and then motivating others to help you achieve your vision." I just don't think the management (can't call it the leadership) of SCCA has any such vision. Without having a clear idea of where you want to go, you can't develop a plan on how to get there...so SCCA wanders, hoping to bump into something or someone that will provide a vision....

Larry Oliver

Couldn't have said it better myself!