FA/FB Consolidation

[Brandon Dixon]

Here is my letter to the BoD/CompBoard.

To me this is very much about "doing what you say". SCCA promised us a National Class for 5 years. I don't care if that was a good idea or not. They said that they would and they put it in writing. Many of us have a substantial investment based in large part on that word. Now 15 months later, they want to back out of the deal. Unacceptable.

Anyway, here's the letter:

Brandon Dixon
Citation Engineering
SCCA Member #364251

To members of the BoD and CompBoard:

The following section of the GCR was revised in the January 2007 Fastrack:

9.1.12. PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONAL CLASSES

A. A National Championship class shall retain its National Championship status as long as its annual average number of entrants remains at 2.5 or more per National event.

B. When the average number of entrants in a class at Nationals falls below 2.5, the class shall be allowed one additional year to bring the participation level above the current requirement. Alternatively, it may be immediately consolidated into an existing class. If, in the grace year, the class does not exceed current requirement per National race, it shall either be consolidated into an existing class or revert to a Regional only class.

C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year may be considered for inclusion in the National Champion¬ship racing program, except Improved Touring.

D. Based on member or manufacturer input, the CRB may recom¬mend the creation of new National classes to the BoD for approval. National classes created under 9.1.12.D shall be given five (5) years to attain an average of 2.5 cars per National event before being considered for consolidation or reversion to Regional status per paragraph B above.

Note 1: For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF), or disqualified (DQ). Drivers classified as did-not-start (DNS) shall not count as entrants.

Note 2: For the purposes of this section, GTL shall be considered a new class from 2005, T3 and Spec Miata from 2006, and B Prepared, D Prepared, FE, and Formula 1000 from 2007.

This launched to FB class and granted it National status. Section 9.1.12.D makes it clear that FB should have 5 years from 2007 to establish the 2.5 cars per National event participation level before being considered for consolidation or reversion to Regional status. This gave many manufacturers such as me the green light to work on the design and production of cars and conversion kits for this class. There was clearly no guarantee of a Runoffs bid, as the class limit had been imposed and thus the only way to secure a place at the Runoffs would be to get the required participation level. The people involved in this class were counting on this and believed that we could get the required participation to both secure National status and also get a Runoffs bid within the 5 year grace period.

The recent BoD ruling as published in the June 2008 Fastrack ignores all of the above. Now FB is supposed to be either consolidated into FA with “competition adjustments” or become a “subclass” of FA run under the current FB rules at National events. Neither of these is acceptable.

Using “competition adjustments” to make FB cars competitive with FA cars is an impossible task. I have been told by multiple BoD members that this is NOT what the BoD intended even though the specific wording in Fastrack would make me think that this is exactly what the CompBoard is to do. Please do not force the CompBoard to try to do this.

FB should not be relegated to being a regional only class and allowed to compete in National events as a “subclass” of FA. Please honor the words of section 9.1.12 above. Give us 5 years to make the numbers. The June 2008 Fastrack also indicates that FB will have a National Championship race at Road America in 2009, although probably FB will be racing concurrently with another class. So in 2009 FB deserves a National Championship race but after that we should be merged with FA somehow?

This recent Fastrack ruling has already had a detrimental effect on the class. Prospective customers have indicated that they would now hold off coming to the class to wait and see how this turns out. FB is in the very early stages and as such is very fragile. If this is not clarified/fixed quickly, I fear that the BoD will have effectively killed FB. FB has brought more new cars and new manufacturers to SCCA than any class in a long, long time such as Stohr, Piper, Citation, Novak, Speeds, Phoenix, Pacific, Hickman, Gloria, Mallen-Alley, plus numerous one-off homebuilt designs/conversions. Imagine the impact to the club if all of these manufacturers watch SCCA kill off the class by constantly changing the rules and thus scaring off the potential customers.

My investment is this class is substantial. I have “tooled up” to produce 6 *new* FB cars, including investing in CNC machine tools, CAD/CAM software, a substantial inventory of parts, and raw materials. I did this based on what was promised above. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity; we can produce satisfactory participation numbers. The instability and threat of not honoring the written agreement of section 9.1.12 is driving customers and manufactures away. I am fortunate that much of my investment will carry over into car production for the F2000 Pro Championship Series and I fear that several manufacturers will concentrate on that series unless SCCA shows support for FB.

One last time, please stay the course and honor section 9.1.12 for FB.

Thank you for listening!
Brandon Dixon

[Wren]

If FB is run in FA for nationals, like the enterprise cars were and the pro Mazda is now, it would give them the same chance as we have been told they will have to make the numbers to become a class of their own. It really doesn't change things from where they are now, other than the FB moniker isn't used in national racing. This would allow the class to run in the ARRC still, not robbing it of this opportunity. When it meets the participation numbers, it is a national class.

The problem with that is that it isn't what FB was promised.

No one should go spend the money on FB cars with the chance that they might one day have a national class. They could just go get an FC for similar money and zero risk(your FB will be borderline worthless if they are stuck in FA like FE was).

The spec cars are different cars with different drivers/owners.

Leave things how they are, how they were promised, and just see what happens. Why does the BOD have to go around like a damn goldfish with zero attention span completely changing their direction every 15 months.

[RussMcB]

Musta come out a bit garbled Russ, let me try again.

Thanks, Kevin. That makes a little more sense, but still sounds like a bad idea.

To reiterate what I think you (they) said:

1) FB (the class) would go away and F1000 cars could compete in FA (like FE a few years ago). There would be no more FB national racers until the F1000 cars gained enough numbers to warrant their own class.

(BTW, that's pretty much what the whole F1000 community was expecting 18 months ago, and then SCCA surprised everyone by proclaiming FB a national class. We thought, at the time, "Gee, SCCA must think this F1000 thing is really going to be a winner.")

2) F1000 cars could run at the Runoffs as long as they meet the requirements within FA (like some FE cars did in FA).

3) Other (non-Runoffs eligible) F1000 cars could run the ARRC.

Is that what you think the BOD is thinking now? If so, I can see a lot of problems with that plan, too. For instance, no improvement to the problems they are supposedly trying to address.

It also doesn't seem to mesh with the CSR/DSR/S2 consolidation. Or maybe that's a completely different situation? Who knows?

PS. Thanks for the compliments, Kevin. Sorry I missed you at CMP. If I get to Rd Atl this weekend, I'll look you up.

[R. Pare]

Ah yes - statistics.

Stan's graph can be read many ways, as all statistics can. In politics, they call it "spin".

In 25 years, National Racing numbers have declined only 10% (approx 10k to approx 9k) - not bad at all considering the escallation of costs along the way.

Another way to read the graph is that the total number of people willing to spend their money racing has only declined 10%, with that number of people just being spread over a greater number of classes. The question that hangs like a Florida chad is this - would the results have been any different if the Club had just found a way to decrease the costs in existing classes instead of adding new, somewhat cheaper classes?

Who knows? But to declare as absolute that the newer classes are the reason that National participation didn't decline farther is false - neither premis can be stated as absolute fact. Good arguement can be made either way, but neither can be argued as "fact".

[kma4444]

Just to be clear, which I may not have been being so far, I completely agree with Brandon's letter. I agree that FB should be handled exactly as it was promised it would be and in accordance with the GCR. I do not think it could or should be consolidated with any class least of all FA.

That being said, my comments are based upon the word of what was in Fasttrack. My opinion is, if the plan is to consolidate the classes, then just leave FB out of it thank you very much. That way it can live or die on it's own and not be tied to a poor plan that effectively kills it.

We'll be at Rd Atlanta and look forward to seeing any of you guys who are around.

[carnut169]

Want to fix National participation numbers? Fix the runoffs.
1.One place would work- Indy. Pay them what they want for the track- competitors will happily pay an added entry fee and lustfully flock to national events for the chance to earn an invite.
2. All classes eligable- take the top 24 as has been said.
3. Leave the classes alone! Make me change the "B" to an "A" even though my entry will be counted as a "B"?? What? How does that do anything besides making me buy more vinyl?

Changing anything in FB before 2012 would be in extremely bad taste.

[Charles Warner]

IT is just a car preparation level, Mike...not a social disease. In nearly all other classes a competitor can take the same basic car from entry level Regional racing to the Runoffs. To casually suggest that IT racers wishing to join the National program sell their existing cars and buy and develop a new one is not very useful IMO, and that 25-year old attitude is a direct contributing factor to the perpetual decline of National racing.

Stan

Stan, As an aside social commentary I would posit that the influx of IT so many years ago has had far reaching consequences that were put forth then and summarily dismissed out of hand by Nick and his group. First of all, nothing can be done about it now. Back in the day there were a lot of people who were getting turned on to racing. We had good cars, good support, good competition. More and more people wanted to join the club (literally and figuratively). Problem was, there wasn't a venue for them given their financial ability to play in our sandbox. I was one of those. So, what did I do? I became a corner worker.

When the IT concept was bandied about there was little discussion that we were cutting our own throat by giving those less able to race a place to enjoy their passion at the expense of the system as a whole. All of a sudden you could go to a junkyard and bring back a $200 clunker, bolt in some stuff, buy the cheapest used drivers suit available, hit your helmet with Krylon, and voila! You were a racer. Up until then you were a corner worker.

In short, we dumbed down the racing scene. I realize the concept was to get these guys hooked and then into newer, established classes, and they could sell their cars to the next generation of racers, ad nauseum. It didn't work. The cars got more expensive (I saw Nick's personal 240-Z IT car. No pro team could beat him for preparation - or cost of preparation.) IT became the 800# gorilla that was wagging the dog (forgive the mixed metaphor.) And, if enough research were done, it was directly responsible for the loss of corner workers.

Not that this has much to do with the current situation, other than to point out the law of unintended consequences. Yes, I am enough of a curmudgeon to expect the IT guys to realize their classes were never intended to get national status. If they want to join an extant national class, great . . . but let's not create other classes based on IT cars that will further stress the SCCA system. Sometimes the social disease becomes more accepted, even fashionable, but . . . . it's still a social disease.

[stonebridge20]

Charles,......Thank you!

[RussMcB]

<removed>

[Matt Conrad]

I recommend we take the IT discussion elsewhere and leave this thread for the FA/FB consolidation discussion....please.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[M.Sauce]

I have recommended to the BOD and CRB a 5 year plan on class consolidation.It ultimately would malaffect very few.I agree that FB was given 5 years to make the numbers I think they should have that.Phil Creighton and myself have recommended we rescind this consolidation motion and have recommended a new one.Once the BOD has looked at it we can move foward.Please understand that this motion happened for good reason but was premature and in my opinion not thought out well enough.Give us a few weeks to work this out and I hope we can bring something more acceptable forward. Mike Sauce

[carnut169]

That's great Mike, but a little late. It's like laying down your cards, showing a full house then picking them up and saying sorry, too early- keep playing.

SCCA powers to be need to somehow make those potential FB buyers/ builders feel warm & fuzzy again- and I'm not sure how you can. One step would be saying that if FB does not make participation numbers after the 5 years the class goes regional and earns the right to go National in the future- not that it gets dissolved into FA.

If not screwed with, FB will succeed. It's an exciting formula and the innovators will figure out the issues, solve them, and have that high performance, low cost formula racing we were looking for at the beginning. I was under the impression that SCCA wanted to be part of that- one of the reasons for FB National status without us earning or asking for it.

[RussMcB]

I have mixed feelings - glad that it seems someone belatedly has realized what a mistake it was - but still extremely disappointed that it could have happened in the first place. I still can't get past the fact that 12 people at the top of our club unanimously thought it was a good idea. It may take a long time to have confidence in the current board members again, if ever. I'd like to hear details about how and why it happened. I wish a town meeting type forum could happen to give members an opportunity to get direct answers.

[Matt Conrad]

Mike,

Thanks for your assistance on this. I am holding out hope that reason will rule the day on this issue and we can move this exciting new class forward.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[RobLav]

Yes, thanks Mike. Sanity prevails, but at what cost?

[Mike Devins]

Thanks to both Mike and Phil for understanding and responding to our input.

For those that have not written please do so. Also attempt to contact you area director personnally either by email or by phone. Everyone of the directors will be voting again if this is to be changed and your input will take them out of the vacuum that they were in when they voted the first time.

Going forward I can tell you that Mike and Phil would get my vote to be re-elected based on this action. Watch to see how your director votes and use your vote accordingly.

[Duane Dyckman]

Mike,
Are your comments more directed at the FB/FA fiasco or at the general concept of consolidation? As you know I am in the Sports Racer camp. Would you be advising the BOD to re-think the SR consolidation? Thanks

[Douglas Brenner]

The problem is that the tail is wagging the dog. I have no idea what to do about it!

[cparsons]

after reading all the commentary on this subject through Sunday night, I spent Monday working on the yard instead of the FB chassis. Yard looks great. And, you know, so will the car when it's finished. I make no claim to understand the rationale or the full consequences of the decision made in Topeka, but I have CHOSEN to view it as a personal challenge. Rules is rules, if we make the participation numbers, the rules state we get an invite to the runoffs, and we have(had) 5 years to do that. That's the rule. Topeka has broken a promise to the FB community and caused collateral damage to the FA community, I have not informed myself of the implications of the other consolidations but the participants in those groups are probably not happy either. If we meet the participation requirements and don't get an invite, then Topeka has broken the RULES! If that happens I'll get really angry. Right now, I have a personal challenge. The entire FB community has been challenged, time to put up or shut up. We have 3 1/2 years to "get 'r dun."

[Rick Ross]

Mike,

Thanks to you and Phil for reconsidering your position and taking another look at this issue.

[Douglas Brenner]

What is this big preoccupation with Indy?? The race is now pretty much a sham and it is oval racing, not road racing. If you all like Indy so much, maybe you should get into that kind of racing. Just because they ran a few F1 races there, it doesn't mean it is a premier road course. It is just an infield oval track. Big deal.

The new choice for the runoffs, Road America, is one of the most historic and beautiful road courses in America and has seen almost every great driver and car in our sport throughout the years. I for one would not pay 2 cents to go to road race at Indy, much less pay a premium! It seems like the motovation to race there is so you all can tell everyone you raced at Indy instead of wanting to compete in ameture road racing on a proper road course.

I just don't understand where road racing is going. Maybe I am just a nostalgic old F**t, but it really was better when I started and it looks like it is all going down hill.

[carnut169]

I think most people (at least those I've talked to) think Indy would be great. One appeal is that no one would have a home-field advantage. I do believe this is the wrong thread for the Indy discussion!

[RussMcB]

I'm not sure if I'm a little behind, but I heard an explanation today that sounds different than versions I've heard before (or maybe I'm just now understanding).

FB would be included in FA --> only for the purpose of counting entries towards a runoffs group of FA/FB <--.

In other words, FB would be their own class, but when time for the Runoffs, FB would run with FA (probably with a split start at the long Rd America track).

The two big positives are:

1) There would be more Runoffs entries because there would be some F1000 cars there (that otherwise would not be in the Runoffs until FB car counts warrant their own group).

2) Since F1000 cars would be able to run at the 2009 Runoffs, there would be some F1000 drivers who would choose to do more national races in order to get a Runoffs invitation.

Increasing Runoffs entries and national races entries are two big goals, right? This particular spin of the FA/FB consolidation would be steps towards both those goals.

Something to ponder ...

[S Lathrop]

In the past, FA has been the incubator class for FSCCA, and I believe FM. The old FC was for Super Vees and that class was the incubator for F2000. In the case of FC, F2000 was made the dominant formula and the water cooled FSVs were pushed up to FA.

The first F2000 that I built ran at the runoffs at Road Atlanta well before the class was reformed. We actually raised several thousand dollars for a purse for the F2000. This process was very positive in getting the numbers up for F2000.

I would support this approach. The F1000 increases its exposure and increases the rewards for drivers entering the class.

Further more, I don't think the performance differrence between FA and FB is nearly as great as we see today. I will perdict that the top FB will run top five at Elkhart.

FB has nearly the same power to weight as a FA; has much lower frontal area and drag(smaller tires if nothing else); and with 20% less mass, its cornering and stopping potential is also competitive with FA. Additionally the down force to mass of F1000 will easily be above 1 to 1, putting it in the high down force level of cars. In short, FB will be at least equal to a water cooled FSV against FA and that wasn't bad. I had fun picking on the FA with my FSV.

[RussMcB]

I can't remember where I read or heard it, but there is suppose to be an emergency conference call tonight about this, right?

I wonder how we'll hear about the discussion and decisions made during it. Based on recent experience, I predict we won't hear anything official, but instead second hand from people who weren't actually on the call.

The other night (after several beers at the race track) we were wondering if we could propose bylaws or whatever that would make it possible to monitor meetings. It sure would be nice to have some transparency. It might help us determine who is doing a good job representing us and who isn't.

[Mike B]

I don't know if it was regularly-scheduled or an emergency meeting but the BOD was indeed meeting today. I had asked a few members of the board to communicate the pertinent minutes as quickly as possible but I'm not holding my breath on that. After the June Fastrack debacle they owe it to us all to not make us wait until next month's Fastrack.

[Mike B]

Phil's post from another, unrelated thread:

Our call was rescheduled to Wednesday due to insurmountable technical issues that prevented most of the BOD getting access.
FYI - The intention was not to merge FA and FB from a performance point of view, only that FB would run as-is in FA for tracking purposes as we did with FE till it makes the numbers.
Phil

Phil,
I'm only going from memory, but in the years that FE was part of FA, was there ever more than 2 or 3 cars that showed up at the Runoffs? Since the leadership seems obsessed with the Runoffs, this isn't going to accomplish much that we didn't already have prior to this clusterf**k.
Having said that, if this is now the BOD's intent, I think FB can live with it.
I also don't remember how FE entries were tracked. How does the club know which FAs are actually FBs?

By the way, FA is the 3rd highest subscribed class for the June Sprints, behind only SM and SRF (and only three entries behind SM.)

[Wren]

Having said that, if this is now the BOD's intent, I think FB can live with it.

I say that it kills FB now where it stands.

There are a LOT of people out there who have zero interest in entering a regional race and would tow hundreds of miles to a national rather than cross the street to enter a regional.

Why would anyone buy an FB to run in regionals? Just a tiny bit more gets you in an FC with two good pro series, national racing, and a run-offs invite.

FB is not FE, what works for the spec crew won't work for the open classes. How many classes have ever really made the numbers to move up from regional status? SM, FE, and who? it won't happen.

FB as a national class can survive.

[VehDyn]

Where is the logic for this suggestion? Why does this make any sense to have FB run as a subset of FA until we "Make the numbers". FB runs in the same run group as FA anyway so nothing changes there. The only difference will be at the Runoffs which likely will be a lowly or totally unsubscribed FB subset of FA. This will likely only reduce the growth of FB and possibly make the tracking of FB numbers confusing as some some races will just lose track of whether it is an FB or an FA.

Who makes these decisions? Is this just an attempt to show progress in taking a step back from a horribly uniformed decision, but not admitting how bad it really was? Who are these people? I love FA as a class but could really give a rip about padding their numbers so they can more likely get their contingency tires and/or other loot.

And SCCA constantly wonders why the club keeps losing members.

Thanks for throwing us the bone. We are very grateful. (Psst. That was sarcasm.)

[RussMcB]

Phil's post from another, unrelated thread:



Phil,
I'm only going from memory, but in the years that FE was part of FA, was there ever more than 2 or 3 cars that showed up at the Runoffs? Since the leadership seems obsessed with the Runoffs, this isn't going to accomplish much that we didn't already have prior to this clusterf**k.
Having said that, if this is now the BOD's intent, I think FB can live with it.
I also don't remember how FE entries were tracked. How does the club know which FAs are actually FBs?

By the way, FA is the 3rd highest subscribed class for the June Sprints, behind only SM and SRF (and only three entries behind SM.)

Mike, I'll take a stab at those points. Probably wrong, but ...

There may not have been many FE's within the FA Runoff races, but there may be two differences with FA/FB. At a much longer Road America, FB cars could easily get a split start and (hopefully) not adversely affect the FA race. Also, I don't think there was an official FE winner when they were part of FA, but that could be different with FB. In other words, if they choose, there could be a 2009 FB champion.

As to how they would counts FB cars, FB will still be a stand alone national class during the year. The only difference between 2008 and 2009 will be that when the counts are tallied, FA will have FB numbers added to them.

Finally, Runoffs entries would benefit from this plan because there will be F1000 cars at the 2009 Runoffs that would not otherwise be there.

Of course, this is all baseless conjecture on my part.

[Wren]

Where is the logic for this suggestion?

There is none.

I want to know what is so f'king hard about staying a course for more than 18 months, or what is so f'king hard about keeping your word to racers and manufacturers.

[rickb99]

3 FB's in the Seattle double National, 5 in the Rose Cup National. If the rest of the country gets their FB's on the track, the numbers should be made.

[S Lathrop]

When F2000 was a subclass of FC that was dominated by water cooled FSV cars, and the performance difference was larger than FA/FB, F2000 grew to the point of making up nearly half of all FC entries.

I see this as an opportunity to show case a really cost effective high performance open wheel race car. Participation at the runoffs will be a function of the enthusiam of the FB guys and what they collectively want to prove to the rest of the open wheel guys.

[Marshall Mauney]

How many classes have ever really made the numbers to move up from regional status? SM, FE, and who?

SM
FE
FM
F500(F440 at the time)

Granted, that's not a terribly long list, but it can be done. It's also interesting to note that three of the four could be viewed as having a fairly high price/performance value (with FE being the exception).

[Phil Creighton]

The idea was to run FB as a subset of FA to allow them to go to the Runoffs since they have no chance of making the numbers to go on their own on the figures so far this year which average just over one per race. (Probably about 1.4 per race at the moment). If we don't use this solution its unlikely FB will go to the Runoffs in 09 unless there is a huge increase in entries for the rest of the year. For those involved since the beginning - why aren't you running in Nationals. We have 8 total entries in the SE in 10 races.

The motion was badly written and premature and is unlikely to stand as is and there are a number of BOD members that feel that we have too many Formula Classes - not withstanding the fact that they are all in the top ten in National participation (except F5 / FB).
A number of us on the BOD are attempting to make some sense out of it all but face an uphill struggle to stop the constant drumbeat of fewer classes - everybody says there are too many (till its their class that gets affected.) Our call tomorrow night should see where we stand on the whole issue.

I ran for BOD to try to stop messes like this and the Elan manifold from happening and increasing enthusiasm for the National Program. Last weeks decision looks dumb but I believe that it will lead to a better plan for the future. Hang on and don't lose the enthusiasm just yet. Get out and run and it may all be academic if FB reaches a 2.5 average per race. I'll try and get the current number after last weekends race.
Phil

[Lee Stohr]

Phil, So why do we need separate classes for FE, FC and FM?
They all look the same, they all cost the same, they all go the same speed, they all have steel tube frames and car engines. Compared to the differences between S2 and DSR or the differences between FA and FB, equalizing performance between FE, FC and FM would be a piece of cake compared to what you guys proposed initially for the rest of us. What were you smoking when you voted to put a tube frame $40K car into a class with carbon tub $125K cars?

[rickb99]

..... and there are a number of BOD members that feel that we have too many Formula Classes - not withstanding the fact that they are all in the top ten in National participation (except F5 / FB) Phil

Interesting that members of the BOD are so 'upset' with many of the "TOP TEN" racing classes in SCCA. Just what motivates that attitude? I could guess but I won't because it wouldn't be constructive

If you relegate ANY classes to the junk heap in Regionals or Nationals (through consolidation), all regions will lose participation. They will go to that other club. What classes you choose to make eligible for National races is a different question.

Good Luck Phil ! !

[Phil Creighton]

Read what I posted above Lee - The tube frame car engines seem to be doing just fine at FV 3rd, FF 5th, FE 6th, FC 7th,and FM 8th in total participation. I assume it was a touch of sarcasm but maybe you should post that on the relevant sections of this forum to see if there are any takers?
FB's average participation is now 53 entries in 47 races according to the pointskeeper (1.128)
Phil

[Phil Creighton]

http://www.myscca.com/community/blog...g&sblogId=Y5Nj

[Lee Stohr]

Oh please, we're supposed to get useful information from something called the Rumor Mill ?