My Latest Thoughts on Re-formatting the Runoffs

[glenn cooper]

(It must be a Georgia thing)

How much of a homefield advantage is it when the other premier event is at the same track? Not to mention a Dbl Nat, etc... I myself have run there enough to not feel that way myself, but I think a lot of folks who don't go, just might.

As long as we are running at such a long track, definitely double up classes.
Having said that make sure the pace car folks or stewards know how to pick up the leader (FA/FB RO race 2010) for a restart.

We definitely need a "clean slate" for the National Championships; if it comes down to 1 race, take away ANY advantage a driver might have.

The fact that Indy did not respond to the open invite to tracks to hold the event (supposedly only 2 tracks did) doesn't really tell/impress me much.
I think we need to launch a full-on proposal to them, if in fact something like this did NOT happen. THAT's how bad I want it there...

Butch, as always, thanks for your service!

[Bruce]

I towed out to Road America from the West Coast. Driving 18 hours a day, it took me 3 days one way. I wouldn't want to spend less time at the track than traveling. Heck it took me a whole day just to unwind.

[glenn cooper]

Man you guys are DEDICATED!
Making a drive like that's gotta be B-R-U-T-A-L.

I guess you looked into having the car brought out in a big truck w/ other cars and flying out?
Probably not enough of ya'll heading east to have any openings.
I couldn't do the 3 x 18 hr driving days each way...

[budawe]

That's the way it's been for the left coast for ever. Over the past 26 years I've made all but two Runoffs. That's about 132,000 miles just going to the Runoffs. Figure in that on the this end of the country, everything is a long tow. I've worn out 4 tow vehicles. Within Nor Pac division, we tow as much as 1500 miles just for a double in Seattle. We have long accepted this fact as part of the deal and really don't have much sympathy for those who complain about their long 1000 miles to the Runoffs. But it makes perfect sense to me to hold the event nearest to the majority of the membership. Too bad we couldn't relocate Cal's weather.

[Daryl DeArman]

That's the way it's been for the left coast for ever. Over the past 26 years I've made all but two Runoffs. That's about 132,000 miles just going to the Runoffs. Figure in that on the this end of the country, everything is a long tow. I've worn out 4 tow vehicles. Within Nor Pac division, we tow as much as 1500 miles just for a double in Seattle. We have long accepted this fact as part of the deal and really don't have much sympathy for those who complain about their long 1000 miles to the Runoffs. But it makes perfect sense to me to hold the event nearest to the majority of the membership. Too bad we couldn't relocate Cal's weather.

Only you can decide whether all that time and money has been worth what those 26 RunOffs have provided to you in return. I don't believe those that "complain" that it isn't worth it are seeking your sympathy. Rather, pointing out the obvious: if the Club wants different results regarding RunOff attendance then they best change the way they've been attracting folks in the past.

I've attending some huge National Championship events, so I understand the attraction of such an event. Just don't know that I'd be a regular unless it made more sense to do so, such as somebody running a business where their attendance furthers that effort.

[mmi16]

Would you feel the same way if you actually had the same or more green flag track time in a fewer number of days at the track than the current format?

No - 18 hour one way equates to 36 hours on the road for the round trip - as a 1 man band - I drive the tow rig, I unload the car, I wrench the car, I drive the car and I am not 'fresh as a daisy' upon arriving at the track to undertake the competition - no matter how much track time is available on my day of arrival (or for that matter my recuperation day the day after my arrival).

For me the Runoff's is a week's VACATION. A week to LEAVE the work-a-day world behind, a week to immerse myself in the FUN of racing. The reality is....If is isn't FUN why does one even come? Racing, the normal weekend National or the week of the Runoff's is much too hard a undertaking to embark upon if we don't have FUN doing it. I pity those who only view the competition as only the winner can have fun - what a miserable existence, and in the scope of the 600+ participants of the Runoff's only 29 can go home happy. BS

I also find it curious that it seems those that have the shortest tow to the Runoff's seem to be those that want the duration of the event shortened.

[Matt King]

I also find it curious that it seems those that have the shortest tow to the Runoff's seem to be those that want the duration of the event shortened.

I don't think that's the case at all, but I find it equally curious that some of the people with the longest tows don't seem very interested in shortening the length of the event. I guess it comes down to how easy it is for you to carve out a 7-14 day period of time to devote to the Runoffs. For a lot of us, finding that much time is not just a work consideration. Anyone with a relatively young family understands what I'm talking about, but then again, I don't see a whole lot of young families at SCCA races compared to the number of people in their mid-to-late 50s and older. Maybe it's easier for people in that demographic to find the time. I guess I'll find out in about 15 years!

[Charles Warner]

but I find it equally curious that some of the people with the longest tows don't seem very interested in shortening the length of the event.

I don't find it that curious. Notwithstanding the length of time one needs to get off from work, I totally understand the attraction of making the event as long as feasible. It's a matter of the days towed/days raced ratio. How much bang for each day of towing. Of course, you have to throw in the costs associated with each day at the races (minimized if one stays in a motorhome, of course.)

[Tiago Santos]

I agree that a 4 day event if you're towing for 2 days total, sounds great.. Not so much if you're towing for 6 full days!

[Matt King]

It's a matter of the days towed/days camped out at the track socializing and working on your car ratio. How much bang for each day of towing.

Fixed that for you, because there is not a whole lot of actual racing happening at Runoffs during the week, or track time of any sort.

But I understand that there is something about the total immersion in the event for the week that appeals to some people. Personally I don't need a whole week of that; three or four days is usually enough.

[mousecatcher]

Fixed that for you, because there is not a whole lot of actual racing happening at Runoffs during the week, or track time of any sort.

Great point! If it were actually to optimize track time (not #days on track), one should really be voting for minimal days at the track but with more track time per day.

[blentz2]

I like this plan alot. I liked it the first time that I heard it.

The National staff have to be there 4 extra days. Don't we pay them?

The track comes out just fine. There are almost as many test days available and I believe that you would have an even greater number of competitors making use of them.

The parking issues should go away.

For the SCCA workers, it turns into two 4 day events. Would there be an issue getting workers? I realize that many of the workers would not stay for both events, but aren't there more workers that could come to a 4 day weekend event than the current week long event?

What and who should I write to express that I like this format?

2 thoughts:
1. the guys that test and run in the second pack of 12 races will still be there the same amount of time. Except they will have 3-4 dead days in the middle.
2. Imagine the congestion of 300 trailers packing up and 300 trailers showing up on the same day!

[Brandon Dixon]

2 thoughts:
1. the guys that test and run in the second pack of 12 races will still be there the same amount of time. Except they will have 3-4 dead days in the middle.
2. Imagine the congestion of 300 trailers packing up and 300 trailers showing up on the same day!

With the 3-4 3-4 plan none of the above happens.

You test and then race in your week. Ideally the tes days should only be available for the classes racing during the coming week.

There wouldn't be 300 trailers left on Sunday. By late Saturday at the Runoffs I'd say at least 1/2 the trailers are gone already.

You wouldn't have 300 trailers coming to test on Monday. Some would come then, some would come on Tues, Wednesday and Thursday. It certainly wouldn't be as crowded as the Sprints.

[blentz2]

My understanding of what is being contemplated is two back to back 4 day events, not the 3-4 3-4 idea.

[GT1Vette]

My understanding of what is being contemplated is two back to back 4 day events, not the 3-4 3-4 idea.

At PRI in 2009 Dave Gomberg talked about a 4-1-4 format (one day in between for transition). What's currently being contemplated (if anything) will have to come from someone with inside knowledge of the discussions. That person is decidely NOT me.

[blentz2]

4-1-4 would make this a potentially 10 day event if you wanted to run just 1 day of testing. This will further separate those with time/money from those that don't.

[GT1Vette]

In the summer of 2010 (after talking to Dave) I submitted the 3-4-3-4 idea for consideration and even provided a potential schedule with group numbers and times based on the 2010 Runoffs sessions.

To me the 3-4-3-4 makes the most sense and I've gotten feedback from two directors that they agree with me. The only reason I submitted the "16 group" idea (which started this thread and is decidedly my second choice, the current schedule being third) is due to pushback from the "gathering of the clans" proponent(s).

The bottom line, however, is you need to let your director(s) know what you think even if you'd prefer to leave it like it is! I've been told potential Runoffs formats will be discussed by the BoD Planning Committee at this year's National Convention (which starts this week). Posting here carries little weight, but an e-mail to BoD@scca.com will be read by the entire Board of Directors.

[SStadel]

Butch, I did send a note to the BOD stating my support for the 3-4-3-4 plan. My concern with the "old" plan that you and I proposed a year ago was how to do the test days. I think this plan is spot on, a win/win so to speak. The track still gets test day revenues and the racers can compete fully, including testing in a week or less. I actually think test day revenues may be higher as more racers may test using dollars saved with lodging, etc.

Although we have a pretty healthy turn-out for the Runoffs already, I can see this plan adding 10-20% more participants. Possibly more.

More racers wanting to particpate in the Runoffs, means more National race participation as well. Maybe that should have read win/win/win! The track, the racers and SCCA should all benefit.

[GT1Vette]

Under the 3-4-3-4 the track also gets to sell spectator tickets for four days instead of three, and all races are on weekends (no Friday races).

The next step to me would be to do the first "3-4" on the East Coast and the second one (even two-three weeks later) on the West Coast, then swap the classes at each event the next year. One of the BoD members that strongly supports the 3-4-3-4 is adamantly against that, however, so I dropped the suggestion.

Small steps, Grasshopper...

[Matt King]

In the summer of 2010 (after talking to Dave) I submitted the 3-4-3-4 idea for consideration and even provided a potential schedule with group numbers and times based on the 2010 Runoffs sessions.

To me the 3-4-3-4 makes the most sense and I've gotten feedback from two directors that they agree with me. The only reason I submitted the "16 group" idea (which started this thread and is decidedly my second choice, the current schedule being third) is due to pushback from the "gathering of the clans" proponent(s).

Was the 3-4 3-4 schedule one of the options proposed in the post-Runoffs survey the SCCA sent out to participants? I remember voting for a reduced length schedule among the options presented, but I can't remember the specifics of it.

I will consider my participation in that survery as my formal input to the BoD on this topic.

[GT1Vette]

I didn't get the post-Runoffs survey, but I doubt it was that detailed.

[WRD]

OK, I'm just going to throw this out there, this idea started coming to me on the friday morning at this years runoffs.

My standpoint on all of the other ideas is that however this all goes down we still have to be there for the whole thing anyway as a vendor, so it really makes no difference to me, however, If I didnt need to be there for 2 weeks I wouldnt be!!

So, friday morning rolled around and I was woken up by the track announcer welcoming everyone to the Runoffs and was talking up the first race. I looked outside and the place was empty, wet, overcast, freezing cold and yet here was some racers wet dream about to come true in being crowned the National Champion. I started thinking how nice it would be for that guy if there were at least some people out watching the race, if you had nothing to do on friday you were probably out whooping it up on thursday night!

The obvious fix for this would be to start racing at around 11, even though it was still cold the clouds were burned off and there were a few people starting to turn up and watch the racing. This to me has two advantages, the guy driving his victory lap has someone to wave to, and more importantly it gives the possibility of breaking the event up into 4-5 day events for each class, if the Runoffs is your thing, stick around for the whole shabang, if you want to get it over with, you're done in 4-5 days.

Basically, the way I see it is that two thirds of the classes start on monday and have exclusive track use for the first two days, on wednesday the other third start getting incorporated with the first race starting probably on thursday afternoon, the other groups can then qualify in the morning slots before the races in the afternoons.

It would take someone a lot more in the know than me to work up a schedule but I really think it could work. You could still have all of the class parties, it is still a 1 week event, and, you will probably be running in front of a decent crowd come race time.

Just my two cents.

Lee

[SStadel]

Lee, you should review Butch's schedule again. All the races are on the weekends with later starts due to the morning warm ups. Plus everyone could do the Runoffs in 4 days, having 6 sessions. Vendors like yourselfwould still probably be there for two weeks, but hopefully you'd be making money. Your workload would probably be spread out with half the races being one weekend and half the other.

[GT1Vette]

Lee, you should review Butch's schedule again. All the races are on the weekends with later starts due to the morning warm ups. Plus everyone could do the Runoffs in 4 days, having 6 sessions. Vendors like yourselfwould still probably be there for two weeks, but hopefully you'd be making money. Your workload would probably be spread out with half the races being one weekend and half the other.

Actually Steve, you'd get five sessions over the four days - three qualifiers on Thu/Fri, then a warm-up and race on either Saturday or Sunday. I guess that really means half the folks would be done in THREE days - Thursday thru Saturday - if they didn't test.

Purple Frog attached the details of the schedule on post #29.

[iamuwere]

Butch's plan would certainly get me back to Runoffs. (No longer Runons)

I am all for it.

[Purple Frog]

I sent (emailed to BOD) my approval of Butch's plan.

Got to love it. I immediately got an "auto answer" from one of the directors saying he wasn't looking at his emails while he was at the convention.

[tonyave]

Good thinking Butch. I do think the east/west idea would be a good test to see how many more west coast racers would attend.

One thing that I think the members need to consider is that the SCCA really does need the run-offs to be a money maker for them, there will be no paying to go to Indy or anywhere unless the club can make that relationship pay off as much or more than the current system does. We need the money for the bottom line. I say this because while the board won't get into this publicly, it will remain the main motivation of having the run-offs. So, just think along those lines when you are trying to understand the decision making process.

Again Butch, keep pushing, you have a good handle on what is needed.

Tony

[RussMcB]

I'm sure I'm naive and have no idea of all the circumstances, but isn't the Indy 500 track just sitting there all October, with maybe some visitors to the museum and a few golf players? Seems like, if they wanted to, they could rent the track for the Runoffs without charging much more than Road America. There would be many more competitors paying entry fees, and therefore more vendors and sponsors wanting to be involved. Probably more workers. The area motels and businesses would want it. Maybe the best chance of getting it to happen would be through the business community, Chamber of Commerce.

[tonyave]

This is the mis perception I speak of...We don't pay Road America, they pay the SCCA, and try to make it up on track rental, space rental, etc.

[tonyave]

For example, when a track is bidding for the runoffs the sort of questions they have to fill out are:

How much do you plan on charging for __________________ (fill in the blank with testing, camping, parking, etc.) and what percentage of that is going to be returned to the SCCA?

Tony