CRB Statement on 2.5 Rule and Classes

[DD16]

Sean,
It is simply unfair that you live on the East Coast and get to choose between SCCA and the pro series! Live in TX and you're stuck with SCCA if you run open wheel and want to race more than 1 or 2 cars. I'd love the Pro Series to add some midwest and southwest tracks. Unfortunately they wouldn't be able to make the model work. I don['t have enough money and time to ship my car to the East Coast but I'm thinking of y'all everytime I read about the races. I'm stuck with the SCCA and its arcane rules, procedures, etc. Although there are MANY really great folks in the club, I'd depart the SCCA in an instant if there was any alternative. Good luck and have fun in Mike's series.

[Stan Clayton]

2. There has been a proliferation of Nationals. There are some divisions where nobody wants to hold Regionals, they want Nationals. And splitting divisions not long ago in the mid-west added +6 more National races to the schedule, and some of this is proliferation of Double Nationals driven by sheer economics required by Regions putting on events. Tracks are not getting cheaper to rent and events are not getting cheaper to put on.

This is a popular and persistent perception, but it is simply not true. As you can readily see in the graph below, there has been virtually no change to the number of national races held for the past 30 years. What has happened is that the distribution of national races across the divisions has varied considerably, and I suspect that is the source of this misconception.

[disquek]

Tom,
The idea that more people are leaving because there are under subscribed classes than would be eliminated by this rule is pure fantasy. In addition, the negative PR resulting from hundreds of racers suddenly being kicked out would be tremendous. Not to mention the regions folding or eliminating national. You're arguing for a change, that even if it did benefit the club in the long run, would bankrupt it in the short term.

Again, for the cheap seats. The run groups will not change. The runoffs format is the last bastion of this dead argument and to completely screw over tons of people for one race is beyond stupid to where I'd call it despicable.

Richard,
You're just not on planet earth. It's hardly even worth debating. Health insurance, pensions, SOX, so many other things. You'd be long gone if you had to live with the limitations that big business does. Quaife is not a small business. They likely do more in tee shirts that you do. Sorry man.

By the way, since you haven't sold any GT diffs ever (odd, since I own one), maybe you should remove this quote from your website "A partial list of these championships includes every SCCA GT2, GT3, and GT4 championship since 1992". If for no other reason, than it's not true.

-Kyle

[TimW]

Tom,
The idea that more people are leaving because there are under subscribed classes than would be eliminated by this rule is pure fantasy.

Hmm...I've met Tom & Bill know they will not be racing SCCA this year, so am confident he is real and that data point backs up his statement. Where are your facts? Facts are better than emotions, even on the internets.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

Tom,
The idea that more people are leaving because there are under subscribed classes than would be eliminated by this rule is pure fantasy. In addition, the negative PR resulting from hundreds of racers suddenly being kicked out would be tremendous. Not to mention the regions folding or eliminating national. You're arguing for a change, that even if it did benefit the club in the long run, would bankrupt it in the short term.

Again, for the cheap seats. The run groups will not change. The runoffs format is the last bastion of this dead argument and to completely screw over tons of people for one race is beyond stupid to where I'd call it despicable.

Richard,
You're just not on planet earth. It's hardly even worth debating. Health insurance, pensions, SOX, so many other things. You'd be long gone if you had to live with the limitations that big business does. Quaife is not a small business. They likely do more in tee shirts that you do. Sorry man.

By the way, since you haven't sold any GT diffs ever (odd, since I own one), maybe you should remove this quote from your website "A partial list of these championships includes every SCCA GT2, GT3, and GT4 championship since 1992". If for no other reason, than it's not true.

-Kyle

I don't think anyone expects the run groups to change. It seems like 6-8 groups is what can be done in a national weekend. But what will change is the mixes within the groups.

I'm also looking at this from a worker perspective. We need to do something to retain them as well, not only drivers. I've stood on a corner for a weekend, and honestly, it wasn't much fun. I was watching a parade of cars...kind of boring after a while. Simply put, there are "x" number of people wanting to race. Which is more likely to create better racing..."x" number of people in 45 classes or "x" number of people in 24?

Yes, there will be some pain for a few years as everything adjusts. But as it was pointed out in the thread before, what difference is it if we loose people to dropped classes or if we loose people from a lack of desire from the current structure? Either way the owners of the cars haven't gotten what they expected from their investment.

This isn't just about the runoffs. It's a deep problem in the club. Perhaps some regions won't survive. Yeah, it sucks. But the remaining stonger ones will pick up the remains, and out of that hopefully a stronger backbone will be in place.

[disquek]

Hmm...I've met Tom & Bill know they will not be racing SCCA this year, so am confident he is real and that data point backs up his statement. Where are your facts? Facts are better than emotions, even on the internets.

1252. That's how many entries the club will lose if they were to eliminate all of the classes that were under 2.5 in 2011. Not including the people that will think "hey ... they eliminated those guys and my class was at 2.7 last year, I'd better sell it now before it's worthless" and the new people who will see hundreds of existing SCCA members screwed over and say "Why would I want to race with the SCCA when they screw over each other like that?"

So unless Tom and Bill were planning 626 races each next year, I think my argument is safe so far.

I don't know Tom or Bill, so I can say if this is right for them. But here's my guess, I see this all too often. People get burnt out. They're done already. But their ego wont let them admit that it's THEM that's burnt out. So they blame it on whatever is handy at the time. The club has a dismal reputation for member satisfaction, so they're the obvious choice for the scapegoat. The latest rule change, the latest lack of a rule change, HANS requirement, belt expiration, whatever. They're outta here because so and so did such and such. But in reality, even in a perfect world, they were just out of time/money/patience/good will/whatever. I understand that feeling. I dont understand blaming it on something other than yourself.

-Kyle

[Matt King]

Simply put, there are "x" number of people wanting to race. Which is more likely to create better racing..."x" number of people in 45 classes or "x" number of people in 24?

I have made this same argument myself, Mike, but I think it is just as likely that those whose classes are eliminated will find a place to race it somewhere else as it is that they will switch to a better subscribed class within SCCA. That will all be up to the club's ability to offer an equal or better racing experience and product than its competition. So far I have not seen that happening. SCCA still holds the upper hand in areas of the country or with certain types of cars where it has limited competition, but in situations where it's not the only choice, it will only survive by being better than the rest.

[Rennie Clayton]

People get burnt out... The club has a dismal reputation for member satisfaction...

Odd, seems to me those two things might be related. Or we could just go with the asinine notion that people are burning themselves out in wholesale swaths across the SCCA.


Cheers,
Rennie

[disquek]

I'm also looking at this from a worker perspective. We need to do something to retain them as well, not only drivers. I've stood on a corner for a weekend, and honestly, it wasn't much fun. I was watching a parade of cars...kind of boring after a while. Simply put, there are "x" number of people wanting to race. Which is more likely to create better racing..."x" number of people in 45 classes or "x" number of people in 24?

I'm gob struck. Workers? Really? Are you serious? You stood on a corner for a whole weekend? Trust me when I tell you I've done a little more than that as a worker.

There is no valid argument from a workers perspective. None. You cannot look at the experience the typical worker is looking for through a racers eyes. It's not the same.

Worker retention has NOTHING to do exciting racing. Most of the workers cannot watch the races, they're too busy WORKING.

As for your "x" number of racers argument - If you eliminate cars, you eliminate members. Worse yet, you send those members out into the car enthusiast community with a very awful story to tell about the club. No one has their $80k toy rendered valueless and comes back for more of the same.

Okay, I said I was out when this was just a typical loopy silly season distraction. It's now taken it to a whole new level.

Workers .... really?

-Kyle

[starkejt]

disquek, just curious, but are you the Mini Formula Indy guy?

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I'm gob struck. Workers? Really? Are you serious? You stood on a corner for a whole weekend? Trust me when I tell you I've done a little more than that as a worker.

There is no valid argument from a workers perspective. None. You cannot look at the experience the typical worker is looking for through a racers eyes. It's not the same.

Worker retention has NOTHING to do exciting racing. Most of the workers cannot watch the races, they're too busy WORKING.

As for your "x" number of racers argument - If you eliminate cars, you eliminate members. Worse yet, you send those members out into the car enthusiast community with a very awful story to tell about the club. No one has their $80k toy rendered valueless and comes back for more of the same.

Okay, I said I was out when this was just a typical loopy silly season distraction. It's now taken it to a whole new level.

Workers .... really?

-Kyle

Yes workers. Really. I'm pretty sure that better, more exciting racing would provide much more value for the workers. Call me crazy if you must keep making this personal. But I'm pretty sure there's a good relation between racing and workers. How many workers would show up if everyone was just driving laps in their cars???

I understand that those in the eliminated classes would not run out and join another class. I don't expect the "x" of 46 into 24 to be equal. Initially. Initially is the key. The goal is to provide a better package going foward. If SCCA can offer a better package going forward, we can attract new members at a rate higher then the losing rate.

[reidhazelton]

disquek, just curious, but are you the Mini Formula Indy guy?

[nulrich]

Stan, thanks for that graph. It's not at all what I would have expected.

Here is a graph of the growth of per capita disposable personal income (income after taxes) since 1985, corrected for inflation. It seems that people have more money to spend, but for some reason the SCCA isn't capitalizing on that. Not hard to understand why any expensive hobby is suffering right now, but the trend predates the recession.

Of course, there has been a huge increase in income disparity in recent years, and the vast majority of SCCA members seem to be middle class, not billionaires, so perhaps median disposable personal income has not grown. Also, although food and clothing prices have fallen, housing prices have risen dramatically. Couldn't find a graph of discretionary personal income anywhere...but I didn't look too hard.

It would also be interesting to graph some sort of "racing costs index" to see if racing has grown proportionally more expensive.

Nathan

P.S. I'm not trying to make any sort of political statement, so please don't attack me if this graph doesn't agree with your world view. But I'm also not an economist, so I may be misinterpreting the trend.

[Stan Clayton]

There were/are a number of issues with the 2.5 rule:

3. The 2.5 rule is counted/averaged over *all* divisions (see #1 peanut butter above). Previously under the 3.5 rule I believe it was 7 of 9(?) Divisions which helped to some degree to take the regional inconsistency in class participation into account.

The BoD basically recognized that the 2.5 rule as written and as it was heading to enforcement, was not working, and thus as Phil noted the suspension in favor of active class management. There is a presumption that active class management will give us a better balanced class structure, fewer overall classes, and ultimately better quality events that will attract more racers.

Todd Butler
NorPac Area 13 Director

Todd, thanks for your explanation for the reasons why the 2.5 rule was abandoned, which makes sense in the context in which you have stated it. However, the reason I think this explanation for the move away from the 2.5 rule (or something similar which objectively determined which classes continue and which classes fail) makes no sense, is that the 2.5 rule set the bar so low that any class with any meaningful participation anywhere in the country could continue as a class and didnt have to worry about the 2.5 rule affecting it.

I was the CRB member who wrote the "2.5 rule" (with assistance from several other persons), and would like to share a few thoughts on this topic:

1. The prior rule was '3.5 in the best 5 of 8 Divisions'...not 'best 7 of 9'. In practice this meant we had National classes that were strongly represented in as few as 3 Divisions. FM comes to mind. It was strong in (IIRC) NorPac, SoPac and SWDiv, but had only scant participation in much of the rest of the country during the years it was trying to qualify as a National Class on its own outside FA.

2. Conversely, we had classes with widespread participation, but which struggled to meet the "3.5 in 5 of 8 rule". In some cases those classes had total participation that exceeded the totals of some classes that "qualified". Changing the rule to 2.5 at the same time as we expanded from 8 Divisions to 9 addressed the ambiguity of the '5 of 8' rule, and concurrently made it much easier to track class' qualification status throughout the year.

3. Tom's point that the 2.5 rule "set the bar so low" is simply incorrect. In fact, when we rewrote the rule from 3.5 to 2.5 we had analyzed 20+ years of marginal class participation to ensure that we did not lower the bar. Classes that slipped into probation prior to the 2.5 rule did so right as their total participation slipped below 2.5. That's the reason we picked 2.5...it represented the minimum participation of what was considered a healthy class. Moreover, as originally envisioned, the 2.5 rule was to be increased to 3.0 over a period of years to prevent further erosion of participation. That didn't happen, but the failure lies strictly at the door of the BoD (see Todd's comment in bold above). In (IIRC) '07 the CRB recommended GT3 and/or T3 revert to Regional competition, as they had not 'made the number', but the BoD caved in the face of lobbying from the members of those classes.

4. Finally, I would note that the issue of 'marginal classes' has always been with us, as has been the question of what to do about them. Whether the decision was done by fiat at the highest levels of the "Secret Car Club of America"; the 3.5 rule under the Comp Board, or the 2.5 rule or 'active management' by the CRB, the fact remains that cutting classes in a member-driven club is difficult. I don't know how this latest effort will turn out, but I can tell you one thing:

40 years ago we had 15 National classes.
35 years ago we had 18.
30 years ago we had 22.
15 years ago we had 25.
Now we have 30 classes.

That give you a clue?

[Matt King]

:

40 years ago we had 15 National classes.
35 years ago we had 18.
30 years ago we had 22.
15 years ago we had 25.
Now we have 30 classes.

That give you a clue?

I'm suddenly craving a BK Whopper with no onions or mayo, just the way I like it.

[Wren]

As much as I hate to participate in this thread, I always understood that the 2.5 rule, as it was being planned for enforcement, was that it would lead the way to consolidation.

I also volunteer Josh to donate another $100 if this thread gets closed.

[starkejt]

I also volunteer Josh to donate another $100 if this thread gets closed.

I have setup an irrevocable living trust with this thread as the beneficiary. Wren is the trustee.

[Jnovak]

I simply do not understand what appears to be total resistance to combining classes. The answer is easy simply make it happen. It will not make everyone happy but very few are happy now.

Would it be easy? No.

Would it reduce the number of classes? Yes.

Who would win races? The same guys who are winning now.

Who would race at mid-pack? The same guys who are racing mid-pack now.

Do it and fix the club otherwise just watch is settle into the mud a little deeper.

I say let's get down to 16 to 20 National classes period. Then is someone want a new car for SCCA racing fit them within an existing class instead of creating a new class.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

[Tom Valet]

3. Tom's point that the 2.5 rule "set the bar so low" is simply incorrect.

Stan, thanks for the history behind the rule. I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. My point was simply that 2.5 cars per event average is a very low number for a class to meet in order to remain in Nationals, and meeting the rule should not have prevented any difficulty for any class if there was meaningful participation anywhere in the country. That is an average car count less than the number of cars required to fill a podium.

Now, with the elimination of the rule, we are faced with the retention of classes where the average number of racers is less than two cars.

Your chart of the number of classes by decade says all that needs to be said, at least as far as I am concerned.

Thanks.

Tom

[R. Pare]

Richard,
You're just not on planet earth. It's hardly even worth debating. Health insurance, pensions, SOX, so many other things. You'd be long gone if you had to live with the limitations that big business does. Quaife is not a small business. They likely do more in tee shirts that you do. Sorry man.

Whether or not a business has to comply with certain additional laws once they reach a certain size (or go public) has zero to do with the subject at hand - the survival or demise of the Club because it was or wasn't "fit to survive". None of what you just mentioned has diddly-squat to do with whether or not a company has to change and adapt to changing business conditions to survive (the original "survival of the fittest" mention of this debate)! Your changing the scope of the argument to include whether or not certain businesses have to comply to certain laws that others don't is totally irrelevant to the subject.


Since Quaife is privately owned and below the threshold employee-wise, the federal Government would consider it a "small business" if it were based in the US. See http://www.sba.gov/content/what-sbas...siness-concern Since we would both function under the same "small business" corporate laws here in the US, we are equals as far as the law is concerned (with variations according to which type of incorporation, naturally, which pertains more to IRS accounting than functional laws). Whether or not Quaife, because of it's offerings to it's employees, is subject to certain laws that I am able to avoid because I have no employees or have incorporated under a different corporation heading, is irrelevant to the topic in the manner you are putting forth - but both are a consciously chosen part of the "survival" strategy of our respective companies.

Hell, Apexspeed sells more t-shirts than I do! Does that make it a "big business"?

By the way, since you haven't sold any GT diffs ever (odd, since I own one), maybe you should remove this quote from your website "A partial list of these championships includes every SCCA GT2, GT3, and GT4 championship since 1992". If for no other reason, than it's not true.

I didn't say that I have never sold any "GT" diffs! You are correct that I misspoke about GT4 , but that still leaves GT1, GT2, and GT3 within the "GT" category that I continue to sell to. I have no clue as to what class you run, only that I sold you a Speedway Ministock differential a few years ago.

Let's stay on subject, shall we?




The fact remains that the Club is subject to the same theories of Darwinism like any other enterprise - profit-making or not - and will have to either evolve, adapt and change - make itself "fit" - to the ever-changing amateur racing environment, or possibly go the way of the dinosaurs (who couldn't adapt fast enough to the changing conditions).

And unfortunately, there is no way to do this without some people being either shoved aside through either total obsolescence of their cars (class elimination) or by incurring financial costs beyond what they can afford in updating (class consolidations).

And on that, I have no clue as to how to be "fair" to all (what is "fair", anyway???). Probably can't be done.

It would also be interesting to graph some sort of "racing costs index" to see if racing has grown proportionally more expensive.

Nathan: My numbers may not be quite correct, but this should give you a decent idea:

Back around 1980, the average income was in the $20000 range, and an FF cost about $10000 - basically about 1/2 the average income. it was pretty common to have 70+ FFs show up for races at many tracks,

Now, the average income is somewhere around $40000, with a new FF costing $50-$60k or more. Now we see maybe 6-10 FFs at a lot of races.

I would guess that the operating cost per weekend have risen by about the same ratio.

Even adjusting for inflation, to me that would point to the available disposable income pool shrinking over the years.

Not a good sign for the future.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

I simply do not understand what appears to be total resistance to combining classes. The answer is easy simply make it happen. It will not make everyone happy but very few are happy now.

Would it be easy? No.

Would it reduce the number of classes? Yes.

Who would win races? The same guys who are winning now.

Who would race at mid-pack? The same guys who are racing mid-pack now.

Do it and fix the club otherwise just watch is settle into the mud a little deeper.

I say let's get down to 16 to 20 National classes period. Then is someone want a new car for SCCA racing fit them within a new class instead of creating a new class.

Thanks ... Jay Novak

I think 16-20 is going to be a little tough. I'd be happy short term with 24. In my mind that's the beauty of the 2.5 rule....it's self regulating. The BoD isn't forced into anything - it's totally up to member demand.

[John LaRue]

Why is there no sympathy for "whole groups of fellow racers" that are dropping out of SCCA racing, not because their race class on average only has one or two other cars, but because the money they spend is not worth the track time and race experience they receive in return?

If you want us to mourn the loss of fellow racers whose class would be eliminated from National status when they are undersubscribed, why arent you mourning the loss of racers who decide to stay home because the race product that SCCA offers is not worth the cost to them?

In 2011 we did the bare minimum number of Nationals just to qualify Bill for the Runoffs. In 2012 we will be doing ZERO Nationals. So in effect, you are willing to sacrifice us, and others like us, but not willing to make any sacrifice yourself. Why is my absence from the track tolerable, but not yours?

Well said, Tom.

I think that in the end there are just too many differing opinions on what the National Club Racing should be. Should it be all encompassing making a place for all to race (ET brackets anyone?) or should it have a more exclusive flavor and cater to a smaller number of well subscribed classes?

It would seem that the Regional/National programs would make a natural break point, but that seems not. It appears to me that to resolve this dilemma the club has to try to juggle all of these balls at once inside the National Racing program.

The only way I can envision any type of resolution happening (without massive elimination of classes) is through some type of break down of the typical National race weekend. In other words, there are simply too many classes and race groups to deal with in one weekend. The more robust, well subscribed classes may warrant stand alone run groups on a weekend upon which the lesser subscribed classes are not offered. Other weekend programs would offer the more typical run groups to which we have become accustomed. Obviously this has to make financial sense and it might mean combining with other groups (such as the various pro series do) to make it happen. It could (and should in my opinion) mean offering National status to the various pro series as distinct divisions in which competitors gain the necessary "credit" to attend Runoffs.

In the end it is the better subscribed classes in the appropriate geographical locations that are going to walk away from Club racing. Witnesseth FC and FF in the NE. Unless the Club can offer something up to those groups in the way of a better product I would not expect the participants to continue to suffer with the current offering.

To add one more fly in the ointment, you will have to get the various regions to buy into any type of a program that is put into place. If you think there is an issue getting the racers to sing in harmony wait until this plays out on that front.

John

[Daryl DeArman]

1252. That's how many entries the club will lose if they were to eliminate all of the classes that were under 2.5 in 2011.

You are making the assumption that all 1252 of those race entries won't find something else to race. I've raced 8 different cars that I owned in 17 years and 3 that I didn't own. If a class disappeared I'd find something else to race, not quit racing. I suspect most with the disease would do the same.

Same goes for those that can afford to race $80K cars. None of them get devalued to zero. Somebody, somewhere will find a place to race it.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan, thanks for the history behind the rule. I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. My point was simply that 2.5 cars per event average is a very low number for a class to meet in order to remain in Nationals, and meeting the rule should not have prevented any difficulty for any class if there was meaningful participation anywhere in the country. That is an average car count less than the number of cars required to fill a podium.

Now, with the elimination of the rule, we are faced with the retention of classes where the average number of racers is less than two cars.

Your chart of the number of classes by decade says all that needs to be said, at least as far as I am concerned.

Thanks.

Tom

Thank you, Tom, and I apologize that I misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant that in changing the rule we had lowered the standard from its previous level, which was not the case, but I see now that you felt that the minimum is too low in absolute terms. I concede the point, but I defend our choice of action on the basis that 2.5 was the defacto standard of the day, and that we didn't want to put a demand on the members to increase participation by 20% with no lead time to build up to it. We (the CRB and BoD) intended that it be increased to at least 3 cars on average (some argued for 3.5), but unfortunately that never came to pass.

At the risk of inducing terminal ennui I'll reiterate my major point: setting management goals whose enforcement becomes politically impossible is an exercise in frustration for all concerned. I see that Mike Sauce, Phil Creighton and Bob Dowie are all on this thread right now. We've all been down this road before, and we know exactly where it leads...

[nulrich]

Back around 1980, the average income was in the $20000 range, and an FF cost about $10000 - basically about 1/2 the average income. it was pretty common to have 70+ FFs show up for races at many tracks,

Now, the average income is somewhere around $40000, with a new FF costing $50-$60k or more. Now we see maybe 6-10 FFs at a lot of races.

That makes sense. Unfortunately, it's a vicious cycle: you need large volumes to reduce manufacturing cost and amortize development, and currently there are too few new FF cars sold to justify any sort of investment.

The other issue is that the cost of new FF engine, racing gearbox, wheels and dampers absorbs all of the $20k target, leaving nothing left for the chassis.

I like the idea of an entry level formula car class based on 600 cc motorcycle drivetrains. I'm sure I could design and build a proper FF-like race car, complete with four wheel independent suspension, differential, etc and build it for very close to $20k, assuming some investment in tooling and enough working capital. I'm sure there are others that could do the same thing. There would have to be cost control on certain items, of course. It wouldn't look anything like an F500, and wouldn't fit into the FF rules either, so I don't see any possibility it will ever happen in SCCA, but that's the kind of vision that would be necessary to grow the club by attracting new (younger) members.

Just my opinion.

Nathan

[Wren]

Hell, Apexspeed sells more t-shirts than I do!

Apexspeed sells shirts? Do want.

[Stan Clayton]

Now, with the elimination of the rule, we are faced with the retention of classes where the average number of racers is less than two cars.

I meant to touch on this in my previous post, but since I forgot to I'll address is here...

It's too late under the rules to change the class structure for 2012, but I will be very surprised if we don't see significant changes for next year. If you scroll back to my "best guess" post a few pages back, you'll see that I suspect the CRB will take an axe to some of the tin top classes. The sudden popularity of the Super Touring category tells me that the CRB got those rules right in the middle of the "Goldilocks Zone"...not too liberal (think GT...) and not too conservative (think SS and T...), and that gives the Club a golden opportunity for some near-painless class consolidation.

Politics being what they are, the pain will have to be shared, though, so I also see that CSR and DSR will likely have to be merged, as well as at least one Formula category merger (FA/B or FE/M?).

[lawyerbob]

I should stay out it since I don't have any solutions or ideas to offer. But . . .

How much of the proliferation of classes is due to SCCA trying to make a buck (Enterprises) and getting into the racecar sales business? I understand SRF - it made sense back 25 years ago an apparently still does. But FE? Weren't there already very similar platforms available? Same with FM (but I'm not clear if that's Enterprises or not). Thank god the FF community realized that allowing an alternate engine package made sense, or we would have yet another new Formula car catagory.

How many of the tin-top classes are for the benefit of manufacturers? We all laughed at an early post in this thread that was "all Mazda, all the time" but isn't that almost the case? I'm not picking on Mazda, I realize they support the club in a big way (or believe they do). I was reading in Sportscar about Spec-B - really? Are those "sportscars"? The Mini perhaps, but it seems to me it's another class where people will invest $, then be upset when something new comes along and their investment is not longer competitive or a heavily subscribed class.

How does the proliferation of "Pro Racing" series factor in? And do we need that? Sure, if I had a FF it would be tempting to try and run the Pro1600 series or whatever it's call - then I could tell people I'm a professional racecar driver. Again, I don't mean to disparage anyone - but aren't we diluting the National classes by making "Pro" races for the same cars?

As I said, I don't have any solutions, just observations. But it seems to me the the Club is causing (or heavily contributing to) this problem, I suspect in an effort to attract new blood - clearly , it's not working.

I agree with Jay, reorganize to a sane number of National Classes. If I want to race with SCCA Nationals, I buy a car that fits the rules. Otherwise I race regionals, NASA, one of the pro series, etc etc. If the manufacturers want classes that will sell cars, perhaps they should look at the rules and build cars that fit - seems to me that's the way it works in NASCAR - you want to play, your CAR has to fit the RULES, not the other way around. Go to any Saturday night bull ring - 4 (maybe 5) classes - all with more than enough cars. (I know I know, whole different world, my point is, as others have said - if someone wants to race, they will race - and they will do what they need to in order to do so.)

my two cents.

[VehDyn]

Everybody keeps posting these cool graphs....

[Daryl DeArman]

How does the proliferation of "Pro Racing" series factor in? And do we need that? Sure, if I had a FF it would be tempting to try and run the Pro1600 series or whatever it's call - then I could tell people I'm a professional racecar driver. Again, I don't mean to disparage anyone - but aren't we diluting the National classes by making "Pro" races for the same cars?

It's not the PRO/Amateur status; it's the quality of the event and the competition. Depending on ones' perspective it could be argued that in many places the National classes were already dilluted....the PRO series just provided a better venue/alternative. In some areas of the country the best FF racing is a SCCA National, others the PRO series and in others still its' vintage races. The label doesn't define the quality or lack thereof.

[Wren]

another interesting graph:

[lawyerbob]

It's not the PRO/Amateur status; it's the quality of the event and the competition. Depending on ones' perspective it could be argued that in many places the National classes were already dilluted....the PRO series just provided a better venue/alternative. In some areas of the country the best FF racing is a SCCA National, others the PRO series and in others still its' vintage races. The label doesn't define the quality or lack thereof.

You said it better than I but I think that's my point. It seems to me that once upon a time SCCA National Racing WAS the stepping stone to the big leagues - (if I'm not mistaken, Michael Andretti and Danica Patrick among MANY others came through those ranks). Yes, there will be independent "Pro" series that pop up from time to time, but when SCCA adopts them as their own, it seems, cannibalistic.

I raced FST for two years because I really liked the platform and the series. But for me personally the travel was too much. I'm back to FV because it fits my budget and I can still aspire to run Nationals and race with the best of the best in a given class (well, follow behind anyway ). I"m sure there are many SRF, FF and FC drivers who can and will join the Pro series, because they can, but when they do, aren't they removing cars from the National races and lowering the car count and quality of the competition? If a Pro FV series were created and the Varicins' (sp?), Livermores, Whitstons, Jennerjahns etc etc decided to race there instead, wouldn't the "quality" of the SCCA National FV competition decline?

I think I had a point but at the moment I'm not sure I'm making it.

Again, just making an observation.

[DaveW]

It's not the PRO/Amateur status; it's the quality of the event and the competition. Depending on ones' perspective it could be argued that in many places the National classes were already dilluted....the PRO series just provided a better venue/alternative. In some areas of the country the best FF racing is a SCCA National, others the PRO series and in others still its' vintage races. The label doesn't define the quality or lack thereof.

Well said - if you hadn't posted this, I would have said something similar.

[Wren]

You said it better than I but I think that's my point. It seems to me that once upon a time SCCA National Racing WAS the stepping stone to the big leagues - (if I'm not mistaken, Michael Andretti and Danica Patrick among MANY others came through those ranks). Yes, there will be independent "Pro" series that pop up from time to time, but when SCCA adopts them as their own, it seems, cannibalistic.

The SCCA has not adopted the pro series. The pro series are still owned and run by private individuals (except maybe the SRF/FE series last year). SCCA just provides the sanction for them. If SCCA did not do it, then someone else would. The demand is there. I remember F2000 running at least one event with NASA sanction back in the Hankook days.

[lawyerbob]

The SCCA has not adopted the pro series. The pro series are still owned and run by private individuals (except maybe the SRF/FE series last year). SCCA just provides the sanction for them. If SCCA did not do it, then someone else would. The demand is there. I remember F2000 running at least one event with NASA sanction back in the Hankook days.

Ah, ok, I stand corrected. sorry

[Steve Demeter]

Classes have been combined in the past:

1979 FC and FSV

later than that FA and ASR

And BSR into ASR about the same time.

in the 90's or early 200's some production classes into GT classes.

The entire sedan category into GT with the aforementioned prod classes.

The point is that it has been done.

With some pain and gnashing of the teeth? Yes.

But was the end result good? I think yes overall once the appropriate performance adjustments were made.

The club is in a not too different situation right now. A number of undersubscribed classes that could be reasonably combined are out there.Would it be painful, would it disenfranchise some members, yes to both.
But the overall outcome would be for the better.

[Jnovak]

another interesting graph:

well done Wren! hilarious

Thanks ... Jay

[John Nesbitt]

another interesting graph:

So, pirates cause global warming or global warming causes pirates?

[Wren]

So, pirates cause global warming or global warming causes pirates?

It means that if you don't get out in your yard and start spraying all of your aerosol cans and burning your trash pile, then you could be hijacked on your way to work in the morning. Anyone who is against global warming is for piracy. I hope you all like scurvy.

Today I have gotten in a reference to ninjas and a reference to pirates in a single day. This is going down as one of my better days on apexspeed.

[John Nesbitt]

It means that if you don't get out in your yard and start spraying all of your aerosol cans and burning your trash pile, then you could be hijacked on your way to work in the morning. Anyone who is against global warming is for piracy.

Actually, quite the opposite. Reducing global warming would also reduce piracy. According to the graph. And graphs never lie.

But this is serious (terminal?) thread drift. Back on topic.