Runoffs invitation "clarification" ??

[clint]

Yes. Under the previous plan you needed be concerned about which conference each Majors was in. Now you don't. If, for example, you run the Roebllng, Grattan, and Thunderhill Majors then you've satisfied the criteria.

Obviously this gives you a lot more flexibility in planning your 2017 schedule, plus you can attend Majors later in the year without concern of breaking or getting taken out thru no fault of your own and scoring no points. As long as your name appears on a set of official SCCA results from the weekend (even if you have no time) it counts.

Thanks Butch!

[crypt0zink]

"It should be noted that while the road to the Runoffs has been simplified, firm qualifying rules will be in effect stipulating drivers be within a percentage of a class pole time at Indianapolis Motor Speedway next year."

Have the Runoff qualifying rules been published? Has a percentage been defined?

[Daryl DeArman]

To each his own, but if you can't get it done in one or two qualifying sessions there is a problem.

Agreed. Less qualifying, more green flag.

90+% of the races have so much disparity in lap times between competitors it really doesn't matter where the eventual winner starts.

It's like me running the 200 against Usain Bolt, it doesn't matter which lane draw he gets, he's going to smoke me.

[Daryl DeArman]

If someone wants to have a car, travel to three events, pay the three entry fees, and do only three laps ...... so they can spend $x000 at the Runoffs, then let them. They are only fooling themselves while subsidizing the racing of others.
Considering the number of entries in most classes, they either need to stop the charade, or let more people come.

Agreed.

In my opinion, many either blew their budget trying to earn the invitation that they showed up unprepared OR they saved their pennies (start/park/minimal meaningful testing) and showed up unprepared.

Make it easy(ier) to qualify and increase the competition at the RunOffs without needlessly increasing the cost to get there.

[Raceworks]

Regardless of how you qualify, only the best are going to actually win the Runoffs.

It's not like somebody is going to come fresh out of driver's school, buy any random POS car, turn a wheel at 3 Majors, and then go out & "steal" a Runoffs win unless a series of truly bizarre events happen (like a sinkhole opening up on the front straight and swallowing all the other competitors).

A bigger worry would be somebody dropping some pro "ringer" into the Runoffs this way, but honestly I'd think overall having a big-name driver show up to the Runoffs would be a net gain for the club.

I'm happy that for the first time in years I don't need a flowchart to figure out how one gets to the Runoffs.

I'd be even happier if we could get the weekend done in less time. I'm firmly with the "let's cut it down to 2 qualifying sessions" crowd.

[PRS56]

Hi
First off let me say that the following information is not an endorsement of SVRA, but rather to suggest another option for those competitors who just want to add Indy to their bucket list of tracks.
They are currently starting to promote an new all open wheel event on June 9 - 11.
The following weekend will be their normal race event for all classes.
From what I have seen discussed they will have a modern era FF group as well as the vintage era and Club Fords on treaded tires
I'm not sure how the balance of grouping will be handled, but certainly the F1 and Indy cars will be on their own.
When registration is open, I am guessing that they will continue to do it by invitation.
You provide answers about your car and driving history and at some point you get a nod.
When I was there in 2015 there were plenty of cars on the grid in my group.
Some of us held SCCA licenses and others vintage.
Indy is going to be expensive no matter which organization you race with.
The other thing about the vintage weekend is if they once again give you the opportunity to run the oval at speed as per the 500.
That 30 minutes on track alone made it worth the travel and expense.

[Keith Carter]

There was a lot more prestige to winning the runoffs when it was difficult to qualify for the event.

That used to be the case, sure, when the car counts during the regular season in the finite number of classes were heavily populated and competition in each class was competitive in each respective region. With the various class options that are out there in recent times and the general reduction in car entrants in club events altogether, the "top" driver/car in one region where there are a couple cars in the region can be significantly slower/less competitive than several cars in another region that is much more competitive. Where's the prestige in that if there are fewer entrants in the Runoffs and the invitations are not a true test of competition? If there's one entrant for all races in a given region and that car wins all of the races due to lack of competition, does that mean they really should be at the Runoffs? Make the qualifications not as difficult to get in and then reduce the 120% qualifying time rule for that event to something closer to 105% to make it to the big show on race day. That rule could be a sliding scale from 101% to 110% dependent on the number of entrants per class. This will help to make sure that the national championship race isn't a joke.

[Lotus7]

As an aside to my original question, do we think the single-digit FA and FC fields at Mid-Ohio this year were the result of overly-stringent qualification criteria, or just reduced interest?

[MotorCade]

I think a bit of both. The cars that are fast enough to win are mostly interested in winning other series, while the older cars probably either didn't have enough points accrued or enough money to think it worth their while to attempt a victory against faster/better funded hardware.

[Lotus7]

y to think it worth their while to attempt a victory against faster/better funded hardware.

Not sure I agree with this thought. Back in the day we had 30+ grids at the runoffs, and 20+ of them knew well in advance they had little or no chance of winning.

Will be curious to see if the 'lure' of Indy inflates next years grids

[Peter Olivola]

The cost of entry for the Runoffs makes this an invitation to rebellion.

I would go in a slightly different direction and require Runoffs entrants to demonstrate their ability to run with the fastest car in their class they compete against, i.e., finish three majors with an average fastest lap time within 110% of the class winner in those races. That would encourage people to make a more serious effort during the season and give them a clear indication of whether or not they should consider going to the Runoffs.

About that rebellion. It's already going to be disappointing for those not making the cut in over subscribed classes. And many of them will likely be within the minimum requirement. Set the minimum high and it's meaningless. Set it too low and the fields will be reduced to the point where there could easily be more excluded than included. Rumble. Rumble. Rumble. Mutiny. Mutiny. Mutiny.

That used to be the case, sure, when the car counts during the regular season in the finite number of classes were heavily populated and competition in each class was competitive in each respective region. With the various class options that are out there in recent times and the general reduction in car entrants in club events altogether, the "top" driver/car in one region where there are a couple cars in the region can be significantly slower/less competitive than several cars in another region that is much more competitive. Where's the prestige in that if there are fewer entrants in the Runoffs and the invitations are not a true test of competition? If there's one entrant for all races in a given region and that car wins all of the races due to lack of competition, does that mean they really should be at the Runoffs? Make the qualifications not as difficult to get in and then reduce the 120% qualifying time rule for that event to something closer to 105% to make it to the big show on race day. That rule could be a sliding scale from 101% to 110% dependent on the number of entrants per class. This will help to make sure that the national championship race isn't a joke.

[Keith Carter]

I would go in a slightly different direction and require Runoffs entrants to demonstrate their ability to run with the fastest car in their class they compete against, i.e., finish three majors with an average fastest lap time within 110% of the class winner in those races. That would encourage people to make a more serious effort during the season and give them a clear indication of whether or not they should consider going to the Runoffs.

I would go along with something like that, but that would be a bit of an administrative task to keep track of that unless it could be automated in some way. Drivers could be given some kind of "Competition Factor" that they would need to meet in order to register for the Runoffs. That method assumes that there is a good turnout for all classes at all Majors events in all regions and we know that's not always the case unless there were specific Majors that were earmarked early on in the calendar as "Runoffs Qualifying" races. People would need to attend those races in each region in order to get their "Competition Factor" in order to meet their requirements so they could enter the Runoffs. It still won't fix the fact that a B-Spec racer in Wyoming (are there tracks in Wyoming?) who is the only class entrant in several surrounding states and has several Majors wins under their belt from nobody else racing may severely be lacking pace when they get to the Runoffs. I'm not a Runoffs regular though so it really doesn't matter much to me.

[f500racer]

I wonder what will happen when 110 SM drivers meeting the three race requirement try to sign up for 65 entry spots at the same time. Will internet speed determine entry over skill?

[Peter Olivola]

The GCR is your friend.

I wonder what will happen when 110 SM drivers meeting the three race requirement try to sign up for 65 entry spots at the same time. Will internet speed determine entry over skill?

[problemchild]

Do you people really think that these Runoff rule changes and an Indy roval event are going to mean we have too many drivers and cars? Half the SCCA classes could not fill a grid if every active driver across the country brought their car.

[Peter Olivola]

There most likely will be four over subscribed classes: SM, SRF, FV and EP. Other classes, strong in the eastern half of the country, will also have large fields.

Do you people really think that these Runoff rule changes and an Indy roval event are going to mean we have too many drivers and cars? Half the SCCA classes could not fill a grid if every active driver across the country brought their car.

[MotorCade]

Not sure I agree with this thought. Back in the day we had 30+ grids at the runoffs, and 20+ of them knew well in advance they had little or no chance of winning.

Will be curious to see if the 'lure' of Indy inflates next years grids

I could certainly be wrong. Whatever the cause, I think the right order of fixing things is to focus first on getting more cars out. If that means less 'qualified' drivers, so be it. As long as they are safe, I say let them play. Big grids will pull the competitive drivers back faster than anything else, I'd guess.

[problemchild]

There most likely will be four over subscribed classes: SM, SRF, FV and EP. Other classes, strong in the eastern half of the country, will also have large fields.

SM will continue to be oversubscribed. Whether the other 3 make it is certainly arguable. Just as the Daytona "roval" attracted and turned off certain segments, the Indy "roval' will do the same. I just don't see a downside of a half-dozen classes having full or good-sized grids.

The only downside I see is that another year of overall mediocrity will just delay the inevitable step of reforming the Runoffs and other connected SCCA programs.

[Peter Olivola]

The issue isn't full or good sized grids. It's over subscription (if it occurs) and meeting a minimum qualifying time. Both will create some less than pleased people. It isn't like we don't already have enough outraged critics.

SM will continue to be oversubscribed. Whether the other 3 make it is certainly arguable. Just as the Daytona "roval" attracted and turned off certain segments, the Indy "roval' will do the same. I just don't see a downside of a half-dozen classes having full or good-sized grids.

The only downside I see is that another year of overall mediocrity will just delay the inevitable step of reforming the Runoffs and other connected SCCA programs.

[problemchild]

The issue isn't full or good sized grids. It's over subscription (if it occurs) and meeting a minimum qualifying time. Both will create some less than pleased people. It isn't like we don't already have enough outraged critics.

I really don't think you need to tell another forum member what his issue should be. I have no issue with turning away a handful of oversubscribed racers, if it means the show is improved. Improving the show, to me, means having races with double-digit starting grids.
Excuse my pessimism, but I just don't believe that these minor changes will result in a thousand entries and that we will be turning away hundreds of worthy racers. To me, over-subscription would be a good thing, not an "issue".

[Daryl DeArman]

Over-subscription to a class and multiple qualifying sessions, sounds like F1 style knock-out qualifying is in order for those classes.

[Peter Olivola]

I'm not telling you what the issue is, I'm continuing one of the issues raised in the discussion. There has been concern expressed that turning people away from the 2017 Runoffs, for whatever reason, will cause problems. I get that you don't believe that will happen. Others disagree.

I really don't think you need to tell another forum member what his issue should be. I have no issue with turning away a handful of oversubscribed racers, if it means the show is improved. Improving the show, to me, means having races with double-digit starting grids.
Excuse my pessimism, but I just don't believe that these minor changes will result in a thousand entries and that we will be turning away hundreds of worthy racers. To me, over-subscription would be a good thing, not an "issue".

[Purple Frog]

Indy is an interesting ingredient.

There are very serious racers with 50 years of racing under their asses like Mr. Rand, who say that one is not really running INDY as they know it, unless you are going counter clockwise at over 220 mph. Thusly, no interest in attending.

But... on the other hand... while at the ARRC i met quite a few regional racers who plan on trying to qualify for the Runons in 2017.

I expect the attendence will surpass Topeka in '06.

[dsmithwc04]

Indy is an interesting ingredient.

There are very serious racers with 50 years of racing under their asses like Mr. Rand, who say that one is not really running INDY as they know it, unless you are going counter clockwise at over 220 mph.

If the runoffs ran the oval Id have no interest. But then again, Im part of the minority that thinks open wheel cars have no business driving round and round at 230+mph. To each their own I guess.

[clint]

My opinion for oversubscribed classes would be to use the first two days as elimination days. For all other classes use it as practice and not qual .For example: 128 people enter the class. 64 would qual on monday, 64 would qual on tues. Regardless of who's in which group and regardless of the weather the top 32 in each group for their day would make the show . The last spot would be determined by a coin flip, differential time from the leader in their group, etc. Wensday and Thursday would be qual days that count toward your starting spot on the grid. Drivers that doesn't make the "cut" should be given a certain percentage refund since they won't be using the track. Everyone wants prestige ......... there it is.

[GT1Vette]

As mentioned in multiple other threads on other forums (yes, they DO exist!):

"The GCR is your friend"

There is a procedure specified for handling over-subscribed run groups (and entry timestamp is not mentioned anywhere).

[problemchild]

Is this April Fools day?
There is a thread on Apexspeed discussing what would happen if too many open-wheel cars showed up in the same class at the same event.

[Purple Frog]

Greg,
Obviously the full moon has been way too close to Earth the last few days.

[jim morgan]

Cole is in whether I can enter as backmarker tbd

[dsmithwc04]

Lol. People complaining about the possibility of the best case scenario in open wheel racing in the US. Yup, that makes sense. More people showing up to the runoffs? Oh the travesty.