New Runoffs Criteria

[Thomas Copeland]

I hope you're right Jay.

[Amon]

What ever happened to the 2.5 rule?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

That's not an explanation. That's an excuse. Next!!

Next time you post try to do while you're sober.

I agreed with you. There is fraud. It's just that you are the fraud in this case.

Try to do what when I post?
When you attempt personal attacks try to use complete sentences. That'll work well in your lawsuit.

[Thomas Copeland]

Didn't realize I made a personal attack on you. I was trying to be comical. Thought that's how you found all this. Sorry, guess I was wrong. Bad humor on my part. Excuse the mess.

I didn't DNS in both races at Portland. I finished 3rd in the Saturday race. I didn't do the Sunday race because I didn't need to. I had already qualified for the runoffs. I entered the runoffs at Indy but when I chance opened up to buy a F1000 I decide to do that instead of spend the money on one event. Trust me, I still feel the pain.

My car was at the NAF1000 race at VIR two weekends ago. I asked another driver to shake i down for me. But it is having mechanical issues so it only did a couple of laps. And I hear now it may not be ready until July. Nothing I can do about it. It is what it is.

My plan this year was to race in the NAF1000 Championship. I wasn't planning on doing 2018 Runoffs at Sonoma this year because I wanted to support the new NAF1000 Championship. Since we are racing back East and none of the drivers had plans to do Sonoma we decided as a series to run regional this year instead. But back to Majors next year so could race at the 2019 Runoffs at VIR. We figured anyone that wanted to race at Sonoma this year could do it through the regional path.

And no I'm not telling you who I've been talking to. It's none of your damn business.

And this thing the SCCA is doing. I'm still convinced it's a fraud. You have done nothing at all to prove otherwise.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

And no I'm not telling you who I've been talking to. It's none of your damn business.

And this thing the SCCA is doing. I'm still convinced it's a fraud. You have done nothing at all to prove otherwise.

Never asked. Don't want to know. Not my place to prove anything to you.

SCCA can do nothing right in some people's eyes and I always find it funny that they are on the sidelines anyway.
Victims of a great conspiracy.

You think something needs to be done then do it.
Get these guys to file a lawsuit and get an injunction.
Time is critical. People are changing their plans based on the rule change.

Out.

[Zcurves]

...and SCCA can do no wrong in others. The correct answer is somewhere in between.

Harvey’s advice would be really good a few years ago. Do some research on a class before you dive in. Today that advice means crap, because the BOD has proven they can move the goal lines at the end of the third quarter. Changing the car count eligibility from a reasonable 2.5 to 4 in middle of the year? Back dating the effective years to 2017-2018? It seems as though they knew the result before the ink even dried. FB is one of the few classes in jeopardy and Topeka knows that NAF1000 made their 2018 schedule to run regionals before the end of 2017. It’s too late to change and they know it. No way we make it.

Im not yet one of those guys who vote with my wallet, but I’m not far away either. If FB isn’t invited to the Runoffs at VIR (my home track) in 2019, then I’m outta here. I’ll take my $5k/season worth of entry fees elsewhere.

Some can claim impartiality all they want. I don’t participate on this forum as a popularity contest, but I don’t mind challenging others either. Say all you want, but SCCA has shown they can change the requirements to suit their agenda. They’ve set a precedent. (Insert class here) may be safe as a result of today’s change, but don’t bet you will be tomorrow. That should be enough to have everyone in the formula classes concerned.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

...and SCCA can do no wrong in others. The correct answer is somewhere in between.

Agreed.

FB is one of the few classes in jeopardy and Topeka knows that NAF1000 made their 2018 schedule to run regionals before the end of 2017. It’s too late to change and they know it. No way we make it.

I think the issue is they didn't know how much "damage" NAFB would do to their Majors events. The stats prove - a lot!

I don't know what you mean by outta here, but NAFB relies on SCCA events to exist. So you're going to be paying them somehow, getting their license and running by their rules or parking your car.

This situation is like a fancy restaurant where you only want to show up for New Year Eve dinner. One year everything is fine. You have a great time.
The next year they decide to give the tables to regular customers and tell you sorry.
Now you're saying that's not fair. They cater to actual customers.

I know, you believe the membership fee entitles you. Right. "Membership has its privileges" but it also has its obligations.

And when the members aren't doing their part, the organization has to adapt. Right or wrong they make a change.
Mistakes are made.

In this case the customers are going to the Olive Garden next door. They're not interested in what is being served, so they change the menu. That always ticks me off too. But its adapt or die.

Maybe they should change the membership fee to be like a cover charge. $1500/yr and you get 3 weekends.
Then you'd be entitled.

[Thomas Copeland]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

They never said we had to do the Majors to qualify for the runoffs (until they pulled this number on us). They gave us a regional path to the runoffs. And now they got sellers remorse?

[disquek]

This situation is like a fancy restaurant where you only want to show up for New Year Eve dinner. One year everything is fine. You have a great time.
The next year they decide to give the tables to regular customers and tell you sorry.
Now you're saying that's not fair. They cater to actual customers.

This is just wrong.

Classes are not "customers". Customers are customers.

Just because a class has more cars in it doesn't make the needs or rights of those individual racers any greater than a racer in a lesser subscribed class.

The Club needs to stop letting the tail wag the dog with The Runoffs. The Runoffs should not dictate the Majors format. Topeka makes a great deal of money from The Runoffs and this 4.0 deal was orchestrated by Topeka and only approved by the BOD. Topeka wants revenue to justify salaries, not to further Amateur Road Racing.

It's a shame that it comes down to this. And for me, it's pushing me out of the club. I just cant see racing as fun anymore when I'm forced to constantly fight battles over things like this. It's never ending. We worked like crazy to save GTL a few years ago. I spent more time and money saving my class from the stupidity of Club leadership than I did racing. Fun? LOL. Right.

-Kyle

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

This is just wrong.

Classes are not "customers". Customers are customers.

Just because a class has more cars in it doesn't make the needs or rights of those individual racers any greater than a racer in a lesser subscribed class.



-Kyle

I get your point but the economic world does not run on these principles.

[tige00]

Just look at the total memberships and licences it's way down and keeps dropping every year, why scca bull****. It's only time before they kill themselves.

[disquek]

I get your point but the economic world does not run on these principles.

I disagree.

Businesses maximize profit by raising volume, cutting costs, and raising prices. It's a balance between the three. This change will not raise volume or cut costs. Maybe the hope is that by raising the costs (a certainty when you exclude some participants) this will drive out the riff-raff.

But regardless, this is not a business. This is a club. We all have an equal say (despite not all having an equal clue).

-Kyle

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Businesses maximize profit by raising volume, cutting costs, and raising prices. It's a balance between the three. This change will not raise volume or cut costs.

Agree (about profit,costs,prices) but your conclusion is wrong. The runoffs have finite time space. Do you allocate the time space to 10 paying customers or 40 paying customers.

To further my analogy on the restaurant.

A friend goes to the restaurant for New Years and that have this dish that is fantastic. He tells you about it.
Next year you both go to the restaurant for New Years, order that dish. Its fantastic again.
The following year you both go again and it's not on the menu! What? But we come every year for that dish !
The manager explains. It was a good seller a couple years ago. People loved it. But then the chef left and started selling it down the street. We used to sell 20 every weekend, then 10, then 5, sometimes none. Last new years eve we only sold 2!
it cost too much to keep it on the menu because we couldn't rely on it selling. People were getting their fill at the place down the street. If people would have bought 4 or 5 each week we would have kept it but we had to use that menu/kitchen space for something that sells.

But regardless, this is not a business. This is a club. We all have an equal say (despite not all having an equal clue).

And you vote with your participation. You're right is not a "business" but it certainly isn't the government that can print money or raise taxes.

[jharvey]

To further my analogy on the restaurant.

A friend goes to the restaurant for New Years and that have this dish that is fantastic. He tells you about it.
Next year you both go to the restaurant for New Years, order that dish. Its fantastic again.
The following year you both go again and it's not on the menu! What? But we come every year for that dish !
The manager explains. It was a good seller a couple years ago. People loved it. But then the chef left and started selling it down the street. We used to sell 20 every weekend, then 10, then 5, sometimes none. Last new years eve we only sold 2!
it cost too much to keep it on the menu because we couldn't rely on it selling. People were getting their fill at the place down the street. If people would have bought 4 or 5 each week we would have kept it but we had to use that menu/kitchen space for something that sells.

That dang restaurant owner. I know what we should do...we should sue them! I mean, after all, we planned for months to go to that restaurant and order that dish. I mean, there are no other dishes or options to order...

Buy an FF or FV. Everything else is risky. FB/F1000 split the continental field, they will probably both die. Newer generations of FM killed the class, FA is crazy expensive. Racing is like most other things with wheels...it's simply in decline.

[Thomas Copeland]

Here's my restaurant analogy:

An restaurant owner sold shares in his restaurant in the promise that all those that invested would receive a dividend or part of the proceeds once the restaurant opened. He even spelled out in detail how they would get that return.

Once the restaurant opened the original investors discovered there was a secret agreement where new investors that invested at a later date were to receive the bulk of the proceeds once the restaurant opened.

The investors that had first invested in the restaurant then discover that this new secret agreement with the new investors had been back dated to a prior date before the original investors had even bought in and it left them with nothing, nada, not a damn thing for their investment.

This is a closer analogy to what's going on with this New Runoffs Criteria. And it's called a FRAUD!!


fraud
frôd/
noun

• wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

synonyms: fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, More

• a person or thing intended to deceive others.

synonyms: fake, sham, mountenank,: More....