Silly Season Part 2 - Class Consolidation

[csingletary01]

does anyone have the numbers on FST participation from the SCCA last year?

[rave motorsports]

Chuck
If my math is correct and using the previous chart that says FST is currently at 73 class entries we should end the season at 102 after the coming weekend at St Louis.

[rave motorsports]

I'm not suggesting this as a Runoffs " replacement" but as a way to build a class both Regionally and Nationally. The model we are using in FST seems to be developing. It's been slow at first but the momentum is gaining. Take a Regional class, and grow your own National series. Take Regional races at Historic " Bucket list tracks" and have 6 or 7 weekends across the country that become your National Series. Use SCCA strictly as the sanctioning body. We now have a Midwest group developing and an Eastern group established. We run monthly closer to home but have the option of traveling to the other Regions to run. This coming weekend is our first end if season East vs West race weekend at St Louis. Honestly it lets you develope your class and compete Nationally at a greatly reduced cost without all the political interference from SCCA. At one point I hoped we could become a Runoffs eligible class in FST. Now I'm not sure I would want it. I'm striving to be the best FST team in the country and I think that's possible to prove within our own drivers association model without tight scrutinizing and dictation from National SCCA. Honestly we've never had the top 3 finishers D'Q from a national event!

[Steve Davis]

1. Percentage of Majors participation is a ratio, not a number. Case in point it manages to land the class with the highest participation FV at the bottom of the list. To be clear race entries equal revenue, percentage of participation equals nothing.

2. The actual numbers show a clear break between FM at 312 and FB at 224. The bottom 4 is where you need to focus. Will these 4 classes ever reach the participation levels of the top 4 ?

Case in point .. assume for a moment that you had only TWO cars in a class.. one of them ran regionals and one ran Majors. The Ratio would be 50% .. so that ratio does indeed show NOTHING USEFUL in this discussion. THAT'S why F5 and FA are at the top of that ratio list - nothing more.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan you are looking at inconclusive numbers. What the participation numbers don't show, or more accurately, don't discount, are the folks that do both types of events. The challenge, and it requires screening driver's license numbers and writing exclusionary criteria, is to data mine the info and screen participation to facilitate the research you are doing.

But this is a valid conversation and I'm happy that we're discussing it. No one is more aware of the class issues than the BOD. A successful class modernization will have to rely on membership input. I think in terms of modernization because the marketplace is constantly changing and the challenge is to address emerging interests and markets, without disenfranchising existing cars and classes.

We have regional and Majors (national) paths in SCCA road racing. I have always felt that the regional or local racing, should be the incubation of classes; that every competitor should have a place to race, and the regions should define or control what's relevant to their markets. A nationwide path to national championships simply cannot accommodate this class complexity.

In the past, the club used mathematical formulas, 2.5 rule and participation data, to determine which classes were national and went to the runoffs. But this was simplistic and often ignored emerging market forces.

Modern race cars with ECU's and predictable performance, are relatively less difficult to regulate and the CRB and member's input, have proven that it can be done effectively. Older spec classes, which every formula car really is, have proven to be much more of a challenge. Like, how do you put weight on a faster formula car? Most times, it can't be done safely. As discussed here, most cars develop their speed quite differently and that complicates matters even more.

We need to reach out to our classes and help them understand that they need to partner with us to find resolutions.

I have learned that everyone favors class consolidations until it affects their class. It's not an easy task but those of us on the BOD are committed to finding a solution.

Thank you for weighing in, Brian. It's always good to get the view from the top!

I agree that the data are incomplete, but even so at least two surprises emerged from my quick glance at the data we do have. Back when I was on the CRB I worked with SCCA statistician Jim Creighton and the Club Racing office using emailed surveys to find out who was doing what. IIRC, the average Runoffs competitor entered 5-6 Nationals and 1-2 Regionals, while the average non-Runoffs entrant ran 4-5 Regionals and 1-2 Nationals. With the ability to email at essentially zero cost, that process should be continued and expanded (if it hasn't been...I let my competition license lapse several years ago).

I also agree that putting weight on a formula car not designed for it is the wrong answer. The Swift 016a has hard points integrated into the tub for affixing weight, and IIRC the FE has provision for bolting-in weight, but they are the only formula cars I know of that specifically do. That said, choke sizes and inlet restrictors are easy to use, easy to tech, and easy to change. Both the Honda in FF and the Zetec in FC had multiple restrictor changes as they were fine-tuned to their respective classes. The Club now has years of experience with them. They have been much better received than SIRs in formula cars, and are an effective and inexpensive way to nudge a class up or down the performance curve.

An alternative to class consolidation that recovers "time in the day" is to do two-class races at the Runoffs. I know it's not a popular solution, but done right it does work, and Daytona's 3.5 mile circuit might be just the place for it while the Board considers whatever consolidation you may have in mind. After all, the races are going to be what, 13 laps?

If for instance FA and FB are paired in a staggered start, the leading FAs might never lap more than a few FBs, and likewise the leading FBs might never catch more than a few of the FAs. You could run the predictably large FC turnout alone, and combine FE and FM. Maybe even group F5 with either FF or FV. But make it across the board...P1 and P2, GT something with GT something else, etc., so no one category bears the brunt of the impact. Heck, who knows...with a little diligence you could even get down to that magic 16 races some have called for.

[mmi16]

With the 2014 Runoffs having been on the West Coast and the competition core of SCCA being from the Mississippi to the Atlantic. There were any number of competitors that reigned in their competitive year with the advance knowledge that they would not be able to pull together the logistical elements necessary to compete in the Runoffs.

With the 2015 Runoffs being at Daytona, I expect there will be differences in competitors schedules from what was run in 2014.

[Marshall Mauney]

Personally, I feel the bottom 8 should go, for all the benefits of fewer classes in the same number of run groups. Doesn't matter if that takes a 2.5 or a 4.0 to break out of that bracket. 4.0 participation is "everybody makes the podium except 1 racer" on average? That's not a healthy class in my opinion.

The trouble with this view is that it treats the entire US as monolithic, and that's just not the case. Look at F500 and FE, for example. People on the West Coast probably think these cars are unicorns, because they never see any, while in CenDiv and SEDiv it would be a big blow to participation to push them out. You may see an average of 4 as podium +1, but the participants in the key regions see them Podium + 5, and they don't really care that there aren't any racing in SoCal.

[Marshall Mauney]

What would need to happen IMO is that you would need to open up the slower class to a couple of additional adjustments to make them competitive with the other class.

Is this a perfect solution? Maybe not but what is guaranteed to happen with out merger is that the classes will loose majors status and can then run regionals only.

So the more expensive car suddenly takes a $15k nosedive in resale value, with no corresponding decrease in parts/maintenance/operating cost? Non-starter. Unless the spec cars being combined are roughly equal in price before they get adjusted, one of the two is going to get burned pretty badly.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The trouble with this view is that it treats the entire US as monolithic, and that's just not the case. Look at F500 and FE, for example. People on the West Coast probably think these cars are unicorns, because they never see any, while in CenDiv and SEDiv it would be a big blow to participation to push them out. You may see an average of 4 as podium +1, but the participants in the key regions see them Podium + 5, and they don't really care that there aren't any racing in SoCal.

I think this is a pretty good perspective. I've been looking at FE but I think there are only 3 in SoCal. More in the SF region.

I think the problem with most spec classes in SoCal is our racing history. We like to tinker. We like to experiment. Something we can't breakdown and improve with a turn of our own wrench IS a unicorn. 2 FEs were at the Majors @ Buttonwillow this year. Both were from SF region.

Yes - the Rockies is a big divider.

On another note - blaming Cali and the runoffs being out West as a cause for low car counts and low turnout @ the runoffs is a bit of a slap in the face.

The cost to go to the runoffs for someone out west is very high - exactly people were complaining about this year - but they seem to be okay with it when the runoffs are in their backyard. The West Coast has been paying that price for years. The whining this year had been amazing.

I guess the conclusion is the central and east think they own the SCCA since they effectively have for years and this year the west took away their toys....

[Marshall Mauney]

On another note - blaming Cali and the runoffs being out West as a cause for low car counts and low turnout @ the runoffs is a bit of a slap in the face.

The cost to go to the runoffs for someone out west is very high - exactly people were complaining about this year - but they seem to be okay with it when the runoffs are in their backyard. The West Coast has been paying that price for years. The whining this year had been amazing.

I guess the conclusion is the central and east think they own the SCCA since they effectively have for years and this year the west took away their toys....

Easy, there - not everyone East of the Mississippi was complaining. Yes, a lot of people decided that a Runoffs trip was not within the budget (myself included), but your point is valid that a lot of left-coast drivers finally got to participate - and that's good for the club overall. Please don't let a few highly vocal complainers give you the impression that they speak for everyone.

[cory mcleod]

On another note - blaming Cali and the runoffs being out West as a cause for low car counts and low turnout @ the runoffs is a bit of a slap in the face.

The cost to go to the runoffs for someone out west is very high - exactly people were complaining about this year - but they seem to be okay with it when the runoffs are in their backyard. The West Coast has been paying that price for years. The whining this year had been amazing.

I guess the conclusion is the central and east think they own the SCCA since they effectively have for years and this year the west took away their toys....

While most of your points are valid (too many whiners and the West Coast finally getting repaid for years of "come East or bust" for the Runoffs), Chuck was in no way blaming Cali for anything. He was just stating the fact that a certain number of national level drivers did not run full seasons this year, because they knew they were not going to the Runoffs, which may make this year's participation numbers an anomaly.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

a lot of left-coast drivers finally got to participate - and that's good for the club overall. Please don't let a few highly vocal complainers give you the impression that they speak for everyone.

Agreed. Maybe this will create more participation from the west as well....
They got to the big dance and liked it....

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Chuck was in no way blaming Cali for anything. He was just stating the fact that a certain number of national level drivers did not run full seasons this year, because they knew they were not going to the Runoffs, which may make this year's participate numbers an anomaly.

I understand - not blaming anyone. We're all really making the point that it was a different year. I know there was certainly more participation out west this year specifically because of the runoffs being out west. Does anyone have those numbers?

SCCA needs to look hard at the numbers. Maybe they need to rent a rig to sweep down the west coast and pick up the top 2 points leaders next year and head for Daytona....

[Jnovak]

We loved the Runoffs at Laguna. For tons of reasons having nothing to do with the race!

[BeerBudgetRacing]

We loved the Runoffs at Laguna. For tons of reasons having nothing to do with the race!

I think the idea of moving it every year is excellent. It does give people home track advantage, but not all the time. Keeps people interested.

I know regional participation was down in some areas but they haven't left. They're just waiting for next season.

It may revive numbers....

[mblanc]

I vote for FU, Formula United.... I don't konw what you were thinking-

I already have the t-shirt:

uploadfromtaptalk1413898092140.jpg

[Marshall Mauney]

We loved the Runoffs at Laguna. For tons of reasons having nothing to do with the race!

Somehow, Jay, I think this was an easy year for you guys to enjoy! Congrats, by the way, on a well-deserved win.

[Jnovak]

Somehow, Jay, I think this was an easy year for you guys to enjoy! Congrats, by the way, on a well-deserved win.

Yes it was an easy event to enjoy, mainly because we achieved our goal. However it was the biggest thrash in history for us. I am amazed that we pulled it off. BRIAN drove brilliantly and the video of his 1:33.002 Q lap was frightening to watch. Talk about on the limit.

One of the main reasons we wanted to go to the west coast for the Runoffs is because I won the Cen-div C sedan championship in 1968 and could not go to Riverside for the Runoffs due to zero bucks. So this was a MUST race for us.

[Offcamber1]

What type of car did you run in 1969?

Very cool you and Brian got to Laguna. Cooler yet that you did so well!

Kip

[Jnovak]

What type of car did you run in 1969?

Very cool you and Brian got to Laguna. Cooler yet that you did so well!

Kip

Hi Kip, I had a 1966 NSU sedan with a 1200TTS engine.

[Rick Kean]

Hi Kip, I had a 1966 NSU sedan with a 1200TTS engine.

3/4 scale, 1st gen Corvair styling; hang it out! Have any pictures you can share?

[Jnovak]

3/4 scale, 1st gen Corvair styling; hang it out! Have any pictures you can share?

Yes, somewhere. I will look when I get caught up on life.

[mmi16]

Hi Kip, I had a 1966 NSU sedan with a 1200TTS engine.

Wasn't NSU the first to use the Wankle engine in regular production?

[Jnovak]

Wasn't NSU the first to use the Wankle engine in regular production?

Yes, NSU holds the original patents. They were bought out by Audi in the early 80s I think. However there is still an NSU holding co. That owns the original patents. NSU was a very innovative co.

[captaineddie1975]

Jay
My memory isn't what it sued to be but I could've sworn that GM invernted or developed the Wankle engine and sold the patents and process to NSU.

[David Locke]

Jay
My memory isn't what it sued to be but I could've sworn that GM invernted or developed the Wankle engine and sold the patents and process to NSU.

From Wikipedia: "The engine was invented by German engineer Felix Wankel. Wankel received his first patent for the engine in 1929, began development in the early 1950s at NSU completing a working prototype in 1957. NSU subsequently licensed the design to companies around the world, who have continually improved the design."

[DaveW]

From Wikipedia: "The engine was invented by German engineer Felix Wankel. Wankel received his first patent for the engine in 1929, began development in the early 1950s at NSU completing a working prototype in 1957. NSU subsequently licensed the design to companies around the world, who have continually improved the design."

I wrote a paper on the Wankel engine in my senior year of college, and that is what I understand, also.

[john f]

GM tried to develop the rotary in the early 70's to put in the Vega. After about 4 years and a
TON of money, they tossed the whole thing in the trash. They imported 100's and 100's of Mazda rotaries from Japan in an attempt to reverse engineer the motor with no luck. Just couldn't get the emissions licked. Ed Cole even suggested putting a big balloon on top of the car to contain cold start emissions for re-burning later when engine was warm.

john f

[mazda17]

My father worked for GM as an engineer during that time (1971-1972). He actual got his name on a couple patents with equipment related to stress testing the engines and got to meet the CEO at the time. He got to drive the 2 rotor Vega once and saw the 4 rotor Corvette.

[racerdad2]

A rotary Vega ! That would be far better than the 350 sb. Hmmmm.....

[john f]

My father worked for GM as an engineer during that time (1971-1972). He actual got his name on a couple patents with equipment related to stress testing the engines and got to meet the CEO at the time. He got to drive the 2 rotor Vega once and saw the 4 rotor Corvette.

Ask him about the tech center spraying LEAD in the doors and fenders to quiet the noise and improve the ride to impress the higher ups! The GM approach to engineering back then was the
"1000 monkey" approach. The amounts of money pi**ed away back then is just one reason why they went broke. IMHO.

john f

[racerdad2]

Sadly, the first Vegas were crap boxes. Fun to drive disposable cars. By the time they made them into a decent car, no one would buy them. Which reminds me of the Pontiac Fiero... Would have been a big winner, had they not forgotten one key ingredient. ... Horsepower !

[starfmguy]

back to the runoffs - I live in SW Washington (state - the real Washington) and while it saved a day & a half or so of travel time, and that has value, my only direct real savings of going to Laguna over going to Mid-Ohio or Road America was maybe $1,000 in diesel. Motel, tires, fuel, general event costs, entry, all the car prep, food, testing, paying $50 for a pit cart permit (ouch), etc. essentially all cost the same. My point is - I really don't get the excuses of not coming to Laguna. Of the total cost to do the RunOffs, $1,000 in fuel will stop you? there - I said it... Actually - in FM we had most all the fast cars in the country. But if you really add it up, for a serious effort, it isn't that much more to go to Laguna, is it? I just would have liked to have seen a bigger grid with some more cars traveling west to Laguna.

[Marshall Mauney]

back to the runoffs - I live in SW Washington (state - the real Washington) and while it saved a day & a half or so of travel time, and that has value, my only direct real savings of going to Laguna over going to Mid-Ohio or Road America was maybe $1,000 in diesel. Motel, tires, fuel, general event costs, entry, all the car prep, food, testing, paying $50 for a pit cart permit (ouch), etc. essentially all cost the same. My point is - I really don't get the excuses of not coming to Laguna. Of the total cost to do the RunOffs, $1,000 in fuel will stop you? there - I said it... Actually - in FM we had most all the fast cars in the country. But if you really add it up, for a serious effort, it isn't that much more to go to Laguna, is it? I just would have liked to have seen a bigger grid with some more cars traveling west to Laguna.

It would have been a lot more than $1K in fuel for me (coming from Alabama), and the extra days of travel make it nearly impossible to schedule. How likely are you to come to Daytona next year?

It's good that we got a West coast swing at the Runoffs, but realistically there are a lot of people on the farther end of the East that just can't manage that long of a trip on top of the whole week at the event. That doesn't mean we shouldn't give every area a shot at it, but we have to be honest about who will show up at each location.

[ccoffin]

Marshal, from your location it would have cost you $140 more round trip in fuel to go to laguna than it did for Mel to make the trip from toledo wa to road America. Assuming 11mpg and $4/gallon (close to current diesel rate around the corner from me, ymmv). This was a trip I believe he did at least twice , plus some trips to mid o as well.

Also under these same assumptions Mel spent roughly $900 less in fuel to go to laguna this year than he did going to the Midwest.

Total fuel cost in both instances is significant, but he was arguing the difference in costs was not something that should hold people back.

Now you'll get no argument from me that the time it takes to make the trip is far more significant. An extra 2,3 or 4 days of travel each way. Hard to set aside at least two weeks to make the trip vs one week for those who only have to travel one day or a day and a half to get there.

[Rick Kean]

3/4 scale, 1st gen Corvair styling; hang it out! Have any pictures you can share?

I just thought I was threadjackin'

[David Locke]

back to the runoffs - I live in SW Washington (state - the real Washington) and while it saved a day & a half or so of travel time, and that has value, my only direct real savings of going to Laguna over going to Mid-Ohio or Road America was maybe $1,000 in diesel. Motel, tires, fuel, general event costs, entry, all the car prep, food, testing, paying $50 for a pit cart permit (ouch), etc. essentially all cost the same. My point is - I really don't get the excuses of not coming to Laguna. Of the total cost to do the RunOffs, $1,000 in fuel will stop you? there - I said it... Actually - in FM we had most all the fast cars in the country. But if you really add it up, for a serious effort, it isn't that much more to go to Laguna, is it? I just would have liked to have seen a bigger grid with some more cars traveling west to Laguna.

No, $1000 in fuel didn't stop me from coming. Aside from the fact that it would have cost an additional $1600 in fuel (over going to Elkhart Lake), there is the small matter of an extra six days on the road out and back, which means six more motel bills and a bunch of meals. Then comes the biggest problem: two weeks away from my job instead of one. Simply not possible. So, no, it wasn't merely a matter of $1000 in fuel stopping me from coming.

[Marshall Mauney]

Marshal, from your location it would have cost you $140 more round trip in fuel to go to laguna than it did for Mel to make the trip from toledo wa to road America. Assuming 11mpg and $4/gallon (close to current diesel rate around the corner from me, ymmv). This was a trip I believe he did at least twice , plus some trips to mid o as well.

Not trying to belabor the point, but I have two options, neither of which hit that cost point. 1) Tow it myself with my motorhome and trailer at about 4 MPG (gas), or (2) go with One Formula at their mileage rate (which is a fair deal, but still more expensive than going it alone in a small rig).

Either way, it's a pretty big chunk of change vs. Road America where One Formula could get there in 4 hours and I just catch a cheap flight (or combine with a business trip and let the company pay the airfare). Daytona's going to be expensive, too, but I'm hoping that I can find a way to make it work (can't afford any crash damage in 2015).

Total fuel cost in both instances is significant, but he was arguing the difference in costs was not something that should hold people back.

Now you'll get no argument from me that the time it takes to make the trip is far more significant. An extra 2,3 or 4 days of travel each way. Hard to set aside at least two weeks to make the trip vs one week for those who only have to travel one day or a day and a half to get there.

This is the real issue, isn't it?

For the past several years our race has been late Sunday, which means that we can't catch a flight and get back to work Monday morning. Speaking for myself, I need to keep the whole trip to a maximum of one week out of the office. From most East coast locations you can catch the first flight out and be productive again before noon, but not from the far end.

It's the same for the guys from the West when we race in the East, so there's no good answer - but you have to take this into account when you look at participation numbers. Classes with strong West coast entries were probably higher this year than before, while classes without West coast interest were probably a good bit lower....which brings us back to the original topic.

I know of two FE drivers (myself and one more in my division) who combined for 2 total events, but would normally expect to combine for 10-12. That doesn't sound like a lot in and of itself, but I have to believe that we aren't the only ones - just like there probably a bunch of cars that came out of the garage a lot more in CA/OR/WA.