RunOffs needs you to Voice your opinion

[MosesSmithRacing]

There is a proposed schedule change for the RunOffs. The proposed change would Group FM and FE (For the runoffs only). Those of you registered to race should have received an email.

Here is my response and my official positioning (opinion):

I am against the proposed change for two reasons:

1) Travel and logistic arrangements have already been made and paid for.
2) A- I understand the want to balance run group size. I also understand that based on lap times it makes “Sence” to group FM and FE. But although the FM and FE have similar lap times the two classes make their speed in different places, making it very frustrating to be on track at the same time, especially in a championship race.
B- When there is some differential in speed between classes, passes can happen with less effort between the two classes resulting in less interference between championship results.
C- This being said, the two smaller classes (FE and F5) (based on RunOffs registration numbers) should be grouped together. This would allow the two larger groups (FF and FM) to be rewarded for their participation numbers, with their own run group. This would also give the differential in speed needed to make passes happen with less interference (FE and F5)


For those of you that may have not received the letter here is an email to respond to:

Terry Ozment
TOzment@scca.com

Thanks,

Moses

[NPalacioM3]

SCCA really needs to get these classes cleaned up, no more. You want to add a class? You have to remove one then in my opinion, it is out of control....

[rickb99]

.. B- When there is some differential in speed between classes, passes can happen with less effort between the two classes resulting in less interference between championship results......Terry Ozment....

WOW! Although I totally agree with the above comment, MOST of the arguments on this Forum are in the polar opposite direction. Any grouping with a speed differential is horrible because the slower cars get in the way.

... A- I understand the want to balance run group size. I also understand that based on lap times it makes “Sence” to group FM and FE. But although the FM and FE have similar lap times the two classes make their speed in different places, making it very frustrating to be on track at the same time....Terry Ozment...

Same can be said of grouping FM and FC. Sounds like there are THREE over lapping classes that the SCCA needs to sort out. Why do they have all 3??

[mousecatcher]

2) A- I understand the want to balance run group size. I also understand that based on lap times it makes “Sence” to group FM and FE. But although the FM and FE have similar lap times the two classes make their speed in different places, making it very frustrating to be on track at the same time, especially in a championship race.

The proposed change was prompted by complaints about the F5/FF grouping. One of the stated reasons (by Terry) for the F5/FF grouping was that F5 and FF have similar lap times. The reasoning was that with a split start, similar lap times is a benefit since you won't see each other on track. Regardless of how that lap time is achieved.

... This would also give the differential in speed needed to make passes happen with less interference (FE and F5)

Likewise, FE is likely to lap F5 (due to speed differential) and this was a reason given to NOT group them together.

So I would look for other reasons to argue against FM/FE grouping.

[Jnovak]

Same can be said of grouping FM and FC. Sounds like there are THREE over lapping classes that the SCCA needs to sort out. Why do they have all 3??

You could always merge FC, FM and FE just to see what happens.

[ccoffin]

You could always merge FC, FM and FE just to see what happens.

Call the class F_CME ;-)

[mousecatcher]

lol

[racerdad2]

That's funny !

[clint]

The proposed change was prompted by complaints about the F5/FF grouping. One of the stated reasons (by Terry) for the F5/FF grouping was that F5 and FF have similar lap times. The reasoning was that with a split start, similar lap times is a benefit since you won't see each other on track. Regardless of how that lap time is achieved.

Likewise, FE is likely to lap F5 (due to speed differential) and this was a reason given to NOT group them together.

So I would look for other reasons to argue against FM/FE grouping.

I don't think lapping the F5s should be taken into consideration. The top F5s wont be lapped, the same F5s that always get lapped will just be getting lapped by two classes is all. I'm pretty sure that the national championship wont be decided by where the FEs are at on the track in relation to the F5 top guys. I am a F5 guy and I can tell you that the same guys that always get lapped will still get lapped and it most likely wont be any more than they would if they were only racing with F5. So there's the last public statement I will post on this subject. I'm taking my emails where they actually matter and I strongly suggest if anyone reading this wants the same then you do what I do. Contact the people that will make the decision on this instead of continuing to talk about it to people that in majority all agree.

[dalz]

This is why I'm done.

[rickb99]

You could always merge FC, FM and FE just to see what happens.

Actually we do that out here in ICSCC. FC, FM, FF's all run together and every body plays nice. In general, the FM's do clog up the FC race in the corners but it's not bad.

[Jnovak]

Actually we do that out here in ICSCC. FC, FM, FF's all run together and every body plays nice. In general, the FM's do clog up the FC race in the corners but it's not bad.

What would it take to equalize the FM cars with FC?

[MosesSmithRacing]

I think that those of you that did not receive the email from Terry, are not understanding what the issue was. There is no concern of combining classes. They are trying to split the FF and F5 class because there are a lot of FF registered for the Run Offs. The big problem is what to do with the smaller classes. FE only has 11 registered. F5 only has 12 registered. They are having a hard time finding a home for them right now, but only at the RunOffs.

The whole thing started to try and "Balance" run group size. None of the classes involved are exceeding track capacity. But there are so few FE and F5 they are trying to move them to balance things out.

I will publish numbers very soon to show overall class participation, but the FE and the F5 are the lowest in Formula Car participation. As far as winged Formula Formula Cars go, the FM and the FC are number 1 and 2 in participation. (this statement based on 2013. I do not have 2014 completed yet).

Therefore I do not feel as though FM or FC need to be combined. In fact combining them would actually lead to the same exact problem we are facing with this current proposal to balance run groups at the runoffs. If these two classes were combined we would again see and "unbalanced" run group.

But the short answer to your question about what it would take to combine classes...A LOT. First of all the FM is Spec, and the FC is not. It would not be fair to either class to even suggest such a thing. Those that choose the FM did it because of its spec nature, those that chose the FC did it because they like a little more freedom to "tinker". Asking either class to become spec, or tinker would not be in the nature of either class.

Moses

[Jnovak]

F500 is 9th overall in participation for 2014.

[Daryl DeArman]

I will publish numbers very soon to show overall class participation, but the FE and the F5 are the lowest in Formula Car participation. As far as winged Formula Formula Cars go, the FM and the FC are number 1 and 2 in participation. (this statement based on 2013. I do not have 2014 completed yet).

Actually the 2014 Majors participation numbers come out like this:


FF
FV
FC
F5
FA
FB
FM
FE

[Jnovak]

Actually the 2014 Majors participation numbers come out like this:


FF
FV
FC
F5
FA
FB
FM
FE

F5 is fry from last at 4th among formula cars and 9th out of 27 for all classes. The future is bright IMO.

[MosesSmithRacing]

Here are the numbers I previously said I would post. These are total participation numbers for SCCA. It is important for us as a Race car manufacturer and class supporter to look at total participation (Big picture mentality), as opposed to looking at 1 part or variable and using that to rate where participation lies within the club as a whole.

The total participation number is the sum of any car that raced in either National, Regional, or Major Event. The 2014 Numbers are through June only as the rest for of the numbers for 2014 are not yet available to post.

The percentage is calculated based on the total participation of the classes listed.

2007

CLASS % RANK TOTAL PART
FV 26.7% 1 1567
FF 16.3% 2 956
FC 13.7% 3 806
FM 11.9% 4 697
FA 11.2% 5 660
FE 9.8% 6 574
F5 8.8% 7 519
FB 1.6% 8 96
Total 5875

2008

CLASS RANK TOTAL PART
FV 26.9% 1 1593
FF 14.8% 2 878
FC 13.7% 3 809
FM 11.2% 4 660
FE 10.4% 5 618
FA 10.0% 6 591
F5 9.5% 7 560
FB 3.5% 8 206
Total 5915

2009

CLASS RANK TOTAL PART
FV 24.1% 1 1299
FF 18.7% 2 1007
FC 14.6% 3 787
FM 11.5% 4 617
FE 9.7% 5 523
F5 9.2% 6 493
FA 8.1% 7 434
FB 4.1% 8 220
Total 5380

2010

CLASS RANK TOTAL PART
FV 21.3% 1 1104
FF 17.6% 2 912
FC 15.6% 3 805
FE 10.7% 4 552
FM 10.7% 4 552
F5 9.7% 6 500
FA 7.8% 7 404
FB 6.7% 8 347
Total 5176

2011

CLASS RANK TOTAL PART
FV 25.2% 1 1179
FF 15.8% 2 739
FC 13.4% 3 629
FM 10.6% 4 497
FE 10.4% 5 486
F5 10.0% 6 470
FA 8.7% 7 409
FB 5.8% 8 272
Total 4681

2012

CLASS RANK TOTAL PART
FV 27.9% 1 1130
FF 15.9% 2 645
FM 11.9% 3 483
FC 10.0% 4 403
F5 9.9% 5 399
FE 9.1% 6 368
FA 8.7% 7 353
FB 6.6% 8 269
Total 4050

2013

CLASS RANK TOTAL PART
FV 24.4% 1 929
FF 16.4% 2 625
FC 11.8% 3 451
FM 11.0% 4 418
FA 10.3% 5 393
FB 9.4% 6 359
F5 9.2% 7 351
FE 7.6% 8 289
Total 3815

2014 (through June)

Class RANK TOTAL PART
FV 20.9% 1 450
FF 19.3% 2 415
FC 13.4% 3 289
FM 12.5% 4 270
FA 9.4% 5 203
F5 8.8% 6 190
FB 7.9% 7 171
FE 7.7% 8 165
Total 2153


I feel as though this thread has turned into a bit of a "pissing" match. I feel that the main objective of this thread was missed, and/or redirected. Fortunately All the FM drivers were privately notified using our FM network, and the real objective was addressed with the SCCA.

It is unfortunate that at times, threads on these forums take the direction that this one has. I feel like we are all part of a bigger picture, and when we don't pull together but rather start picking on each other, it doesn't look good for potentially interested drivers that may be browsing the sight, or for current competitors for that matter.

Overall car count is down. If we lose car count then the club will cease to exist. That is the last thing we all want. Of course I am partial to Formula Mazda for obvious reasons. But i do appreciate every competitor regardless of type of race car they choose to compete in open wheel or closed wheel.

Our shop houses over 30 cars. We maintain just over 40. This includes FM, FE, FB, FA, FV,P2 as well as a few sports cars. We do what ever we can to get everyone on track and stay on track.

Lets all work together, be supportive, and go racing!!

Moses

[racerdad2]

Well said !

[Jnovak]

Moses, no pissing match intended at all. I simply want to point out that F500 was 4th in open wheel entries for the entire 2014 race season. Now admittedly the class is not for everyone but it is actually growing since the advent of the 600cc MC engines.