Too Many Classes in the SCCA?

[John LaRue]

I suppose it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. For the purist this problem arose when the Zetec was introduced; the problem was exacerbated when the aluminum head was permitted. Of course you could argue that the introduction of the new VanDiemen FC in or about 2000 did the same thing. Did it not up the ante to be competitive?

As I see it there are two very simple choices with consequences. The first is to leave the classes alone; lock the rules and try to make time stand still. For the most part that has happened in FF. The attendant consequences will be diminished production of new cars, aging of the participants and loss of parts supply. As we are seeing in FF this certainly helps to inflate the cost of parts, engines and perhaps cars, but this in my opinon will be temporary. As these items become more difficult to obtain, cars are damaged beyond reasonable repair and operation costs escalate participation will drop and the class will die or go on life support in the vintage world.

The second option is to update cars, rules and engines on a regular basis keeping in mind the original formula and philosophy of the class. Changes are made as the new world dictates. This approach obviously brings about increased costs to update older equipment and a certain degree of obsolescence. Obviously this type of approach could go one of two directions either 1) it is successful and results in continued participation and growth of new participants and equipment; or 2) it is met with resistance because of the changes, participation drops and the class dies or goes on life support in vintage, perhaps exclusive of the newer equipment.

Obviously we would all like to see things remain constant so that our investmant remians and we are not forced into purchasing new equipment or that our equipment does not become obsolete. At the moment we do not exist in a vacum and to create that vacum is costly. What we perhaps overlook is that the world is different from what it was when the classes were formed. For one thing, no longer do engines remain in production for years as they did with the Kent or the Pinto; How do we address this today? There are multiple approaches as we have seen in FC and FF as well as the formation of new classes which are seen as filling a niche FB, FE, FM.... Do any of these approaches solve the problem?

I have my own opinions, but I am not sold on the fact that I am correct. In the end the market place will probably determine which is correct unless we dilute the small formula car universe to the point that we do not have enough people competing in the same class and there is an implosion of all formula car racing. Probably not likely in the near future, but again who wants to race against only a handful of cars every weekend?

In closing I don't know as though the problem can be resolved within the club. There are many opposing opinions and growth, development and change tends to go against the interests of those who are senior in the club and have the ability to lobby and influence the future. Is growth and new blood what we are after and if so how does that merge with prevailing interests and "historical" concerns of existing members?

John

[dc]

I suppose it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition. As I see it there are two very simple choices with consequences. The first is to leave the classes alone; lock the rules and try to make time stand still. The second option is to update cars, rules and engines on a regular basis keeping in mind the original formula and philosophy of the class. Changes are made as the new world dictates.

Very well spoken, John. I, like you, keep going back and forth on what I think is the right direction for both FF and FC. Like our economy, I don't think there is a right answer to solve everyone's problem. Each decision affects a big percentage of the audience no matter what you do. In the end, though, you have to see the forest for the trees and do what is best in the big picture sense.

Again, I don't know what the right answer is in either case. Both are seriously flawed and could easily mean the death of the respective class.

In the case of FC, though, I don't know if the second option was executed in the exact way it should have been to give the desired results. Parity is one thing, but when changes are made to all options that increase performance, all you are accomplishing is to make EVERYONE at every level spend money to step up. In this instance, SCCA was trying to eliminate the "Golden Ticket" steel heads that are out there, and in my estimation, screwed the pooch for everyone (except those holding the Golden Tickets) on accomplishing that.



As for Formula Ford, well, vintage racing might be fun, eh?

[John LaRue]

That Doug, leads into a second quesiton: Is there a finite life span for SCCA? How do you trim out the dead or dying classes when those that have control have a vested interest in maintaining them? How does it make sense to allow poorly subscribed classes to continue to have status and take up time in the race schedule? If a change is not made to prune things out does the club's national racing program eventually die on the vine?

Obviously these are hard if not impossible decisions to make; someones ox will be gored or in the alternative we will continue to dilute the program and have race groups that are more diverse than the cars that fill up the McDonald's parking lot. I do think this is the stuff that the BOD needs to be working on.

Lathrop had an idea wherein groups like F2000 hold events with SCCA sanction throughout the season. They would not necessarily give points, but would have some credit towards a Runoff's invitation. These groups/organizations would be focused on the more serious participants/high level National/semi-pro types who do notlike the diluted grids. National racing would remain something of a hodgepodge of classes and run groups as it is leaving a place for most everyone. Runoffs would then have a greater draw and be something that the guys who were running the various pro series could look towards capping their season. It would be the best of the best by whatever means youtook to get there. Intriguing.

John

One question for the crowd, we hear of the huge FF grids from the 70's and early 80's; how many TOTAL entries would a typical National event have and how does that compare with recent totals?

[R. Pare]

The last National that I attended as a driver was back in the early '80s at Limerock, and I haven't been to a club race there since, so my memory may be way off. I believe that the total number of entries were probably nearly the same (most likely a bit less), but spread over fewer classes - we actually had qualifying races for FF at times!

Someone with access to entry history can answer a lot more accurately than any of us grayhairs can from memory.

[FC63F]

John,

Interesting,

The lathrup idea would certainly be great for the Zetec guys who to go to the run offs would have had to run four SCCA National races and would now run fewer SCCA "diluted" nationals. Help me understand how that would be good for SCCA membership and participation? I would think that the number of zetec cars participating in SCCA Great Lakes Nationals racing would decline real quickly - from one or two to zero. I thought all this Parity Investment I will be making was to increase participation in SCCA Nationals...I bet that if the Zetec guys would have to spend $1K to participate in 09 - and they could have parity would have yielded even less Zetec participation...Think about that...The Zetec guys could have thought of it as a one time license fee that gave them access - I am certain they would have screamed bloody murder

I am all for finding ways for more people to participate in FC, FF Zetec in SCCA but based upon the Parity history and approach - I think that the lesson learned is that we need better transparency on these types of decisions - well in advance of the decision - yes the SCCA stopped it and delayed it but in my estimation the design of the proposal was flawed and much of this angst could have been avoided by by using the standard pinto as the baseline. Improving performance was not a problem that FC drivers were clammering for resolution - where were the letters asking for more HP, and better cams and lighter fly wheels - A transparent effort by the SCCA to obtain parity would not have yielded the results we have today.

David Keep

[Stan Clayton]

One question for the crowd, we hear of the huge FF grids from the 70's and early 80's; how many TOTAL entries would a typical National event have and how does that compare with recent totals?

I don't have any data for prior to 1983, but here are the total entries, races per year and average entries per race for 1983 - 2008. Stan

[TimW]

Interesting how last year the number of races is on an upward trend even after several nationals were canceled due to lack of participation (gingerman snow national for example). That is certainly not the first order impetus to the declining participation problem, but it does hi light that it seems racers & organizers are heading in different directions.

[John LaRue]

Stan, would you have data for the number of classes for that same period?

[rickb99]

Stans charts seem somewhat discouraging to me per John's question. I suspect the number of classes over the 20 year period has increased by a 'goodly' number. Yet, the number of National race entry's hover'd between 9,500 and 10,500 per year (ignoring the anomally in late 80's). Furthermore, the 'average' entry's per race has remained constant at about 140 (in and of itself not a great number). To me, that says at best SCCA has been stagnant over the past 20 years despite increasing the number of classes to "draw" new racers.

So constant number plus more classes = diluted fields and more class "mix" in run groups due to track time available.

I wonder what those graphs would look like for regional racing??? Most certainly whatever draws people to Nationals isn't enough to provide an upward trend in the charts. One must conclude that the alternate clubs are sucking up a whole lot of the new road racers who aren't 'attracted' to an SCCA national championship. GOTTA get the luster back!!

Our "club" averages over a 13 race season about 185 entry's per race weekend with 6 run groups. Anywhere from 20 to 45 cars per group (maybe 50 in the Pro 3 group).

I have to go check the 7/11 parking lot to see if anybody dropped some dimes or quarters. Saving for a new flywheel.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan, would you have data for the number of classes for that same period?

Good question, John...thanks! I went back and counted the classes for each year. Although the numbers appear quite stagnant, classes were dropped and added quite frequently, as the CRB and BoD sought the right mix of active National Classes. Stan

[Bob Wright]

Wow...this thread just got very interesting again.

John, as a good lawyer, you have gone to the heart of the issue, and I think you're pinpointing it. We can modernize the class(es) or they can die and become vintage. If you believe, like I do, that FC needs to survive- how do you achieve that? Modernize it. Look at the rules for FB; look at the design specs for FE. My contention has been and remains that if FC had kept pace, we wouldn't even have those two classes (I know, I Know- there were other reasons for the FE car, etc.) Modern motors are now a (cheap) commodity; maybe plan on having new or multiple motors every 5 years. Aluminum calipers are now standard everywhere; so are sequential gear boxes. Safety issues should dictate some changes to the FC sidepod rules. The basics are good, but there are some things that need to be tweaked. This costs money, but not huge amounts of it. Ralph Firman had a design all set to go for a new F2000 car; he shelved it in favor of a F1000 in part because he didn't want to build a car with a 23 year old set of specs. Put a Zetec with a 5 speed sequential in that F1000 car and I think you have a picture of where FC should go.

John, your question for the crowd...I have results sheets for FF races in the NE in the early '80's with anywhere from 25 to 40 cars- BTW thats in both regionals and nationals, and the races were FF only. It could be said that the Swift DB1 and the introduction of the post '86 FC class killed FF as we never saw those numbers again. There was a huge migration to FC in the late '80s, early '90s- we shouldn't ignore the obvious as to why that happened.

I guess what bugs me the most in many of these conversations is: Racing costs money; inovation costs money. There are a lot of voices on these threads that bitch about spending anything. The old adage about how fast do you want to go usually holds true. Frog's post about the new Pinto parts is right on- they are not required, they are your choice. One can be fast and competitive in FC without spending a fortune, but you have to spend something and you have to be smart about it. You are not going to win a national race on 8 heat cycle takeoffs, but you might squeak out a top 5 in a regional, make your decision. Ask a front running karting kid what he spends per season; ask a GT1 or a FA driver the same thing.

I am an advocate of FC and I will push to modernize it as much as I can because I want to see the class survive and thrive.

Just an addendem to the above: I wrote this under the FC heading and meant it to be for FC, not classes in general, although some of the points could apply to any class. The whole thread was moved so some of the early posts above may seem a bit off.

[Stan Clayton]

This threadjack may be worth a thread of its own, but here is a short history of SCCA National Classes, starting with 22 classes in 1983.

DP
EP
FP
GP
HP

GT1
GT2
GT3
GT4
GT5

SSGT
SSA
SSB
SSC

FA
FC
FF
FV

ASR
CSR
DSR
S2000

For 1984, DP was dropped and F500 was added for no net change.

For 1985, ASR was dropped and Spec Renault was added for no net change.

No changes in 1986 through 1990.

For 1991 SCA was added to bump us to 23 classes.

For 1994 SRF was added to bump us to 24 classes.

No changes in 1995.

For 1996, SSGT was dropped while AS and T2 were added to bump us to 25 classes.

For 1997, SCA and SR were merged into SRF, dropping us to 23 classes.

For 1998, FM and T1 were added while SSA was dropped, bringing us to 24 classes.

No changes for 1999 through 2004.

For 2005, GT4 and GT5 were merged to form GTL, dropping us to 23 classes.

For 2006, T3 and SM were added, bumping us to 25 classes.

For 2007, BP, DP, ST, FB and FE were added, bumping us to 30 classes.

Hope that helps clarify things.

[provamo]

too many freakin classes....we need run what ya brung or formula none events

formula ford WAS crowded back then...think an eight hour tow to lime rock then being held in the pits during practice and qualifying because only thirty some cars were allowed per mile of track......forty and fifty car counts at the glen regionals...my last national STARTED 38 fords at nelson freaking ledges...ancient history

[Daryl DeArman]

How do you trim out the dead or dying classes when those that have control have a vested interest in maintaining them?

You don't. Eventually enough alternatives will exist and those with a vested interest and control won't have anybody to race against. Only then, will they change chariots.

How does it make sense to allow poorly subscribed classes to continue to have status and take up time in the race schedule? If a change is not made to prune things out does the club's national racing program eventually die on the vine?

Poorly subscribed classes don't take up time in the schedule, poorly subscribed run groups do. I don't think the program will die on the vine. Just certain classes.

[GT1Vette]

This threadjack may be worth a thread of its own, but here is a short history of SCCA National Classes, starting with 22 classes in 1983.

DP
EP
FP
GP
HP

GT1
GT2
GT3
GT4
GT5

SSGT
SSA
SSB
SSC

FA
FC
FF
FV

ASR
CSR
DSR
S2000

Going back a bit further, the Runoffs moved to Atlanta in 1970. When the Frog and I attended for the first time in 1971 (we are VERY old!), there were also 22 classes:

8 Production - A thru H (big block Corvettes & Cobras -> 948 Sprites)
6 Formula - FA (also known as F5000), FB, FC, FF, FSV (air-cooled), FV
4 Sedan - AS (Trans-Am cars), BS, CS, DS
4 Sports Racer - ASR (Can-Am cars), BSR, CSR, DSR

Obviously these were the National classes, but I wasn't involved with the organizational side of things then so I have no idea how many extra Regional-only classes there were at the time. Bottom line, however, the number of classes has not changed dramatically in almost 40 years and the issue of performance disparity in the run groups has been with us just as long.

Butch Kummer

[John LaRue]

Poorly subscribed classes make poorly subscribed or at least unfavorable run groups. I think that one of the primary selling points of the successful F2000 series is simply that there are not mulitple class run groups which not only dilute the racing, but increase exposure to crashes and damage.

Thinking this out a bit further, what if every class we have on the books today drew 30 cars on average; how would this make anything better? Would it not make it worse? Is the problem not simply too many classes?

[dc]

Yes, there are too many classes.

But how do you put the toothpaste back into the tube?

[GT1Vette]

I've split this out from the FC Parity thread because it's CLEARLY not related to that topic, but as a race organizer I don't want this to get lost:

For as long as I've been aware of SCCA's existence (Frog & I attended our first Runoffs in 1971), we've had at least 22 classes. The general consensus is many of our current problems with track time, speed disparity, whatever are occuring because that TOO MANY!

Given a clean sheet of paper, how many classes should there be?

Does every race need to be for a single class? (If so, we're limited to 6 or 7 classes at most of the tracks we run)

Once we gain consensus on the "correct" number of classes, what should those classes be?

When answering these questions, please try to look at the overall picture and not your own personal situation. Everyone wants THEIR class to be among the chosen few, but obviously that's not possible. For the long term health of the club:

1. How many classes should there be?

2. Name them.

Butch Kummer
Competition Director, Atlanta Region
Chairman, SEDIV Planning Committee

[Daryl DeArman]

Yes, there are too many classes.

But how do you put the toothpaste back into the tube?

Everybody sell all their stuff to the vintage crowd. Buy either a F1000, FST, Spec Miata or EProd car and go racing. 4 classes, 4 run groups with 45 minute races and 35 cars in each race

[problemchild]

I think that everyone will agree that there are too many classes. Those in the new classes .... say kill the old classes. Those in the old classes .... say no more new classes.

The bottom line is that you cannot force people to race cars and classes that they do not want to race. For all the people that did not choose FF for the past 20 years, do you really believe that they would have chosen FF if it was the only SCCA small formula class? A few would have, but many more would be racing with Fran-Am, NASA, Skippy, or whatever organization provided cars and classes for them.

I do not have the answer, but stopping growth is not it.

[Stan Clayton]

Yes, there are too many classes.

But how do you put the toothpaste back into the tube?

This conversation aside, not everyone agrees that there are too many classes. To borrow John's point from post # 421, "I suppose it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition." As with class rules, the CRB and BoD must be constantly vigilant to which classes are dying and where the opportunities for growth are. If they lock down the class structure saying, for instance, that there will be four Prod classes, but two of them are effectively dead, while SM is growing like wildfire in Regional racing and is told, "No, you can't go National racing.", they are missing the opportunity to add a great National class to the roster.

The flip side of that coin is that the BoD and CRB must also be willing to pull the trigger when a class is at the end of its viability. They have done that in recent years by merging GT4 and GT5 into GTL, and with the demise of GP. If the incubator classes like FB don't grow, they too will be merged or revert to Regional status. They'll have had their chance, which is all a class can ask for.

One thing that I know won't accomplish a darned thing is to sit around wishing for a return to "the good ol' days". All this reminising about FF back in the 70's is 20/20 hindsight with rose tinted glasses. Yes, in the late 70's, FF and FV together accounted for around 25% of all National entries. But you know what? Folks started abandoning those classes because they were too big and the competition was too great. The cost to be competitive was also rapidly increasing, and both classes saw sharp declines in participation during the 80's. BTW, we are seeing this effect in SM right now, where folks are leaving that class for the same reasons as they left FF and FV a generation ago.

So be careful what you wish for. A stable, healthy class that has to share the track with other cars is not the worst thing that can happen to your class. Engage the Club constructively about your class' rules by thinking beyond your own narrow selfish interests, and race your car. Hating on other classes, boycotting races (yes, I'm looking at you, GT3 and GTL) and trying to screw the other combinations in your class will not help your case. You just make it easy to identify which classes are ready for merger/reversion.

[John LaRue]

Not to put words into Lathrop's mouth, but I think that his thought on the splinter groups such as F2000 was that these would provide an event which would attract the better subscribed classes that could in fact stand on their own without being combined into run groups. Supposedly the Club would receive some monetary benefit from these entries in the way of insurance premiums and sanctioning fees. For Runoffs these "sanctioned events" would be given some credit towards an invite.

While this would not necessarily increase participation at pure National events as we know them today (which are trying to be everything for everybody), it would perhaps increase participation in SCCA events as one could reasonably expect other successful classes to create their own "organization". As I recall FV did something akin to this a number of years ago with their pro series. So long as the classes maintain the GCR specs is it not just another "National" perhaps with just one class?

Again, at the end everyone would come together for the Runoffs. As it stands invites are not difficult to come by so long as you are willing to pay the ticket to travel to the races so it really does not appear to me to dilute anything we presently have. Think about what the FC grid would look like if the guys who had run the F2000 series had invites to Runoffs.

On the down side it could pull some of the cars from pure National events, but it really becomes a question of the market place as to what succeeds; who provides the most value for the dollar and time spent. (Of course this approach may not be well received by the Regions who may not be receptive to such competition.)

This would seem to be one viable way to address the problem if other groups could form and would realize the success of F2000 as it would not necessarily require the pruning, ox goring or "putting back of the toothpaste".

[dc]

Sorry for the mass confusion with this thread spawning and splitting from the FC debate on cams, flywheels and parity, but it developed into a discussion of it's own and needed to be moved.


Back to the discussion at hand...

[cooleyjb]

I've split this out from the FC Parity thread because it's CLEARLY not related to that topic, but as a race organizer I don't want this to get lost:

For as long as I've been aware of SCCA's existence (Frog & I attended our first Runoffs in 1971), we've had at least 22 classes. The general consensus is many of our current problems with track time, speed disparity, whatever are occuring because that TOO MANY!

Given a clean sheet of paper, how many classes should there be?

Does every race need to be for a single class? (If so, we're limited to 6 or 7 classes at most of the tracks we run)

Once we gain consensus on the "correct" number of classes, what should those classes be?

When answering these questions, please try to look at the overall picture and not your own personal situation. Everyone wants THEIR class to be among the chosen few, but obviously that's not possible. For the long term health of the club:

1. How many classes should there be?

2. Name them.

Butch Kummer
Competition Director, Atlanta Region
Chairman, SEDIV Planning Committee

Well we aren't even talking about IT which is a nationally run setup of regional classes and that would add another 10ish(??) classes on top of that.

But to answer Butch's question.

1. As many as their needs to be. Some people are quite happy running in a class of 2-4 cars while others want to run in a class of 20. The minimum participation rule is a good way to cut the classes that aren't making numbers and keep ones that are. It takes the subjectivity out of the equation.

I could care less if there are 70 classes or 25 classes. As long as the class that I want to run in has a run group.

2. I'll let market forces decide which groups should exist. I do see a number of classes in the near and distant future disapperaing though. Classes where there are no new chassis being built are gonna have issues in a few years IMO.

[budawe]

I have felt that the existing program of minimum participation was adequate. It's objective and clear. The problem is made worse when the BOD chooses to override their own rules. Running DSR in CSR, just to perpetuate the class, doesn't make sense. Especially when they bent the homolagation rules to allow it. Nor does it make sense to call a class national before it qualifies as such, just to sell more cars.

[Matt King]

Everybody sell all their stuff to the vintage crowd. Buy either a F1000, FST, Spec Miata or EProd car and go racing. 4 classes, 4 run groups with 45 minute races and 35 cars in each race

I don't think even that would solve the problem because what we have is the Burger King problem: everybody wants to have it their way. Whatever particular car it thrills you to own and race, people can find somewhere to race (BMWCCA, PCA, NASA, FRCCA, etc.). There are so many options for what and where people can race cars, that no one group can maintain the level of market share that SCCA once enjoyed. Just ask General Motors about that phenomenon.

[butch deer]

Having a long history of racing since 1958 and still being active I do believe the best races are the ones with a large csar count and a single class. This is increasingly difficulrt to accomplish under the current SCCA structure. With only two(2) national classes with participation numbers in the double digits who are we racing against? The club should revise upwards to some # the minimum participation requirement to maintain national status to a place where the class can have a resonable amount of track time and it's own race at the runnoffs. I believe in the present format that would be aproxamently 15 classes. Let everyone else runn regionals and vote with there entries.
If the SCCA gave national points to member promoted series like the pro F2000 group and invited them to the runoffs I would not object. We need to look at some non traditional ways to preserve good hard racing. 2.5 cars on average does not a good race make.
Butch Deer

[GT1Vette]

When the concept of a minimum participation level to maintain National status was implemented about ten years ago, it was supposed to increase by .5 each year until it reached an average of 5.0 cars per class. I think it started at 2.0 and made it all the way to the current 2.5 (one bump) before the "you can't kill my class" zealots stalled it. If you believe in a market-driven system, however, this would work very well. Besides, if you only beat 1.5 other cars, is that really worth writing home to Mom about?

As a race organizer, I'm fine with 50 classes (and we have almost that many when you count all the Regional-only ones) AS LONG AS THEY FIT SAFELY IN AN EXISTING RUN GROUP! If three guys come to me and want to start a Spec Yugo class, all it costs me is a trophy and I get three more entry fees. Adding F600 causes me no problems because (a) we haven't had any show up yet and (b) they fit well with an existing group. The issue, of course, is when somebody comes along with a class that's beyond the size and/or performance extremes of the existing classes.

I'm certainly not advocating dropping either class, but for very different reasons FV and SM are my two biggest headaches when developing a weekend schedule. FV because they "race differently" than any other open-wheel class, and SM because nobody else wants to race with them. The fact that both classes tend to race in packs (like SRF) also makes them difficult to place with other classes. We've been fairly successful running FF and F5 with the Vee's throughout SEDIV, and we in Atlanta have moved FC into the same group to help balance the size of the groups (it also separates FM and FC who have a history of not playing well together). Last weekend we also put S2 into that group (and had two separate drivers' meeting to remind folks to watch out for each other). There were no incidents that I know of, but I held my breath most of that race.

By far my biggest concern is the make-up of run groups at our events. We can resolve some of the issues with judicious use of split starts, but that creates an entirely new opportunity for screw-ups/criticism as well. I understand there are no easy answers, but I DO appreciate any ideas y'all might have.

"Thank you for your input" ...

BK

[GT1Vette]

Having a long history of racing since 1958 and still being active I do believe the best races are the ones with a large csar count and a single class.

Butch Deer

Butch,

While I agree that it's more fun to race with twenty people than it is three, not everyone shares that opinion. The car count in GTA has been building every year since it was recognized as a SARRC class in 2006 - < 2.0 in 2006, 4.5 in '07, 6.7 in '08 - yet a long-time GTA competitor sold his car and went back to GT-3 after the 2007 season was over. When I asked him why, he said he wanted to race in a class with a lower car count.

Different strokes for different folks...

Butch

[Purple Frog]

We should market SCCA "run group" racing a bit differently, me thinks.

Arrange with Gran Am / ALMS that a driver can not be licensed to run one of their events until they can show that they raced in both the fastest class and the slowest class of a SCCA run group, at a minimum of four of our weekends.

Watching the intense traffic issues, and well mannered driving, at the Rolex 24 and Sebring 12, shows a certain professionalism, even at night. Our race groups are just a good training ground to learn those skills before "movin' on up".

It's just how you market the beast.

ex-King o' Cheap, now "cup half full" Mr Sunshine Frog

[cooleyjb]

Besides, if you only beat 1.5 other cars, is that really worth writing home to Mom about?

We can't discount that for some people they are more than happy to run the car they like in a class of just a couple cars.

[dc]

We can't discount that for some people they are more than happy to run the car they like in a class of just a couple cars.

You can't please everyone all of the time. Trying to do so usually only results in making everyone angry. Do what is best for the whole, and lose a small percentage of people who like racing against themselves. Collateral damage for the greater good.

But be damn sure that what is being done is the right thing, not just the popular thing.





What is needed is some serious outside of the box thinking. Something like splintered events—for Formula Cars only, or closed fender cars only. Maybe "class clubs" (like a Formula Ford Club) that only races at certain events, drawing specific class cars ONLY to those events as solo race groups. Something of a mini 40th for specific races, and not just monumental events. What if 2-day events ran all open wheel cars on Saturday and all sedans/closed wheel cars on Sunday?

No idea is a bad idea—especially if it spawns some other thoughts that could lead to a solution.

There are a lot of smart, experienced racers here. I know there is a better mousetrap to be built.

[Dennis Valet]

I think it would be interesting to find out what percentage of racers purchase a new, different car (in a national class) when their class gets dropped from national status.

[JByers]

As much as I like the idea of seperate weekends for open and closed wheel, I doubt it is feasable due to costs to the regions who host the event, unless you double the entry fee. An alternative to this idea would be Saturday is for 1/2 of the run groups and Sunday is for the remaining. Practice/Qualify/Race all on the same day.

Yup, that's called autocross.


You can't please everyone all of the time. Trying to do so usually only results in making everyone angry. Do what is best for the whole, and lose a small percentage of people who like racing against themselves. Collateral damage for the greater good.

But be damn sure that what is being done is the right thing, not just the popular thing.





What is needed is some serious outside of the box thinking. Something like splintered events—for Formula Cars only, or closed fender cars only. Maybe "class clubs" (like a Formula Ford Club) that only races at certain events, drawing specific class cars ONLY to those events as solo race groups. Something of a mini 40th for specific races, and not just monumental events. What if 2-day events ran all open wheel cars on Saturday and all sedans/closed wheel cars on Sunday?

No idea is a bad idea—especially if it spawns some other thoughts that could lead to a solution.

There are a lot of smart, experienced racers here. I know there is a better mousetrap to be built.

[cooleyjb]

[quote=JByers;207681]As much as I like the idea of seperate weekends for open and closed wheel, I doubt it is feasable due to costs to the regions who host the event, unless you double the entry fee. An alternative to this idea would be Saturday is for 1/2 of the run groups and Sunday is for the remaining. Practice/Qualify/Race all on the same day.[/quote]

This was done at a national at CMP last year. The people I know who ran it, REALLY liked it.

[cooleyjb]

Just cutting classes isn't the right idea. What that will do is just send people off to different places where they can run the cars they like. Forcing someone to run in a class doesn't seem like the right move.

More often than not people run a car in a class because they like the car and the class. If that person begins to not like running with maybe one other person or wants to run in a class without fifty people they can change quite easily.

As Butch alluded to in an earlier post. The cutting of classes should only become necessary when rungroups can no longer be setup safely. Some regions run close to 40 classes at regionals 25ish at a national shouldn't be a problem. The classes exist because people want to run them.

Until someone can prove that the number of classes available for people to run in is adversely effecting the turnout of drivers, the minimum participation rule at 2.5 is a pretty good setup in my mind.

If you don't like the minimal participation in the class you run in. You can change to a different one.

[Raceworks]

I have felt that the existing program of minimum participation was adequate. It's objective and clear. The problem is made worse when the BOD chooses to override their own rules. Running DSR in CSR, just to perpetuate the class, doesn't make sense. Especially when they bent the homolagation rules to allow it. Nor does it make sense to call a class national before it qualifies as such, just to sell more cars.

This right here is the problem I've had the last couple of years: the BOD not sticking to a plan. I don't really happen to have any problems with class consolidation or elimination, provided it's based on objective rules, has some relevance to the real world, and the process is handled in a transparent manner.


As far as to whether there are too many classes, that's really subjective. It also depends on what you think SCCA Club racing should be about. If we're here to provide a venue for fun amatuer racing, the current class structure is basically OK. If we decide we want to be an entry-level pro series (and thus want to enterain spectators), then we need to cut a lot of fat from the class structure. A lot of the angst about class structure seems to stem from arguing over which of these two mutually exclusive alternatives is the one we want to go down.

[Bob Wright]

Once upon a time, one looked at the available classes and then picked a car to run in a particular class. If you picked the right brand, you might win; if not, oh well- that held true for both production and formula cars. We seem to have the situation today where somebody picks a car and then screams if its not "competitive" in its class. SCCA seems to have this need not to "disenfranchise" participants. That attitude will never allow the Club to trim the class structure to a level that can really work; say 15 classes. I think one of the reasons there were lots of cars in the formula classes years ago was because there were only a few really viable classes and everybody gravitated to them. Today there are many choices and complete dilution- It appears that there have always only been a finite number of drivers out there, they're now just more spread out.

[jim morgan]

frog,

now you want to coach how to be slow

bob, i hate sequentials

to the cheap,race regionals be happy, but race! The most fun I ever had racing (other than spending money) was wheel to wheel at regionals in my old DB-6

[cooleyjb]

So I go back to a couple of questions.

1. Is the number of classes in SCCA hurting the number of people racing in SCCA
2. Is the number of classes hurting the racing in SCCA.

I think people are getting the differences between the two questions a bit muddied up.

I don't think the number of classes is hurting SCCA. I do think it is effecting the racing but that is a problem that is member induced because a number of people want to run the cars they like more than they want to run in a huge field.