Silly Season Part 2 - Class Consolidation

The Showroom Stock Category is completely gone.

ST and STO have been reassigned to GT1 and GT2.

CSR, DSR and S2 have been consolidated into P1 and P2.

Even though it's getting a little late to happen in 2015, can Formula Category class consolidation be far behind?

I've been thinking on that question for a while now and wonder how it might happen if the BoD makes good on its threat of further class consolidation/elimination. So I decided to gather some performance data from the recently completed Runoffs. Here are the raw data from the actual races:

Class / Entrants / Fast Lap / Notes

FA 14 1:22.668 Another car was in the 23s, and several in the 24s.
FB 16 1:24.701 Seven more cars posted laps in the 25s.
FC 23 1:27.435 One more car was in the 27s; another 7 under 1:30.
FE 11 1:28.666 Seven more under 1:34.
FM 15 1:29.201 Nine more under 1:34.

I was unable to find a Class Participation link on SCCA's website...maybe someone knows where it is?

Thoughts?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

The Showroom Stock Category is completely gone.

ST and STO have been reassigned to GT1 and GT2.

CSR, DSR and S2 have been consolidated into P1 and P2.

Even though it's getting a little late to happen in 2015, can Formula Category class consolidation be far behind?

I've been thinking on that question for a while now and wonder how it might happen if the BoD makes good on its threat of further class consolidation/elimination. So I decided to gather some performance data from the recently completed Runoffs. Here are the raw data from the actual races:

Class / Entrants / Fast Lap / Notes

FA 14 1:22.668 Another car was in the 23s, and several in the 24s.
FB 16 1:24.701 Seven more cars posted laps in the 25s.
FC 23 1:27.435 One more car was in the 27s; another 7 under 1:30.
FE 11 1:28.666 Seven more under 1:34.
FM 15 1:29.201 Nine more under 1:34.

I was unable to find a Class Participation link on SCCA's website...maybe someone knows where it is?

Thoughts?

---

Slow the FC cars by 1 second and speed up the FM car by a half second and you are in the ballpark. What do you get? Giant class lots of racing and lots of complaints.

The biggest problem with this is these cars may have similar lap times but they get there differently.

From first hand experience I can tell you that FC, FE and FM on the same track is not at all fun, and usually leads to desperate passes and carnage. FC and FF work quite well. FE and FM appear to play nice together, though I don't know that first hand. Put a FE's HP in a FC and the FE will never see the FC (until its gear box blows up).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

The biggest problem with this is these cars may have similar lap times but they get there differently.

From first hand experience I can tell you that FC, FE and FM on the same track is not at all fun, and usually leads to desperate passes and carnage. FC and FF work quite well. FE and FM appear to play nice together, though I don't know that first hand. Put a FE's HP in a FC and the FE will never see the FC (until its gear box blows up).

---

No argument from me, Bob & Jay, but what you describe is nothing unique to the formula classes. The different beasts in P2 faced the same issues, yet the BoD consolidated them. Same with putting the ST/O cars in GT1/2, B-Spec into T4, etc. It happened in spite of the same arguments against consolidation.

We can't even argue that mixing similar formula classes is inherently too dangerous, since that happens at literally EVERY club event except the Runoffs, and even then they are usually combined for qualifying.

In recent years the BoD have consolidated and eliminated classes across the spectrum, so to think the formula category is exempt from that process long-term is, IMO, ignoring the elephant in the room. The bottom line is that we are either part of the planning and process or we are victims of it.

Oh, and I'm not ignoring the wingless cars...I just haven't gotten there yet. :p

seems that combining classes is potentially an enabler to lower participant fees and increasing track time. would be answers to some of the most common complaints about SCCA.

face it, few amateurs can afford to pay enough to maintain their own class / track time. learn to play with others and just remember SCCA is amateur racing so just make the most fun that you can and don't take it so seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

I was unable to find a Class Participation link on SCCA's website...maybe someone knows where it is?

---

Here's the Majors participation link: http://crbscca.com/staffAdmin/points...ticipation.php

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Locke

Here's the Majors participation link: http://crbscca.com/staffAdmin/points...ticipation.php

---

Very cool...thanks David! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

The Showroom Stock Category is completely gone.

ST and STO have been reassigned to GT1 and GT2.

CSR, DSR and S2 have been consolidated into P1 and P2.

Even though it's getting a little late to happen in 2015, can Formula Category class consolidation be far behind?

I've been thinking on that question for a while now and wonder how it might happen if the BoD makes good on its threat of further class consolidation/elimination. So I decided to gather some performance data from the recently completed Runoffs. Here are the raw data from the actual races:

Class / Entrants / Fast Lap / Notes

FA 14 1:22.668 Another car was in the 23s, and several in the 24s.
FB 16 1:24.701 Seven more cars posted laps in the 25s.
FC 23 1:27.435 One more car was in the 27s; another 7 under 1:30.
FE 11 1:28.666 Seven more under 1:34.
FM 15 1:29.201 Nine more under 1:34.

I was unable to find a Class Participation link on SCCA's website...maybe someone knows where it is?

Thoughts?

---

FE and FM are very close in lap times, and both are near the bottom of the Majors class participation list. But remember that when the SR1 and SR2 consolidations were first announced in the May 2012 Fastrack, the consolidation of FE/FM was also announced, because "it is felt that in the current racing environment one 'spec' formula car class is sufficient to serve SCCA Club Racing." The SR1 and SR2 consolidations happened (as P1 and P2), but ultimately the FE/FM consolidation did not.

There is an impediment to combining FE & FM that is outside SCCA's control. Unlike other formula classes, with multiple chassis and engine builders, each is the product of a single, commercial source.

The inevitable need to change component suppliers will pit these two entities against each other as each tries to establish itself as the best choice for the class, and that, after all, is the nature of competition, whether commercially or on the track.

The reaction to the perceived differences in performance within Spec Miata are nothing compared with the potential for real problems for the club in this scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Locke

FE and FM are very close in lap times, and both are near the bottom of the Majors class participation list. But remember that when the SR1 and SR2 consolidations were first announced in the May 2012 Fastrack, the consolidation of FE/FM was also announced, because "it is felt that in the current racing environment one 'spec' formula car class is sufficient to serve SCCA Club Racing." The SR1 and SR2 consolidations happened (as P1 and P2), but ultimately the FE/FM consolidation did not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Locke

Here's the Majors participation link: http://crbscca.com/staffAdmin/points...ticipation.php

---

David, do you have a link to total participation numbers? Thanks, Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

The biggest problem with this is these cars may have similar lap times but they get there differently.

---

The funny thing is, all the mixed marque classes like IT, Touring, etc. all really really like that style of racing. Different cars, different strengths, same lap times are their ultimate goal.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...tion_FINAL.pdf

Here is 2013.

Well...the formula cars tend to be less enthusiastic. I've seen lots of flared tempers and broken suspension because a $#%*& (fill in the blank with FC, FE, or FM) got in the way of a race. I seldom hear that anyone actually likes multi class racing with formula cars.

Not discounting the fact that it is very difficult to achieve the appearance of parity given two different engines, imagine what happens with the combining of different formula classes?

I am all for reduction in classes, I just don't think this is the best approach.

You end up with a whole lot of people generally unhappy with the outcome, as opposed to a much smaller group of pissed off people because their class was excluded from Majors and RunOffs.

Drop the 8 lowest classes in 2015 participation from the 2016 Majors and RunOffs. People that want to race in Majors or RunOffs will find another class/car. People attached to their cars will find another place to race.

That 2.5 rule was pretty sweet until the chickened-out on implementing it. No one to blame but the folks in the class. Survival of the fittest and no one had to make hard choices. Don't make your numbers, you loose national status or have an option to be rolled into another class where you will be at a performance disadvantage. Done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daryl DeArman

Not discounting the fact that it is very difficult to achieve the appearance of parity given two different engines, imagine what happens with the combining of different formula classes?

I am all for reduction in classes, I just don't think this is the best approach.

You end up with a whole lot of people generally unhappy with the outcome, as opposed to a much smaller group of pissed off people because their class was excluded from Majors and RunOffs.

Drop the 8 lowest classes in 2015 participation from the 2016 Majors and RunOffs. People that want to race in Majors or RunOffs will find another class/car. People attached to their cars will find another place to race.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

That 2.5 rule was pretty sweet until the chickened-out on implementing it. No one to blame but the folks in the class. Survival of the fittest and no one had to make hard choices. Don't make your numbers, you loose national status or have an option to be rolled into another class where you will be at a performance disadvantage. Done.

---

Probably the best approach except for those that are out on their ass. So the question is: eliminate or merge? Perhaps leave that up to the racers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

That 2.5 rule was pretty sweet until the chickened-out on implementing it. No one to blame but the folks in the class. Survival of the fittest and no one had to make hard choices. Don't make your numbers, you loose national status or have an option to be rolled into another class where you will be at a performance disadvantage. Done.

---

This was my first thought as to improvement as well, so I went and ran the numbers and using majors, only b-spec would be eliminated and it was only by .5 cars. Ramping the number up to 3.5 or 4 sets a better line for cuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccoffin

This was my first thought as to improvement as well, so I went and ran the numbers and using majors, only b-spec would be eliminated and it was only by .5 cars. Ramping the number up to 3.5 or 4 sets a better line for cuts.

---

I think you're using weekends instead of races. When I ran the numbers for the 2.5 rule only 10 classes make it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Probably the best approach except for those that are out on their ass. So the question is: eliminate or merge? Perhaps leave that up to the racers.

---

If you are going to merge, they need to have that lower participation class at a distinct disadvantage as to not negatively effect those who had the larger participation.

The question then becomes why would you want to race at a distinct disadvantage? Just sell your car to someone who doesn't want to run Majors/RunOffs and buy another class car if competing in majors or RunOffs is a priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccoffin

This was my first thought as to improvement as well, so I went and ran the numbers and using majors, only b-spec would be eliminated and it was only by .5 cars. Ramping the number up to 3.5 or 4 sets a better line for cuts.

---

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. Ignore what the actual participation numbers are, just look at where they are relative to everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifosi

I think you're using weekends instead of races. When I ran the numbers for the 2.5 rule only 10 classes make it.

---

I think, and hope, the quoted 2014 numbers above are incomplete. If they are not, compared to 2013, participation is down over 55%. 4,600 in 2014 and over 10,000 in 2013. Or, am I missing something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

The funny thing is, all the mixed marque classes like IT, Touring, etc. all really really like that style of racing. Different cars, different strengths, same lap times are their ultimate goal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

The biggest problem with this is these cars may have similar lap times but they get there differently.

---

To me, there is a greater chance for disaster "getting there differently" in an open wheel formula car as opposed to a fendered tin top

Dave C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

I think, and hope, the quoted 2014 numbers above are incomplete. If they are not, compared to 2013, participation is down over 55%. 4,600 in 2014 and over 10,000 in 2013. Or, am I missing something?

---

Somethings not right that's for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reidhazelton

I think, and hope, the quoted 2014 numbers above are incomplete. If they are not, compared to 2013, participation is down over 55%. 4,600 in 2014 and over 10,000 in 2013. Or, am I missing something?

---

85 National events in 2013 vs. 27 Majors in 2014.

43.6% increase in entrants per event. (171 at 2014 majors, 119 at 2013 Nationals).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

David, do you have a link to total participation numbers? Thanks, Stan

---

Stan, here are the 2014 participation numbers through August for non-Majors races: http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...unt-August.pdf

I haven't seen a spreadsheet that incorporates the numbers for both Majors and non-Majors events.

Thanks David. My recollection is that total entries have been in the low 20-thousands in recent years, so this looks about right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooleyjb

The funny thing is, all the mixed marque classes like IT, Touring, etc. all really really like that style of racing. Different cars, different strengths, same lap times are their ultimate goal.

---

The tin top classes are "open" classes, give or take.

FE and FM are spec and it's damn annoying when you paid for a spec car to have to "race" against someone that has way more options with the car. All cars have some kind of problem area. The buy-in for a spec class is that sure your car is going to have some untunable problem but everyone you're racing against has to deal with the same problems.

I wouldn't even consider combining FE/FM with any open class. Philosophically, it just ain't gonna work regardless of performace parity issues.

Besides one final race annually at the runoffs, where do they hold these "spec" races? With the exception of F2000, every event I've participated in for many years now has been mixed class racing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mousecatcher

The tin top classes are "open" classes, give or take.

FE and FM are spec and it's damn annoying when you paid for a spec car to have to "race" against someone that has way more options with the car. All cars have some kind of problem area. The buy-in for a spec class is that sure your car is going to have some untunable problem but everyone you're racing against has to deal with the same problems.

I wouldn't even consider combining FE/FM with any open class. Philosophically, it just ain't gonna work regardless of performace parity issues.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

but what is guaranteed to happen with out merger is that the classes will loose majors status and can then run regionals only.

---

That's fine with me... The Majors haven't really turned out what I thought they would be. If FEs were restricted to divisional races as long as that was where the rest of the FEs were racing, it would actually be better IMO instead of forcing a square peg to fit in a round hole. Our intentions of buying a spec car wasn't to run in a mish-mosh group of cars.

We were considering running the Fall Sprints (Regional) at Blackhawk until I saw that there would be 11 classes in our race group. Not fun. I really don't think there is a solution with all the classes SCCA currently has.

While enjoying my coffee this morning I combined the Regional (Divisional?) and Majors participation numbers to see if anything would surprise me, and lo and behold there were a couple of real surprises. First, even though F5 is second lowest in total participation it leads all formula classes (and possibly all classes, period!) in its percentage of Majors entries. Nearly two thirds of F5 total entries were at Majors. Go figure! :thumbsup:

Second, although FM was dead smack in the middle of total entries, it is dead last in the percent of Majors entries, with less than a third of FM entries at Majors. What's up with that? Is FM becoming a Regional class all by its lonesome?

The obvious question is: could the BoD skip combining two winged formula classes and instead simply relegate FM to Regional status?

Interesting how F500 & FA, two classes pretty much at opposite ends of the spectrum, both have participation numbers at the top of the majors list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy

Besides one final race annually at the runoffs, where do they hold these "spec" races? With the exception of F2000, every event I've participated in for many years now has been mixed class racing....

---

Not recently, due to low car counts, but FE has gotten lots of split starts in SFR. However, your point is taken.

Thanks for the posting Stan. I had noticed this but had not compiled all the data. Interestingly F500 has actually been gaining a bit of ground overall in is now 4th overall in Majors entries in the formula car group and is only 2 entries out of 3rd. I believe that with the inclusion of the MC engines (600s) within the F500 class that we will see significant growth due to these additional cars.

I think that when people see how fast the F500/600 cars are (check out Runoffs qualifying 3 for FF/F500) and that there is a real skill set required in the driving more people will start to get involved.

Geez guys - no one said a "spec race", we are talking about FE & FM being spec classes. We all race all year long in mixed class races, but our real race is in our own class. I have raced a FM for a long time and it is a lot of bang for the buck. The FE guys seem to like their cars too.

So, what is wrong with keeping both classes for the Majors???

Besides, I thought we squished this a couple of years ago. Combining FE & FM would cut some trophy costs for some Regions maybe, but would gain nothing. They are very different cars and it would be impossible to "equalize" them to the racers satisfaction. We would all end up being disgruntled. Plus, I do not want to make significant changes to my car to try to make it competitive with a car that gets it speed in different ways. It just won't work.

While fewer classes has some merit for discussion, I am (selfishly) adamant to keep the FM class as-is. Combining two spec classes that have somewhat similar lap times, depending on the track, should be discussed by those classes, and by the way - it has.

I don't have any good ideas for reducing the number of open wheel classes, but this isn't it. Actually - I think we have a good mix of open wheel classes now. So tell me again why would we want or need to cut and or combine some classes, to the chagrin of them? (I know - we could have ONE class and make everyone race a FM! ha ha)

OK - chew away...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jnovak

Thanks for the posting Stan. I had noticed this but had not compiled all the data. Interestingly F500 has actually been gaining a bit of ground overall in is now 4th overall in Majors entries in the formula car group and is only 2 entries out of 3rd. I believe that with the inclusion of the MC engines (600s) within the F500 class that we will see significant growth due to these additional cars.

I think that when people see how fast the F500/600 cars are (check out Runoffs qualifying 3 for FF/F500) and that there is a real skill set required in the driving more people will start to get involved.

---

Whatever the explanation, Jay, I am happy for you. After all, you have put nearly half a century of your life into a class that has struggled for nearly all that time, so if this is your big break, bring it on! :D :thumbsup: :checkered:

Congratulations to you and Brian, and to the F500/F600 class! :trophy:

PS -- Here are the numers, ranks ordered by Majors participation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starfmguy

So, what is wrong with keeping both classes for the Majors??? ... Besides, I thought we squished this a couple of years ago. Combining FE & FM would cut some trophy costs for some Regions maybe, but would gain nothing.

---

Nothing, but the BoD is under a tremendous amount of pressure to reduce the number of National/Majors classes. The formula category has not yet felt the knife, so this being the silly season we are here to speculate as to what might come to pass. :p

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 ?

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.