Printable View
Yes. However, let me add that your OW-only organization does not need to stand on its own. Sharing the track with a HPDE organization still allows for 6-10 sessions/weekend with attractive cost-sharing. NASA seems to be SCCA-lite in that regard, but there are other HPDE and vintage options.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
ExactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by TimH
They say things never die but this proposal sounds exactly like the original Steve Petty plan from years ago. (early 90's) It relies on those dis-enfranchised from the Runoffs buying a car to run in an eligible class. Problem is that its not what happens in reality.
Still dont know why the mixed class idea for the Runoffs never really took off - they run that way all year.
Just 2c
I think this is a proper progression. There are so many times I am at the track and hearing the wings and things group complain there are too many classes (closed wheel stuff) yet there are only 1 or 2 cars in several of the formula/prototype classes.
It simply doesn't make sense to have so many classes with so few competitors. Who are you racing against? If you want to just go drive fast, do a track day.
It is a good day when half of the P1/P2 cars finish a race or aren't struggling to meet the 115% rule after qualifying.
FC and FF have great homes in other series with good/great car counts and high level competition.
If you are in a class that offers an automatic podium at a Majors event, it should be under threat.
The GLD FC/CFC series that Keith Averill has been spearheading has gotten a number of otherwise stay at home cars out.
What is needed is more series within SCCA races like that!!!1
They have a group of enthusiastic folks running every year.
My letter #36381
Re: Proposals for Changes - Runoffs, Super Tour and Majors
There are several areas that need reconsideration.
Class Participation:
I cannot find in the summary any new proposal for how a class qualifies for the runoffs or Majors participation.
It is being assumed that the last 2 years of 4 cars per event average is the rule that will be maintained.
Additionally, in the proposal there is talk of reducing classes at Majors and Super Tour events.
Consider:
For some people, consistent annual participation is not an option. Personal economics is a large factor in racing and racing is a large discretionary expense.
The constant questioning of participation and class eligibility is in of itself disruptive to participation.
Making class qualification based on multiple years of participation means we all have to participate completely for 3 years. (2 to qualify a class, 1 to qualify the driver for the RO)
Proposal:
Make class participation in the runoffs based on CURRENT YEAR participation in runoffs path events. Participation in many classes goes in waves. This will maximize the participation at the runoffs because it will reflect the participation in the current year. Update a participation scoreboard after each Majors. Drivers can encourage other drivers to get out there to boost a class – because it matters NOW. Basing qualification on what happened 1-2 years ago is what has been happening at it does not guarantee participation in the Runoffs.
Consider:
For some regions, if you aren’t racing in the Majors you aren’t racing. And now you are talking about eliminating classes for some Majors and Super Tour events.
In my own club (CalClub) the first 3 events of the years (with the best weather) are Jan-Majors, Feb-ST, Mar-Majors. The first regional event is June (low turnout because of heat) and then nothing until October.
Majors events get premium weather leaving regional events out in the cold or heat. Can a class ever really recover when they need to do it via participation in the lowest participation events?
If a class drops out of Majors qualification does it take 2 years to re-qualify and another 2 years to Runoff qualify them?
When you really want to drive people to these events, why are you considering restricting them?
Additionally, class grouping makes some events very unwelcoming to some classes.
Proposal:
Drop the idea of restricting classes in Majors and Super Tours. For many these are the only events that matter. Make it mandatory (not discretionary) for Race Directors to re-group classes based on entries.
Consider:
Driver qualification for Runoffs has been a bit of a roller coaster. Do you increase participation by letting any old schmuck run some races and qualify or do you invite only the cream of the crop?
For some, just being there is the event for them. Watching the 2014 Laguna Seca runoffs brought me in to racing. Sonoma 2018 was the target and I missed it. The runoffs coming back out west was eliminated.
So, tow 10 days, race 4. Not going to happen for me and many others. Participation from members out west is bleak simply because of the location.
You will eliminate ‘sub events’ like the FC 30th anniversary at Indy. All those types of celebration events will move to the June Sprints where they can maximize participation.
Looks like they have over 560 entries this weekend. Everyone welcome and a better class distribution than other ST events. Are they going to eliminate classes at the clubs whim? They existed before the Majors program.
Proposal:
Start calling the nation championships the National Championships. I don’t know where the term runoffs came from but in just about every sport the playoffs are the elimination rounds to the final event.
People outside racing don’t understand the term.
No matter how people qualify for the runoffs you will get your National Champion in each class. Making it qualifying and invitation only does increase prestige but doesn’t guarantee entries.
If you really want it exclusive, hold 4 championship runoffs across the country at Majors events in September and invite the top 3 from each to the National Championships. Provide a tow fund and more.
12 entries in each class makes a very manageable event and it can be short and the location doesn’t have to accommodate 1000 entries for 10 days.
Those 4 events would be big, affordable (reduced travel cost) and meaningful. And probably make the club more money.
Conclusion:
For a variety of reasons, not every racer is actually in the market for runoffs participation – notice how I say ‘in the market’ – they are club members but the event is not on their menu.
Serve them better on what they are in the market for.
All these class qualification proposal talk about is elimination and it just adds uncertainty to people considering participation.
The real question is - Is PARTICIPATION of members wanted or not.
As the costs of racing continue to increase faster than the cost of living it becomes harder and harder to justify spending in come cases close to $5000 for a racing weekend when you start adding up Entry Fee, Towing Costs, Motel costs, food, race fuel, race tires etc.
I believe members do want to participate. Costs are getting in the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmi16
But in addition to the costs you mention for a weekend, they aren't even going to 'get back in' if the 'finish' is unobtainable.
That being class elimination threats, reduced ways to qualify (Majors only) etc.
All my suggestions reduce travel and increase opportunity.
I really don't understand why they need to axe classes entirely. Not enough prototypes? Okay, group P1 and P2. They can run together on track - they do all year. Not enough FAs and FCs? Okay, group them.
The insistence that the Runoffs only have single-class races is the reason they keep running into this problem. Instead, they "solve" it by combining cars into a single mega-class (see FX) and then pull a shocked face when everyone who was in the slower classes in the new mega-class decide they're not going to bother to make the trip when they're uncompetitive. Instead of making mega-classes, make groupings. There's no reason for FX to exist, they could just go "yeah FM, F4, and F2000 will all run in the same race" and have a 3-class race and it'd be fine. Had they done that with FA we wouldn't have the situation with true Atlantics, PFM, F1000, etc.
So now they're going to kick more cars into the "regional class only" dumping ground? Lovely. I'm sure this will do wonders for participation in regions where most of the racing is done in Majors because there isn't enough population density to run a lot of regionals. Not like we've had multiple race weekends on the verge of cancellation due to not getting enough participation, or anything.
At the risk of reviving this horse...
I completely agree that it doesn't make sense for someone to race against themselves and there's nothing to brag about when someone "wins" a race when he was the only entrant (we all know someone like that), but why is that your concern? Or the SCCA's concern? There could be a race group with 20 cars and those 20 cars could be in 20 different classes. Dumb, I know, but the SCCA's only responsibility is to provide a place for them to race. Let those individual classes do the work to build their preferred class. If someone wants to drop a Chevy 2.0L in his Reynard and create Formula Cobalt, more power to him. It's on him to get other people to do the same thing but it's impossible to do if there isn't some place to run them. Sure, he will not be able to enter the Runoffs but believe it or not, there are lots of members that don't GAF about the Runoffs. Possibly the best option is to make it a regional only class as a place to incubate, or for existing classes that have fallen out of favor to regroup (or just race alone). Unfortunately, that isn't what the CRB/BOD has done in the past. There are still plenty of FMs, F1000s, S2000s, etc that are racing elsewhere or just sitting in garages because the SCCA axed those classes. There's absolutely no reason they can't be classified as regional only. If nobody shows up, so be it. If one car shows up, so be it. If a group is able to rally and build a class, then we can talk about nationals. Or maybe they'll be content to run a championship within the regional schedule.Quote:
Originally Posted by iamuwere
If the club continues to cater to SM they will alienate the classes that get their races cut short so SM can have a 65 minute race. They will have a tough time getting enough spec car entries to cover track rental in the future after the real race cars have become fed up with playing second fiddle.
I know this discussion is more about the higher levels of SCCA Club Racing (not mostly regionals like I've mostly done), but wanted to share a thought about this (not directed at you, Mike).
That guy has been me for the past few years, when I raced in FS and FX (and FB before it went away).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
I always felt it wasn't my fault others stopped showing up in my class. I had a big investment (for me), so not easy to just sell a car and everything (at a loss) to start new in a different class.
But, recently I have sold off my formula car package to start in a more healthy class (HP - don't laugh), but that has meant a year off while I build the new car.
That's all. I just wanted to share this view from a low budget racer, in love with fairly fast formula cars. It seems that's becoming rare. Thanks for letting me vent.
Since Mike snipped the rest of Jim's post, I'll put it here. I think these three sentences are the meat of Jim's argument and Mike ignored them. The last sentence is the strongest of all and it hits at the heart of what Mr. Prill and others desire going into 2026 (emphasis my own).Quote:
Originally Posted by iamuwere
If there is a group of 20 cars and all 20 are different classes, that could be dangerous. Here's an example (don't read more into this than the hypothetical it's meant as): P1's and FX's sharing a group requires a lot of skill on the part of all in that group. Some FX drivers struggle to be within their own class's 115% rule, not to mention being within 115% of a P1, or even a P2. This requires the P1 to be very, very cautious about FX's he is lapping. Having a place for classes that can't keep up their numbers forces dangerous circumstances like very fast cars on track with slow cars.
I agree 100% with your point, but isn't the current proposal focused on limiting current national classes in Super Tours and the Runoffs, not bumping classes from national to regional status? Did I miss that part?Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaJustice
I didn't ignore it, rather I felt my argument addressed it. It seems redundant but here is how I would respond to that last sentence:Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
Why? Again, why do you (that's a collective "you") or the SCCA care if there's only one car in a class? We can all make fun of Russ but for the exact points he made, he has his reasons for doing that. Why should he be deprived of running a car that he enjoys and at the level that he chooses, and be forced to sell a car for a fraction of what it was worth the previous season? Because tHe rUnoFFs!Quote:
Originally Posted by iamuwere
I understand that this a hypothetical example but at the second biggest race of the year last weekend there was exactly one FX. It's a class that, to my knowledge, nobody asked for and I believe that if the cars that were lumped into it were left alone there would've been multiple FMs, maybe some F4s, etc. None of those cars want to try to compete with completely different cars that will never be equalized. (see also, F1000).Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
We're already doing that at Regionals. With a little bit of effort, cars can be grouped by potential or historical laps times, possibly a slow F/SR group and a fast F/SR group. We all have a pretty good idea which group a given chassis/engine/aero combination could be assigned.Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag
The proposal seems to imply that those lower participation classes would be axed or combined with other classes, like FM, F1000, S2, and probably others, never to be seen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by cory mcleod
I'm pretty sure that HQ cannot bump cars or classes out of SCCA. The only classes that HQ 'follows' are the one they want, but any region can allow any car that meets safety specs. I seem to remember that HQ specifically said that the old original Spec Renault was EXCLUDED from SCCA competition at some point, but I'm probably mis-remembering that. Pretty sure I saw that there was a GROUP of them racing somewhere in the last year or so.. maybe at a regional/divisional.. or maybe some other sanctioning group. But I still think that, if there were enough of them, any region having an event COULD give them a place to race .. even if not competitive (FS? ASR?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
Steve, FV80
If we're talking "HQ" as the National Office this is truth. The CRB makes the decisions and while "HQ" has input at times, we still get to put in letters in the system like everyone else. The National Office *just* got a voting member of the CRB this year, and it's only one. (Scott Schmidt)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
If "HQ" is the CRB/BOD then they can make decisions that remove classes from Majors/Supertour/Runoffs - AKA "National" Classes. But as long as a car meets GCR 9.3 (or is in 9.1.C.2) those cars can run at Regional events.
Original Spec Racers (Sports Renault) are are "officially" included in ASR, but also 100% still allowed at Regional Events, and the CENDIV and GLDIV have rules for the "Sports Renault" and run them as classes at Regional events. I think in particular Detroit Region has a half dozen (or maybe more) that run the Regional events at Waterford Hills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
Fun fact on this.. when event results are reported we upload them into the system and there are specific columns in the .crv file that have to be filled and one of them is "class" and the classes can only come from a specified set of data. E.g., the National Office has to "know" the class and have assigned it an abbreviation in order to upload results.
- SR is still the original Spec Racer/Sports Renault.
- SRF is Spec Racer Ford
- SRF3 is the current generation.
Same with FE/FE2 - it's part of why the names don't get changed back, because those classes can still be run regionally. The region/division just has to submit a "rule set" to be able to point to.
Are you saying that if a few FMs, S2000s or F1000s wanted to get together to race at a Regional event they would just need to work with the organizer? None are in 9.1.C.2 but would meet 9.3. What category ruleset would they follow? Even if these cars meet 9.3 they could still show up with turbos, carbon brakes, full tunnels, full width wings, etc. in the absence of a category in the GCR. This is why they have, for all intents and purposes, been bumped from the SCCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjon1
Why would it be so difficult to simply add them back into the GCR and call them regional only classes?
I race an S2000 regionally and our Supps say bring a copy of the 2013 GCR. Easy stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
Steve
Good to know, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
Short Answer: Yes.
This is how we got "Club FF" and "Club FC." We've seen this happen this past year for the street-tire FV crowd (NEDIV), and for FF's with vintage tires (also NEDIV).
Note: The classes mentioned can all run at SCCA Regional events in either Formula S, Formula X or A Sports Racer. Some of them even get to add some performance enhancing things in ASR/FS (See ASR and FS rules in the GCR for specifics.) But, even with some performance-enhancement allowed an S2000 would be against an F5000 car in that case, so competitiveness is not a consideration, only participation.
Because of the aforementioned "competition" aspect, if they wanted their own class, e.g., a Regional "FM" class or a class that allowed turbos on Formula Continentals, the answers are this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
If desired for more controlled competition, a Regional Only class may be submitted by a Region (or division) and would fit into their respective Formula Car or Sports Racer categories.
The steps are:
- Have a ruleset (allow turbos, don't allow turbos, copy the GCR from the last year the class ran, whatever.)
- Make sure those rules require the 9.3 (9.4) minimum safety standards. (E.g., an S2 regional class would still need to put the FIA rain light on even if it's rules came from 2000-whatever.)
- Host those rules somewhere they can be referenced in event supplemental regulations.
- Submit those rules for National Office approval/get them approved
- Include class in event registration.
So here is how the process would work.. say you have a few people who want to run Formula Continentals, but with forced induction. There is no way that's going to become a National/GCR class, but your region/division can create a class because that group makes a difference.
So, you build a ruleset. All cars must meet GCR "minimums" for Formula Cars. That's where 9.3 comes in. From there you write the rules for turbo sizes, weights, etc. You send the rules into the National office and we look at them, determine they meet our minimums, and "approve" it as a Regional class. The class goes into the database (Super Formula Continental, AKA "SFC") Bam, now it's a Regional class. This is how we have things like "IT-X" or "Showroom Spec Miata" or "Grand Touring American."
Because the National Office is only concerned with those safety minimums, it's up to the region for competition rules enforcement for their specific classes.
Note: If you bring us something like a 700-HP class using FC chassis we're probably going to look at it with a close eye to determine the appropriateness of the chassis construction and potential speeds - so this is just an example, and not a promise of acceptance.
The issue with putting it back in the GCR is that you run into a time/effort-management issue. If the class is in the GCR now it's expected to be managed by the FSRAC -> CRB -> BOD process and we can assume the reason a class might be dropped is probably that the number of entries are not worth the time needed to manage it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
So if there are 5-10 cars in your region and it makes a big difference - it's worth it for your region (or division) to maintain that class/rule set. But if there are that many nationally, it makes it very hard to justify that effort on a national scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
To add to the Sports Renault info. The use of Sport Renault vehicles was specifically excluded by the SCCA contract with Roush to provide engines for Spec Racers (SRF). That contract has expired and the specific exclusion of Sport Renault has been removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by racerjon1
The South Jersey Region and NEDiv have had a s ruleset to run Sport Renault since 2014. I
---> https://www.nediv.com/images/nedivcl...S-SR_Rules.pdf
For a while this ruleset was modified to incorporate Charlie Greenhaus' all electric Spec racers (ESR).
Where I disagree with this, is that Regional racers do not care about the Runoffs (I like SCCA National Championships suggestion better - that is a different discussion). Maybe I will not get here, but there were times when it was in my head. There are many in Regionals who do dream of getting there. If you start the ladder with Majors, you will set up wall or moat and limit your participants. The water in the moat will be money, as once you cut Regionals loose, what is stopping an escalation of expenses to run in the Majors? By keeping Regional drivers in the mix and listening to them when you try to raise the ante of racing, you keep tension to keep a lid on expenses. Most of the decisions in the last 10 to 20 years have been to please those at the pointy end of the pyramid, keeping cost down has been the province of the SCCA alternates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
18 classes with 20 quality drivers and cars, will still make a great show - but that is only 360 participants. What is the SCCA looking for, 400? 500? And what if some of the top 18 classes can only muster 12 cars?
Still a lot more questions and not enough info to make a decision.
ChrisZ
I received a message last night that my letter was tabled for additional research. I'm sure not everything in my letter is brilliant but I'm glad the comments are being reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
That certainly sounds more promising than the usual "Thank you for your input..."Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Sorry to disappoint - I received the same response.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Maybe you had some good suggestions too! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by cory mcleod
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Quote:
Originally Posted by douglap1
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
That initial response means that your letter is on the agenda for the next CRB or advisory board meeting. The CRB meets today (first Tuesday), IIRC. Normally, if the CRB does not dismiss a letter at their first review, they refer it to the appropriate advisory board, and send you an update stating this fact.
Then, once everybody has reviewed and discussed your letter, the CRB reaches a decision, and you receive a notice that it will be published in the next Fastrack.
It has been a while since I last spun the wheel of fortune with the CRB, but that is my memory of the workflow.
Update: If you go to crbscca.com, you can track the progress of your letter through the process.
Classic !Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
It is honestly unclear to me why anyone would race in scca who is not interested in the runoffs. In my experience, scca events are more expensive and involve more beaurocracy and bull**** than any other organization. If you're not in it for the high level competition, why not go somewhere else.
I HATE it when I invest the time and effort in an event and nobody else shows up. In that case I could have gone to a Chin event, gotten 3x the clean laps, instructed a student (which I usually enjoy), and done it for FREE (entry fee at least). I come to a race to race. I do it in scca partly because I like the P2 cars and rules, but also because I have very little chance for meaningful challenge and competition in my life, and if I am going to do it, I want it to mean something. Winning a majors, st, conference, etc does that usually and of course the runoffs does.
Personally, racing in P2 is already a financial struggle, and p1 is out of the question. However, if they combine it into something remotely affordable that my dsr can be adapted into, and participation goes up- I'll be totally fine with that.
I also work for a living, so 10+ days of vacation for 1 race is a real issue. Making it shorter sounds great to me. But as someone said, the devil is in the details. I see lots of room for improvement but lots of opportunities to ruin it too.
I won't make it to the runoffs this year, nor did I last year, because my life is incredibly busy right now. But I will next year as long as there is still a class for me. And probably most years after that until I either win one or it becomes so expensive that I have no chance (quite a real possibility...)
Disenfranchise me from the runoffs, though, and I'll likely never attend another scca event again.
I am 100% on the same page. After 29 years of SCCA club racing, I will have to do some serious soul searching if/when the goal of the Runoffs is taken away. Where we differ is that my class (F600) has few other options.Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
Because there is no alternative?Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
So, just a guess, but you hated it when the runoffs came out west, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by cory mcleod
99% of the members out west never go to the runoffs. It's just too expensive to travel across country.
So, most of us race without even thinking about the runoffs.
You might have an alternative to SCCA racing but we have very little. VARA, while a good vintage club has like 5 race weekends all year and there is no runoffs or championship event.
So, my concern is not the runoffs but the Majors and Supertours - because most of us attend these in multiple regions.
Under the current proposal we need to preserve the classes in the Majors/ST.
Open wheel owners are far more limited in alternative options than you are with a P2. As badly as I would rather race with them, FRP is both cost and geographically prohibitive for myself and I'm sure a lot of other racers. Vintage has an even worse alphabet soup mess of run groups, offers less track time, and their entry fees are at least as expensive as SCCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
I am lucky that I have multiple tracks within "sleeping at home" distance, got an amazing deal on my car, and have a family and job that facilitate racing. If not for the perfect combination of all of those factors, I wouldn't be racing at all. You are absolutely right about all the bureaucracy and BS surrounding the SCCA, but for someone in my shoes, they still provide the best product for the time being.
I am also lucky that the Runoffs are at one of my home tracks the next two years. If not for that, I am one of those racers that wants nothing more than to do my local Majors and Super Tours events with no thought of doing the Runoffs. We're the group that gets hurt the most if classes start getting eliminated just so we can have a more condensed Runoffs schedule. For example, if FC does not make the cut, and I am no longer able to do the June Sprints because FC isn't a Super Tour class, I would be livid.
I'm more interested in the Sprints than the runoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
Hoping to make the trek over one of the next 4 years since my daughter just moved to Chicago.
Make it happen! We got 19 cars this year, and had a nice FC get together one of the evenings. Good, clean racing throughout the entire field.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Finally found time to submit my input... sharing here to help encourage others to submit their input.
IMPORTANT!!! Remember the DEADLINE for input is July 15th!!!
Letter 36512 - Publish a Vision Statement for Formula and Prototype Racing in SCCA
I'm not gonna copy the whole text in here; it was 4 pages when I was done. But some key points:
Quote:
So why should SCCA even care about those other (under-subscribed) classes? This question is most significant for the Formula and Prototype classes. It goes back to my first point in class consolidation: you have competition, and any decision that gives drivers reason to leave and race with the competition is bad for SCCA. And with the Spec Miatae, the playing field is indeed level, full transparency, and it’s a trivial matter to bounce back and forth: a race entry now becomes a commodity and it’s a race to the bottom of the price scale.
This is not the way to succeed and thrive, in any field; indeed, it’s hardly even a way to survive.
How do you succeed and thrive, then, in such an environment? You provide a product that the competition CAN’T. Now is the importance and value of the Formula and Prototype classes clear? Outside of Vintage racing, there is no-where you can race cars like this as an amateur.
Yet SCCA completely lacks any strategic plan for the Formula and Prototype classes. All you can come up with, it seems, is to say “make the numbers, or you’re out to pasture.”
Quote:
Furthermore, these Formula and Prototype classes fulfill a very special and key function within Club Racing. While not everyone can race a GT1 Corvette, a Formula Atlantic, or a P1 Ligier, seeing the incredible speed and noise these cars make on track, the thrilling races they provide, are a visceral and emotional draw of fresh faces to Club Racing, to be a part of that action.
Few people every saw (not heard) a Spec Miata roll by and say “Wow, that’s amazing, I wanna do that!” We all know and accept that they make great racecars because they lack all the high cost and effort that would make them thrilling. But the Big Bore classes like FA, GT1, P1, by virtue of being so advanced, so fast, and so eye-catching, can be and are the aspirational classes of SCCA Club Racing.
Quote:
Therefore I challenge SCCA National to create and publish a Vision Statement on the Future of Open Wheel and Prototype Racing in SCCA, to secure a stable future for a key, unique component of both our history and our current Club Racing Portfolio. A Vision Statement is needed to show SCCA’s commitment to developing and expanding the Formula and Protoype classes, to keep them healthy, to show them as a viable alternative and growth path to the many drivers we currently have who are struggling to not drown in a massive ocean of like-minded competitors, and to keep them visible and vibrant as a beacon of exciting, emotive motorsports for the fresh new faces we need to attract and keep our sport alive.
Quote:
Right now so much of SCCA’s Club Racing looks to be a matter of trying to cram hundreds of pegs in the same square hole; why can’t we point out there’s many more options on the board with plenty of room for them?
Do not fall into the easy trap of offering less for less and thinking that will earn you more market share; offer something the competition can’t, and you can charge any price you want.
Keep Formula and Prototype racing a core value of SCCA Club Racing.
Vaughn, I could not agree with you more in that I think the formula, prototype, and GT1 classes are cool beans. I am "all in" personally on the formula cars and have been for many years. How do you suggest that SCCA provide the "product" that others can't? What can be done to improve the entries for these classes? What would your vision statement be for these classes?
Definitely agree that my class should be included in Majors/ST going forward!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
I had no problem with the two CA Runoffs. The club should do everything it can to serve all members, even if it means I miss the Runoffs a few times. I committed to the cost of getting over to Laguna Seca and back, and was very disappointed when I had to cancel due to the late schedule change for FF/F600.
That would have been a trek !Quote:
Originally Posted by cory mcleod
These are the decisions we are faced with every year. I was planning on going to Sonoma and life got in the way.
it's still an expensive proposition even when local !
SCCA does some things very well. The Regs is one of them. They are well tested and cover racing nationwide.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
But - there in lies part of the problem. This is a geographically large country.
We know that class participation is not uniform though out the country, but the club expects - and threatens elimination - when participation in the majors and runoffs isn't.
The "planned changes" to improve the runoffs (a single annual event) - negatively affect and threaten with elimination drivers in 35+ events (Majors) throughout the country.
This is a poor vision for all classes really - but especially low grid count classes.
So, the goal of the "planned changes" is to reduce the length of the runoffs and the idea is to eliminate low participation classes thus keeping the high entry numbers filling the reduced number of time slots.
Hopefully someone has done some analysis of when a class loses it's runoff slot how that's going to affect next years Majors and then the year after that.
As I suggested in my letter (see post 56 in this thread), you can compress the time for the runoffs if reduce the number of participants and you do this by having 3 or 4 semifinals strategically throughout the country. Take the podiums from each of these to create your grid for the runoffs. Maybe 12 in each class. This also increases the number of venue options.
This gives more opportunity for participation on the 'national stage' and the best of the best a bigger stage at the end.
Example: I think SM is a great class, but when you have 100 entries and have to have a special race to see who gets the last spots in the 'real race' - that is sort of silly. Is there any race on TV in which participants 20-60 are events notes - except when being lapped? Using my suggestion there would be likely more cars in 3 events.
As stated in my letter - threatening elimination keeps cars in garages.
The club is going to have to accept that some classes have low participation but find a way to work with that.
My suggestion - between the semi-finals and the finals - will increase participation at both the "semi-finals" and the Majors events.
Side note: Sounds arrogant but most of the premier racing classes in the world are open wheel or prototype or GT1 level. The general public doesn't know anything about what's available in amateur racing. Maybe SCCA needs to run a few ads during an Indy race? IMSA race? My neighbor does roundy-rounds and they get TV coverage and event advertising.
This makes too much sense for it ever to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
I too like this idea. It is certainly recognized that class participation is not uniform throughout the country; nothing is easy! Keep the ideas coming - please submit them through the letter system for best visibility!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
John is doing more than any of us to support the small-bore formula classes in Topeka. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Keep submitting.
There was a time in the past that one had to finish in the top 5 of their division to get to go to the Runoffs. It too was somewhat unfair because in a division like SEDIV there were not that many FCs so a wanker like me could qualify; while meanwhile in CENDIV guys like LaRue, DaveW, Defer, Tomasi, were battling all season to earn a spot out of bigger fields.
Then tracks got really expensive to rent and Denver/Topeka needed to increase car counts in an attempt to keep cost/entrant down. So, we moved to the era when if you could fog a mirror you were invited.
Then society changed and a lot of working folks didn't want to spend 10 days to do one race. And, we added a few new formula classes. Mixed run groups became problematic.
Meanwhile everything kept getting sort of more expensive. ( I know; open to debate when statistics get involved calculating incomes vs. costs.) So Topeka still needs large numbers of entrants to run the event. (100 SM entrants certainly help in that regard.)
Quite a conundrum me thinks. But we know if garage queen FCs came out more John would have an easier task.
I'll refrain from posting my ideas for a Vision Statement - because the SCCA National Office needs to generate this. Simply spoon-feeding them a convenient answer they have no stake in, and thus no commitment to, has no value IMO. You want to own the answer, you gotta write it - and the lack of ownership is at the root of the problem. SCCA doesn't know what to do with us, doesn't know why they make room for us on the schedule, doesn't even understand the reason we exist, and so has no reason to give us any different treatment than any other tin-top class when it comes to making the numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Without question, everyone on this forum understands why we should be treated differently, why we are not the same as all those tin-tops.
National is happy to trot out the formula car classes when touting its history, names like Rahal, Lyn St. James, etc... and then thanks is to quietly get back to the back of the bus and mind our own business once the limelight shifts.
How do we support the classes? As already touched on in the replies after yours - it's gotta happen at the start, at the Regionals, at the driver's schools etc. Entirely grassroots approach - with more support from National, MORE EXPOSURE!!!
How do we expect to have more people coming in to our classes if they've never even seen an Atlantic or a P1 run? My local track is Waterford... but all we have these days is FC, CFC, F6 and the occasional rare FV. All running in the same group, since there's such poor turnout. We used to have two open-wheel groups and a co-driver group as well. Now everyone drives Miatae and thinks it's exciting. Or AS, which is for sure a bit more impressive, much louder, if not much faster...
What seems to be the theme is the idea SCCA just has to be better than other racing opportunities. Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
SCCA is competing for a slice of the disposable income and time. It's not only competing with other racing its competing with vacation travel, kids sporting events and a million other things that consume our lives. As racers we want to race but it's not always so simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Vaughn,
As Chairman of the CRB I am doing everything within my power to keep these exciting classes alive in SCCA in spite of the increasing pressure of others that are growing their participation numbers and creating pressure for valuable track time. And while I understand your concept of owning the idea(s), all of us have to participate, not only as racers, but also class advocates and promoters. If you have a good idea then put it out there, don't just bring a problem, bring a solution.
If you have the opportunity take a look at B-Spec and the job that was done by Frank Schwartz and David Daughtery to resurrect that class when it was literally on the chopping block for elimination a few short years ago. They recruited the BS drivers to promote and sell the class; they didn't wait on the SCCA staff who are overworked to carry the water. Social media, phone calls, and clustering class participants in the paddock all were part of their program. It takes time (which I have little of) and effort. A few of us have been trying to emulate the BS success in FC and it has helped. I don't like it, but it is a reality; we have to self promote. Frank's presentation on how to grow a class was on the SCCA website as part of one of the conventions; I haven't looked for it lately but it is well worth the time to watch if you can find it. In that you are from the same area you may well know Frank and perhaps have already heard his teachings.
Anyway, I am always open to any good ideas and thank you for taking the time and having the passion to support your class.
John
Yes, indeed, we know Frank well and have raced together in the past - he's a great guy, and has contributed much.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, and I appreciate that you are actively trying to keep us around. But I repeat, we need buy-in from a majority of the National Office, not just one or two devoted individuals, to move the needle.
Why? Why does what they do matter more than what we do?
Because that's where all these initiatives that will shut us down come from.
Every time mandates come down from on high to dump CSR, DSR, and S2000 into one class, or FA and FB, etc etc. - just how can we fight against that? They do what they want, what they see fit for the future of Club Racing, and they have repeatedly shown they do not care about us.
Vote in different people? Tried that too, it's not working either. I thought I had a good rep, he turned out to be the type to rubber-stamp FIA lights - which worked so well at the Sprints, LOL.
So now we try a different tack.
IMHO, the relevance of the open wheel and sports racer classes in the SCCA dropped when they became irrelevant to "the ladder".
Used to be a pro series had some trickle down, and events run with the pros had amateurs filling the fields.
Now the pros like to control their series. Nobody who is paying a ****load of $$$ for their kid to be on the road to Indy wants to see him get tangled up with a local backmarker. Single chassis/single motor, all play into this.
Until the "ladder" has some kind of pro to amateur trickle down and confluence, what is going on now will continue.
Accepting the timed-out pro chassis into the amateur ranks where they don't actually meet the rules when the pros upgrade may add a few cars here and there, but it really isn't going to help appreciatively, and may convince some older cars to stay home.
The competition for disposable income is one thing. Automotive competition has virtually exploded in the 21st Century. Back in the 20th Century - SCCA was one of the few places 'real people' could afford to go racing - SCCA and its various Regions had their pick of race dates that track owner were only too happy to give just to have income coming to the track. Those days are gone. SCCA is in competition with many other 'competitive' automotive organizations for race dates, a competition that runs up track rental exponentially.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Many track are booked for over 300 of the 365 days in the year - and 'clubs' like Ferrari, Porsche and BMW have the financial where with all to get any date they want.
When I started racing in SCCA in 1988 the entry fees for Regionals were less than $100. Now entry fees for some Majors are way too close to $1000 and the Runoff's is $1000 and more - for less track time than ever. Runoff's used to have FOUR days or qualifying Monday-Thursday and the Races Friday - Sunday. Now Monday is a 'Extra Cost' Testing day. Paddock Parking is now a fee affair.
SCCA - Send Check Cash Automatically
Again Vaughn, I truly appreciate the time you are putting into thinking about these issues. Regards, JohnQuote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR