Would the winner get a penalty in the SCCA? Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Printable View
Would the winner get a penalty in the SCCA? Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Quote:
Originally Posted by 924RACR
Vaughn I think that you nail it on the head by pointing out that HST is a nationwide championship. As I see it, there are only a handful of classes which have enough cars spread across the nation to support such a series and there are not enough SCCA racers in the other classes who will travel across the country to do so. It looks to me like most of the classes have geographical pockets of population and competition. Perhaps we would be more successful if we catered to the customer at their location rather than trying to convince them to travel to these expensive national races. The data clearly shows that few are travelling or chasing the HST championship. The HST cherry picked what was the best National or Majors races and it is those races which are driving participation in the series, not the fact that those races are part of the series. The HST was the catalyst for change that has driven the wedge between the members/classes.
I also think attention needs to be brought to the cost of putting the HST show on the road. There is a substantial number of full time staff and part time stewards who are on the road for those 10 events which cater to an extremely small percentage of the membership. We must think not only in terms of labor, equipment (trucks/trailer), and travel costs, but also the lost opportunity costs. What is the true cost of those key personnel being out of the office and/or focusing on a series which caters to such a small percentage of the membership. Is that the best allocation of resources given the current state of the road racing program or could their time be better spent working to improve non HST road racing programs and assisting regions? Would the Hoosier sponsorship money dry up if the HST was shelved or could it be allocated to other events so long as tire sales continue in similar volume?
My wife worked for Kraft/General Foods and one of the product lines she was responsible for on a national basis was BBQ sauce. Certain sauces sold well in particular geographical areas and not so well in others. She did not waste time trying to sell customers something that they didn't want. (Don't try to sell ice to Eskimos, sell them hot coffee.) Each geographical area was catered to with the product(s) in which they held an interest. If we organized and managed the programs/races based class rather than event perhaps we would be more successful. Why does every race have to offer every class? The primary reason I see is revenue; If classes are cut to improve the on-track experience the track costs don't change. Tony Stefanelli has made a good suggestion of combining road racing with other programs such as track time, solo, etc... so that the classes can be paired down to offer a better experience, but costs can still be covered with alternative revenue sources. This approach also helps to cross pollinate between programs and might prove to be a better way to grow the road racing program.
While this might seem like a snarky comment, it's actually very serious and addresses virtually all the issues and implements all the suggestions raised above:Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs.
That is a REALLY good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Ever since this whole push to dump the small bore formula classes, drop races and groups and classes to concentrate competition at the top by providing less and less opportunities etc really lit off last year, I've been asking why isn't National putting effort into building the grassroots programs?!??
They're executing the typical American mismanagement approach of thinking less is more, so if we get smaller and smaller, the better it'll be... without grasping that all they're doing is pushing the throttle down as we race to the bottom of the spiral and closing the doors!
It's like making orange juice from concentrate (to borrow another food analogy, no doubt quite imprecisely)... they complain about the product being weak, so they want to boil it down more and make less volume, increasing the strength of the solution.
Instead, I say why don't we get more oranges?!???
They are keen to make top level competition - Runoffs and the like - be more and better and sharper by letting fewer and fewer participate. If we have only 50 drivers in FA competing nationwide, why are we letting half of them come to the Runoffs? They don't represent the cream of the crop, it should be just the top 10!
I say, the REASON having 50-70-100 SM drivers compete at the Runoffs is so impressive is because there's hundreds of them competing nationwide... and even making it to that level, to join the show, is impressive.Because they're standing at the top of a HUGE pyramid.
But the pyramid isn't impressive because of that shiny little gold cap at the top; it's impressive because when you stand at the bottom, the sheer size of it is mind-boggling.
The same way, ALL classes need and deserve to be built at Regionals, at Driver's Schools.
So where does National, who holds the keys to the rulebook and the race schedules, get off on dumping all of that on the regions without any support???? Just a little too hard to deal with, and not sexy enough? Don't know what to do if you can't get a tire company etc to sponsor a school or a regional?
The entire system is the Club Racing product, and any meaning a championship has is based on what foundation it's built on; National needs to stop being obsessed with the latest shiny thing from a sponsor and get back to building the basics, WITH its membership.
I think you are correct, most HST entries are just local Majors that happen to be a HST. But as you noticed, many FV drivers in the oversubscribed Northern Conference were using the HST runoffs qualifying route, doing 3 HST races should have easily gotten them a runoffs invite at their home track. So they took a trip to Sebring or Hallett in addition to mid ohio and June sprints.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Can't really disagree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
I did make a proposal to change the way it works here:
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...l=1#post665547
"The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs."
I'd like to hear how that solves the problem? Or does it solve a different problem?
I can't imagine you think eliminating the runoffs will cause SCCA to then include FF/F6/FV in HST events. Maybe I lack imagination.
Eliminating the Runoffs would return the club to its pre-Runoffs method of deciding national championships or not having a national championship at all. It would allow the club to focus on Division/Area/Region programs which, as John pointed out, have different mixes of class participation. There may or may not be an HST in that scenario at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
When I was asked to do a study of participation by Division and class in Nationals prior to the adoption of the Majors program it was with an eye toward sliming down the number of classes competing within the Majors. One of the things that proved surprising was the numbers showing only four classes were in the top 10 in all Divisions throughout the country: SRF, SM, EP & FV. That's an indication that we are not as cohesive as we'd like to think.
Another aspect of the original thinking behind the Majors program was/is Bill Kephart's observation that there are two kinds of people involved in SCCA (Club) Road Racing: A) Those with the means, skills and desire to seek out and race against the best competition and B) Those who primarily run local events. Yes, there are those who run more than locally but aren't pursuing the best competition, but it's been my experience that the generalization is substantially accurate.
There's no question there are more category B competitors than A. That would argue in favor of shifting emphasis to serving those competitors. Being focused on the Runoffs detracts from that.
Exactly: ditch the Only One Big Race That Matters should reset the entire concept of Club Racing. So much of what Club Racing is revolves around the Runoffs, everything above the Regional Race level should be completely revisited.
What's the point of a Super Tour? Does the current implementation serve any purpose without a Runoffs to qualify for? Clearly not, since it's only use, by 75-80% of the club, is to qualify for the Runoffs.
Likewise "Conference" championships - presumably those would disappear.
What about Majors? Do they serve any greater purpose than a Regional
What about licensing? You only need an SCCA license to run Majors/HST/Runoffs - I can run countless seasons of racing with SCCA with only a general membership.
If we ditch the distinction of Majors/HST from Regionals - does that ease scheduling challenges? Probably could do a lot, without the pressure to qualify for Runoffs in time.
Etc, etc - every aspect should be reconsidered, giving the chance to re-focus the entire organization to the foundation and making things healthy again.
Needless to say I didn't watch the entire video but if you pay attention you should notice that it seems perfectly ok to hit someone from behind to upset them and go by. In the local track I visited for quite a few years I ended up learning to do so to pass people who only were interested in keeping you behind them. The track was so mickey mouse and nothing more than an indoor version of autocross. I was able to do it without hitting them but just get in touch with them and push them when they wanted to turn and cut in and make the pass. My years as an equipment operator certainly helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
In FV we have always pushed drafted but I will immediately get on someone who does the nasty-car version of hitting you. You can nicely push without upsetting your most likely friend and both go faster.
Ed
Thanks Peter, I see what you are driving at now. It's not a solution to the immediate problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
OTOH, the old way from when I was a kid seemed to work well, regionals/nationals and the runoffs as a championship race. Maybe that wouldn't work in todays world. Maybe it's time for one level racing, in the hands of the regions, but I do think a championship race is still a good idea. I certainly do not have the wisdom and experience many of you possess.
I'm not sanguine about one level of racing, but not for the reasons usually cited (inexperienced drivers creating problems when being overtaken/lapped.) It's been my experience that experienced drivers are more apt to take advantage of inexperienced drivers in those situations. Too much history with RFAs and protests on this subject since we started with Rationals and now allowing regional classes into non-HST Majors.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Most of the concern around experienced/inexperienced drivers mixing is moot because the former Regional/National license distinction no longer exists. Everybody has a Full Competition license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
In terms of on-track etiquette and rules awareness, I have seen a greater gap between drivers who went through SCCA driver school -vs- drivers who came in via commercial schools. In fact, the situation was better when two SCCA schools were required. But that ship has sailed.
What percentage of HST drivers actually attend all 10 events? Or even more than, like, 3?
Anyway, I want to make a point about NOLA in particular. That track, and that event, is very much an aberration.
Yes, last year, participation was up because of the replacement of CotA (which decided they wanted way too much money) and this year participation was down a bit. I expect participation to be down even more next year as everyone kind of got that race "out of their system" so to speak - we hadn't gone there in a few years, last year there was rain which made a mess of the weekend for everyone, this year it was a dry race, pristine weather, nothing wrong in that regard. (Stewarding drama in a few races notwithstanding, I won't get into that here, I've had that argument elsewhere enough times already.)
The last time I looked at the entry list, there were 4 Louisiana drivers in there. The rest of it was Texas drivers and drivers from far enough away it's reasonable to assume that the entry list was filled out by it being a Super Tour. That race is not viable as a Majors, let alone as a Regional, unless NOLA has an absolute bevy of cars in regional-only classes that would come out to play if allowed (and I doubt that, since they didn't run their own Regional race prior).
So it is reasonable to assume it is either a Super Tour, or a nonexistent race. Incidentally, participation would have been higher had the Formula Mazdas (which are still a force in Texas even if National doesn't care about them) still been welcome, and the small-bore formula bunch had been welcome. In Texas at least, a lot of them got the memo and moved over to vintage-land a long time ago. Until Jay and the FF guys got a bee in their bonnet last year and decided to go try to make FF a thing in Texas SCCA again there was effectively zero local participation aside from the Barrons running a couple races in FV for Runoffs eligiblity, and whatever random dude in any given year showed up for a race or two in a small-bore formula car because he didn't realize there was no competition. Ironic that now there's actually a group of FF guys and they don't get a chance to add to the participation because of the National run group decision. Oh well. Between those two groups there'd probably have been over a dozen cars added (and therefore over a dozen entry fees paid) but that's out of the question now.
If NOLA is on the schedule next year I don't imagine it will do well at all. Everyone's kind of like "okay yep we did the track we've checked that box" (for the first time in however long) and CotA is still charging way too much money so I don't know what the plan is gonna be - I'm not privy to those conversations. If the Powers That Be in National give the FF and FV guys a shot maybe they get enough additional participation to make up for everyone who just goes "nah I'm not gonna bother towing again", but if they don't change track or open up to allow additional classes, then I expect the event to be a participation failure next year. (Personally, I'm not going to do NOLA if it is indeed a race in 2026, and I originally wasn't going to do it this year, but NOLA is roughly halfway between where I live now and where my parents live, and we met up that weekend so my parents could finally watch me do a race in person.)
Anyway, the point I'm ultimately making is that NOLA almost certainly isn't viable as anything other than a Super Tour. I seriously question whether the location and track are appealing enough in conjunction with the tow distance to make it remain viable as a Super Tour more than about twice a decade on participation numbers. The track is nothing to write home about (no offense, but it's a flat and bumpy track on marshland), and if you're there for a race weekend can you really be "doing New Orleans" when you have to wake up Saturday and Sunday morning and get in a race car?
(If I were in charge I'd move that Super Tour to Eagles Canyon, but I'm not in charge or privy to those conversations in any way. And the haters will probably claim that I'm biased because I tend to do well at ECR, hah!)
As for the series as a whole, the Super Tour as this national championship series doesn't really make sense because:
- You don't actually win a championship by doing well in all the events
- Nobody actually goes to all the Super Tour events anyway
- A significant chunk of the people who go to a Super Tour event are doing so because it's a local event and would run it as a Majors
On the flip side, specific events such as NOLA largely need the additional draw from people using Super Tour as an alternative Runoffs qualifying mechanism, or the Super Tour being seen as a "special" event and therefore the event being "worth" traveling to in order to make sufficient participation to justify the event's existence.
It's odd. The Super Tour is at once not a national pro (or pro ladder) racing series, but at the same time not really suitable for the local club guys either. When every Majors class was eligible for a ST it wasn't that big of a difference, but once National started eliminating classes from participation and preventing run groups from being combined, it made the event significantly worse for the local guys. For most entrants, we don't care about these events as a Super Tour event, we just care about the fact that the ST makes up a couple of the events on the calendar within driving distance of us.
Here's my take, ultimately. If they want to be a national 10-race points chase, they need to figure out a way to get a dozen or so designated classes across six or so run groups to get enough prize money and contingency to actually get people towing across the country to do all ten races (and take it out of the majors/regional championships so we aren't "obligated" to run them), and make the Runoffs into a "finale" rather than a separate winner takes all race.
If they want to just have the Super Tour be "we send cameras around the country to these 10 races a year to put them up on youtube for a little extra marketing" then let the local conferences/regions make their decisions about which classes are eligible and how to combine them, with the National org not interfering - basically just turn them into "Super Majors" (which is what they effectively were when there was no distinction between Majors classes and ST classes).
The ST is structured as a 10-race points chase, which nobody does for two reasons:1, because the Runoffs is a single winner take all race, and 2 there's not enough financial backing or TV presence for anyone to bother running in it as a 10-race points chase anyway. Anyone who's sufficiently talented is going to go run a series where there's more of a chance of paying the bills and getting the sponsor in front of more eyeballs or using the series as a stepping stone to a "pro" career. (Any of the car-specific Cup series, SRO, VP Challenge, F4, FR Americas, TA2, etc.) On the flip side, the forcing of one-size-fits-all national regulations means there's no ability to adapt to which classes and run groups have more or less participation in different parts of the country to make the event a more suitable one for the local guys in any particular region. In sum, the current state of affairs is basically the worst of both worlds. It's trying to blend together wildly disparate goals and failing to really achieve any of them. As the saying goes, "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."
Scrap the Super Tour.
Bring back simple to understand Nationals and Regionals.
X amount (3-4) of National starts + X amount of points earns a Runoffs invite.
5-10 year freeze on class addition/subtraction/consolidation. Let the classes self-govern and thrive/die off on their own merit. They can choose which events they want to prioritize like FF and FC are doing already.
If the event is sanctioned by SCCA, the participation counts towards class numbers (yes, even regionals). Stop punishing classes like FC (and I'm sure others) that have strong regional programs/series but receive no recognition for it.
Give the regionals more freedom to experiment with event format, whether it's giving a class that normally wouldn't have their own run group their own run group, 2 day vs 3 day weekends, 1 race vs 2 race weekend, etc
Topeka doesn't dictate Regional formats. The regions are free to structure Regional events just about any way they want including running a Restricted Regional with a limited number of classes. There is already a wide variety of Regional race formats to be found throughout the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
What Peter says. Restricted Regionals are long gone. I chaired a committee that revised the GCR 12 years ago. One of the things we did was to scrap Restricted Regionals. Regions can format events pretty much as they like to suit their business needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
A Regional with entries limited to red cars with even car numbers? No problem!
I think this is the single most important issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
The lack of regional control over the run groups at Majors and SuperTours is one of the main reasons people do not attend.Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
We've all been over the geographic differences in class popularity. And I know the ST Director CAN change groupings, but there are limits, rules and "a process". As our regional director said to me " ya, they act like it's our first rodeo ". When many regional directors can probably tell you the best way to group their members.
There ya go. Get the national office out of micro-managing class rules. Instead, set up a framework for class self management (in other words, standards) and get out of the way. Limit rules making to actual matters of safety and construction (again, standards).Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
Seems to me that's exactly what the class advisory committees do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Only to be shot down by the CRB or BoD because they know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockbeau25
If I was king of the SCCA I would get rid of the CRB and FSRAC and the accompanying conflicts of interest (real or perceived). Each class would need to create a committee that decides the rules and direction of their own class and need to have near-unanimous agreement among the participants on any change that would then be presented to the BoD. Similar to what Tony is doing with FF and the recent tire rule change. It makes no sense that the CRB and FSRAC make decisions for all classes but most of the classes have no representation on either. Give the power back to the people that are most affected by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
And now we see the violence inherent in the system!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
ORA - Do you feel repressed now?
In the early years of the Super Tour program there was an effort to gather competitors and hold open meetings. Anyone remember those? I do, having attended several in my steward capacity. It's unrealistic to think any group of SCCA competitors could ever agree on anything. Those meetings highlighted how people can be worked up about an issue and two of them will propose diametrically opposed solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
The club is structured the way it is and while they frequently produces outcomes that engender antagonism toward the process, I strongly doubt there is an alternative that would produce less dissention.
And yet, a bunch of guys got on here and created F1000 out of dust. Can't say I agreed with the need for the class and the economics were fanciful, but they got it done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Maybe that should have been an indicator that the Super Tour program would always be contentious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Most probably felt they didn't need it.
It's near impossible to get people to agree on solutions to problems that don't exist.
No question F1000 was mishandled. Had it been granted Regional only status as originally requested the class would have had time to build numbers into something not so easily forced into FAtl. However, I don't see how that's analogous to giving classes control over their own rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
At some point, a given class has to fit within the current program structure (changing that structure is a related by different issue.) Formula classes are particularly vulnerable to being excluded due to the limited number of run groups within a given event and the rules against combing formula cars with tin tops. The F1000 move the FAtl is a different issue, with the intent there being the preservation of a class the CRB/BoD thought was important to preserve.
This is an example of the conflicts that have arisen. They were resolved to the satisfaction of some and dissatisfaction of others. Giving control to class members won't change that. Someone has to referee inter-class conflicts and event structures.
That's not how those meetings went down. Specific issues were raised by attendees, discussed with the conflicts noted above, rinse and repeat. I don't recall any conversations about the Super Tour itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Bold text added by me. You don't intend to but you're making my point for me. No CRB=no mishandling of issues that don't affect them. Or that positively affects one member of the CRB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
Of course you'll always have dissent in any group but it's incumbent upon the rest of the group to sell an idea to the dissenters and get close to unanimous. The new FF tire rule is a perfect example of how this system could work. Tony and others worked within their group to show the benefits of the rule to those that disagreed and the support became so overwhelming that the BoD couldn't say no. If an individual class committee comes to the BoD with full agreement from most of the class, they should simply rubber stamp the change. If the class committee doesn't have full buy-in they need to either do more convincing of the dissenters or drop the idea as not having merit.
The broader point that several here are unintentionally making is that the racing world has evolved but the SCCA is still stuck in the '60s (see also: HST). "That's how we've always done it" will be the death of Club Racing, even SM. You even hit the nail on the head in a different thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
The sooner we get rid of the Runoffs or at the very least regionalize it, the better. So many of these class structure problems will go away and racing throughout the country, especially the west coast, will get stronger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
In the early 1960's, I was showing cutting horses. To win the state championship, you had to win the most money in your class.
The bigger shows paid more money and part of the entry fee went into the purse so shows with large classes earned you more money and helped you toward the championship. The shows were not ranked as we do in auto racing. What was important was the number of entrants because that determined the size of purse purses. At a minim I could win enough to pay for my gas to the show and maybe have dinner money.
Maybe an alternative to the current system of ranked racing events where we awarded points based on the number of entrants in a class and the position you finished.
Entry fees were dived between an office charge, which the event organizers kept and an added fee which went into the purse. Back then it would be $10 office charge and a$10 added to the purse for a total fee of $20. These numbers are 1960's dollars.
Just a thought from an old man.
The FF tire rule change is something within the class. I agree it's a model for intra-class rules management. The issue of inter-class rules management is where your argument hits a rough ride. Class proliferation has created a situation where the club is trying to pour ten gallons into a five gallon container. Something has to give and that means spilling things on the floor. Won't matter with or without a CRB. Someone will have to make a decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
Right now, and for Regional racing only, that's the local regions. If we are to retain a national championship the need to manage which classes are eligible will remain.
I proposed a seed system which I now realize should have been a ranking system (not a tennis player). Or Handicap or some other system. That way we end up with a nationwide ranking and the top 30 drivers in the country get an invitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by S Lathrop
You would have a minimum number of starts etc., but like baseball's hitting leaders, you could have drivers from all over the country competing against each other. Then the Runoffs would be like the World Series or Superbowl that would determine who would be best.
Who wants to set up the criteria? - Steve started - I would add pole position and fastest race lap. What else could we put in there?
ChrisZ
Edit - even if the SCCA would not adopt this - it would be a neat way to analyze drivers.
I don't know when it ended, but when I was younger (a lot!) a runoffs invite had to be earned by points within each region:
National races in each region counted 9 points for 1st place, 6 for 2nd, 4 for 3rd, 3 for 4th, 2 for 5th, and one point for 6th place. The top 4 in points were invited to the runoffs, 7 regions x 4 = 28 drivers invited per class. Somewhere along the line FV was changed to invite 6 per region. That was it, no other way to qualify. I recall that you could include 2 national races outside your region.
Both FV and FF were allowed 6. All other classes got just 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Minuscule point of order...in your post, change the word "region" to "division".Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Glenn (I trim my lawn with nail-clippers...lol) :revs:
For all intents and purposes that is what you are currently experiencing but for your failure to reference SCCA Staff and their role. The CRB is now being chaired by a member of the BOD, Dayle Frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike B
Other than John LaRue - and thank you John, I know you do care - does anyone here believe those other "powers-that-be" in the SCCA actually read what all of us post here? .......simply because this section of ApexSpeed is titled SCCA Board of Directors it doesn't mean most anyone else from SCCA reads what's here or cares
.and because there's maybe a couple (to give 'em the benefit of the doubt - out of I'm not sure how many) of them that do read what we post here..........shall we who post here believe those couple actually care what we say ???
crickets by too many other than John LaRue it seems to me
Well considering one of them is permanently IP banned here, that cuts the F/SR representation on the CRB who might read this in half.Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
Do you talk with your BoD member? I realize that's become something of an ancient concept, but it's still the best way to communicate exactly what you want them to hear.Quote:
Originally Posted by EYERACE
Who is that? I don't recall whatever drama led to it. Who's on the FSRAC? Can't find it on the website.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmbeau
It is behind two logins. (Why, oh why, does the SCCA website have such a goofy, convoluted member access procedure?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Go to scca.com, click on member profile (upper right). Login.
Then click on Boards and Committees. Another login.
Then, under Road Racing, click on Formula/Sports Racing Committee.
Caveat: The club is not real good at keeping these committee etc. lists up-to-date.
Not a member at present, so that excludes me. Wonder why they think this should be member-only info?Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
Hopefully someone will post...
There's most likely a shorter URL than this one but this gets me straight to the member portal and requires no extra log ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Nesbitt
https://my.scca.com/eweb/DynamicPage...=yes&Site=SCCA
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=114995&stc=1https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/ima...BJRU5ErkJggg==Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
So I searched for all these guys on here. I might be mistaken, but I believe the last post by one of them was at least 3 years ago.
So if these guys are the class reps, and this site represents a virtual "town hall", imagine if your representative never showed up - or at best, just hid backstage and never came out to discuss things with his constituents so that although he was appraised of peoples opinions on the matter, you don't know his or the vote.
They, the CRB and the BoD seem to have done a decent job with the FF tire change. I wonder what the difference is?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
There is no 'requirement' for members of the FSRAC to 'seek input from public forums'. They take their guidance from SCCA, but pretty sure that SCCA does NOT tell them HOW to get the input they (think they) need to address SCCA issues.... if there are any. I THINK the FSRAC takes it's guidance more or less from the CRB.. and maybe the BOD if either of them thinks they NEED more input.
Since there is an email address for each of them as well as an automatic 'send to fsrac' email on the SCCA site (somewhere). You can feel free to send any specific thread(s) that you think they need to see to them via email. Lead a horse, etc...but if you haven't done that, it's unlikely that any of them visit this forum (or any other) on a regular basis.
I also don't THINK the FSRAC is tasked with INITIATING anything on their own. I could be wrong. Perhaps John L knows more about how they are supposed to decide what they should be working on?
Steve, FV80
seems unfortunate that the only thing they seem to be good at is terrible decisions and lightening my wallet.
So they wonder why we aren't interested in contributing? IT IS YOUR JOB TO KEEP ME INFORMED, not mine to endlessly chase after what you are doing while you hide everything from us!
If you choose to want to lead ( I am using that lightly) it should be YOUR responsibility to keep those you choose to lead informed.
Ed
I'll ask again: What was different about the approval of the new FF tire rule?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Womer
I think the difference was the 50+ FF driver letters submitted to the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
The challenge for the competitors and tech compliance folk in Impound was the proposed wording was mangled when it got to the final Fastrack/GCR text. The wording caused some confusion. I got called to impound to "OK, 'splain it to me, Lucy!" The way the text read, it appeared the treaded Hoosier VFF tires were for use in the rain.
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanW