Why can't the Honda just be derated with smaller restrictor plate? Honda drivers should realize that maintaining parity is important to the vitality of the class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Lee
Printable View
Why can't the Honda just be derated with smaller restrictor plate? Honda drivers should realize that maintaining parity is important to the vitality of the class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Lee
Just an FYI.....
24 FV's signed up for the DriverZ race (radials) this upcoming weekend Road Atlanta!
Just saying!
Mark. FV #3
Multi-class racing is never perfect. We all get in each other's way sometimes. I used to "frustrate" Steve Davis in the corners when learning to drive. Now we're friends. Got grouped with all F/SR cars once at a TMS national. Biggest problem for me was slow DSRs parking in the turns but then gapping me on the straights. We all wish we could run FRP!Quote:
Originally Posted by E1pix
That being said, I have no problems running with FV, FF and FC. I've seen drivers do unsafe and unnecessary things a few times over the years, but I see no reason why we can't run safe together. Never had any problems with FCs.
Maybe we should outlaw enclosed trailers.
I do not see the benefit for the Regions with this class reduction. MO HST 28 entrants for this group, Glenn 20, Sprints 40, that is a lot of lost revenue. I would say that it would be hard to prove that the HST events add anything to potential Regional revenue.
Seems like the finances would dictate what the Regions do. I do not see how SCCA administrators thinks this is going to fly.
Brian
To share a 'newbie' outsider observation.... I see lots of talk about spec tires/cost and that helping to bring in more people.
We are coming out of SRF and I was happy that the FF F1600 tires were actually a little cheaper than the SRF. Not much, but hey...it all helps. It was standard in SRF to run a new set every race weekend. (at the pointy end) After getting some test days in on the FF tires, they seem very similar in their 'fall off'. If one were trying to save money and not running at front of the pack, you could get by with running a set for 2 race weekends. But if you (first have the ability) and want to run up front, you are probably practicing on your previous race tires and qualifying and racing on a new set every weekend. Same as SRF tire.
So you have a class like SRF which is thriving, and I would say costs of running SRF are about the same (if one wants to be competitive). Cost of the GOOD SRF are more than a FF. Market being 60-65 for a newer build genIII.
So there is something else other than cost to consider. It is only because of Bob with FRP that we came over to F1600. We are not a 'racing' family and know very little about the world you all have lived in for many years. If not for a few people who have helped us navigate this path, we would never be here.
Getting your kid into racing is not like signing them up for soccer. I would say that the SCCA does not do a very good job at bringing in new younger competitors. We had spent a few years on track driving HPDE for fun and still never knew about the awesome world out there of racing and truly great people who are involved with it.
Just an outsiders point of view, but I am sure there must be other people like us out there who would probably be racing if they only new how to go about it. It certainly is not inexpensive. But the costs dont seem that much different than other thriving classes.
Not sure what the answer is, but super thankful to Bob and the others who have all played a huge part in helping us come join in this great sport. I too try to educate others now how they can join in on racing...etc.
Was so great to go to and FRP race and see so many younger kids that make up the F1600 field. As this unfolds, I would like to see if there are places to run FF in SCCA.
^^^ Wonderful ^^^
What makes this event different from other Super Tour races? I know it is popular but we chose last year the July Majors instead due to timing and the fact it was only 3 days invested for on track running. I would argue that Sebring would be more in line with a deserved spot, there are plenty of snowbirds who have been doing "the double" for years who now are literally out in the cold...Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Brian.
Before there was a Runoffs, before there were any other well established events, the founding and sustaining support provided by the Chicago Region of the June Sprints has built it into the most recognized locally organized club racing event on the U.S. Now, you might say I'd be prejudiced having been RE of Chicago Region and one time Chief Steward of the June Sprints and you'd be right, but I've worked events all over the country and been in close contact with region boards over my 55+ years of membership and there is no region doing the job Chicago does in organizing and operating this event. I think anyone and everyone who's been involved with the June Sprints, be they drivers, entrants, crew, family, workers, whatever, would agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Graham
Then there's the not insignificant element of the region requesting to return to a single race format which provides enough time in a three day weekend to accommodate additional run groups. Given arguments already put forth on how and why we currently have double weekends, it seems Chicago Region is willing to gamble on being able to go back to a single race format and still deliver a satisfying experience for all involved.
I haven't been involved in the operation of Chicago Region in over a decade, in 2025 it will be 15 years, but from what I've seen, the effort the region puts in to organizing the June Sprints should be a model for every other event in the country and, I've not seen that level of effort anywhere else.
It was notable when the region agreed to adopt the double race format. Having tried the format and made it successful, the June Sprints has earned the right to do whatever Chicago Region wants to do with it.
I would have no place to sleep! Mine is 6 x 12, smaller than a lot of open trailers.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob darcey
It is the big trailers AND the motorhomes……
John Paul Jr started it with a tractor trailer at Bryar with 4 spare engines and a spare CAR! :D
ChrisZ
I believe the reason is Chicago Region maintained control over the event, or was grandfathered in (this will be the 70th consecutive event). Smart move because they have the ability to tell SCCA how the June Sprints will be run, unlike all other Super Tours......my understanding of it anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Graham
People should be writing letters to the Florida regions explaining how and why they will not be running this year. I know they were pushing to get Homestead entries and paid to have it broadcast to advertise.
MFinn@FloridaRegionSCCA.com
stu.florida_region_scca@yahoo.com
Cory,Quote:
Originally Posted by cory mcleod
The difference is top end, tire grip and braking. FF and F6 pass vees at ~136 vs vees @106... FC passes vees at ~146 vs vees @ 106.. *AND* they have DOWNFORCE to enhance their braking. Vees are already at a SERIOUS disadvantage in the braking area due to tire size. A Vee has to let off the gas "long before" any of the FF/F6 and FC would make that an even worse situation. 'COULD' we race successfully together?.. absolutely. I've watched IMSA and similar races where the CLOSED WHEEL fast cars waited patiently for LAPS when stuck behind a pack of slow(er) cars .. but that's in endurance racing. Not nearly enough PATIENCE available in sprint races.. and it shows. Endurance cars can go LAPS DOWN and still win.. not so in sprint races, so patience is thin. At Sebring last year, I got passed by THREE FF @ T15.. NONE of them 'waited' despite the fact that I was already turning into the apex at full throttle. I was fortunate to be in a position that allowed ME to get out of the way (as best I could), but that is the ONLY option that a vee has.. being patient on our part is worthless.
The closing rate under braking against FV has to make it look EASY to outbrake the vee.. but that doesn't make it any more 'less dangerous' for the vee who has NO CONTROL over the situation.
That said, SCCA has decided to agree and remove the situation for all of us. FC will be happy where they are now.. and hopefully, FV will FIND A PLACE to race 'less dangerously'.... but apparently, it won't be with SCCA.
Steve, FV80
Thank you Brian S for the link. I have sent both parties an email.
Brian.
Ok, this made me laugh
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob darcey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Iverson
And $110k duallies.
On page 3 of the November Fastrack there is an interesting item. It SEEMS to be a "change" in this new SCCA plan .. or not?
SCCA Fastrack News November 2024 Page 3
(listed as - 2024 November Technical Bulletins on this page
https://www.scca.com/pages/fastrack-news )
GCR
...
General
1. #37203 (SCCA Staff) Classes to be included in U.S. Majors Tour Events.
RM 24-08 In GCR section 3.1.1.E make changes as follows:
E. C-lasses to be included in U.S. Majors Tour events:
1. All Majors-eligible classes will be included in Conference [and Super Tour](lined out) events.
[next item 2 is lined out]
2. Regional classes may be included in Majors run groups at Conference Majors events only. See also 3.1.1.1.F.2.b
[and replaced with]
2. A select number of Majors-eligible classes will be included in the Super Tour events. Included classes will be announced no later than December 1st prior to the start of the season.
3. Regional classes may be included in Majors run groups at Conference Majors events only. See also 3.1.1.1.F.2.b (this GCR reference is just about event REPORTING for events)
This change is also included in the November update to the GCR.
The new item 2 SEEMS to be saying that SOME classes (presumably one that are NOT automatically included in Super Tours (i.e. 'some' of the 'disinvited' classes?) *WILL* be invited to .... (ALL?) Super Tour events .... SCCA has already stated that SOME of the REGIONAL events will be specified to have Runoffs Points eligible class(es) included .. I think. Is THIS simply the 'declaration' of those events? BUT *THIS* says SUPER TOUR events. Will those classes just be 'pounded into' the existing run groups? Seems that's the only way they could retain the 'available track time' allowed groups.
I'm confused. I really have no idea what this is saying. I guess we MIGHT find out in about 3 weeks?
What do others read into this ... if anything?
Steve, FV80
In Line 1. How is a "conference event" defined?
In Line 3. How is a Conference Majors Event" defined?
Basically, how does that relate to a Divisional or Regional event? SEDIV does a combined Majors/SARRC event at Roebling. Almost all of the Regional events in SEDIV are SARRC (excepting some in Florida and Central Florida regions, of course). There are also the designated Majors / HST events at Homestead, RA, Sebring, etc.
This change, made via a Race Memo, eliminates the requirement that all Majors-eligible classes be included in Super Tour Events. It looks like there is simply a re-numbering of the paragraphs. I have been advised that the "alternate" events that will count for Major's points and participation will be announced shortly. I was also advised by one of the BoD that there has been confusion and some FF/FV participants believed that they could only run at Regionals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
See GCR Administrative Glossary Appendix A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farrout48
12. Event
An entire program of competitions. Also known as a “race event” or “race weekend”. This term includes all
sessions run under a single, or multiple sanction numbers. A race weekend is defined as a calendar period
of consecutive days. Multiple events run in the same calendar period will be considered one race weekend.
21. SCCA Conferences
Geographic segments of the SCCA established for the purpose of hosting U.S. Majors Tour events that result
in Conference Championships.
I was unable to find a definition of a 'regional event' in the GCR. So how many event designations ARE there?
Super Tour
Conference Major
Anything else is a 'regional event'? (SARRC, MARS, Driver's school, etc)
Divisional events are 'not defined' separately, so are regional events in the eyes of the GCR.
So.. really the change noted in my post above means that the classes allowed at the Super Tour level will be 'announced' (somewhere - unspecified) before the beginning of each year. Which is a means of being able to change that list every year without going through the GCR change process.. or until SCCA meets its desired 18 classes .. I guess.
I think I understand now.
Thanks for the explanation, John.
Steve
[QUOTE=Steve Davis;669723]On page 3 of the November Fastrack there is an interesting item. It SEEMS to be a "change" in this new SCCA plan .. or not?
SCCA Fastrack News November 2024 Page 3
(listed as - 2024 November Technical Bulletins on this page
https://www.scca.com/pages/fastrack-news )
GCR
...
General
1. #37203 (SCCA Staff) Classes to be included in U.S. Majors Tour Events.
RM 24-08 In GCR section 3.1.1.E make changes as follows:
E. C-lasses to be included in U.S. Majors Tour events:
1. All Majors-eligible classes will be included in Conference [and Super Tour](lined out) events.
[next item 2 is lined out]
2. Regional classes may be included in Majors run groups at Conference Majors events only. See also 3.1.1.1.F.2.b
[and replaced with]
2. A select number of Majors-eligible classes will be included in the Super Tour events. Included classes will be announced no later than December 1st prior to the start of the season.
3. Regional classes may be included in Majors run groups at Conference Majors events only. See also 3.1.1.1.F.2.b (this GCR reference is just about event REPORTING for events)
This change is also included in the November update to the GCR.
The new item 2 SEEMS to be saying that SOME classes (presumably one that are NOT automatically included in Super Tours (i.e. 'some' of the 'disinvited' classes?) *WILL* be invited to .... (ALL?) Super Tour events .... SCCA has already stated that SOME of the REGIONAL events will be specified to have Runoffs Points eligible class(es) included .. I think. Is THIS simply the 'declaration' of those events? BUT *THIS* says SUPER TOUR events. Will those classes just be 'pounded into' the existing run groups? Seems that's the only way they could retain the 'available track time' allowed groups.
I'm confused. I really have no idea what this is saying. I guess we MIGHT find out in about 3 weeks?
What do others read into this ... if anything?
Steve,
S Super
C Convoluted
C Confusing
A Association
I addressed this issue in my letter: "Once a class falls from Runoff qualification - and Majors participation - how can they ever re-acquire that qualification if they can't participate in Majors events - the 'thing' measured for qualification".Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
We'll have to see what they come up with and how that is going to be different than just looking at all participation in all club events - which is what we should have been using all along. Drivers are voting with/for the classes they run - regardless of what event they attend.
This whole thing just feels like a "mean girls" punishment on the playground.
"If you play at regionals you can't come to our party."
I am not sure I am answering the question that you are asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
FF/FV/F6 are each a Major's class; I would not anticipate that status to change in the foreseeable future. Before the recent GCR change, ALL Major's classes were included in the Super Tours; the new language no longer contains that requirement thus, FF/FV/F6 are no longer included in the Super Tour events. FF/FV are invited to Runoffs in 2025, F6 is not. Any Major's class that reaches a 5.0 average entry (trailing 2 years) receives an automatic invitation to Runoffs. Major's classes that do not reach that minimum may be invited but it is not automatic.
I will try to describe the conference and Super Tour (ST) program, someone may be able to do it better.
SCCA has Conferences that are defined by geography; points are earned by running Major's and/or ST races within the conference. If I participate in races in different conferences I earn points in each conference; I don't "belong" to a conference. I describe the Super Tour as a "non-geographical conference". Points earned at a ST race count towards the Super Tour points championship; they also count towards the geographical conference championship within which the ST race was held. (i.e. the ST race at Sebring would award points for both the ST Championship and the SE Conference Championship.)
The points and participation credit is the same for Conference Majors (Majors) and ST races. The biggest difference (IMHO) is that the ST races are at the bigger pro tracks and they feature the streaming video, common (traveling) stewards & tech, and award ceremonies. They also usually have a higher entry fee to pay for those bells and whistles. There are some criteria that are different for ST such as minimum race and non-race track time, but the above should come close to describing the differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
I am familiar that Majors and Supertours count for Majors P&P.Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
What are "alternate" events if not regionals (regionally run events)? Divisionals? SuperRegionals? FRP is not SCCA.
Can't be just divisional championships. They mainly happen after ROs.
Are they finally realizing they are losing racers to alternate series?
Are we disguising the unwinding all this hooey ?
Sorry if this makes the NASCAR points system seem like child's play. Regions, Areas, Divisions, Conferences and "non-geographical conference" Am I the only one with a headache?Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
Would be better with bullet points or a graph....the fact that they have to explain he explanation is telling....
ChrisZ
All this Super Tour and Conference stuff is so much better than the regional and national series that we had for 40 plus years :confused: Best six national finishes counted toward points and 2 could be out of division. Regional series ran in your division.
If a class fell below the participation level it lost runoffs eligibility. Then they had a clear guideline to build back up to a runoffs class. I think it was 2.5 per event and 2 years to recover above that.
No spread sheets or power points to explain the runoffs paths and clear guidelines to who could go to the runoffs.
Just my thought over the last 30 years I have been around the club
Darren
[QUOTE=Steve Davis;669730]
So.. really the change noted in my post above means that the classes allowed at the Super Tour level will be 'announced' (somewhere - unspecified) before the beginning of each year. Which is a means of being able to change that list every year without going through the GCR change process.. or until SCCA meets its desired 18 classes .. I guess.QUOTE]
Welp, that will immediately kill off whatever class isn't in the cool kids club. No one is going to buy a car knowing that in a year, they may have no place to race it and therefore turn their investment into something they are lucky to get a penny on the dollar for.
Just eliminate all but the 18 they want and get this over with already.
[QUOTE=reidhazelton;669749]When will SR'F' get the required Mazda engine and trans?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
My thoughts also - the old "KISS" adage. The present Runoffs qualification rules are confusing at best and are likely weeding out some drivers who otherwise would try to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Brown
While FV and FF may still be welcome at Runoffs - for the time being, at least - note that being booted from the Super Tour also means that these classes are now excluded from (obviously) crowning a Super Tour Nationwide Points Champion, and FF and FV drivers will be unable to compete for Super Sweep honors.
While those awards probably aren't on the radar for the vast majority of active racers - even at the national level - this further emphasizes IMO how the classes are being reduced and sidelined. :mad:
Last one please turn out the lights, eh?
[QUOTE=mmi16;669752]Isn't it essentially considered a Mazda now from the time of the Ford/Mazda corporate marriage?Quote:
Originally Posted by reidhazelton
Thought you were onto something Ian, so looked.
News to me, too… Ford hasn’t owned Mazda since 2014.
But I find myself curious if the former marriage had any alignment when Sports Renault became Spec Racer Ford…
(it’s okay, others find me “curious” as well sometimes) ;-)
See below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
The points system and program structure is a topic that has been on the table recently. Dare I suggest that anyone who would like to see a change put a letter into the system? https://www.crbscca.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Brown
There is no doubt that the points and qualifications path to Runoffs is overly complicated. It seems that each year something changes and catches someone out at the last minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveW
Off topic, I know, but my C-Spec Mazda MZR has "FoMoCo" embossed in the block. Does that make it a Ford?Quote:
Originally Posted by mmi16
If this was only a numbers problem this would be understandable.But it is not it has to do with taking a race group away to put something else (MX5 Cup) in its place.On the surface it may seem logical but it is not.It is a complete disregard for the members who have invested in these three classes.Many of these like myself have invested in these classes for more than 30 years and have supported the club in so doing.I had planned to run at least 3-4 super tours this year and now my class is not welcome.I suspect more Mazda money had corrupted the BOD and the CRB's vision of fairness.I would understand if there had been some warning and these classes had the chance to get numbers up.It looks like SCCA is wanting these cars to go elsewhere.I guess because we don't have fenders.
Mike - The CRB is not privy to much if any of the financials as I suspect you are aware having swam in these waters previously. Please direct your questions regarding those matters to the BoD and Staff; they don't monitor AS.Quote:
Originally Posted by M.Sauce
Andrew Abbott wrote a great letter that we're asking anyone who supports FF and FV to write to the CRB
The letter is
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Wo/mobilebasic
The letter to reference is #37307
The link to the CRB is
https://www.crbscca.com/
Would be greatly appreciated for anyone that takes the time.
Sent in a letter to support letter #37307
Tom Galuardi
FV 20
Excellent letter with many good points. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. JohnQuote:
Originally Posted by B Farnham
My letter has also been tendered .. #37349Quote:
Originally Posted by tgaluardi
Steve, FV80
I just don't see anything changing their minds. Participation is -not- the issue, we are getting cut no matter what.
"The FV, FF, and F600 classes are uniquely compatible with one another to form a run group, but not compatible with the makeup of other run groups within SCCA Road Racing competition"
https://www.scca.com/articles/201906...fv-ff-and-f600
https://www.scca.com/articles/201906...fv-ff-and-f600
This is so typical of the ready-fire-aim approach by the National Office. They trotted out the new HST groupings in isolation when anybody with the IQ of a turnip could have predicted the reaction from the affected classes.
Today's announcement is not as good as what it replaces, but it at least offers FV/FF/F6 an alternative. Why not bundle it in parallel with the original announcement, and mitigate the damage to some degree? I guess that would have been too sensible, too considerate, and requiring too much foresight.
I shake my head.
I know they aren't all in support of Andrew's letter, but there have been 40+ submissions in the last 3 days!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Davis
I agree with SCCA's decision in THAT regard... Vees are 'borderline' with FF and F6.. anything more than that is 'TOO MUCH'. Ergo, their decision to NIX all 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Clark
I'm not sure we're not BETTER OFF than we would be if SCCA *DECIDED* to force us into another group.. or force another class in with us in "our" group.
We can HOPE that SCCA might at least CONSIDER the options offered by Andrew's letter. Well done Andrew, though I suspect there were influences from several others as well.
Steve, FV80
I had the ARRC on my schedule for the end of the year, then they released the supps and schedule. $520 for 3 short sessions (I am not counting a 10 minute warmup 45 mins before a race as a session) is a farce, and the test day @$300 wasn't much better. The only way to make it work lap/$ was to do the TT on Sunday which we weren't allowed to enter. For effectively the same price I towed to Mid Ohio 3 weeks before and the OVR Autumn Classic event. A test day (on Friday not Thursday) with enough sessions that my neck gave out, Qualy + 3 Races. I even packed up and went home early Sunday because I felt like I got my money's worth and needed to be home for work Monday morning. We had 1 BFA all weekend with 27 cars on track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Also, frankly, the SCCA has said Regional participation doesn't matter for their calculations, so I went where there was way more competition and bang for my buck. At every other SARRC race this year small bore and/or big bore OW were in the top half of groupings size wise if not the largest, mostly bolstered by FV/FST in the small bore or Radicals in big bore group.
Maybe what needs to be gotten rid of are HST Weekends.
This has all the trappings of another run at eliminating the difference in event types, an argument originally used by the IT community to get around the categories regional only status.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS
Very much my thought, especially when you look at the August Mid-O weekend (which we plan to run, with either the P2 or HP car)... it's a Regional... which is sorta kinda a Majors... only for FV/FF/F6 it's basically a Super Tour! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Peter Olivola
What idiocy.