Here: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/news.cfm?cid=50899
Read their statement; it affects open wheel, as well.
Printable View
Here: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/news.cfm?cid=50899
Read their statement; it affects open wheel, as well.
Class consolidation pops up about every two years with turnover on the BoD. I've been hearing about this particular effort since mid December. The consensus seems to be 24 classes, but there are advocates for 16 classes and 20 classes. In any case, what I hear (and it seems to be born out by this advisory) is that the CRB will put two or three versions of the plan out at the Convention "for comment".
Stan, what's your best guess for the 24? How about the 20 or the 16?
Spec Miata
Super Spec Miata
Slightly Spec Miata
Stupendous Miata
Special Miata
Formula Miata
Formula Miata Enterprise
Formula Spec Miata
Miata Sports Racer
GT-Miata
GT-Miata Lite
Miata Production
Unlimited Miata
Limited Miata
Extreme Miata
Showroom Stock Miata
We should have better laughing emoticons. For now, I will just use this. :ha:Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Quote:
Originally Posted by NPalacioM3
Like this? http://i.imgur.com/u750n.gif
:ha::ha::ha::ha::thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Never thought to use a gif! Well played, sir. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
THAT is some funny sh*t, Josh. I owe you a beer at the Runoffs. :beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
I will gladly take you up on that if I make it out there.
Late Model MiataQuote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Miata Cup
Nationwide Miata
World of Outlaws Miata
Top Miata Fuel
Miata Modifieds
Drift Miata
Miata Legends
Slow Tintop
Fast Tintop
Slow open wheel
Fast open wheel
Spec something
Alrighty then, with all 24 now set, lets go make Mike Rand a rich man. Lets see if he'll impersonate Bernie with all that Open Wheel power!
Ken, I don't think anything less than 24 stands a snowball's chance in hell. At the end of the day this is a member-driven club and that just won't fly. If I were to waive a magic wand to get down to 24, here's my fist look.Quote:
Originally Posted by VehDyn
1. GT1
2. GT2
3. GTL (loses GT3)
4. STO
5. STU
6. STL
7. T1
8. T2 (loses T3)
9. SSB
10. B-Spec
11. EP
12. FP
13. HP
14. AS
15. SM
16. FA/B (includes FB with DSR engine rules @1050 lbs)
17. FC
18. FE
19. FF/5/6 (merges the two classes)
20. FV
21. FM
22. C/DSR (merges the classes)
23. S2
24. SRF
That's just quick & dirty. There may be better combos (like S2 in with C/DSR), but 24 is pretty doable.
Spec Racer Miata
Miata Sports Racers will get SIRs and additional ballast and be merged with Spec Racer Miata to get us back down to 24.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
What's B-Spec?
It's a subset of SSC with springs, ARBs and a few other bolt-on upgrades. They're very popular in the rest of the world and have made a strong start in SCCA (you would know of them as an SSC car).Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
And B-Spec has manufacturer support/involvement.
Really? I thought it was an open-source rules invention by MazdaSpeed & HPD (both north america only) and is not really based on any existing class/series. Do you have a source for the same rules being used elsewhere in ROW?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Tim, I should have said that the concept of a very cheap, entry level car with common sense, but strictly limited upgrades is very popular all over the world. "B-Spec" is SCCA's incarnation of the concept.
All the paddock lawyers happy now? :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
Rest of (Racing) World ;)
I have seen/read of announcements of B-Spec series from NASA, GrandAm, and World Challenge.
In other words, it's GT-Sh!tbox.
Uh no...that title is already claimed by GT-Lites. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Can we agree to get rid of all the GT classes except GT1? We would also bring back the turbocharged 4 cylinders to GT1.
This makes no sense. The whole point of the 2.5 rule was to have some sort of logical process in place for keeping the classes in check. The classes below the 2.5 limit have the smallest numbers, resulting in the least number of people affected.
Instead, the CRB is going to decide who gets to race and who doesn't.
Look again. All the mergers and loses are among the weaker classes. After all, you can't merge GT2 and CSR just because they are next to each other in the final class standings for the year. You have to account for performance and technology similarities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering
Class consolidation is always a perennial favorite among competitors...so long as it happens to someone else's class. ;)
1. GT1
2. GT2
3. GTL (loses GT3)
4. STO (AS goes into STO, or perhaps STU...)
5. STU
6. STL
7. T2 (T1 & T3 would reclassify into STO/U/L or SSB)
8. SSB
9. B-Spec
10. EP
11. FP
12. HP
13. SM
14. FA/B (includes FB with DSR engine rules @1050 lbs)
15. FC
16. FE/M (merges two already spec classes with minor perf. adj.)
17. FF/5/6 (rolls F500 and F600 into FF)
18. FV
19. C/DSR/S2 (merges them into a slightly revamped ASR rule set)
20. SRF
To get down to 16 classes you'd roll SSB and the three Prod classes into STU and STL.
*dusts off hands* :eek:
I think you have to find a way to keep FB and FA seperate, along with FF and F5/6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
Maybe moving S2 in with someone else makes better sense. Also, splitting GT2 into GT1 and/or GTL perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Sport Engineering
Stan, the point he was making was that the 2.5 rule weeded out the least popular classes, affecting fewer people. Instead of consolidating classes, undersubscribed classes lost their National status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Clayton
That has been replaced with consolidation, which is stupid, plain and simple. It pisses off every class, instead of only the least popular.
In an effort to offend nobody, SCCA will wind up offending everyone.
Yes, this is a member-driven club, but which "members" are in favor of consolidation? SCCA leadership has to grow some balls, eliminate the least subscribed classes, and build from there.
It is? They fooled me. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Valet
The simple solution is to revamp the whole National program to focus it only on the most subscribed classes (top 10 max.) that will be invited to compete at the Runoffs. Everyone else can continue to run Regionals. That way nobody "loses" their class, but if you can't even muster a minimum of at least five cars per race, what is the point?
Mike is too tall. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
No argument from me, Tom (and Michael), but the topic isn't "how do we impose the 2.5 rule". Instead, this time it's "how do we consolidate classes". :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tom Valet
Again, no argument from me. The CRB's last effort to reduce the number of classes was to enforce the 2.5 rule. Fine...except that the BoD would not pull the trigger. Now they've tasked the CRB to come up with another plan, and this time it's consolidation.Quote:
That has been replaced with consolidation, which is stupid, plain and simple. It pisses off every class, instead of only the least popular.
In an effort to offend nobody, SCCA will wind up offending everyone.
Yes, this is a member-driven club, but which "members" are in favor of consolidation? SCCA leadership has to grow some balls, eliminate the least subscribed classes, and build from there.
What do I think will actually happen? Nothing, or at least not much. This song has been playing for at least 30 years. I have copies of CRB papers from as far back as (IIRC) 1980, listing the CRB's "Number 1 Goal" as reducing the number of classes from 18 to 15. :rolleyes:
Actually, I suspect that this time we will get some movement, though nothing like the dramatic reduction some would like to see happen. I suppose they'll merge C/DSR and maybe S2. They may even rejigger the ST/T/SS classes somewhat to reduce the class load by a few, but nothing dramatic.
I have a simple question.
Why?
How does class elimination (let's call it what it is) benefit anyone? How does it improve anyone's weekend? The run groups will not change. What's the upside (given the huge downside)?
-Kyle
GT-****box #92 - BTW Stan - Feel free to stop by any time.
I like to freak out, but I think that we should at least wait and see what the plan is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Valet
I did think that the 2.5 rule, as it was to be implemented, was pretty reasonable. It was also objective and gave the competitors something to shoot for in the lower subscribed classes. I know that in FB it encouraged participation, I would guess that it did in other classes.
Combining regional and national racing is not going to work. I think there are enough experienced racers on the BOD and CRB to know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
I'll say. You guys should have been there when his mom deleted his World of Warcraft account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by starkejt
Here is how I'd run if I were to become Bernie:Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
https://docs.google.com/present/edit...hfMGdrYnBiZmZq
Enforcement of the 2.5 rule should have been carried out as designed.
"Consolidation" is a chickenpoop cop-out.
ditto
The suggestion is not really to combine them, although that makes sense too. However, it's funny you suggest that "experienced" racers know it couldn't work. NASA, BMWCCA, PCA, F1600, FRCCA, etc. must all have it wrong. Maybe that explains the phenomenal growth the SCCA has been experiencing over the past few decades. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wren
Interesting, and clearly a lot of thought went into that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
Very interesting slide show.
But, who says the "semi-pro" series want to join up with SCCA Club's bureaucracy? :rolleyes:
Also, realize SCCA is no longer the big dog that can easily schedule track time. Many other groups are willing to pay more for the same dates.
One critical point to consider. 12 entries in a class will not pay the bill for the track time you wish to deliver. Think in terms of at least 20-24 entries in a given class to pay the bills. (knowledge gained from 6 years of experience)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimW
I think the recent explosion of all the "pro" formula series really speaks to the undesirability of racing nationals in their current state. I know this year the nationals were a chore for us to run, and were considered boring, meaningless races to get out of the way so we could attend the runoffs.
Your idea of interlacing these pro series with the SCCA "club" racing scene makes a lot of sense to me. The SCCA gives sanctions to these series, and then sends them off to run all by themselves, basically with zero involvement from the club. One reservation I have with combining all the pro races into one weekend (like a more serious national event) is the fact that many people enter the pro races so that they get exposure to larger sanctioning bodies, like Grand-AM and IMSA. I'm not sure you can get that same level of exposure if you combine all the pro series together into one big weekend. Now granted, not every pro racing event is combined with a big time series like Grand-AM, but it's something to think about.
I also very much enjoy the idea of having the pro series tied to the runoffs. When the national series and the pro series are separate and distinct, you have a vulturing problem where they eat into each other. Very few people will make the effort to do both a full national season and a full pro series season, it's just a lot of money and a lot of time. There has to be a way for club racing and pro racing to integrate and help each other out, and I think you are on the right track. Plus, if there are two multiple series (east/west) for a given class, it makes sense to have them meet up at the runoffs to run head to head.
Anyway, I'm not sure much of what I said made too much sense - but I suppose the gist of my rambling was that I agree with you in that the club should be more integrated with the numerous emerging pro series.
SCCA still has something the pro series needs: trained and quality emergency workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Having spoken to a few series leaders in the past 2 years they all agree hope is not an emergency response plan. But that is all they have had to go on with some of the partners they have bought track time from, which is the perspective they shared with me.
The semi-pro series are going to kill national racing anyway so lets just be done with. But until the pro series have a level of scale they are going to do so in a much riskier environment, for themselves and the competitors. Everyone can benefit from a little cooperation and not be territorial, IMO.
Tim
Reality is listed above. Tell me how many classes will have 20-24 average entries per weekend? The SCCA can't even enforce the 2.5 rule as they are too worried about hurting feelings & losing racers. These other series are run as a business, not as a club & most classes would be eliminated so I don't see that as working. The benefits of the organizations working together as listed are not near great enough for the semi-pro series to even consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Interestingly, at least in the East, many of the good SCCA workers have gotten to retirement age. So now they are supplementing their retirement by working for $ as corner workers for the tracks.
Many times i see the same workers if it's a SCCA club event, or a pro rental weekend.
Not always though. :(
Is there really a need to run Nationals and Regionals? To me, it doesn't make sense, besides the skill factor of having a National License vs a Regional, but I think that can be dealt with. Have "divisional" standings that dictate who goes to the runoffs and do away with Regional and National. Then we would be able to get respectable car counts for each class on a consistent basis. Entry fees would be able to go down and it would be more fun racing for everyone. Hopefully would eliminate running by yourself of with very few cars in your class.