New formula and prototype classes

[Daryl DeArman]

No, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of my generation. None of us have $500 car payments. Not. Even. Close. Only one of us (me) even has a car payment. None of us have iPhone Xs, I have a five year old Samsung S7. No latte habit.

If by "us" you are speaking of your friends, I can't argue that, I don't know them. If "none of us" is your generation, I couldn't disagree more. For example, marketing research shows that millennials spend more on food, alcohol, apparel and transportation categories than any other generation.

is where it turns to "priorities". From experience I can tell you what a college grad has to give up to race SCCA. When the choice is to go racing, or have a girlfriend or wife, start a family, social time with friends, financial stability, a new car, own a house, or even eat normal food like a human being, it's a really hard sell. To go racing, I drove a 15 year old Dodge Neon my folks sold me in college for super cheap, rarely went out with friends, rarely ate out, constantly irritated my girlfriend, borrowed a truck to tow my 20 year old trailer I bartered for. I remember a winter that I even stopped on the way home from work to collect wood on the side of the road to burn in my fireplace to save on heating costs. At the track and night, by Dad and I would go to the Hoosier tent, ask for the used wheel weights, and spend the night cleaning the tape and sticky stuff off so we could reuse them or melt them down to make ballast.

That was what it took to race on an above average recent grad salary. Even at that, I was barely hanging on.

Pitch that to someone who wants to race and see how many takers you get.

PS. Member dues don't keep the lights on if no one shows up at the track. They could have a million membership, but if no one goes to the track, so what?

My wife had a "bake sale" at my work, and I sold ahem, "vintage" denim to pay some racing in my early 20's. I also raced back then out of a pick up truck with a conduit and harbor freight canopy. So I hear you when it comes to what you and I were willing to do. I also understand there won't be a lot of takers, but it's because of the sacrifices required that most aren't willing to make.

If no one shows up at the track, no need for lights. Million memberships with no product you need to deliver? The club would be in much better financial shape. Kind of like the 90+% of gym memberships that get used less than once a month. You think those gym owners want more people using/abusing their equipment and facilities? Heck no, they want just enough activity to entice new members to join.

[reidhazelton]

My wife had a "bake sale" at my work, and I sold ahem, "vintage" denim to pay some racing in my early 20's. I also raced back then out of a pick up truck with a conduit and harbor freight canopy. So I hear you when it comes to what you and I were willing to do. I also understand there won't be a lot of takers, but it's because of the sacrifices required that most aren't willing to make.

.

Man, that had to be a **** ton of cookies!

And that is my whole point - there are very few people willing to make that type of effort. If SCCA wants more customers, SCCA needs to make it require less sacrifice. It's an elastic relationship; the easier it is the more people who will participate. It's become difficult to the point due to cost that less people can afford to do it. It's not a good business model to require or assume people will go to extreme lengths to buy SCCA's product.

The costs need to come down. Significantly.

[Peter Olivola]

Man, that had to be a **** ton of cookies!

And that is my whole point - there are very few people willing to make that type of effort. If SCCA wants more customers, SCCA needs to make it require less sacrifice. It's an elastic relationship; the easier it is the more people who will participate. It's become difficult to the point due to cost that less people can afford to do it. It's not a good business model to require or assume people will go to extreme lengths to buy SCCA's product.

The costs need to come down. Significantly.

I have to assume you mean loosen the safety regs because SCCA only gets $62.50 for a Majors entry and less than $50 for a Regional entry. Entry fees have already been discussed and track rental identified as the major driving item.

[reidhazelton]

I have to assume you mean loosen the safety regs because SCCA only gets $62.50 for a Majors entry and less than $50 for a Regional entry. Entry fees have already been discussed and track rental identified as the major driving item.

$60 wouldn't be my definition of significant, no.

More than entry fees need to be reduced. $80k cars for a new FF is not sustainable. With all the genies out of the bottle, I don't think you can save it. What Jay and Steve Lathrop describe as a modern FF with a motorcycle drivetrain is what's needed. Price cap shocks at $800ea, stock bike engines means bone stock, FST type wheel rules (13x6, min weight). For an FF, you have about $25k between just the engine and transmission. Unlimited shocks, super trick gearboxes, crazy light wheels, etc all made it so if you want the last 5% you need to spend crazy money.

It's really not rocket surgery, and I don't mean that as an insult. It's just basic high school econ. The more it costs the fewer people there are who can afford it. How many people have $80k street cars? Those who don't, do we think they could swing an $80k race car? If we want fields like there were in the 80s, then the costs need to be proportionate to mean income at the time. Steve Lathrop had a great analysis many years ago that showed mean income in relation to the cost of a new car, broken down by decade. He showed that a new car would have to be something like $30k to keep pace with wages. it would be very interesting to see that analysis applied to today's numbers. I'm sure it would not be pretty.

[Bob Wright]

Having read the above...Is it all of SCCA or just OWR that has this issue? I see SRF, SM, not to mention autocross, as being quite healthy, or is that a false reading? I know a bunch of my son's friends spend a lot of money on their street cars; enough to go FF racing if they chose. Look at the attendance of the Chin Driving experience, or Hooked on Driving or the various car clubs; they draw hundreds of entries to their weekends.

Reid, I did everything you did when I first started racing at age 21. I was totally addicted and had no social life outside the sport. I could only afford to race 3-4 times a year, if that and ate peanut butter, scarfed used tires off the discard pile, slept in a tent. When I couldn't afford to race, I flagged. I was not alone doing that. I dragged friends into the sport, some still go to the track with me 45 years later, a couple made a career in motorsports, others didn't. I don't think that passion is lost, I think it is directed other places in this culture. How do you learn how to work on a race car? Time, trial and error, observation unless you grow up in a family that did it. My father never even had a driver's license and I grew up in NYC without any family car- I'm completely self taught so that's not an excuse either. I pursue my day job so I can go racing. If you're sufficiently motivated you'll figure it out- question is how to motivate the next generation to sample OWR.

I wrote this before Reid's last post...Race cars cost what they cost. $80K for a new FF is what it is. Can you buy one for half that? Yes. Do you think a front running SM is any less? This kind of racing is not for everybody, but I submit there are plenty of people in this world who can afford it, but are motivated elsewhere (have you seen the price of boats recently? They make race cars look cheap and there are plenty of them sold every year)

[B Farnham]

$60 wouldn't be my definition of significant, no.

More than entry fees need to be reduced. $80k cars for a new FF is not sustainable. With all the genies out of the bottle, I don't think you can save it. What Jay and Steve Lathrop describe as a modern FF with a motorcycle drivetrain is what's needed. Price cap shocks at $800ea, stock bike engines means bone stock, FST type wheel rules (13x6, min weight). For an FF, you have about $25k between just the engine and transmission. Unlimited shocks, super trick gearboxes, crazy light wheels, etc all made it so if you want the last 5% you need to spend crazy money.

It's really not rocket surgery, and I don't mean that as an insult. It's just basic high school econ. The more it costs the fewer people there are who can afford it. How many people have $80k street cars? Those who don't, do we think they could swing an $80k race car? If we want fields like there were in the 80s, then the costs need to be proportionate to mean income at the time. Steve Lathrop had a great analysis many years ago that showed mean income in relation to the cost of a new car, broken down by decade. He showed that a new car would have to be something like $30k to keep pace with wages. it would be very interesting to see that analysis applied to today's numbers. I'm sure it would not be pretty.

The natural progression used to be FV-FF-FC-FA but you dont see too many FV guys jumping up the ladder anymore.

I'd love to run in FF over the FV I currently drive but being a younger guy there is no way that I could afford to be competitive. In some ways I think the prep shops showing up to the runoffs have hurt peoples ambitions. Why spend all that money on the runoffs and the majors leading up to it knowing you have no chance if you're not with a team?

With FF if you dont show up with Pelfrey, K-Hill or Rice there is no way that you're going to win without spending a boat load of cash. The same can be said for FC and FA.

At least with FV you can still build your own car and be competitive without having to pay someone else to set it up. I think that along with the cost of entry and rules stability is why FV hasn't declined as much as the other classes.

[Bob Wright]

Not sure I agree you have to be with (KHill, Pelfrey or Rice) to be competitive. We see other FF drivers with no big team behind them (a couple of father/son pairs come to mind) who can be competitive on any given weekend. The big teams have plenty of skill and experience, but that's not the be all end all to making a FF go fast.

FC- our series champion sleeps in his trailer, has one volunteer crew with him most weekends and does all his own prep work. FA is a different animal, as it probably should be.

[Daryl DeArman]

Man, that had to be a **** ton of cookies!

Just trying to cover entry fee and a set of tires. Yep, lots of rice crispy treats too

And that is my whole point - there are very few people willing to make that type of effort. <snip>The costs need to come down. Significantly

Agreed to the first statement. Your solution is to make it cheaper, my solution is to improve the experience. I don't care how cheap you make a crap sandwich, I'm not buying. On the other hand, there's a whole lot people willing to spend on a nice steak dinner.

[Zach Rivard]

I'd love to run in FF over the FV I currently drive but being a younger guy there is no way that I could afford to be competitive. In some ways I think the prep shops showing up to the runoffs have hurt peoples ambitions. Why spend all that money on the runoffs and the majors leading up to it knowing you have no chance if you're not with a team?

With FF if you dont show up with Pelfrey, K-Hill or Rice there is no way that you're going to win without spending a boat load of cash.

Having run both our own car and with a pro team, the car isn't what makes the pro teams so fast (unfortunately lol).

[B Farnham]

Not sure I agree you have to be with (KHill, Pelfrey or Rice) to be competitive. We see other FF drivers with no big team behind them (a couple of father/son pairs come to mind) who can be competitive on any given weekend. The big teams have plenty of skill and experience, but that's not the be all end all to making a FF go fast.

FC- our series champion sleeps in his trailer, has one volunteer crew with him most weekends and does all his own prep work. FA is a different animal, as it probably should be.

From looking through the results out of the 2019 season out of 7 weekends the three big teams grabbed 60 out of 63 podium positions. Which is understandable as it's the pro series. The Runoffs however have been dominated by the pro teams since K-Hill showed up at Mid-Ohio in 2016.

It's not impossible to be competitive but you're not going to get it done with a 30K car that you're prepping yourself. I'm just speaking from an outsider looking in that those are the reasons why I wont be making the jump to FF anytime soon.

[reidhazelton]

If you're sufficiently motivated you'll figure it out- question is how to motivate the next generation to sample OWR.

I'm not picking on you, but I'm beating a dead horse here. This is a generational disconnect and that's not meant as an insult or a dig. I ask again, how many people will go to the lengths you did when you were getting started? Very few - then, or now. However, make incomes stagnant for 40 years, increase the cost or racing significantly, strap yourself with insane student loan debt (4-year or 2-year, it's still a lot), realize you have to start saving day one out of college if you want any hope of retiring, pay your own healthcare as many employers have kicked the can on that one, and that makes what you did in your 20's impossible today with what people in their 20s and 30s face. There is no amount of motivation that will allow most recent college grads to drop $80k for a new car, or even $30k on a decent used one. We all know buying the car is the cheap part.

Or, ask this. How many people from 2005 to current, under the age of 25 have come into SCCA FC/FF on their own dime?

I know of two, maybe three.

Now, how many go run Chumpcar where they can split the expenses on a very cheap car between three or four people? What's the average age in Chump? Average age in SCCA? I'd bet there is a near identical trend line between average age and costs to run the events.

My generation is motivated, they are just going elsewhere to do it. Which - like in business and nearly everywhere else, there is more competition. Autox, Chump, LeMons, or even other sports like wind surfing, rock climbing, extreme mountain biking, trials bikes, etc. All other activities adrenaline junkies can get their fix that cost way, way less than racing.

Things that are impossible are not made possible by increasing motivation. They are made possible by changing the factors that made them impossible.

[reidhazelton]

Another thought - send someone from SCCA to a ChumpCar event and survey the entrants. Those who know about SCCA, why did they choose Chump over SCCA? I have one guess.

Cost.

Small sample I know, but I know of two groups of people who run Chump and they did that over SM SCCA because it was literally 20% of the cost.

[Peter Olivola]

$60 wouldn't be my definition of significant, no.

More than entry fees need to be reduced. $80k cars for a new FF is not sustainable. With all the genies out of the bottle, I don't think you can save it. What Jay and Steve Lathrop describe as a modern FF with a motorcycle drivetrain is what's needed. Price cap shocks at $800ea, stock bike engines means bone stock, FST type wheel rules (13x6, min weight). For an FF, you have about $25k between just the engine and transmission. Unlimited shocks, super trick gearboxes, crazy light wheels, etc all made it so if you want the last 5% you need to spend crazy money.

It's really not rocket surgery, and I don't mean that as an insult. It's just basic high school econ. The more it costs the fewer people there are who can afford it. How many people have $80k street cars? Those who don't, do we think they could swing an $80k race car? If we want fields like there were in the 80s, then the costs need to be proportionate to mean income at the time. Steve Lathrop had a great analysis many years ago that showed mean income in relation to the cost of a new car, broken down by decade. He showed that a new car would have to be something like $30k to keep pace with wages. it would be very interesting to see that analysis applied to today's numbers. I'm sure it would not be pretty.

None of that does anything for parked cars. We don't have the luxury of starting from a clean slate. When FF started there were many manufacturers, dealers and prep shops. The market was literally flooded overnight with cars to meet the demand. As good as Steve is, there's no way he can supply sufficient equipment to duplicate that situation. Then there's the problem of creating yet another new class.

As Bob pointed out, is this a universal problem or something unique to formula cars? Other classes are still healthy. What's unique about formula cars? In my opinion, 1996 was the watershed year. The CART/IRL split has had a serious and ongoing negative impact on all formula car racing in the U.S. Nothing said so far seems willing to acknowledge that the biggest problem was and remains outside SCCA's control. It's outside competitor's control. The effort to try an blame SCCA for any of this is misplaced and isn't just counter productive, it creates an environment where we're eating ourselves. Between the Indy car split and the 2008 economic meltdown it's time to recognize that the problem is external and my not be fixable without an improving middle class economy and growth in popularity of Indycar.

[B Farnham]

Having run both our own car and with a pro team, the car isn't what makes the pro teams so fast (unfortunately lol).

It's not but if you have two drivers of the same calibur and you stick one in a Mygale and the other in a Swift it's not a straight up battle. The guy in the Swift may be able to hang on for a bit but the car wont be as consistent nor as easy to drive and all it takes is a tenth here and a tenth there.

The top teams do their homework and are phenomenal at car prep, your average joe just cant match that. That may be a reason why some cars are sitting.

[reidhazelton]

None of that does anything for parked cars. We don't have the luxury of starting from a clean slate.

All true. But I don't see a solution with the current class structure. If you want the old cars to come back and play, they need to be competitive. Mine is parked because it's no longer competitive. Time marches on, I get that. But so does cost, and fewer people can afford to pay to play.

FP and EP did a great job in creating a Prep Level 1 and Prep Level 2 rule structures to allow the Triumphs to be competitive with the Miatas. No one felt they had to go buy a new car to be competitive. The formula class structure doesn't have that luxury.

[Daryl DeArman]

How many people have $80k street cars?

I know your question was rhetorical, and likely posed believing you were making a point. However, I believe you would be surprised to learn the answer. According to some sales figures from an US Car sales database, about 918,000+/- were sold in the USA just last year. So, I'd venture to guess at least 5,000,000 of them are currently driven/registered in the USA.

[Peter Olivola]

All true. But I don't see a solution with the current class structure. If you want the old cars to come back and play, they need to be competitive. Mine is parked because it's no longer competitive. Time marches on, I get that. But so does cost, and fewer people can afford to pay to play.

FP and EP did a great job in creating a Prep Level 1 and Prep Level 2 rule structures to allow the Triumphs to be competitive with the Miatas. No one felt they had to go buy a new car to be competitive. The formula class structure doesn't have that luxury.

Are you seriously suggesting abandoning existing cars to start a new class? Are you seriously suggesting applying production car thinking to formula cars? How would you envision a limited prep FF?

[reidhazelton]

Are you seriously suggesting abandoning existing cars to start a new class? Are you seriously suggesting applying production car thinking to formula cars? How would you envision a limited prep FF?

No. But, as it is trending that will happen anyway. Look at FC.

No.

And, I don't. Just showing one way it worked to make the old stuff play nice with the new stuff.

[reidhazelton]

I know your question was rhetorical, and likely posed believing you were making a point. However, I believe you would be surprised to learn the answer. According to some sales figures from an US Car sales database, about 918,000+/- were sold in the USA just last year. So, I'd venture to guess at least 5,000,000 of them are currently driven/registered in the USA.

Now compare that quantity to how many people bought new cars that cost $30k or less. I'm going to take a wild guess and say more.

I know you agree - the more it costs, the less who will buy. That's the point. More people buy $30k daily drivers than $80k daily drivers.

[Daryl DeArman]

However, make incomes stagnant for 40 years, increase the cost or racing significantly, strap yourself with insane student loan debt (4-year or 2-year, it's still a lot), realize you have to start saving day one out of college if you want any hope of retiring, pay your own healthcare as many employers have kicked the can on that one, and that makes what you did in your 20's impossible today with what people in their 20s and 30s face. There is no amount of motivation that will allow most recent college grads to drop $80k for a new car, or even $30k on a decent used one. We all know buying the car is the cheap part.

Incomes are not stagnant, and certainly haven't been stagnant for the last 40 years, that's a myth. Look to the CBO or Department of Labor for stats if interested. Have they kept up with the cost of racing? Perhaps not. Some things are much cheaper in 2019 dollars than they were adjusted for 1980 dollars, other things not so much.

Insane student loan debt is a choice.

Things that are impossible are not made possible by increasing motivation. They are made possible by changing the factors that made them impossible.

We put a man on the moon because we were motivated.

[Peter Olivola]

No. But, as it is trending that will happen anyway. Look at FC.

No.

And, I don't. Just showing one way it worked to make the old stuff play nice with the new stuff.

Reid, seriously, you need to get out more, i.e., listen to the prod community's back and forth about the perceived failure of the attempt to equalize old British sports cars with modern machinery. The current gnawing point is brakes.

One of the formula classes real problems is people making rules with little or no formula car background and a surfeit of production car experience. The club has been trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. We barely have formula classes at all. The current GCR is full of examples. When formula classes have spec lines it's no longer racing to a formula.

[Steve Bamford]

Thank you both. I very much appreciate the praise, especially considering the source. Thank you.

For me, there is ZERO chance I would have been able to run at the front, or even get in the game, if the current state as we see it was around in 2007. I bought a car out of college for $14k. After a few years and a ton of homework I made it work, and was able to drive it. Entry fees were about $300 Runoffs entry was $500. Each time I said "uh..you can't keep raising the price" people said that a hundred bucks was nothing in the grand scheme of things. Well, for one, it is. And two, say that ten or fifteen times and see how many people get priced out.

The entry costs are prohibitive for 99% of the population. I could afford $1,500 a year for engine expenses, I could not have afforded $30k+ for a Honda car that costs maybe $300 a year in engine expenses. That is the barrier. People then said "Oh, just sit out a year, save the money, and convert to a Honda." Uh, really? That's the solution? Stop being an income for SCCA, so you can later come back to SCCA? And, to make up the difference I would have had to sit out about three years. Bad sales pitch if you ask me.

Just as Jay and many others have said, it doesn't matter how cheap the car is to run - if it costs $80K people can't afford to enter. It could be free to run, but how many people can drop eighty large in one hit? Not many. The more expensive it is, the fewer people there are who can afford it. Period.

Just compare what a competitive used car cost in 2007. You could get a 98 VD for around $20k, or $14k in my case. Now, you can't touch a competitive car for under $30k.

But didn't you win or finish on the podium of some pretty big races in the last 3 or so years? Didn't you lead many pretty big races over the last 6-7 years when the Honda was well established with the same car you paid 14 k for?

My point is no matter how you did it, you actually did it without a 30 K plus car or large prep team. The point is weren't with a large prep team or spend more $'s then what you did is my point. You are proof it can be done. Yes costs have continued to increase for SCCA racing faster then inflation rate however that is due to many factors. Back to the point you proved it can be done, you are not the only one who has proved this either.

It is much easier to think of reasons why you can't be competitive rather then do the work required to actually be competitive. The car is only piece of puzzle.

[Jim Nash]

The entry costs are prohibitive for 99% of the population. I could afford $1,500 a year for engine expenses, I could not have afforded $30k+ for a Honda car that costs maybe $300 a year in engine expenses. That is the barrier. People then said "Oh, just sit out a year, save the money, and convert to a Honda." Uh, really? That's the solution? Stop being an income for SCCA, so you can later come back to SCCA? And, to make up the difference I would have had to sit out about three years. Bad sales pitch if you ask me.

The above was not an SCCA sales pitch. It was a path to continue to race. The club would not have missed your income. People come and go all the time. Looking at FF, if you had sat out 3 years you can see its still going. Granted there seems to be some sarcasm in there but I am not sure if the sarcasm related to the "sales pitch" or you providing the SCCA with "income" or both.

Using your logic the SCCA must have said you needed to "give up a girlfriend or wife, starting a family, social time with friends, financial stability, a new car, owning a house,or even eating food like a normal human being" as their sales pitch. You bought that one right? Well, there was no sales pitch. You did that on your own. You wanted to go racing and that was the path you needed to take. Maybe you have different priorities now. That happens in life.

Blaming the SCCA, road racing specifically, like it is some kind of well funded corporation or government entity that has an obligation to make things affordable for recent college grads in their 20s is a waste of time. Come to think of it, if it was a corporation it probably would have dropped out of the formula car business a long time ago. Soaks up too many resources than it is worth and likely harms the closed wheel businesses.

Jim

[924RACR]

My generation is motivated, they are just going elsewhere to do it. Which - like in business and nearly everywhere else, there is more competition. Autox, Chump, LeMons, or even other sports like wind surfing, rock climbing, extreme mountain biking, trials bikes, etc. All other activities adrenaline junkies can get their fix that cost way, way less than racing.

Pulling this out to quote again for more emphasis - this is exactly right, and needs to be highlighted as central to the problem of growing formula car racing.

The attitude that "you can make it happen if you're motivated enough" is the surest way to close the book on amateur formula car racing. Sure, it's possible - but if I wanna bake a cake, why in the name of all that's holy would I choose to start by planting a field of wheat?!? Only stupid or obstinate people choose that path.

Which is why I decided to build my own prototype - but I NEVER try to recruit others to Prototypes. If you don't want it enough to become a massive pain in my backside wanting to know how to do it - there's better, easier places to go play, starting with a Miata.

But formula cars aren't, and shouldn't, be that way. FF/F500/F600 should be as easy to get into as SM's; currently, seems like only FV is. I guess that explains why it's still doing well - to paint with broad strokes.

Is it really that accessible? Shouldn't we be pointing that out to potential drivers, as much as making it accessible?

(and yes, I do wish there were a prototypes class in a similar state, but that's another ignored thread...)

[John Nesbitt]

Incomes are not stagnant, and certainly haven't been stagnant for the last 40 years, that's a myth. Look to the CBO or Department of Labor for stats if interested. Have they kept up with the cost of racing? Perhaps not. Some things are much cheaper in 2019 dollars than they were adjusted for 1980 dollars, other things not so much.

Insane student loan debt is a choice.



We put a man on the moon because we were motivated.

I seem to recall an exchange a couple of years ago about 'choices', so I won't go there again.

Certainly incomes and prices have moved over the years. So, also, has income distribution. TVs and telecoms cost less in inflation-adjusted dollars than 50 years ago. However, health care and education costs have far exceeded the general growth of the consumer price index (CPI), as has housing in many markets. Those land heavily on the sort of middle-class families from whom SCCA recruited its members. Since 1982, the distribution of income and wealth has skewed heavily toward the 1%, again limiting the number of people with the discretionary income to go racing.

Motivation and choice certainly factor in. Racing is about as discretionary as discretionary spending gets. Reid was willing to forego the trappings of middle class life, including family, but he is an outlier. Few people would be willing to make those sacrifices. I certainly would not have. We cannot rebuild open wheel racing by demanding that level of sacrifice.

[John Nesbitt]

Incomes, prices, and distribution have all changed over the years.

Consider this. In 1968, a first-generation FF (Lotus 51, Renault 'box, Cortina engine, steel wheels) cost about Corvette money. Today, a new FF costs about Corvette money. Factor in the qualitative improvements in race cars (shocks, data, wheels, engine, gearbox), and today's new FF arguably costs 'less' than 50 years ago.

On edit: Of course, Corvettes have seen similar qualitative improvements in that time. Plus, they don't cost $1K or $2K to run each weekend.

[reidhazelton]

But didn't you win or finish on the podium of some pretty big races in the last 3 or so years? Didn't you lead many pretty big races over the last 6-7 years when the Honda was well established with the same car you paid 14 k for?

My point is no matter how you did it, you actually did it without a 30 K plus car or large prep team. The point is weren't with a large prep team or spend more $'s then what you did is my point. You are proof it can be done. Yes costs have continued to increase for SCCA racing faster then inflation rate however that is due to many factors. Back to the point you proved it can be done, you are not the only one who has proved this either.

It is much easier to think of reasons why you can't be competitive rather then do the work required to actually be competitive. The car is only piece of puzzle.

Hey Steve -

It's been many years since I've run my car in SCCA. The last season I did was the last Runoffs at RA. I won't get into the Honda/Ford can of worms. Not the point of this thread.

And yes, I did. It can be done, but I could not do it now with the current state of things. My whole point is that the more barrier to entry, the fewer people there will be who can play.

[reidhazelton]

The above was not an SCCA sales pitch. It was a path to continue to race. The club would not have missed your income. People come and go all the time. Looking at FF, if you had sat out 3 years you can see its still going. Granted there seems to be some sarcasm in there but I am not sure if the sarcasm related to the "sales pitch" or you providing the SCCA with "income" or both.

Using your logic the SCCA must have said you needed to "give up a girlfriend or wife, starting a family, social time with friends, financial stability, a new car, owning a house,or even eating food like a normal human being" as their sales pitch. You bought that one right? Well, there was no sales pitch. You did that on your own. You wanted to go racing and that was the path you needed to take. Maybe you have different priorities now. That happens in life.

Blaming the SCCA, road racing specifically, like it is some kind of well funded corporation or government entity that has an obligation to make things affordable for recent college grads in their 20s is a waste of time. Come to think of it, if it was a corporation it probably would have dropped out of the formula car business a long time ago. Soaks up too many resources than it is worth and likely harms the closed wheel businesses.

Jim

You missed my point. Every winter the "where is the new blood" debate comes up. I've avoided it the last few years because this is how it goes.

Again, if that is the pitch SCCA makes - how many takers are there? The whole point is making entry to racing easier and more achievable to more people. SCCA is solely in charge of the factors that raise the cost.

If making it affordable for someone in their 20s is a waste of time, they don't even count on seeing anyone under the age of 50 at an SCCA event.

[reidhazelton]

I seem to recall an exchange a couple of years ago about 'choices', so I won't go there again.

Certainly incomes and prices have moved over the years. So, also, has income distribution. TVs and telecoms cost less in inflation-adjusted dollars than 50 years ago. However, health care and education costs have far exceeded the general growth of the consumer price index (CPI), as has housing in many markets. Those land heavily on the sort of middle-class families from whom SCCA recruited its members. Since 1982, the distribution of income and wealth has skewed heavily toward the 1%, again limiting the number of people with the discretionary income to go racing.

Motivation and choice certainly factor in. Racing is about as discretionary as discretionary spending gets. Reid was willing to forego the trappings of middle class life, including family, but he is an outlier. Few people would be willing to make those sacrifices. I certainly would not have. We cannot rebuild open wheel racing by demanding that level of sacrifice.

My man.

Preach!

[reidhazelton]

Reid, seriously, you need to get out more, i.e., listen to the prod community's back and forth about the perceived failure of the attempt to equalize old British sports cars with modern machinery. The current gnawing point is brakes.

One of the formula classes real problems is people making rules with little or no formula car background and a surfeit of production car experience. The club has been trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. We barely have formula classes at all. The current GCR is full of examples. When formula classes have spec lines it's no longer racing to a formula.

Yeah, it was a total failure for the prod groups. They failed themselves right into 50 car fields. What a bunch of morons.

It's not perfect, but who has 50 cars at the June Sprints, and who has 5?

[Peter Olivola]

Yeah, it was a total failure for the prod groups. They failed themselves right into 50 car fields. What a bunch of morons.

It's not perfect, but who has 50 cars at the June Sprints, and who has 5?

Then, perhaps, it has nothing to do with anything you've been advocating and much to do with the diminished attraction to formula car racing vs production based classes.

It seems to me, you're advocating for a new formula car class at a lower price point to attract a demographic that is being pressured by an income disparity. You've also mentioned your friends spending money on their street cars as evidence they can spend money. Don't leave out the inescapable reality that money spent on a street car still provides a street car. Formula cars have never been about convenience.

I'd like to see a plan that accomplishes what you think should be done.

[John LaRue]

Yeah, it was a total failure for the prod groups. They failed themselves right into 50 car fields. What a bunch of morons.

It's not perfect, but who has 50 cars at the June Sprints, and who has 5?

You should love FX!

[tige00]

It doesnt matter how easy you make it to get into racing. Easier, and cheaper mean nothing to these mellinials they dont care about racing, they only care about their phones and and their price burners on the street. Racing is to difficult and takes alot off patience and time away from alot of things which the youth will not do and cannot do, also they would whine about parody because they didn't get a trophy, so no matter what you come up with they will still not be there it's a fact. Face it it's not like it used to be and it will never be if you want to be in a big field go SRF, or Miata. Plain and simple so just go out race your car and have fun, at some point everything changes. Be happy you have a place to run, they could just end the class all together instead of trying to merge it. So get on board so you can race. After all isnt it what it is all about.

[Steve Bamford]

Hey Steve -

It's been many years since I've run my car in SCCA. The last season I did was the last Runoffs at RA. I won't get into the Honda/Ford can of worms. Not the point of this thread.

And yes, I did. It can be done, but I could not do it now with the current state of things. My whole point is that the more barrier to entry, the fewer people there will be who can play.

Maybe I'm missing something but didn't you run your car recently & do very well, maybe not SCCA but another racing group then competing in FF???????

[reidhazelton]

Here are my final points.

The more expensive racing becomes, the fewer people there are who will be able to afford it.

The more life sacrifices someone has to make to go racing, the fewer there will be who are willing to make those sacrifices to race.

Also, take a look back at the thread. You have three younger (by SCCA standards at least) saying why they don't/can't participate. This is how this conversation always goes.

I would suggest that people go back and read over the thread. Look at the attitude towards the next generation of would-be racers, and how they are viewed and treated.

SCCA: "Man, where is the next generation of racers?"

NextGen: "Doing other stuff because it's prohibitively expensive."

S: "Nah, it's fine. You're just not motivated enough."

N: "No amount of motivation is going to allow me to drop $40k on a car, and $20k a year to race when I make $50k a year. It's prohibitively expensive."

S: "You just expect everything to be free. Racing costs money, deal with it."

N: "Well, no. But I have to be responsible with my spending and not bankrupt myself just to go racing."

S: "Well, there was this one guy 12 years ago who did it in an old ass VD."

N: "Yeah, that was one guy. He was nuts to do so. And, times have changed and he said he could not do that with how things are now."

S; "No, you kids just spend money on stupid things like cell phones and cars."

N: "......has left the conversation."

S: "Where are all the new people?!"

Don't ask if you don't want the answer. But hey, everything is fine. Nothing to see here. $1300 Runoffs entry fees are no big deal. $80k+ new cars are fine. Eight car fields at the June Sprints is right where we need to be.

I had a Friendsgiving last night and showed this thread to three of my autox buddies. One made a good point when he said based on this thread the community doesn't seem that welcoming to the younger racers.

I went to watch the June Sprints last year for the first time in about five years. I didn't see more than one or two new faces, and no one under the age of 30 that was not their with their parents financial help. That should be the red flag of all red flags for SCCA.

[reidhazelton]

Maybe I'm missing something but didn't you run your car recently & do very well, maybe not SCCA but another racing group then competing in FF???????

A little. You are correct I did do well, but both those times were in vintage events so I don't feel it's really a fair comparison. It was 2017 at the SVRA FF 50th "World Championship" in Indy, and this year at the Steve Beeler-organized FF 50th at RA. The part you might have missed is the vintage part. At Indy I think I had one of the newer cars. There may have been a DB6 there but I am not sure. At Road America, it was Fords only and again, I was one of the newer cars. Those are the only times I've run my car in the last five years or so as I recall.

[reidhazelton]

It seems to me, you're advocating for a new formula car class at a lower price point to attract a demographic that is being pressured by an income disparity. You've also mentioned your friends spending money on their street cars as evidence they can spend money. Don't leave out the inescapable reality that money spent on a street car still provides a street car. Formula cars have never been about convenience.

All true. I wouldn't say I am advocating for a new class - just saying an $80k entry level class isn't sustainable. LIke I said, I don't have the answer but I know the current state won't work for younger people if that is who SCCA wants to attract and still be around in 15 years.

What my friends spend on their street cars is a drop of water in the ocean compared to what a full blown race car costs. One friend is currently saving up for a new turbo. The turbo is $800. He'd be saving up for a long time to buy that Mygale.

[Steve Bamford]

Here are my final points.

The more expensive racing becomes, the fewer people there are who will be able to afford it.

The more life sacrifices someone has to make to go racing, the fewer there will be who are willing to make those sacrifices to race.

Also, take a look back at the thread. You have three younger (by SCCA standards at least) saying why they don't/can't participate. This is how this conversation always goes.

I would suggest that people go back and read over the thread. Look at the attitude towards the next generation of would-be racers, and how they are viewed and treated.

SCCA: "Man, where is the next generation of racers?"

NextGen: "Doing other stuff because it's prohibitively expensive."

S: "Nah, it's fine. You're just not motivated enough."

N: "No amount of motivation is going to allow me to drop $40k on a car, and $20k a year to race when I make $50k a year. It's prohibitively expensive."

S: "You just expect everything to be free. Racing costs money, deal with it."

N: "Well, no. But I have to be responsible with my spending and not bankrupt myself just to go racing."

S: "Well, there was this one guy 12 years ago who did it in an old ass VD."

N: "Yeah, that was one guy. He was nuts to do so. And, times have changed and he said he could not do that with how things are now."

S; "No, you kids just spend money on stupid things like cell phones and cars."

N: "......has left the conversation."

S: "Where are all the new people?!"

Don't ask if you don't want the answer. But hey, everything is fine. Nothing to see here. $1300 Runoffs entry fees are no big deal. $80k+ new cars are fine. Eight car fields at the June Sprints is right where we need to be.

I had a Friendsgiving last night and showed this thread to three of my autox buddies. One made a good point when he said based on this thread the community doesn't seem that welcoming to the younger racers.

I went to watch the June Sprints last year for the first time in about five years. I didn't see more than one or two new faces, and no one under the age of 30 that was not their with their parents financial help. That should be the red flag of all red flags for SCCA.

Reid,

My point was you don't need to be with a prep team or 40 k plus car to be competitive. You need time & dedication, if you don't wish to do that then you need a prep team, prep teams work because they fill a void for people such as myself. That shouldn't push others out because I race with a prep team. That was my point. My point wasn't why we don't have 20 something year olds racing in SCCA. 99.9% would only be there with help from their parents.

Getting back to the topic at hand, if you want to have 4 open wheel classes going forward & starting it now, you need NEW cars to do so. In 10 years from now things will have changed again so need NEW now or you will be dealing with this same issue over & over. Bob said it well, you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette...problem is everyone likes there omelette a different way.

[reidhazelton]

It doesnt matter how easy you make it to get into racing. Easier, and cheaper mean nothing to these mellinials they dont care about racing, they only care about their phones and and their price burners on the street. Racing is to difficult and takes alot off patience and time away from alot of things which the youth will not do and cannot do, also they would whine about parody because they didn't get a trophy, so no matter what you come up with they will still not be there it's a fact. Face it it's not like it used to be and it will never be if you want to be in a big field go SRF, or Miata. Plain and simple so just go out race your car and have fun, at some point everything changes. Be happy you have a place to run, they could just end the class all together instead of trying to merge it. So get on board so you can race. After all isnt it what it is all about.

Case and point. Right here.

Why would any millennial want to join the party where they just get **** all over anyway?

[reidhazelton]

You should love FX!

My point was other classes seem to work because they allowed the older cars a place to remain competitive. That is not the case in Formula cars. That doesn't mean I advocate for one system over the other, or I think there is a special sauce that fixes all problems. I was pointing out the issue in Formula classes where older cars have traditionally been obsoleted. Each time that happens, the costs escalate. How many DB1s show up to National events? Swift made like a few hundred of those alone, right?