New Club Racing Proposal

[patman]

So this should have been a part of your competition planning.

Brian

How should I plan, in your estimation?
If we go by the rules- gcr3.7.4c, than 16 of 29 classes in majors are below the threshold this year. (15 in '23) So do we enforce it or not? Apparently not, so how do I know if my class is coming back? What about the probation year, where was that? And is the decision made by the CRB? Or by SCCA employees? Why have these rules if they aren't followed?

If the club membership doesn't get input to these decisions, then why don't we have club management who are held to a standard of foresight and planning? I keep hearing "it has to be run like a business." So where is the 5 year plan for this business? And are we customers, or shareholders, or both? (Or neither)?
What healthy business makes knee jerk decisions with no planning that alienate large chunks of customer base? Or tells it's customers that services are dependent on customer numbers, but the business is not responsible for marketing, and customers have to do their own recruiting? And if services are cancelled with no warning, it is the customer's fault because they should have bought more?

You think *I* should plan better?
How about SCCA management plans better?

[mmi16]

Most ongoing organizations desired to increase their footprint in their area of activity. SCCA is not most organizations, it wants to end many existing classes and bring in new Miata classes.

Miata's are not the answer to every issue.

[John Nesbitt]

Most ongoing organizations desired to increase their footprint in their area of activity. SCCA is not most organizations, it wants to end many existing classes and bring in new Miata classes.

Miata's are not the answer to every issue.

A better formulation might be: Most ongoing organizations try to follow, or better still, anticipate where the market is going. In our world, the market very clearly leans toward production-based, spec or semi-spec cars. For all kinds of reasons, including lower maintenance effort, lower cost, and perceived relative safety. Even in the purpose-built category, SRF3 and FE2 are the classes prospering. The fact that Mazda actively supports motorsports does not hurt, either.

I would be very cautious about castigating Miatas. Those shoals of SM, SMX, STU etc. entries are subsidizing other lower-subscribed classes.

[mmi16]

A better formulation might be: Most ongoing organizations try to follow, or better still, anticipate where the market is going. In our world, the market very clearly leans toward production-based, spec or semi-spec cars. For all kinds of reasons, including lower maintenance effort, lower cost, and perceived relative safety. Even in the purpose-built category, SRF3 and FE2 are the classes prospering. The fact that Mazda actively supports motorsports does not hurt, either.

I would be very cautious about castigating Miatas. Those shoals of SM, SMX, STU etc. entries are subsidizing other lower-subscribed classes.

Real race cars don't have fenders, doors or roofs.

[Hardingfv32]

A way of looking at time allotment at the Runoffs: Qual and Race time only.... 2220 min of track time for the event divided by 520 entrants equals 4.3 min. Think of it as each entrant bought 4.3 min of the total event time allotment. Now each entrant allocates his time allotment to the class he is in. SM would get a contribution of 211 min and FF 56 min.

Using the 19 Qual groups, each group should get 117 min of the event time allotment. 117 min divided by 4.3 min, the individual entrant time allotment, you get a class/group size of 27 entrants for the average.

So groups above 27 entrants are being shorted based on their financial share of the total entrant fees.

Brian

[John Nesbitt]

Real race cars don't have fenders, doors or roofs.

You should try that line on the EF/FP/HP drivers.

We have all spouted that line. And had a good laugh while doing so. The fact of the matter is that most cars racing today are production-based, and the vast majority of cars on track built in the past 10 years are production-based.

Be careful what you ask for. If the only racecars allowed in 'your' SCCA belong to 'your' class or meet your definition, SCCA Road Racing would disappear.

[Hardingfv32]

You think *I* should plan better?
How about SCCA management plans better?

Believe it or not, all the changes being discussed are driven by the membership. SCCA is a membership association. As such the club is subject to the constant changing trends within its membership. Changes to even recent club plans should be expected to change if membership trends dictate it. The majority is not going to have any patience with the minority.

So your personal plan should acknowledge this possibility of unknown possible changes. This is even more relevant for P1/P2 which has been in a state of fluxes for a decade or two.

Brian

[patman]

Ah, I see. In other words, the club isn't doing any planning at all, just waiting for trends and then reacting. No wonder things aren't working out so well...

And you do realize that the point you are making is that it doesn't make sense for anyone to race in P2, right? And by extension, P1, FA, FC, and any other class with a significant development period. In other words, by your reckoning, most of the people on this board should stop the "bad planning" and quit racing in SCCA....

Guess I got sucked into the politics after all. Sorry guys; I'll bugger off back to the shop and start planning my chumpcar project. Quite likely Brian is correct and there's not really a place for a guy like me in this club anymore anyway.

[FVRacer21]

Real race cars don't have fenders, doors or roofs.

I tripped across this - interesting....

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...lPSxSgJsWzuDGw

ChrisZ

[Rick Kirchner]

Baruth is an interesting variant of asshat isn't he? Like, I read most of his articles and agree on 99% of what he says, and then that 1% is so far out of place I just close the page in frustration. Like this gem:

"My Accord is faster around a track than all but the brawniest purpose-built club-race cars"

Riiiiight. I would direct his attention to a typical FC lap time at Willow Springs and compare that to Randy Pobst's (a real pro driver and not a racing journalist) times in any number of really, really, expensive production cars that would make his Accord look like a 70's Cutlass Supreme.

But he gets one aspect that I think is usually misconstrued - that formula cars and the like are maintenance hogs. Well yes, you have to spend a few hours on them that you probably wouldn't have to spend on a Miata or Mustang. But the formula car doesn't try to kill you falling off the jack, and I'd bet a six pack or two that when serious maintenance is needed, the time element on the street car goes up dramatically. (I'm fresh off of replacing the heater core in a 01 Cherokee, which is positively neanderthal compared to any current vehicle, and I assure you that even so, dash removal is no fun)

While our tire costs are high, its nothing like buying a set of Michelin Cups for a GT3 Porsche (or replacing the brakes for that matter).

[rockbeau25]

While our tire costs are high, it’s nothing like buying a set of Michelin Cups for a GT3 Porsche (or replacing the brakes for that matter).

Some of those guys spend in a weekend what I will spend in a lifetime of racing FC.

[Peter Olivola]

Ah, I see. In other words, the club isn't doing any planning at all, just waiting for trends and then reacting. No wonder things aren't working out so well...

And you do realize that the point you are making is that it doesn't make sense for anyone to race in P2, right? And by extension, P1, FA, FC, and any other class with a significant development period. In other words, by your reckoning, most of the people on this board should stop the "bad planning" and quit racing in SCCA....

Guess I got sucked into the politics after all. Sorry guys; I'll bugger off back to the shop and start planning my chumpcar project. Quite likely Brian is correct and there's not really a place for a guy like me in this club anymore anyway.

You seem to want to ignore the changes that have come about in both society and, not unrelated, racing. When FF was the most popular single class in SCCA racing, the club was the dominant form of non-professional road racing in the U.S. Since then, in addition to what you would call the evils of Enterprises and Miatae, The CanAm has come and gone, professional F-5000 has come and gone, professional FAtl has come and gone and Indycar has split, declined in popularity, reunited and is still rebuilding its place the racing firmament. Meanwhile, NASCAR has ascended to the most dominant pro spectator racing while F1's rise in the U.S. is without an American star. NASA, marque clubs and track day programs have grown, all excluding open wheel cars and with only limited acceptance of prototypes.

The real bottom line here is that there are fewer and fewer people interested in racing formula and prototype cars for a variety of reasons including things entirely out of the control of sanctioning bodies and race promoters.

I have a question for you: Why should it be SCCA's responsibility to rescue any class or category of car when participation wanes? That is what you're suggesting.

[Fred Michael]

Believe it or not, all the changes being discussed are driven by the membership. SCCA is a membership association. As such the club is subject to the constant changing trends within its membership. Changes to even recent club plans should be expected to change if membership trends dictate it. The majority is not going to have any patience with the minority.

So your personal plan should acknowledge this possibility of unknown possible changes. This is even more relevant for P1/P2 which has been in a state of fluxes for a decade or two.

Brian

Brian , respectfully....you are full of it

[John Nesbitt]

"In our constant club-racer quest to make our cars faster, safer and 'more reliable' we have pushed for rule changes that simply accelerated the rate of entropy. Every class of production racing does this, of course, until it finally brings on its own demise."

-- Peter Egan



Some of this discussion puts me in mind of Egan's comment. He was writing about production classes, but the same holds true for formula and sports racers classes. For pretty much any one of our classes, you can point to one or more inflection points where a technical 'improvement' took the cost of being competitive up a notch, with the consequent effect on participation.

[E1pix]

Yeah, watching GTL suggests some more class integration is needed (tragically).

Edit: Whoops, it’s already a Goner. :-(

[Rick Kirchner]

I have a question for you: Why should it be SCCA's responsibility to rescue any class or category of car when participation wanes?

Because the "club" is responsible for the rules, and the development and management of those rules is directly related to the health of the classes. And please don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that we actually have input into these rules. Too many years of "thank you for your input" suggest otherwise, as well as an organization that clings to completely outmoded means of communications and management of its classes.

If the club got out of the way and allowed the classes to develop means of managing their own rules, and a class failed, then it would be more on the participants.

[Peter Olivola]

Because the "club" is responsible for the rules, and the development and management of those rules is directly related to the health of the classes. And please don't try to blow smoke up my butt by telling me that we actually have input into these rules. Too many years of "thank you for your input" suggest otherwise, as well as an organization that clings to completely outmoded means of communications and management of its classes.

If the club got out of the way and allowed the classes to develop means of managing their own rules, and a class failed, then it would be more on the participants.

In the case of the formula and prototype categories there's much outside the club that has contributed to their decline as I originally outlined. The problem is the difference between production derived and purpose built race cars. For the most part, vintage racing excepted, purpose built race cars shouldn't be treated financially in the same way as production derived cars, but that's not the case in SCCA.

Production derived race cars, with the exceptions for things like SM and B-Spec, have a much longer time span in development than purpose built cars. That at least partially justifies viewing them as an investment. The club has assumed the same for purspose built cars. The problem is, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way and the U.S. parted ways with Europe a couple of decades ago when SCCA membership did influence rules makers to not adopt the European spec for FF using the investment argument since Euro spec FFs are an entirely different chassis. It was remarkable that the Honda was included in the rules at all.

Trying to disqualify the clubs rules making process from the discussion sounds more like one person's failure to get what they wanted than an actual, valid justification for condemning the process. Based on the example of refusing to adopt Euro FF chassis rules, I would expect allowing categories and classes to rule themselves would produce exactly the same thing we have now.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Trying to disqualify the clubs rules making process from the discussion sounds more like one person's failure to get what they wanted than an actual, valid justification for condemning the process. Based on the example of refusing to adopt Euro FF chassis rules, I would expect allowing categories and classes to rule themselves would produce exactly the same thing we have now.

I think the problem is the club is anything but nimble in adjusting to market conditions and the rule making process is long and costly. And then the solution becomes expensive because someone needs to spend a lot of time and money in the hopes of getting a change approved. The process gives too little too late. A contributor to waning participation.

The process does not allow for the opinions of the population (drivers/owners) to circumvent. We are NEVER asked to vote on anything. Should something be pursued or not?, etc. So that makes the CRB god. Sure, letters.

In this day and age (and when we are trying to take more action), the 'suggestion box' approach is ineffective.

As drivers/owners, we need the club to create a mechanism for collaborating with other members in the class.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

A better formulation might be: Most ongoing organizations try to follow, or better still, anticipate where the market is going. In our world, the market very clearly leans toward production-based, spec or semi-spec cars. For all kinds of reasons, including lower maintenance effort, lower cost, and perceived relative safety. Even in the purpose-built category, SRF3 and FE2 are the classes prospering. The fact that Mazda actively supports motorsports does not hurt, either.

I would be very cautious about castigating Miatas. Those shoals of SM, SMX, STU etc. entries are subsidizing other lower-subscribed classes.

I don't disagree, but I think the club is still missing out. I think there is about 50 SM at the runoffs this year, BUT I remember a few years ago they had even more (I think is was Indy) and they had to have a race for the last 10 spots in the main race because the track could not have that many cars. A great problem to have - but that was because if Indy. FC has 30 cars too that year.

I wrote a letter to the CRB when this discussion started and it's been tabled every month since.

The US is different that most racing countries. We're geographically huge.
The suggestion was to have 3 or 4 runoffs (like playoffs) across the country to determine WHO goes to the Nat'l Champ race.
These runoffs would be like SuperTour events (3 days) and should be modified for class size issues.

So, what's the benefit?

• Everyone will likely find one less than 1000mi away.
• Less time, less cost, more participants because of local.
• More consistent participation. I believe more people will go to these events annually - even if they don't believe they have a chance at the Nat'l Champ.
• More revenue for the club and event sizes easier to manage.
• The Nat'l Champ event would be smaller and easier to hold at almost any venue - and more exclusive.
• Change the qualification rules to 2 Majors/ST (the playoff event is the 3rd).

Using SM as an example, I believe you could get 4 runoffs events with 50 cars each. Then you invite the top 4 or 5 from each to give you a grid of 20. That's 220 entries.

I'll bet many classes would do better than 10 cars at each event- as long as the event us attainable and predictable.

All the Runoffs changes (class elimination) talked about are related to time, cost and logistics problems at the event.
5 smaller events would solve that. Then would could stop talking about class elimination - which actually discourages participation.

To paraphrase Morgan Freeman: How do you stop dwindling participation? Stop talking about it.

This would be great for survey....

[FVRacer21]

Watching the Runoffs - try to look at the racing in 5 or 10 years, where will the cars come from?

Or will we be racing SUV's? Maybe make the Runoffs Rallycross?

The SCCA cannot do much to promote dying classes, but it can hasten their demise. Who said we needed FE?

Actually there is a lot of formula cars and series hiding in the bushes. There are pro series running F4 and F3 series besides the school series. The problem is that they cater to the wealth sons and daughters of racers.

The SBRS only had a pair of brothers racing for the "Masters" championship.

The SRF is now over 40 years old - FV over 60. The model of a "spec" formula class that would be affordable is still reasonable.

A small, non winged, spec 3 cylinder (4 stroke) , normally aspirated car (carb) (minimal electronics) could be a future winning class.

But do like FV - have specs for certain parts and design and let the manufacturers fill in the small details.

To get volume, you need to keep prices down. And build reliable, under stressed cars.

If the drivers and th club don't start working together, we will end up as a vintage club.....

ChrisZ

[E1pix]

It would be interesting to see a 50-year chart of median driver age, but suspect that’s never been done (and lost future strategizing knowledge, if so).

What do you wanna bet the median age has risen a year for every three years since?

What that would indicate is obvious, if not decimating.

[Rick Kirchner]

In the case of the formula and prototype categories there's much outside the club that has contributed to their decline as I originally outlined.

Production derived race cars, with the exceptions for things like SM and B-Spec, have a much longer time span in development than purpose built cars. That at least partially justifies viewing them as an investment. The club has assumed the same for purspose built cars. The problem is, the rest of the world doesn't do it that way and the U.S. parted ways with Europe a couple of decades ago when SCCA membership did influence rules makers to not adopt the European spec for FF using the investment argument since Euro spec FFs are an entirely different chassis. It was remarkable that the Honda was included in the rules at all.

Trying to disqualify the clubs rules making process from the discussion sounds more like one person's failure to get what they wanted than an actual, valid justification for condemning the process. Based on the example of refusing to adopt Euro FF chassis rules, I would expect allowing categories and classes to rule themselves would produce exactly the same thing we have now.

To your first paragraph - while you may have originally outlined it, that doesn't mean its true. The club is so bad at collecting and analyzing data that nobody knows exactly why anything happened.

To your second paragraph, just what is that supposed to mean? "longer time span in development=better investment"? And, the "investment argument WRT FF"? Eurospec FFs are a different chassis? Well they have different sidepods - which are attachments. they have different suspension pieces due to the difference in tires. And they have a different motor in the back. But different chassis? And if there are other differences, why did we not follow? Looking at the brit rules it looks like the major difference is in side impact protection.

To your third paragraph - I was not disqualifying it, my contention is that the club's rules making process for open wheel/SR has been a major contributor in the reduction in class numbers. While I was never a big fan of FB, The rules making process there - competitor driven, produced a decent result (although there were unintended consequences). As soon as the club started meddling in them, the class collapsed.I can predict as easily as you can, that if it had been a competitor led rules process this might not have happened, but both positions are theoretical. One could argue that FB was the result of the competitors frustration with the way the other classes had become.

I will argue that each class needs a detailed "mission statement" that provided the guidance for the class and serves as a brake on technology and performance creep, and just like the overall rules, this statement should be amenable to change - by the competitors.

[Peter Olivola]

To your first paragraph - while you may have originally outlined it, that doesn't mean its true. The club is so bad at collecting and analyzing data that nobody knows exactly why anything happened.

To your second paragraph, just what is that supposed to mean? "longer time span in development=better investment"? And, the "investment argument WRT FF"? Eurospec FFs are a different chassis? Well they have different sidepods - which are attachments. they have different suspension pieces due to the difference in tires. And they have a different motor in the back. But different chassis? And if there are other differences, why did we not follow? Looking at the brit rules it looks like the major difference is in side impact protection.

To your third paragraph - I was not disqualifying it, my contention is that the club's rules making process for open wheel/SR has been a major contributor in the reduction in class numbers. While I was never a big fan of FB, The rules making process there - competitor driven, produced a decent result (although there were unintended consequences). As soon as the club started meddling in them, the class collapsed.I can predict as easily as you can, that if it had been a competitor led rules process this might not have happened, but both positions are theoretical. One could argue that FB was the result of the competitors frustration with the way the other classes had become.

I will argue that each class needs a detailed "mission statement" that provided the guidance for the class and serves as a brake on technology and performance creep, and just like the overall rules, this statement should be amenable to change - by the competitors.

Your opinion may be that the club doesn't know how/why something happened, but it's just that; your opinion. My memory is decent when it comes to the how and why and it seems to match closely every director and staff member I talk to about the subject so they must be getting their information from somewhere because some of them weren't born when I first joined.

That you don't recognize the difference between production derived and purpose built race cars and how that has affected things within SCCA is telling. The example I gave was one of class members having direct influence on club rules which effectively cut us off from all but a small number of chassis manufacturers. You're correct about the engines and again, that's a result of class members influencing rules. I made the point in refutation of your blanket statement that the members don't actually influence rules making. They do and they have, but I'm not making a blanket statement the way you are about how things happen. There have been so rather horrendous examples of self serving and my earliest memory of that is the exclusive importer of an example of the only component that fit British sports cars and getting made legal and because it conferred a competitive advantage, therefore mandatory.

The club's history is complex. There have been good decisions and bad decisions, but overall, they haven't been any worse than if each class was making its own rules. That was made abundantly clear during the era when directors and staff members held town hall meetings during Nationals weekends. The contradictory arguments were rampant.

If you don't want to hear the admonition to get involved in things beyond being a competitor then I would have to conclude that you're really arguing from self interest and not as a representative of a constituency. I keep looking around of a constituency that has done what you suggest and find only those driven by things like Enterprises or a manufacturer/sponsor and occasionally by a group of class competitors who work within the existing club structure. You may believe the numbers reduction in formula and prototype classes is a result of rules changes, but, again, that's your opinion. Others, myself included, believe those rules changes are a result of the reduction in participation and an attempt to actually preserve those forms of racing within the club.

[Rick Kirchner]

There have been good decisions and bad decisions, but overall, they haven't been any worse than if each class was making its own rules.

except that the classes have never made their own rules, so there's a massive flaw in your logic - trying to compare something to another thing that doesn't exist.

As to getting involved beyond driving, I'm an instructor with VARA, and help the stewards out when I've been unable to drive, even drive the pace car. And I was a National Tech Inspector and Chief of Tech for many Indy Region races back in the 80s. I've paid my dues.

[Peter Olivola]

except that the classes have never made their own rules, so there's a massive flaw in your logic - trying to compare something to another thing that doesn't exist.

As to getting involved beyond driving, I'm an instructor with VARA, and help the stewards out when I've been unable to drive, even drive the pace car. And I was a National Tech Inspector and Chief of Tech for many Indy Region races back in the 80s. I've paid my dues.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with it and have seen things that convince me that your trust in the competitor community to make their own rules is a flawed concept. The formula class with the longest history, FV, is an example of a class that has been largely self governing. It is now clear that its rule set is hampering the class with several offshoots, running different rule sets, taking competitors from the class. I'm sure there are other reasons and some of those other rule sets are just as subject to a small group being in control, but it's a clear indication that when competitors have control over their own rules things aren't any different than what the SCCA brings to the table.

[patman]

what you would call the evils of Enterprises and Miatae,

NASA, marque clubs and track day programs have grown, all excluding open wheel cars and with only limited acceptance of prototypes.

The real bottom line here is that there are fewer and fewer people interested in racing formula and prototype cars for a variety of reasons including things entirely out of the control of sanctioning bodies and race promoters.

I have a question for you: Why should it be SCCA's responsibility to rescue any class or category of car when participation wanes? That is what you're suggesting.

Sigh, I know I said I was done, but I guess I could beat this horse carcass a few more times...

1) Please don't put those words in my mouth. Never have I personally said anything against any of these classes, except that I tried SM and found it boring. For me personally, all the E classes are uninteresting because I enjoy building my own car, not to mention I can't afford them. But I have no issue with others racing them.

2) Where do you think many of those org.s got their members? Maybe from people who were not well treated by another club?
2b) Excluding open wheel mostly because of arbitrary insurance rules, at least in the cases I have knowledge of...

3) There are fewer people doing it, that is hard to deny. Fewer Interested? I don't know about that. You are right about social changes in that I'm not sure how many people are still capable of doing it privately like I do. But the club is also not at all good at marketing. Often when I am at a race I get to talking with a local in whatever town nearby and they have no idea there is an SCCA race, nor do they realize how open the event is, or how cheap and high quality entertainment it is. Similarly interested racers have no idea how to get started. No idea what class their car could fit. Almost to a person every one I have talked to about this (dozens of people over the years) has believed that it was a huge undertaking to get a car on track with SCCA, and been scared to even try. We could do much better in welcoming people and helping them get started as spectators or as racers.

4) I think you misunderstand my intent here. I wrote a letter expressing initial support for the merger, until they made it clear that it wasn't a merge but just a delete of P2. My issue is really that there is no continuity, commitment, or communication on the part of the club. As I said previously, more than half the classes are below 4.0, so it is clearly not just prototypes. If we actually followed the gcr, we would all have been on probation years ago. On the other hand, that would have given us a chance and a motivation to get more people on track. Instead they ignore the problem, and then ignore the rules too. I don't control the other racers in my class, or when they choose to show up. These published rules and "system" for maintaining classes are the only guarantee I have (had...) that there will be a race next year, or next week for that matter. The alleged probation year we were supposed to have has factored into my decisions more than once.
Furthermore, they have now put in place a 'solution' that not a single participant nor knowledgeable person expects to work. If the rules are finalized as published last month, contrary to dozens of letters (including mine) and other forms of input, everyone knows 'P' will continue to struggle with participation. So again, how could I justify investment into that class?

I don't expect the club to 'rescue the class', I expect them to try and treat members with fairness and respect. The fact that we can't trust them to follow their own rules, to involve us in planning at any level, to communicate with us at all (not even the fsrac, apparently), and to not upend years of planning and expense on a whim with no warning should tell you all you need to know about why participation is an issue.

Again, let me reiterate: I am not a particularly well spoken or political person. I hate this sh*t. I just want to go racing. But even at my budget level I have to justify my investment to myself (and possibly to she who must not be allowed to look at said budget too closely). It is a hell of a lot easier to do that if it can be spread over more than one year, but that can only happen if the 'system' can be trusted, and every action like the current one erodes that trust.

[E1pix]

Just reading here, I’m confused why anyone wouldn’t understand exactly what you mean.

I have no skin in this, beyond seeing what’s obviously wrong in ongoing and worsening trends.

For whatever it’s worth, I’d like to think that most of us who witnessed Then, and Now, see this with more clarity — and have also witnessed a widening circle who left the sport for the exact reasons being discussed in this thread and all like it.

The Simple Math: Every competitor lost is one competitor closer to Zero. This shouldn’t be impossible to fix — if anyone’s listening to those like yourself.

Good Luck to you, and I hope you can somehow figure out a way to race.

[Peter Olivola]

On the issue of interest vs participation, I think TNIA and the experiential programs are showing the most effective way to convert interest into participation. It would be ideal if at least some of those people move up to Road Racing, but so far, that's been a very limited outcome of the programs and even more limited in moving them into purpose built race cars.

[Ed Womer]

I have watched a few of the runoffs races and eagerly awaiting the FV since I spent 30+ years there as a competitor and car builder.

I am glad now that the comp board and then the BOD decided to sneak in the rule about rain lights which caused me to stop racing. I just don't know why or for what reason, (I am guessing insurance) that there is now a full course yellow for any reason. A stopped car off the racing line is a justification for a local yellow for a lap or two until everyone notices it. The driver should be able to get out and to a safe place to watch the race and not sit in the car.

I guess this is justification for then a full course yellow and the automatic loss of a minimum of 3 laps in the race. It is just amazing that those of us who started racing in the 80's ever survived to be old.

I can't wait to see the management crowd's comments to this.

I would still be racing but the rain light along with other things that was enough to push me over the top and just say fu5k it to this, feeling like the club could dip into my wallet at any time and I am supposed to just smile and say thanks.

Now ex racer for the second and last time.

Ed

[Peter Olivola]

I have watched a few of the runoffs races and eagerly awaiting the FV since I spent 30+ years there as a competitor and car builder.

I am glad now that the comp board and then the BOD decided to sneak in the rule about rain lights which caused me to stop racing. I just don't know why or for what reason, (I am guessing insurance) that there is now a full course yellow for any reason. A stopped car off the racing line is a justification for a local yellow for a lap or two until everyone notices it. The driver should be able to get out and to a safe place to watch the race and not sit in the car.

I guess this is justification for then a full course yellow and the automatic loss of a minimum of 3 laps in the race. It is just amazing that those of us who started racing in the 80's ever survived to be old.

I can't wait to see the management crowd's comments to this.

I would still be racing but the rain light along with other things that was enough to push me over the top and just say fu5k it to this, feeling like the club could dip into my wallet at any time and I am supposed to just smile and say thanks.

Now ex racer for the second and last time.

Ed

I can't speak for every situation at every event at every track, but it's been my experience that the requirement for a full course yellow is coming primarily from the Emergency Services teams employed by the tracks. The other thing I've noticed is that the calls for a FCY seem to correlate with drivers not slowing for the incident while the ES crew is working. OTOH, I've also had cooperation to maintain local yellow while the ES crew works a scene when driver's are slowing.

Does that correlation rise to the level of causation? You be the judge.

[John Nesbitt]

I have watched a few of the runoffs races and eagerly awaiting the FV since I spent 30+ years there as a competitor and car builder.

I am glad now that the comp board and then the BOD decided to sneak in the rule about rain lights which caused me to stop racing.

...

Very properly, we are all free to make our own individual decisions about the dreaded FIA rain lights. I do note that, as I type this, I am watching an absolute barnburner of a Vee race. And every one of them running an FIA rain light.

[John LaRue]

I can't speak for every situation at every event at every track, but it's been my experience that the requirement for a full course yellow is coming primarily from the Emergency Services teams employed by the tracks. The other thing I've noticed is that the calls for a FCY seem to correlate with drivers not slowing for the incident while the ES crew is working. OTOH, I've also had cooperation to maintain local yellow while the ES crew works a scene when driver's are slowing.

Does that correlation rise to the level of causation? You be the judge.

Peter, you are correct in that Road America has its own employees who control dispatch of the Emergency Vehicles and coordinate with our Race Control. Having watched these crews in action during June Sprints I trust their judgment, they are impressive. RA is one of the few tracks which still allow hot pulls so this is as good as it will get. It is unfortunate that green flag laps were lost but no incidents resulted which is of most importance.

[FVRacer21]

....... (I am guessing insurance) that there is now a full course yellow for any reason. A stopped car off the racing line is a justification for a local yellow for a lap or two until everyone notices it. The driver should be able to get out and to a safe place to watch the race and not sit in the car.

I guess this is justification for then a full course yellow and the automatic loss of a minimum of 3 laps in the race. It is just amazing that those of us who started racing in the 80's ever survived to be old.

I can't wait to see the management crowd's comments to this.

.......
Ed

Ed,

As much as I criticize the SCCA when they do something wrong - this is the tracks doing.

You remember running at Watkins Glen where every car off was a full course yellow? Well, welcome to 2024

Lime Rock is moving the corner stations around and telling the SCCA which ones to man.

VIR has their own corner workers which they rent out to the SCCA

Watkins Glen is well.... Watkins Glen.

I am sure there are more stories out there.

That yellow FV that stopped at Road America. In the past, any corner worker worth their salt would have been out there and pushed it back in a second.

Now corner workers are not allowed to leave their post to help a driver. Roll the emergency vehicles. Hot pulls still exist but are coming rare...

*** Yes I know workers have been injured in the past. But why train people and not let them use their training? ***

Now this may be coming from all the track and club days that tracks are running, where they need to supply workers and emergency equipment. To amortize the cost they use them and charge the SCCA.

If anyone can confirm or contradict this, I would like to hear about it.

ChrisZ

[Hardingfv32]

Yes I know workers have been injured in the past. But why train people and not let them use their training?

Now this may be coming from all the track and club days that tracks are running, where they need to supply workers and emergency equipment. To amortize the cost they use them and charge the SCCA.

1) There is no type of worker training that is going to prevent drivers from doing something stupid and harming workers. It is the drivers that require training.

2) It is easier for tracks to sell rentals if they can provide infrastructures that smaller renters do not have.

Brian

[Ed Womer]

Very properly, we are all free to make our own individual decisions about the dreaded FIA rain lights. I do note that, as I type this, I am watching an absolute barnburner of a Vee race. And every one of them running an FIA rain light.

Yes, with a mandate from SCCA. I have run the afterburn light since it's inception, but it isn't FIA certified, read BS, and that is why I said goodbye. That and the other big BS seat belt life span. Of course, this in car flagging thing doesn't seem to have all off the bugs worked out.

If you don't want me as a customer, then fine, I DON'T need to do this.

Ed

[racerjon1]

*** Yes I know workers have been injured in the past. But why train people and not let them use their training? ***

Now this may be coming from all the track and club days that tracks are running, where they need to supply workers and emergency equipment. To amortize the cost they use them and charge the SCCA.

If anyone can confirm or contradict this, I would like to hear about it.

ChrisZ

This is a deep discussion, and one that's being constantly worked on, and the factors are unique to tracks, events, etc. There is no "one" issue.

There are some tracks which require the SCCA to use their workers. While sure, it is a revenue stream, the decisions stem primarily from facility oversight - as in there is a desire/policy to have track-employed eyes on situations involving track/barrier conditions. When the EV workers are also track employed, having that consistent corner/EV teamwork is also a major factor.

Speaking of EV workers.. while a couple of regions have their own Emergency Services crews, primarily they are employed/contracted by the track. Employment creates some oversight complication beyond our insurance and into dot-gov oversight.

Beyond big events like the Runoffs - Regions struggle to get workers. This means a necessity to "buy" workers from the track. So you'll absolutely end up more restrictive in those situations than with a fully-SCCA staffed set of workers.

From the economics side of the track, it's a 1/1 hire/collect for any group using track workers. E.g., if a group (or track) requires x number of workers, that ends up a line item on the track rental bill. (e.g., 17 workers at $125/day x 2 days) So while there is some consideration for keeping track workers employed on many weekends so they don't go look for another job, it's not so much "tell SCCA they have to have them so we can pay for other groups who use them."

So - overall it's two issues. One is workers in general and how that affects smaller regional events both budgetary and operational and then track considerations when it comes to risk of workers in your care and facility oversight.