FA/FB Consolidation

[jerry freeman]

Campbell53's first response is the exact word for word response to my note to the BOD. It was sent to me from Larry Dent. I agree with Wren on this one. 2009 and 2010 are tommorow when it comes to building and getting cars ready to run. Not to mention the people making a decision on what to buy and race.

If they put FA and FB in the same class but keep the same rules for each seperate that is acceptable if FB gets the chance to stand on its own. Trying to make the cars equal is impossible and probably the death of both classes.

Jerry

[Richard Dziak]

FYI:

Hope the information below sheds some light on the SCCA BOD decision...........This specific information may clear up additional questions, concerns, comments or complaints....I hope it helps. Thought it would be of interest to ALL parties.........

__________________________________________________ _

BOD/CLUB RACING TASK FORCE SUMMARY
In response to declining entries and volunteer support for both the National Racing Program and the SCCA's Championship Event
(Runoffs), a Task Force was established to review these programs and make recommendations on how interest in them might be
renewed. The Task Force which consisted of representatives from the Board of Directors (BoD), the Club Racing Board (CRB) and the
National Staff reviewed the programs, and along with extensive member input received over several years, made its recommendations
to the Board of Directors. The Board at its May 10, meeting reviewed the Task Force recommendations, accepting some and rejecting
others.
The Board recognizes that change is always welcome for some and difficult for others. The Board also wants to provide member assurance
that the path to be taken will be straightforward and will be stable over a reasonable period of time. For these reasons, the Board
required a larger consensus, a minimum of nine votes, for approval of each item in the proposal. Moreover, the Board is committed
to seeing this program through without any substantive changes for at least the next three years. A few minor points are still to be
resolved, but none will have any substantive changes to the program.
In the course of the Task Force's review, a number of items were identified that could be implemented for the 2008 Runoffs. None of
these items would involve eligibility or the racing program, but would seek to improve the hospitality of the event. The significant
changes in the racing program included in the Task Force proposal, and agreed to by the Board, would begin with the 2009 racing season.
The Task Force report included a number of recommendations ranging from minor changes to the existing program to a major overhaul
of the entire program. The Board reviewed each item being proposed and voted for or against each. The proposal to include
Improved Touring (IT) in the National program generated considerable discussion. At the conclusion of this discussion, the Board voted
to not include IT in the National Racing Program, but because many IT drivers support IT as a National class, the Board will task the
CRB to develop a simplified path for some IT classes to progress, with necessary modifications, to the Limited Preparation National
classes.
Consolidation of classes was also a key item in the report. With the current 30 National classes, not all can be accommodated in their
own race because of time available at the Runoffs. In addition, opportunities for new classes such as those using biofuels and hydrogen
energy sources must be made possible for the future. Consequently, the Board has agreed to a consolidation plan that would
begin with the 2009 season and will result in 23 race groups. The top 10 classes with the highest participation numbers based on
the 2008 results will be guaranteed their own races, and the remaining classes may experience a race combined with another class.
The latter would be based on the number of entries and car compatibility. For 2010 and beyond, there will be 21 National classes
and 21 races at the Runoffs.
Specific consolidations for the 2009 competition year include: CSR and DSR, and SSB will be split between SSC and T3. For the 2010
season, the present class structure will be changed to the following 21 revised classes: SM, SRF, CSR/DSR/S2, GTL/GT3, FP/GP/HP,
GT3/DP, GT2/GT3/BP, FF, T1/ST, T2, T3/SSB, SSC/SSB, FV, GT1, AS, FA/FB, FC, EP, F5, FE, and FM. Obviously, competition adjustments
will need to be made by the Club Racing Board for some cars to ensure parity, and some current classes will need to be split
between two or more new classes to minimize competition adjustments
Beginning in 2009, in order to qualify for the Runoffs, drivers must start and finish four races, two must be in their division of record,
and points may be counted from a driver's best seven finishes. Also, the week of Runoff racing will begin on Tuesday with three days
for qualifying followed by three days of racing. Section 9.1.12 of the GCR will continue to be utilized to determine the retention or inclusion
of the various car classes as National classes.
The Board discussed whether or not to retain the current Club Racing program which provides for the Regional and National racing
structure as compared to a program that would involve "just races." The latter would involve all races being equal but having Divisional
Championships, a national points system or a combination thereof to select Runoffs entrants. While a change to the traditional
Regional/National race concept had some support, the Board voted it would be best for the program to retain the current system.
The Board understands that because the program entails significant changes in many areas which will directly affect many of our competitors,
these changes may cause concern. Furthermore, the Board understands these concerns and will strive to make any needed
transitions as smooth and painless as possible.
Once again, the Board is committed to this program, without significant changes, for the next three years.

MOTION: That SCCA continue to have both National and Regional racing programs. (Jones/Dent) PASSED Voting NO, Allen, Noble

MOTION: That Improved Touring classes A, B, C, S & R, that l meet the 2.5 participation rule, be made eligible for participation in the
National race program. (Jones/Introne) FAILED, Voting NO, Sauce, Gordy, Porterfield, Christian, Creighton, Dent, Abstaining, Wannarka,
Lybarger

MOTION: That Improved Touring continue to be restricted to Regional competition only, and that the CRB use existing procedures to
develop pathways to allow IT cars to migrate to limited prep Production configuration. (Jones/Creighton) PASSED Voting No,
Wannarka, Introne, Sheridan, Christian

MOTION: That the CRB use existing procedures to revise the criteria for Runoffs qualification to increase emphasis on successful race
competition, and less on minimum attendance. (Christian/Sheridan) FAILED, Voting NO, Sauce, Allen, Porterfield, Dent, Introne,
Creighton

MOTION: Change GCR 3.9.1.A to read Championships shall be determined annually on the basis of……………..in a maximum of seven
(7) National Championship races. No more than three (3) races shall be outside the Division……. Effective October 13, 2008.
(Noble/Jones) PASSED Voting NO, Christian

MOTION: Change GCR Section 3.9.2 A paragraph two, to read ………………..finisher in at least four (4) National…….Effective October 13,
2008. (Sauce/Allen). PASSED Voting NO, Dent, Christian

MOTION: That the CRB use existing procedures to implement class consolidation of CSR with DSR, and SSB with SSC or T3, effective
October 13, 2008. (Dent/Introne) PASSED Unanimous

MOTION: That the CRB use existing procedures to structure National classes in the following manner by the 2010 competition year.
SCCA Fastrack News June 2008 Page 4
SRF, SM, CSR/DSR/S2, GTL/GT3, FP/HP/GP, GT3/DP, GT2/GT3/BP, FF, T1/ST, T2, T3/SSB, SSC/SSB, FV, GT1, AS, FA/FB, FC, EP, F5,
FE, FM. (Dent/Sauce) PASSED Unanimous

MOTION: That for 2009 the Runoffs consist of 23 races for all 28 classes and for 2010, 21 races for 21 classes. (Gordy/Porterfield)
PASSED, Voting NO, Sauce, Sheridan, Noble, Christian

MOTION: That the top 10 classes in National Participation from the previous year have stand alone races at the 2009 Runoffs.
(Dent/Introne) PASSED Voting NO, Sauce, Creighton, Noble, Christian

MOTION: That the CRB be directed to establish the Runoffs Schedule such that Tuesday through Thursday be qualifying and races on
Friday through Sunday, effective for the 2009 Runoffs. (Dent/Gordy) PASSED Voting NO, Sauce, Creighton, Lybarger, Christian

MOTION: That the BOD directs the CRB to draft a nationwide weighted points structure for Runoffs eligibility. (Noble/Wannarka)
FAILED, Voting NO, Sauce, Christian, Lybarger, Porterfield, Creighton

[jjstecher]

SOOOOO reading this I have a question.

Obviously this statement means class consolidation:
MOTION: That the CRB use existing procedures to implement class consolidation of CSR with DSR, and SSB with SSC or T3, effective
October 13, 2008. (Dent/Introne) PASSED Unanimous

But this statement doesn't mention anything about class consolidation.
MOTION: That the CRB use existing procedures to structure National classes in the following manner by the 2010 competition year.
SCCA Fastrack News June 2008 Page 4
SRF, SM, CSR/DSR/S2, GTL/GT3, FP/HP/GP, GT3/DP, GT2/GT3/BP, FF, T1/ST, T2, T3/SSB, SSC/SSB, FV, GT1, AS, FA/FB, FC, EP, F5,
FE, FM. (Dent/Sauce) PASSED Unanimous

It just purely states that the CRB needs to structure the National Classes but mentions nothing about consolidation...so i am confused as all hell now. Are Dent and Sauce ex senators or something and wrote something here that has a loop hole in or just chose poor wording to actually mean consolidation?

So what does existing procedures mean in this sentance?

[rickb99]

Stecher,

If you are simply talking about RUN GROUPS in National racing they would/should have used the word "groups" not "classes".

One of the paragraphs above takes effect next year 2008 and the other paragraph in 2010

At least in most peoples opinion here, telling the CRB to ".... structure National classes....." means combine them in to one big equal class. Otherwise, why would the CRB get involved at all in defining 'run groups' except to avoid speed differential problems?

[Mike B]

I was hoping that Richard P's interpretation of the proposal was correct but it's pretty clear by the wording that it's class consolidation. If it was simply a combination of run groups, it wouldn't warrant a mention by the BOD because that already happens every weekend. They also wouldn't mention something like:
"Obviously, competition adjustments will need to be made by the Club Racing Board for some cars to ensure parity"

This is seagull management at its worst. I am completely shocked and outraged that these "leaders" are so completely out of touch. We need to keep the logical, well-thought out letters coming and copy in the CRB. However, I think something this outrageous might require more action. Is there a process (or even a snowball's chance) to have these "leaders" removed? A letter-writing campaign to the President?

If this goes through, it will be the second time since October that I've been screwed by clueless leaders with no clear direction. Of course, last time it cost me my job...

[Dave Welsh]

The way I read the reason the word "structure" is use is that GT3, and SSB will not be consolidated into another, lone specific class, but each will be eliminated and and placed in more than one other class. GT3 goes to GTL and GT2/BP, and DP. SSB goes to T3 and SSC.

[bill gillespie]

Guys,

Please make your feelings known to the Culb Racing Board. I just sent my letter. The following address will reach ALL members of the CRB:

CRB @ SCCA.COM

Regards,
Bill

[Mike Devins]

Guys,

Please make your feelings known to the Culb Racing Board. I just sent my letter. The following address will reach ALL members of the CRB:

CRB @ SCCA.COM

Regards,
Bill

Make sure that the BOD@SCCA.com gets your letters as well. They are the ones that approved the policy. It is also a good idea to include your member number.

HAVE YOU WRITTEN YET?

[JEREMY HILL]

mike, i havent written yet because i am still seething!, at this point i am considering a lawsuit since this is the third time i have been screwed over by the scca, anyone care to join me? yours truly, jeremy hill

[John B]

My letter below was sent to the BOD collectively and individually.

John Burke



To the Board of Directors of the SCCA,

I have been an active member of the SCCA for thirteen years. I have thoroughly enjoyed competing in S2000 and FA, and have made many life long friends through my association with the club. When I first started racing with SCCA in 1985 my son Connor was 7 years old and has attended most events with me since. He got his National license last year and we are competing together in FA this year. My point is our club is something my family and I truly cherish. Over the last few years it has saddened me to see the administration and BOD of the club lose touch with its racing membership. The club is after all for the benefit of its members, NOT the administrators. I disapproved of the Clubs attempt to become a car constructor with the FE and the proposed sports racer version. The club should be unbiased with respect to classes. I found the decision to move the headquarters from Denver to Topeka merely curious. When it was announced shortly afterward that the Runnoffs were also moving to Topeka I found that disgusting and ceased to participate in the Runoffs at that point. I have raced at Topeka - it's an OK track, but the Runoffs really need to be held at a great and inspiring track like Road Atlanta, Road America, Watkins Glen, Mid Ohio, VIR, Laguna… To that end I applaud the recent decision to move the Runoffs to Road America in 2009. Connor and I will be there… unless you succeed in screwing up FA.

In the June issue of Fast Tracks it was stated that for 2009 FA and FB would be consolidated. Apparently this was decided at the BOD and handed off to the CRB to implement. This presents you with a tremendous opportunity to screw up both one of your best existing classes, as well as a promising new class. In 2007 FA ranked 5th out of 30 classes in participation totals. I am personally attracted to FA because I think it exemplifies everything a race car should be. It is your fastest class. The cars are beautiful, high revving, and technically advanced with carbon tubs, tunnels, sequential gearboxes and fuel injection… They have gripped me since I first saw one scream through a turn flat out at speeds that seem to defy the laws of physics. The cars are also quite safe and strong with their carbon fiber tubs, as your fastest class should be. I understand and agree with the reasoning behind limiting the number of races at the Runoffs. To that end I am not opposed to running classes together in the National Championship races under existing rules to achieve that goal. I am also not opposed to merely selecting the top 21 or so classes in terms of participation while the classes that don’t make the cutoff then do not have a National Championship. I believe that if you continue to give FB the 5 year chance you promised to build their class and don’t change the rules on them mid stream while drivers and contractors design and build their cars, they will shortly have the car counts to make the cut. But most importantly, I implore you not to even consider making any "Competition adjustments" in an attempt to equalize FA and FB. Speeding up the tube framed FB cars to FA speeds would probably be foolish and unsafe. Slowing down FA cars would just be unthinkable.

The BOD has shown an increasing lack of understanding of their racing membership. Neither FA nor FB racers want to be equalized. There are other solutions that will work much better. I implore you to listen to your racers, it is their club, not yours! You are supposed to represent them.
I absolutely assure you of the following:

If rules are implemented in an attempt to slow down FA, my thirteen year membership will come to an end and my son and I will pursue our racing with HSR and SVRA. This would be very sad for me as I love this club, but it would also be obvious to me that this club is not what I thought it was, and not what it used to be.

I welcome any comments or clarification on the above issues,

Regards,

John Burke
147 Bingham Avenue
Rumson, NJ, 07760

w 732 450 7403
c 732 618 0766
jburke@rumsoncapital.com

SCCA# 235419
NNJ region
Northeast Division

[Matt Conrad]

In all of the discussions on the FA/FB consolidation I keep reading that we (the FB community) were to be given 5 years to "make it or not". I've heard it many times and made assumptions based on it....but truthfully, I have never seen this "promise" written anywhere. I (and probably my attorney too) would be very interested in seeing any official SCCA coorespondance which specifically mentions this. If anyone has such "evidence" please contact me after the holiday weekend. I'm going to go back and read the Fastrack from when the class was approved as a start.

In making the business decision to build a car for this new class I (and many others)assumed a great deal of investment risk and also assumed that we would be allowed as a class to have a chance to grow and make the numbers. So now here we are....18 months later and they have made a proposal that if implemented will essentially kill FB and FA BOTH. 18 months is not a chance at all, especially when you consider that many home built F1000 cars have taken that long to construct and get to a race and all of the manufacturers combined have probably not assembled more than 30 total cars. They are lumping us in with classes that are ancient and still can't make the numbers.

This class can and will be one of the best SCCA has if they give us the opportunity...which it appears they don't want to do. Hell....maybe they know this and they understand success in FB does not bode well for the future of FE?

I hope everyone has a great Memorial Day weekend and please don't foget the real reason why we celebrate this holiday...the men and women who have given their lives in the service of this great country. Without the US Armed forces, we would not be free today.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Brandon Dixon]

In all of the discussions on the FA/FB consolidation I keep reading that we (the FB community) were to be given 5 years to "make it or not". I've heard it many times and made assumptions based on it....but truthfully, I have never seen this "promise" written anywhere. I (and probably my attorney too) would be very interested in seeing any official SCCA coorespondance which specifically mentions this. If anyone has such "evidence" please contact me after the holiday weekend. I'm going to go back and read the Fastrack from when the class was approved as a start.

The January 2007 Fastrack changed the following section of the GCR to it's present form.

9.1.12. PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS FOR NATIONAL CLASSES

A. A National Championship class shall retain its National Championship status as long as its annual average number of entrants remains at 2.5 or more per National event.


B. When the average number of entrants in a class at Nationals falls below 2.5, the class shall be allowed one additional year to bring the participation level above the current requirement. Alternatively, it may be immediately consolidated into an existing class. If, in the grace year, the class does not exceed current requirement per National race, it shall either be consolidated into an existing class or revert to a Regional only class.


C. Based on member input, a Regional Class meeting or exceeding the participation requirements outlined in paragraph 9.1.12.A. for one (1) year may be considered for inclusion in the National Championship racing program, except Improved Touring.


D. Based on member or manufacturer input, the CRB may recom­mend the creation of new National classes to the BoD for approval. National classes created under 9.1.12.D shall be given five (5) years to attain an average of 2.5 cars per National event before being considered for consolidation or reversion to Regional status per paragraph B above.


Note 1: For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF), or disqualified (DQ). Drivers classified as did-not-start (DNS) shall not count as entrants.

Note 2: For the purposes of this section, GTL shall be considered a new class from 2005, T3 and Spec Miata from 2006, and B Prepared, D Prepared, FE, and Formula 1000 from 2007.

[Matt Conrad]

D. Based on member or manufacturer input, the CRB may recommend the creation of new National classes to the BoD for approval. National classes created under 9.1.12.D shall be given five (5) years to attain an average of 2.5 cars per National event before being considered for consolidation or reversion to Regional status per paragraph B above.

OK....so the way I read this is that if FB was created under 9.1.12.D (and I assume it was) then we should have 5 years before we are consolidated or returned to Regional status.

FYI....do you see the word SHALL in the paragraph above....I do!

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Tifosi]

This class can and will be one of the best SCCA has if they give us the opportunity...which it appears they don't want to do. Hell....maybe they know this and they understand success in FB does not bode well for the future of FE?

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

The future of FE has nothing at all to do with FB. We earned national status by racing per the rules at the time. FB needs all the friends it can get. If SCCA gave you 5 years I'm behind you 100%. If you want to blame FE for your predicament please remember that I don't have to write a letter to BOD and CRB against consolidation.

[Sean Maisey]

Brandon, thanks for citing the letter and verse. I think this makes our (FB owners/constructors) beef very clear.

Tifosi, I agree, we need to keep this focused on the FA/FB consolidation problem and not get into the politics of FE as an SCCA owned entity or why some othe class is better suited for cosolidation. (I think FE cars are great, and if not for the Federal Reserve monetary policy over the last few years, I might have owned one instead of building a FB car. They just got too pricy for me.)

This is not about knocking any other classes, but about the SCCA leadership meeting their legal and moral committments to a great new class that is actually selling significant numbers of new cars and bringing in new members. I hope all SCCA members regardless of their car class can see the folly in the current stance.

Matt, please consider consulting with me and perhaps some of the other FB constructors before pursuing the legal angle too far. We are all in this together, and I think this is a clear case for a class action suit if it actually has to come down to that (I really hope it doesn't). But if it does, I would like to participate.

Just my $.02
Sean

[Matt Conrad]

Sean,

First off....I think SCCA is doing the right thing in beginning to make tough decisions to consolidate and possibly eliminate classes.

The thing that doesn't pass the "smell test" to me is that usually when you make decisions like this there are winners and losers....somebody always comes out smelling like a rose...and somebody comes out smelling like....well....you know. The only way they can combine FA and FB....and have parity....is to screw up both classes....and piss off everyone in both classes. So both classes are going to come out smelling bad....unless they just choose to combine the two and let the classes run as they are....and then it is FB which will be fatally harmed.

I hear you on needing to keep it focused on FA/FB...The only reason I brought FE into the discussion was to point out that SCCA (through Enterprises) has a vested interest in that class, and at the same time, is making questionable decisions that will essentially kill FA and FB.

Legal action is not a consideration at this point. I know others have brought lawsuits up earlier, but my goal right now is to gather the facts of this situation so that all of us can write concise, accurate and compelling letters to the BOD to ask them kindly to re-consider this obviously flawed decision. IF.....and I mean IF....they choose to continue down this path (and I seriously doubt they will once they realize that BOTH FB and FA competitors will be "disenfranchised" by a consolidation...and the parity adjustments needed) then all of us that have invested sizable amounts of money into this class should consider showing the BOD a different "angle" to look at this.

Tifosi,

I appreciate your input on this...I do, but I (and many others here) have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in building these FB cars. The organization with which the majority of our customers race...and which also sells a competing formula car (yes it is...trust me) just made a decision which could potentially destroy the new FB class and make all of our investments vaporize. I know you guys (and gals) have made the numbers the old fashioned way....by earning it....but how many years did it take? You can't compare FE to FB in that regard because we've only been in existence for 18 months. If FE would've been given 18 months to make the numbers....you probably wouldn't be racing one today.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Richard Dziak]

There have been lots of good responses over this important topic from am large array of FB driver/owners. I am sure that the members of the BOD are reading and reviewing these posts as ApexSpeed is a highly recognized website for formula racing venues, opinions and input from formula car owners. ApexSpeed is well respected as is those manufacturers and owners who have voiced opinions and concern.

For now, I think the best posture for all FB owner/drivers is enjoy the cars we all drive and own. Get out to the races and have fun. Enter the National events if you can, and we all need to support each other. If the venues that the SCCA provides are used and attendence is good, I am sure that the BOD will have to realize that this class is up and coming. Certainly I understand the pain of the major constructors and the investment that they have in the organization and processes that they have gone thru. This should not be overlooked.

As for myself, I will enter as many races as possible, but I am in this for fun, excitement and enjoyment and am a Regional racer. That does not mean I do not support this effort of discussion. I have a beautiful well built car built by one of the best, Matt Conrad and Dustin Wright. It is enjoyable to drive, economical to maintain, and would hate to see young men like Matt and Dustin be forced to leave the business due to policy changes. The FB class has grown tremendously over the last year in car counts. I think if the BOD of SCCA would carefully add up those cars that have entered races would find that at years end, there may be sufficent amounts to have a decent group of racers in a National Runoff event. The BOD must all be aware of current economic times where for many, investments to build or buy a car, to enter races is economically prohibited. The increasing costs for travel, fuel, entry fees places a burden financially for all racers who might have travel long distances to enjoy 1 hour of total track time in a one day event, 2 hours of track time for a double weekend event. I am sure if gas to tow was $2.00 per gallon and hotels were $50.00 and entry fees were $125.00 the number of entrants would be much higher.

So enjoy the FB car you have. Get out and drive when you can. Enter races as you can. Don't let the BOD of the SCCA get you down and out. There are so many variables that make any event successful, and BOD needs to realize this. I am here to support the effort of all FB owner/drivers anyway I can. I will not let the current situation deter me from having a great time in driving my FB. Get out and have fun, and enjoy what you have sitting in the garage. The SCCA is not the only outlet for our cars.

[Mike Holland]

In addition, opportunities for new classes such as those using biofuels and hydrogen
energy sources must be made possible for the future.

Does this mean FB can have its own class if it runs Ethanol or blended Gasoline?

[John Nesbitt]

There have been lots of good responses over this important topic from am large array of FB driver/owners. I am sure that the members of the BOD are reading and reviewing these posts as ApexSpeed is a highly recognized website for formula racing venues, opinions and input from formula car owners. ApexSpeed is well respected as is those manufacturers and owners who have voiced opinions and concern.

I doubt very much whether more than one or two Board members are reading this thread.

If you want your voice to register with the Board, write to them directly: BOD@scca.com.

[dc]

One note on the FE vs FB startup time consideration for anyone taking into account previous SCCA behavior and practices—when FE was created, there were cars and no market. All they had to do was sell the cars to build the class. In the case of FB, this class is being built on NEW (undesigned, unbuilt and untested) and converted cars, and considering that, the initial growth and popularity has been remarkable.

I think the SCCA would be doing a great injustice to both classes to try to consolidate 2 completely different cars into one class. Combine race groups—fine—but class infusion destroys both an old formula car anchor class as well as one of the bright new stars in formula car racing. That would be a terrible mistake, without giving FB the chances it was promised to develop and grow.



If this whole debacle is over reducing classes for the RunOffs, that's one thing. But with 55,000 members in the SCCA and only 700 racers competing in the RunOffs, you'd be doing a grave injustice to the whole of the SCCA membership by making decisions for a 1.3% minority. The logical solution is to give the RunOffs the 15-odd most populated National classes and then the last 10 races would be combined low-turnout legacy classes.

Judging by the early 2008 participation numbers so far, the SCCA should be a lot less worried about racer participation in the formula classes, considering that FV, FE, FF, FM, FA and FC are all in the top 10 in reported numbers. With FB already showing 34 cars this early in its legitimate first full season of competition, the fledgling class is already ahead of where I personally thought it would be at this point.



I would hope that SCCA quickly recognizes their premature and overly aggressive attempt at "fixing" the formula car classes and puts this misplaced decision out to pasture.

[Daryl DeArman]

If this whole debacle is over reducing classes for the RunOffs, that's one thing. But with 55,000 members in the SCCA and only 700 racers competing in the RunOffs, you'd be doing a grave injustice to the whole of the SCCA membership by making decisions for a 1.3% minority. The logical solution is to give the RunOffs the 15-odd most populated National classes and then the last 10 races would be combined low-turnout legacy classes.

Great point Doug. My feelings are that IF you are interested in the RunOffs what difference, really, does it make if your class is National or Regional if it supported in your region?

I also brought FE into this, or one of the other related threads, quite a few pages ago. My doing so wasn't a knock to the cars, their owners or drivers at all. I was merely illustrating what I see as an obvious conflict of interest and what SCCA stood to gain by choosing FA and FB to consolidate. If they consolidated F500 and FF I can't see FE gaining any numbers from that--perhaps FV, FC and FB but not FE.

[mmi16]

Add 5 National classes for the 2007 season and complain about too many National classes in 2008.

I have no problem with FE...they earned their way into being a National Class. The others were unwarrented gifts.

[RussMcB]

I've been at a race weekend without internet access for a few days. Lots of threads to catch up on!

One thing that's confused me: A possible interpretation (or compromise) is that the BOD might want (or will accept) the FB class moving into the same group as FA. I think that was first posted by Richard Pare.

What would that accomplish? Is there anywhere that those two classes don't already run together? *


* FB almost ran with FV/F5/CFC/FF this weekend at CMP, but the race organizers realized the error and moved FB to the fast wings & things. We had three FB cars at the event.

[Charles Warner]

3. Open National racing and eligibility to compete for a Runoffs berth to all GCR-recognized classes (IT, ASR, FS, etc.).

Stan,

That, IMO, was not a good recommendation and they seem to be following it in some sense in that they to want to make room for IT. As I stated in another thread, the genesis of this genre was allowed (by the powers that were in existence in the day) only because it was decreed that IT would NEVER be considered for national status. Members saw the real threat to our system back then. Too bad that is not so apparent now.

This is, in large part, the almighty entry fee dollar talking. It ignores many economic factors that are rampant throughout the Club. Bottom line is that the SR & formula classes are becoming the red-headed-step-child to many in the Club. Consolidate us to make room for the IT guys. And, as most have pointed out, the methodology for enacting this as chosen by the BOD is frightening.

[Stan Clayton]

That, IMO, was not a good recommendation and they seem to be following it in some sense in that they to want to make room for IT. As I stated in another thread, the genesis of this genre was allowed (by the powers that were in existence in the day) only because it was decreed that IT would NEVER be considered for national status. Members saw the real threat to our system back then. Too bad that is not so apparent now.

It's the classic "they're outbreeding us" issue, Charles. When IT started it was quite small compared to any national class...little more than a dumping ground for timed-out SS cars. Yet SRF aside, IT has been the only significant growth area in the club for the past two decades. Heck, ITA alone has 4-5 times as many competitors as CSR, DSR and S2 combined. Regional racing is now three-quarters of club racing entries and growing. How long do we continue to hold a priviledged spot at the Runoffs for the 37 guys in the club running GP while telling the 1000+ ITA guys that they are not invited to the party?

[Purple Frog]

It would be so very simple. Make all classes eligible for the Runoffs. The top 24 in national participation for a given year go to the Runoffs. Period. End of rule.

If ITA out participates GP, so be it. etc., etc.

[RussMcB]

FB has, or had, a great opportunity to become SCCA's most rapidly increasing class. Until a few days ago.

I agree with Frog. The most subscribed classes deserve the opportunity to make it to the Runoffs 'top tier'. The rest don't (for one year), but can strive for it.

That is so simple, straight forward, obvious and effective. What is the flaw in that thinking? In what way is the BOD's directive better? It seems worse in every way.

[glenn cooper]

Frog, are you available for nomination to the BOD? With simple, concise thinking like that, you'd blow into Topeka with the force of a F5 Tornado. Hmmm, maybe just what is needed there...

Frog, you are the man.

GC

[Stan Clayton]

It would be so very simple. Make all classes eligible for the Runoffs. The top 24 in national participation for a given year go to the Runoffs. Period. End of rule.

If ITA out participates GP, so be it. etc., etc.

Gee, that looks familiar...

2. Hold fast to the 24-class rule at the Runoffs (or whatever number they decided on).

3. Open National racing and eligibility to compete for a Runoffs berth to all GCR-recognized classes (IT, ASR, FS, etc.).

[Matt Conrad]

I said it in another thread in the "general" area...and The Frog (and others) have said it again....

Darwin's Theory needs to be in effect here...for ANY class that wants National status and a race at the Runoffs. Let the strong survive and let the weak die off or go race somewhere else. For FB....at least give us the chance to survive...I think that is all we are asking here!

In the meantime...while we all furiously debate this issue....we really need to do the following things to secure a strong future for FB:

1. Keep the letters to the CRB and BOD flowing. Don't just say you'll do it.....Do it! This is a critical juncture for FB...SCCA needs to hear from every last one of us in the FA and FB community.
2. We need to look at alternate organizations that may want to have an exciting new class as a part of their race program. I am going to contact the National office of NASA tomorrow and see if they would be interested in discussing having an FB class. I know they have (had?) a deal with the Formula Renault (Formula TR) guys, but not sure if that is still going OK or what.
3. We need to get out to every SCCA National race we can to get the numbers up. I may even let someone use our F1K.07 prototype if they promise to go race it, maintain it, and provide us with all the data and feedback from the sessions.

It seems apparent to me that SCCA doesn't have much interest in FB, or in giving us a fair shot to prove the worth of the class. We need to look out for ourselves and do everything we can to make FB the awesome class of cars we all know it is....and will be.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[stonebridge20]

It's the classic "they're outbreeding us" issue, Charles. When IT started it was quite small compared to any national class...little more than a dumping ground for timed-out SS cars. Yet SRF aside, IT has been the only significant growth area in the club for the past two decades. Heck, ITA alone has 4-5 times as many competitors as CSR, DSR and S2 combined. Regional racing is now three-quarters of club racing entries and growing. How long do we continue to hold a priviledged spot at the Runoffs for the 37 guys in the club running GP while telling the 1000+ ITA guys that they are not invited to the party?

I'm sorry to hijack this thread and will start a new one if needed but I have a problem with your post here Stan. My question to you is,...Do you support Improved Touring being brought up to national?

I have a real problem with this. The IT guys chose a class that they KNOW is not a national class and was NEVER intended to be. Just because there's 1000's of them gives NO right to now make them a national class. It's a cop out by SCCA to increase national numbers to even consider this. If the IT guys want to NOW go national racing,...sell the IT car and pick an existing national class to join.

Mike Agnifilo

[John Robinson II]

Lets see how many of the "low buck" IT guys are willing to spend the major $$ to do national racing. Same as everything else, it takes money and time to run upfront. I firmly believe that you can not take a new off the showroom floor Solstice and be anywhere near the front in the SS class. Same thing will happen to IT.
My understanding of the philosophy of the IT classes was to give the grass roots racers a place to run so they did not have to spend big $$ to be competitive.

How much has SM participation fallen off on the national level since the newness has worn off? And SM is not cheap racing, you can buy a "new" FF motor cheaper then a top level SM motor.

John

[kma4444]

Well, I go away for a couple days and this thread has gotten quite long. not that I'm surprised as the issue got me going as soon as I read the "plan".

My opinion would go along with much of what's already been posted here, my prose would not add substantially to the eloquence that precedes it.

Letters to the CRB abd BOD should include what you want them to do, give them your ideas. I believe after contact with some BOD folks that FB is not resigned to the consolidation bin. I think we can keep the class as is, get combined with FA for nationals to build car count and retain the ARRC for our championship race. This will get the class into 2012 like was promised to allow it to be self-sustaining. I am sure the class can and will do exactly that, the concept is too good and the cars are super performing and the best bang for your buck in club racing.

I think the BOD has been surprised to see such low car counts in FB this year at nationals. I know there were three at CMP this weekend for a double regional but the national numbers have been really low. We need to get the numbers going and building at the national races. When this happens, the class will have lots of clout to determine it's own future.

[RussMcB]

<snip> I believe after contact with some BOD folks that FB is not resigned to the consolidation bin. I think we can keep the class as is, get combined with FA for nationals to build car count ... <snip>

That's a confusing mix of thoughts to me. I don't understand what it would accomplish. Did the BOD folks describe it in a way that made sense to you? If so, please share.

Sorry if I'm being thick headed.

Thanks.

[Marshall Mauney]

Lets see how many of the "low buck" IT guys are willing to spend the major $$ to do national racing.
[...]
How much has SM participation fallen off on the national level since the newness has worn off? And SM is not cheap racing, you can buy a "new" FF motor cheaper then a top level SM motor.

Well said. I bought a SM to run the MARRS series with intent to reduce my racing expenses for a couple of seasons. Trouble is, I found out that I needed another stack of money to make the "$15K" car mid-pack competitive ('pro' engine, torsen diff, exhaust-of-the-week, dyno time, data acq, etc.). The only cost reduction I've seen is in travel (not going to Nationals), and the fuel is a bit cheaper.

I'd say that a competitive SM is on a par cost-wise with FE - and that's at the regional level.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan,...Do you support Improved Touring being brought up to national?

Yes...along with the other GCR-recognized Regional-Only classes. because I think that is the best course for the Club. For at least 25 years existing-class National racing has been in a state of near perpetual decline, as illustrated by the following graph:



The situation is not dissimilar to existing-model new car sales for auto companies. If car companies don't periodically prune non-performing models, update their specs or bring in new products, they will wither and die or be absorbed by competitors who are more nimble in the market place. Charles laments pursuing the almighty entry fee, but the harsh truth is that the Club operates on cold hard cash, and it is a lot easier to attract already-existing customers than to develop new ones.

I have a real problem with this. The IT guys chose a class that they KNOW is not a national class and was NEVER intended to be. Just because there's 1000's of them gives NO right to now make them a national class. It's a cop out by SCCA to increase national numbers to even consider this. If the IT guys want to NOW go national racing,...sell the IT car and pick an existing national class to join. Mike Agnifilo

IT is just a car preparation level, Mike...not a social disease. In nearly all other classes a competitor can take the same basic car from entry level Regional racing to the Runoffs. To casually suggest that IT racers wishing to join the National program sell their existing cars and buy and develop a new one is not very useful IMO, and that 25-year old attitude is a direct contributing factor to the perpetual decline of National racing.

Stan

[stonebridge20]

Thanks for the reply Stan. Just wanted to know where you stand.

IT too national looks like a ZERO net gain for the "club". If "cash" is what SCCA is looking for then this "plan" only shifts "cash" from regionals too nationals.

[Dennis McCarthy]

Stan,

How is adding more classes to the mix going to help anything?

Too little track time and too many classes seem to be the two major complaints

of most of the drivers I've spoken with. Do you really think the IT crowd is goi ng to cough

up the dough to run at the national/runoffs level? Having driven an ITS car I doubt it.

Your doing nothing more than muddying the waters by adding classes. How about just the

opposite, how about cutting the number of classes so it actually means some thing to win

a trophy.

By the way, was any of this done by actually polling the membership or was this done by

committee?

[kma4444]

Musta come out a bit garbled Russ, let me try again.

If FB is run in FA for nationals, like the enterprise cars were and the pro Mazda is now, it would give them the same chance as we have been told they will have to make the numbers to become a class of their own. It really doesn't change things from where they are now, other than the FB moniker isn't used in national racing. This would allow the class to run in the ARRC still, not robbing it of this opportunity. When it meets the participation numbers, it is a national class.

In my mind consolidation is positively un-doable for FA/FB, there's no way without harming FA numbers and killing FB on the vine. If our choices are to combine the classes or run inside a class for a couple years until we meet the numbers then I know where my vote falls.

Your car looked great at CMP, I didn't get a chance to meet you as I was working and the couple times I went by your paddock spot you were gone, same with Mr O'Connell. Hope to meet you guys soon.

[VehDyn]

I say just leave it the way it is as its own class. It runs in the same run group anyway. When FB makes the numbers it goes to the runoffs. If it doesnt, it goes to the ARRC. There is no reason to absorb it into FA. All that is good for is to provide more opportunity for free contingency tires for the FAs when the show up as the car counts will be inflated. It provides no other benefit.

Thanks.