That's a good assumption. It was never a "proposal". That would imply that they were going to consider input from the membership, which was never the case. This all was a done deal before the first webinar.Originally Posted by brian styczynski
That's a good assumption. It was never a "proposal". That would imply that they were going to consider input from the membership, which was never the case. This all was a done deal before the first webinar.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
I worked with one of the first F440 drivers when the class came out. The changes to the class over the years never revitalized it in the way hoped. At least the race this year is on Sunday - if it was Saturday Calvin would not be able to defend. If you go back in SCCA history (and many of us have lived it) there have been many classes that we lost - like A Sports Racing, Formula A, Showroom Stock etc. Of course the SCCA and its members have not helped by allowing class creep which priced many classes out of their niche.
BTW - the test day comment really fried me. Forget if someone could run the test day cheaper - it is a money make for the club - this is wrong on so many levels.
BTW 2 - All formula classes need to work on keeping costs down, assisting fellow competitors get to the track, and give up the idea that my competition is my enemy. As the famous quote goes, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."
ChrisZ
Club Racing
BTW - the test day comment really fried me. Forget if someone could run the test day cheaper - it is a money make for the club - this is wrong on so many levels.
Agree with comment above!!
Club Racing!!
We pay to play! They made the current number of classes! I understand car participation numbers, quite a few classes are down, but F6 would be a better fit with FF. I know some FF people may not agree, but F6 and FF are always combined on race weekends because speed and lap times are very similar, and on race weekends when SCCA wanted to combine FC with FF and F6, the FC drivers strongly opposed. The SCCA is a Member based Club. We have a group of paid people running "our" Club that we pay a membership fee to belong to, but yet the Club tells us at what level we can participate? Even if we choose to pay more to participate at a ( MAJOR ) level of our "CLUB", we are told we can no longer play we the upper class! F5/6 has been around a long time, like other classes numbers have dropped, but many still participate and have made substantial investments in equipment, time, travel...... I feel that the class should still be allowed to PLAY. I think we all would agree that the Runoffs could be adjusted to accommodate all who choose to pay to participate, if they have made the effort to meet the requirements, and made the investment, then they should be allowed because they have PAID to be a member of the CLUB!!!
Leon
I don't believe that's what got said, what got said was that the test days subsidize the rest of the event to an extent.
E.g., if SCCA stops hosting the test days, Runoffs entry fee goes up. (and likely some other group hosts the test days so it makes the overall cost of the Runoffs go up for both Runoffs-only folks AND folks doing the test days + Runoffs.)
So much this.
Having an FF in the garage I think about this one a lot - and I keep coming back to the raw economics of it. The Driverz/Challenge Cup FVs have found a sweet spot of events (half dozen or so a year) and expense-capping rules (DOT Radials/Spec Wheels) and then they form their events around a community. If we all took a step back and said, "what can we do as a community to lower participation and running costs so that more people can participate" we will have a better chance.
But either we can help make those decisions/compromises or the decisions will be made for us by others who have to because of "macro" event economics.
(But this is probably better discussed in one of the other participation-focused threads and not in the Runoffs thread.)
Jon K - 1986 Swift DB3/Honda
I hope that everyone has the same amount of anger when it comes time to elect the BOD. Everyone needs to educate themselves and understand who their representative is, what they stand for, and how they voted on this "proposal". The list can be found on the SCCA website when you log in under your membership number. These types of decisions need to have consequences for the people that approved them. No incumbents.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
Cost is obviously a large factor in participation. However, I think you hit on something that's even more important. Community. That's what Driverz and Challenge Cup do very well. They're a big ol' family that actually gets along. There are a sizeable portion of the drivers in those series with the means to race something that costs more money, but they stick around because of the community.
The same could be said for pretty much any class in any series that is thriving and/or growing right now. The most extreme, in the best way possible, example of this would be GLTC with Gridlife. My goodness... The growth that series has seen is unreal and it's not cheap to run competitively. I can't help but to think the community aspect of it and people wanting to be part of that community is the most influential part of their secret sauce. The great racing is a product of successful trial and error, but they had to get the people part right first - and they freaking nailed it.
It boils down to giving people a sense of being. People love to feel like they belong somewhere.
I am a spreadsheet guy. If the SCCA has to rent the track for the test days, the track is taking a cut, the SCCA takes a cut and the racer pays. Now, if they had said, "by running the test days the SCCA gets a discount on the entire week of track rental and can negotiate a cheaper test day for the participants...." What if no one shows for the test day? Do we lose? We are not privy to the numbers, but it came off wrong - so are the test day drivers subsidizing the event? who supplies the corner workers? - does that put a strain on them? too many questions....
ChrisZ
I did vote against Dayle Frame and even lobbied on social media for his competitor. Frame was reelected anyway.
Dean Fehribach
Car owner: SCCA Enterprises FE2 #037.
Co-owner: SCCA C-Spec Mazda 3
Car owner: 2017 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Autocross STU
You too?
Yeah, it ain't working...
well, if you were a S2 guy that spent a ****-ton of money to become a P2 guy you'll now have the opportunity to spend some more....
Every P2 guy has that opportunity. I hope that very few do it.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
Nah, y'all are soooooo wrong. C'mon - look how well this worked for FB, S2, FM, F500, etc. SCCA has a flawless track record of managing classes....
*hears whispers*
*checks notes*
Ahhhh $#!+.
Nevermind.
On the bright side, maybe with all the soon to be orphaned cars over here vintage racing turns into what they have over in England.
Sports Car Club of America rebrands as the
Sh*tbox Car Club of America after 2025 runoffs
I don’t know why every time I think about renewing my membership something like this happens. Maybe it’s a sign.
Postives
In 2025 there will be 22 classes and 18 run groups at the runoffs
In 2026:
6 classes with super low participation will merge together.
This leaves 20 classes.
4 more classes will have to merge, or two more class will have to be eliminated to get down to 18 classes. Other than a few odd ball classes like 600, SCCA has done a very good job with combining classes to create better fields. A lot of the classes that have merged makes sense..
SCCA's goal is to get it down to 18 classes, that each have there own group. Meaning it will go back to single run group, for 2026 and beyond!
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____
I was worried for a while, but if you look at the total participants for each Major/HST, they are actually quiet moderate outside of the 5 or so "big ones" that is usually popular every year. This means that SCCA needs us; sure classes like FM went away but those were far from healthy.
On the bright side, if you own one of those cars - you can always run in your class at regional events.
The regional events accepts all classes, and they are happy to - as the regions want to provide a place for everyone to drive their car, and they also need participation from every class in order afford the cost of hosting a weekend.
Below is a spreadsheet of major participation I made from the 2024 numbers. Keep in mind, out of the 36 major events - there are 3 left, so this is not including them. Although those last 3 majors traditionally have had low attendance in the past, so it wont affect the numbers that much.
I combined the participation numbers for the groups that will be merged for 2026, this does not include the classes that not allowed to participate.
I hesitate to post, knowing how deeply this affects some members. And, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why the CRB chose to merge P1 and P2, instead of simply running a combined race, with split start, as they did with FF and FC. The logic escapes me.
That said, I caution against thinking of this as an(other) instance of SCCA's having a down on open wheel/SR. Consider the following classes eliminated over the past decade or so: GT4, GT5, STO, GP, SSB, SSC. With GTL, GT3, and AS to follow.
It really is simply a question of entry numbers. The remedy comes from within each class. John LaRue's original post in the Waning Participation thread is worth rereading, especially the discussion of how BSpec revived itself.
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
I don't know how anyone could look at FA/F1000, FM/FX/FWhatever, S2, P1, P2, GT1 and then type this. These are just the classes I peripherally care about, there are probably more I'm not thinking of. Now we have P2 owners that have spent the last 5-10 years building cars from the ground up just for them to be rendered obsolete as soon as/before they even hit the track, just as we had with F1000. If this time next year, the SCCA says FF needs $20k built engines and $10k worth of aero updates to merge with FC, would you be very happy? And no, "just run regionals" is not consolation. It was okay to have a 4 car FX (a class nobody asked for) Runoffs race 2 years ago but now we have to cut long-standing classes to shorten the schedule all of a sudden?Other than a few odd ball classes like 600, SCCA has done a very good job with combining classes to create better fields.
Van Diemen RF99 FC
I'll let the F600 guys comment on that ugly statement but rest assured that there are people in the classes at the top of the participation list that think FF is oddball and would be happy to see it gone. Combining with FC is the first step. You should still be worried.
Mike Beauchamp
RF95 Prototype 2
Get your FIA rain lights here:
www.gyrodynamics.net/product/cartek-fia-rain-light/
I don't know how anyone could look at FA/F1000, FM/FX/FWhatever, S2, P1, P2, GT1 and then type this. These are just the classes I peripherally care about, there are probably more I'm not thinking of. Now we have P2 owners that have spent the last 5-10 years building cars from the ground up just for them to be rendered obsolete as soon as/before they even hit the track, just as we had with F1000. If this time next year, the SCCA says FF needs $20k built engines and $10k worth of aero updates to merge with FC, would you be very happy? And no, "just run regionals" is not consolation. It was okay to have a 4 car FX (a class nobody asked for) Runoffs race 2 years ago but now we have to cut long-standing classes to shorten the schedule all of a sudden?
Those classes were dead, you can't keep hosting races for dead classes. FX had 40 entries per year...
All P1 needs to enter prototype is a few restrictions. P2 needs a tunnel and either a built motor or no restrictor. That class combination makes a lot of sense.
Using SCCA's metrics - FF is very healthy as a class if you count FRP and the other series, just not doing so well in SCCA majors participation. If anything were to happen, the two bottom classes would be eliminated.
The classes they combined had like 70 entries per year, so it was a smart move on there part.
As a FF competitor, and someone also involved with FC. I feel very comfortable right now that both classes will be eligible for the Runoffs for years to come, as long as the numbers don't drop off from here.
If you look at the classes left, and the number of participants at each of the HST/Majors events, SCCA needs all the entries they can get. Meaning most of the classes will be fine at most of the Majors/HST. If they became radical, and decided to only have 6 classes, they simply couldn't afford to host the event...
FX should have never existed in the first place.
So just~ a $30,000 investment, more than a lot of those cars are even worth. Some of the cars aren't capable of adding tunnels. Some of the owner's can't afford that. If they wanted to race P1 they would've raced P1. Now a few of them will pony up, a few will just run severely uncompetitively, and many will find somewhere and/or something else to race. I've seen 5 P2 cars for sale already.
These aren't the SCCA's metrics though...
I wouldn't hold my breath on this.
If they lump enough classes together, eventually they'll reach a big class. Just look at FA. Hell, pretty soon we can just lump FA-FZ together and have F. That's what SR classes have come to.
Van Diemen RF99 FC
I was going to try to pass this off as a new proposal - but it is actually from 1977!
(Emphasis mine)
SCCA Letter 1977 Proposal by Hank Thorp and Ron Zimmermann
Proposal to Restructure National Racing Program
The following proposal was developed by the Competition Board and submitted to the Board of Governors (May 20-22) for their consideration. They have, in principle, approved this proposal overwhelmingly.
The proposal is a result of membership input at the National Convention in St. Louis, particularly concerning need for a change. On February 20, the Chairman of the Competition Board and the Board of Governors agreed the Comp Board was to develop a restructuring plan for presentation to the membership prior to approval or disapproval by the Board of Governors.
Following receipt of membership input—by September 1—on the proposal below, revisions to the plan will be made at the September 9-11 meeting of the Competition Board, for further membership input prior to final action by the Board of Governors at their November meeting. The recommendations are effective January 1, 1979, unless otherwise specified.
1. The name of the National racing program shall be changed to United States Road Racing Championship Series.
2. A third level of racing is not desirable.
3. No changes in Regional racing.
4. Competition Board analysis of National racing participation indicates the “2.5 rule" (GCR 5.1) will result in elimination of A Sports Racing, B Sports Racing, Formula A and A Production as National classes, effective January 1, 1979. The remaining 20 classes will be combined as follows:
- Formula F,
- Formula V,
- Formula SCCA: Formula B, Formula C, Formula SV*
- GT 1: B Production, C Production, A Sedan
- GT 2: D Production, E Production, B Sedan
- GT 3: F Production, G Production, H Production, C Sedan
- Showroom Stock
- C Sports Racing
- D Sports Racing
*The FSV 1600 cc engine will become a recognized Formula B engine, thereby assimilating these cars into Formula SCCA. 5.
These new combined classes will form seven racing groups, racing for overall position only, with the exception of CSR and DSR and possibly Showroom Stock. CSR and DSR will continue as separate classes, racing with Formula SCCA. There may be two or three classes within Showroom Stock, depending on participation levels.
6. With regard to the currently approved "2.5 Rule;' effective January 1, 1979, 2.5 will be changed to 5.0, with January 1, 1981, the first deletion at that level, and 6.0 will be the level necessary in Regional racing for return to National status.
7. Within the new combined classes, where appropriate, adjustments to be developed by the Competition Board will be made to equalize performance. At least the first draft of these will be completed for publication in the August SPORTS CAR.
8. The membership is requested to submit suggestions on names for each of the new combined classes and comments on the equalization proposals. The Competition Board is enthusiastic about the marketability of possible promotable designations of these new combined classes.
9. Points will be awarded as follows to the top 10 finishers in each class: 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1. Twenty-five cars per mile will be per- mitted for practice and racing. The Executive Steward is expected to restrict certain courses to less than 25 cars per mile.
10. It is requested that, beginning in 1978, a series of six to 10 events, selected by the Director of Club Racing, receive $1000 per event assistance for promotion and press relations, including the appropriate staff time.
11. No changes will be made to driver licensing at this time.
12. It is requested that the awarding of prize money be permitted. In addition to the draft of equalization proposals in the August SPORTS CAR, there will also be a further explanation of the proposal, including how this will affect the Champion Spark Plug Racing Classic, invitations, etc.
Comments from the membership both for and against are invited. Comments should be addressed to the Director of Club Racing (SCCA, P.O. Box 22476, Denver, Colo. 80222), for distribution to the Competition Board for their consideration. Deadline for receipt is September 1, 1977. The Competition Board will then put this proposal in final form, to be submitted to the Board of Governors in November 1977 and, if approved, implemented January 1, 1979.
ChrisZ
PS - I need to follow up with the discussions and (lack of) actions that followed.
“Time is a flat circle. Everything we have done or will do we will do over and over and over again—forever.” -- Rust Cohle
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
This isn't even close to what it would take for a competitive P2 car to become a competitive P1 car.
The P2 bike-powered car needs a full tunnel floor ($7,000), new rear wing assembly ($3,500), Geartronics air shifting ($7,000), built motor x2 ($15,000 for 2 bike motors, plus budget for at least 1 refresh per year per motor) to get to the "90% of a good P1 car" program.
However, that's really not what it takes to be competitive in P1 because the issue is you'll not get down to minimum weight without a body without repair, tripods instead of CVs, the lightest brake assembly possible, etc. And you'll still likely not hit minimum.
It is not a trivial thing for a P2 car to become a P1 car.
-Mark
Mark Uhlmann
Vancouver, Canada
'12 Stohr WF1
Uh, what? Every time SCCA has merged a class other than maybe a few times with tin tops in the last 10 years, that class has vaporized in a year. S2. FB. FM. F500.SCCA has done a very good job with combining classes to create better fields. A lot of the classes that have merged makes sense..
The 18 class structure you think is the holy grail of SCCA awesomeness will be all Miatas - these changes will substantially hurt open wheel participation.
Double huh? By that logic, S2 is absolutely banging then....in vintage. So, it's healthy if you count everything which is not how SCCA calculates it.
Based on the webinar, Mr. Prill said automatic Runoffs qualification for classes will move from 4.0 to 5.0. Remember? P1 and P2 when run as their own classes struggle to make 3.0, much less 4.0. That's probably the driving factor.
Dean Fehribach
Car owner: SCCA Enterprises FE2 #037.
Co-owner: SCCA C-Spec Mazda 3
Car owner: 2017 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Autocross STU
First off. Has anyone taken a deep dive into the club's finances lately?
All these knee jerk reactionary measures over the last few years smell like an organization throwing everything it has to save its own a**.
Why can't leadership devise a 5-year plan set in stone that allows competitors time to give the low performing classes a go of it, accept a predetermined consolidation or allow the class to die on the vine?
Right now, who want to invest the time, money and effort into a class that might disappear anytime without notice?
If the Runoffs is still the crown jewel, then restructure the event to allow each competing class its own race. After the fourth year, all under-pro-forming class will be notified that they will only have one more year of eligibility. Then promote another class to Runoff status.
Many may say this has already been the case, but it hasn’t. Only idle threats and no real plan has been set forth.
I know, this is a bit far-fetched and probably more work than the club’s leadership appear to want to do, but what’s to lose at this point?
Or is it time to start the band playing and rearrange the deck chairs?
Neither FC nor FF meet the 4.0 rule (and FC is flirting with 3.0), yet they remain unamalgamated, with a split start in 2025. Why not do the same for P1 and P2?
Given the expense associated with converting cars to new rule set, especially P2 cars, I expect that many will not convert, either running Regionals only or simply going away. What does this accomplish except delaying the demise of prototypes at the Runoffs by a year or two?
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
Let me play Pogo and quote. “We have met the enemy and he is us”.
S2000 was killed when monocoque chassis were allowed. Does P1 and P2 need ground effects and wings to be good competitive racing? The “SCCA” has screwed up a lot of things, but it has lots of co-conspirators. Look at the most successful classes. They are spec, or at least reasonably simple classes. If you are going to have classes with $100k + cars, you will limit your participants. You cannot build a pyramid starting half way up…. You also need stepping stones. FV can no longer step up to FF. We are in a very dangerous position as when people move up or retire there has to be someone to take their place. If you don’t have this chain then your car is worthless.
Stop and ask yourself “Why do I race?” Is it for the sport, the friendships, the challenges, and the fun. Or is it only to win? If it is the former rather than the latter, then why are we contributing to the escalation of the costs?
Again, the SCCA has made and allowed some bad decisions (I consider FE to be one of them, SRF was questionable) but don’t think that all of us are blameless.
ChrisZ
ps In all of this discussion, the system of new classes coming on board has not been discussed. In the wings we might have Sports Radical, Club spec, and other touring and spec classes (not to bring up EV). If 18 is the magic number, who is the next class to be dropped?
It all points back to poor leadership without a vision. True leadership would not have allowed the scope creep that has raised the cost to compete.
Your are correct about who needs tunnels, or a $2500 adjustable shock? The leaders have allowed frivolous items but then take forever or deny the real need of replacement parts such as cranks, heads, brake rotors, cams, axle beams just to name a few.
SRF, FE, and Spec Miata may look like saviors they were really nothing more than the start of the race to the bottom. And nobody wins that race.
Has anyone considered making the championships per class a biennial thing? Heck, it wouldn't matter if you had 30 classes if you only ran 15 per year. Given the time and expense, you might actually increase participation - you just have to make two years of results the entry requirement.
Reid,
My point was that the classes they are merging together now, make sense when you look at the numbers and how similar they are.
You are correct, the classes they tried to incorporate in the past didn't work...
And to clarify, my heart goes out to the 600 guys, but I can understand why SCCA couldn't find a way to fit them in. They are unique cars, and I don't think there is anyway that they could merge with another class.
The new prototype class (and all the other classes that are being merged), can be affordable to transition into, but it will take the input of individuals in those classes to come together and put together a logical plan, for the SCCA to implement.
Instead of having a very low minimum weight, they can propose a higher one, that everyone can easily attain.
Reducing the power of P1 engines significantly through restrictors, so it is much closer to a P2 engine can save the P2 guys more money.
A new wing and geartronics has nothing to do with this.
Unfortunately the tunnel is something you can't change cheaply, unless you find a used DSR one.
_________________________
While these changes seem scary and overwhelming, the SCCA is not trying to make it worse in the long run
They are doing their best to make these classes have larger numbers by consolidation. The key to all of this is choosing rules that give racers an easier transition...
If the runoffs format is more attractive in the future, classes like FF or FC (where competitors have alternative places to run) might regain an interest into participating in the runoffs program...
The diversity of opinions and solutions expressed in this thread are indicative of the problem the club faces when doing anything beyond maintaining the status quo.
Has anyone in this discussion been convinced to abandon their own position and join with another?
We elect a board of directors to make the decisions precisely because of the above. One of the realities of that structure is the shift from road racing majority membership interest to road racing becoming a minority membership interest. If we're being honest with ourselves, some of our disagreements look absurd to those not directly involved. That probably also applies to many within the road racing community as well.
tl;dr: We can't agree among ourselves how to proceed, we don't trust those elected to make those decisions and all we want to do is bitch about it.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
Pete,
I had a longer reply, but I am going to sit on it as it was too negative. But let me bring up one example - the rain light - if you tick off so many of your members and don't even seem to care - then something is wrong at the core. And if you keep chasing people away, eventually even us lifers will loose interest. Most of us believe in the SCCA and don't want to see that.
ChrisZ
Edit - watch the last 30 laps of the Indy race to see how even the pros can screw it up...
The fact is that if the classes in question had decent participation numbers this thread would not have almost 200 posts.
To paraphrase the late great Jimmy Buffet at the end of "Margaritaville"...
Some people say... the SCCA is to blame,
But we know... Its our own damn fault!
Now back to your regularly scheduled rants.
Some great posts here of late; this is exactly why I sent in my letter challenging National to formulate a Vision Statement for Formula and Prototype Racing in SCCA.
But of course, it's tabled at the CRB and won't get acted on. That's because we don't have leadership in Topeka, we have management. Google the difference if you need to - though I suspect most in this thread won't.
@ J Lee - your posts are hilarious. I wish I lived in a reality where spending $30-50k to transition to a new class could be described as "affordable."
Mark Uhlmann's post was pretty on-target, though I'd disagree with the need for assisted shifting. 1mm restrictor change on the P1's will hardly be noticeable; meanwhile, we still need a lot more than just no restrictors to close the 7-10s gap at RA to a P1. Yeah - new motors (and development program) for everyone.
As it is, I fully expect we will lose P1 drivers, along with 90% of the P2s, as most racers don't want to pay more and more to go slower and slower.
Tunnels are not something you just slap on a car and expect to be faster. They have to be properly designed for and integrated into the car.
As very appropriately pointed out, P2 drivers will mostly NOT make the jump to P1. We already HAVE P1-legal cars, in case you didn't know.
We could already be racing P1 if we WANTED to.
We DON'T. It's too damn expensive.
And I would suggest, as one example, that this might have been a good issue to coalesce around vs the scatter shot approach that's being taken in an effort to derail any change unless it's the one the poster favors.
I would also suggest that even including lurkers, these forums reach a minority of SCCA road racing competitors.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
Looking back over the last 60 years...
Non-spec classes come and go. My theory is that they burn out when one team starts to dominate a class. You could say the Gurney Toyota killed IMSA GTP in the early 90's. A team just has more funding, ability, drive, skills, time, etc. to invest in a program. They start to dominate, and the class seems to dissolve after that.
Showroom stock fell apart when well funded factory sponsored teams could pick through dozens of cars and parts bins to develop winning programs, leaving independents to struggle. Following my theory the winning Fergus/Hartmann combination effected S2. Clint McMahan had a huge effect on F600. One chassis became a must have in F1000. It could be argued the Citation chassis became dominate in FC. Scott Tucker didn't help DSR.
That is not to fault the winning teams. They had the desire, funding, talent, time and resources to advance their craft... and rightly deserve their championships. Those teams are non-pulsed by the need to buy a $300 rain light. For they might be too busy using a CNC machine to fab custom wheels out of a block of aluminum. They are budgeting for sets of tires to use at private test days.
OBTW, as fans of the sport we admire the engineering and development that goes into the winning efforts. We love non-spec classes for their mechanical marvels.
Racing is not a middle-class sport. Its expensive. You either spend a lot of money, or a lot of time to win. Seemingly you need to spend a lot of both to succeed. And many can't afford the luxury. As we say in the vanishing orange groves of Florida... Sometimes the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. To save time and money folks enter less events; the numbers drop below the threshold of viability.
As always, I respect that your mileage may vary.
There was a time it was a middle class sport - maybe a golden age - a fleeting time. Technology and economics has maybe ended that.........
Racing is not a middle-class sport. Its expensive. You either spend a lot of money, or a lot of time to win. Seemingly you need to spend a lot of both to succeed. And many can't afford the luxury. As we say in the vanishing orange groves of Florida... Sometimes the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. To save time and money folks enter less events; the numbers drop below the threshold of viability.
As always, I respect that your mileage may vary.
But that assumes only winning is important. There is the thrill, the challenge, the camaraderie of your fellow competitors. To do something 99.9% of the population will never do. To do it to the best of you abilities and push yourself for more. In FV we say that no matter your ability, there will be probably someone to race with. Car & Driver did a psychological study of pro drivers and amateur drivers. The pros were driven, narcissistic, loaners. If that is what the SCCA wants, it will fail. The amateurs knew their limitations and continued on in spite of disappointment and failure. We build relationships and kinship with our fellow racers - of all classes.
The late Mike Allison one said "When you get out of a racecar the greens are greener, the reds are redder and everything is sharper and more in focus." If we forget that, there are more important things in life to do.
Besides, don't forget - we make the rules.
ChrisZ
I've only been racing for a few years, but it definitely seems to me like that's what has happened with FA and the Swifts (especially 016). Unless it's a HST event, there are rarely more than 3 or 4 FAs. Even then, the Road Atlanta HST event only had 4 FAs this year.
2 cents
I first joined SCCA in 1967, have been frustrated over the years, quit and rejoined a few times. This last stint rapidly approaching 30 years. Someone in a previous post mentioned SCCA finances and it would be nice as a member to see a financial statement. At one time it was published yearly in Sports Car, back when Pro Racing was losing money. Then the accounting format was changed, and you needed a forensic accountant to understand the numbers. Then they quit publishing it altogether. One night I spent 2 hours searching online without luck to uncover that single document. This is a club and as members we should know where every dollar is spent and have direct input. The current system is not working. Another previous post mentioned the fact that we don’t have leaders, we have management and that in my opinion is spot on. The class creep and elimination of classes is a failure of club “management” not looking at the club as a racer but as bean counters. The dialog should be ‘what can we do to make the racing more affordable and numbers up’ not ‘here’s what we’re going to do’. If you decrease the number of participants the costs go up, simple math. In the mid 90’s SCCA did a survey at the Runoffs asking competitors annual income and it was around $250,000. If those figures are true and we have the same cross section today, that’s half a million dollars. So, no matter what the current “management “changes there will be deep pockets on the starting grid, not those that formed the backbone of the club for decades.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote