Scca eliminated classes

[E1pix]

^^^ Noticed that forever, always accompanied by “Hmmm, Yeah…”

Curious what the F6 guys think here… though coming from no personal experience, it seems it’d be creepy to be in a F6 surrounded by Fs — if not also very tenuous for having presumably less line-of-sight.

[924RACR]

^Probably not as intimidating as having a 6' wide P2 filling BOTH of your mirrors at the same time! LOL

(Yeah, I'm that guy...)

[Brian Graham]

https://www.crbscca.com/

Thanks Jonathan for the link, you made it easy. While I am not not happy with this latest move, bitching about it here does little. I sent a letter and I urge everyone who is reading this now 4 page post to do the same. Will it help? I have no idea but it is the least we can do in this situation. I personally am looking at a loss of 5 race weekends with multiple customers that will hurt our team. Maybe there is still time to effect a change.

Brian.

[TimH]

For many years ff and FC were grouped together and there isn't a problem. Central division national races were grouped this way.

FF and FV can often play together, too, but FV and FC are just too different.

[Mschumi101]

I would not recommend having FV & FC in the same group. There are more than enough cars to make a decent group with just FV & FF, and FC is too fast everywhere to be safe with FV. Having driven & crashed both, the thought of being in a FV hit by a FC is rather scary.

Lets not forget, that the issue is not really low turnout in FF/FV, it's literally stated it was because you cannot combine the eliminated group of cars safely with others.

While this may not be ideal, it is clear that SCCA is not okay with just FF/FV formulating a run group. If we want either class to race at Super Tour events, then we need to come up with some other combination, and FC is the only other viable class available.

After analyzing data from the runoffs, FC and F6 have very similar straight line speeds. Looking at qualifying speeds in the trap, I saw F600's hitting up to 146mph, consistently north of 140mph on the straights. The FC's were in the low 140s, with a 143mph the highest I saw sifting through. So closing speeds would actually be more favorable with FC compared to F6 as they run now. The bigger difference would be in braking and mid-corner speeds, but I don't think those are that far off between the classes for low-mid speed corners. The FC doesn't gain a significant amount of time over an FF in mid corner speed, it is maybe 2-3mph in the mid speed corners, and very similar in the low speed corners. Vee's are fairly quick through the corners as well, probably also very similar in the low speed corners. I am working with others to compile this data and will share it in a letter to the CRB. Biggest differences would be in the high speed corners, such as T1, carousel, kink at Road America. But in the instance of the carousel, even the FF cars can easily pass around the outside of a Vee without the need for the Vee to alternate their lines. Passing in the other mentioned corners comes more down to situational awareness and driver etiquette.

In short, if FV could share a track with FF and F6 without issues, I don't believe adding FC in place to their run group would be a huge change. If it means allowing the FF and FV back into super tour races, then I would argue this is the way forward. Not to mention FF and FC will need to share the track at the runoffs next year, and neither group shares the track in Majors or ST events, so neither car is familiar with each others closing speeds and tendencies.

If we can get FC/FF/FV as the 8th run group at Super Tour events, then that would be ideal, allowing all runoffs eligible classes a chance to race at Super Tour events and participate in whatever SCCA event they please. If FV drivers are not okay with sharing the track with FC's, then they don't have to register for those events, but at least they had the opportunity to race. Clearly the SCCA doesn't want us racing in our own groups despite being the two healthiest Formula classes outside of FE2, so we need an alternative to pitch to attempt to get back on the schedule, and this is the best way forward in my opinion.

[Bob Wright]

Last January the FCs raced with the FVs at Homestead. It worked but required the FC drivers to be careful and courteous when passing the FVs. We were. I think FF and FV together have to have the same issue. I'm much more fearful as a FC of being on track with P1/P2 cars- I've been taken out multiple times over the years.

I think SCCA management thinks the FVs shouldn't be racing with anyone else (I kind of agree) and that's one of the reasons they bounced them from HST in spite of the participation numbers.

[sauce_racer]

Vee is the 7th most participated class in the SCCA. FF is still in the top half at 13th. F6, okay sure. Of course, it's an easy copout for the SCCA to say this is the smallest run group, goodbye, when there are 3 (now 2) classes in this run group as opposed to the 5 or so classes that make up most of the other run groups. Make the run groups at HST events FC-FF-FV and FA-P-FE2. Then we would have two medium-sized, balanced groups, rather than one large group and one small group. FC and FF are together at the Runoffs from now on anyway, why not start getting them acclimated to sharing the same track? It's a better alternative than telling certain classes they can't race.

While we're on the topic of participation, the GT1-GT2-GT3-GTX-T1-T2-AS group only has one class that is in the top half of participation, so why didn't they start there? Hint: CRB.

I still have not seen a good reason why there is this desperate push to save track time all of a sudden. Classes come and go, but the overarching event structure and class groups have existed just fine for a very long time. And no, don't say the Runoffs.

I pointed this exact same thing to Jeremy and my Dad when I saw the announcement on Friday. I could hardly believe it when I looked at some of the numbers and the reality that SCCA is saying 'screw you' to us in open wheel classes. I haven't raced much in the last few years because life happens and now I can't plan my return after I have the baby.

What is most offensive in this, SCCA says HST is the premier road racing event other than the Runoffs. So why would you get rid of FV? FF maybe I can argue we don't have enough at times, but FV absolutely not. If the club was really concerned about not having enough time then they need to go back to the original frame work of the Majors and correctly implement it. If I remember right, that was supposed to be weekends with ONLY the top 10 classes based on participation. Instead, they made it everyone can show up and run their same run group.

Not sure that frame work of the Majors would actually work now. But it is more frustrating to think that they'd rather just write all of us off than even try to make a place for us.

Maybe its my hormones..Maybe I'm realizing that the club I was raised in doesn't want my run group anymore. Either way, I've not been this angry with the club until now.

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

[Steve Davis]

Megan makes a great point.. I agree that, AS I RECALL, the initial INTENT of MAJORS was to plan events with the top participating CLASSES to produce the BEST COMPETITION EVENTS possible to lead into the Runoffs... we all, at least most of us, interpreted that to mean 'high level competition' and 'more concentrated numbers' for the events.

I guess that for forgotten right off the bat.

I wonder why the initial plan fell away so rapidly ? .. Perhaps the, later developed, HST RULES took precedence?

From my perspective, at this point, this total thread is water over the dam(n). I do wish things were different, but I'm too old to wait around another 5 years to see if anything changes.
Steve, FV80

[John LaRue]

Megan makes a great point.. I agree that, AS I RECALL, the initial INTENT of MAJORS was to plan events with the top participating CLASSES to produce the BEST COMPETITION EVENTS possible to lead into the Runoffs... we all, at least most of us, interpreted that to mean 'high level competition' and 'more concentrated numbers' for the events.

I guess that for forgotten right off the bat.

I wonder why the initial plan fell away so rapidly ? .. Perhaps the, later developed, HST RULES took precedence?

From my perspective, at this point, this total thread is water over the dam(n). I do wish things were different, but I'm too old to wait around another 5 years to see if anything changes.
Steve, FV80

The "original" Majors program was implemented, but it did not last for long. A number of regions (SFR?) would not sign onto the program because it did not include all of the classes. That in turn led to the current Majors program and thereafter the Super Tour was introduced. Peter Olivola is probably better versed to recite the precise history so I defer to him.

Also, keep in mind that HST events are effectively the same as Conference Majors other than they are primarily run at "pro" tracks and have streaming and podium celebrations.

[John Nesbitt]

The "original" Majors program was implemented, but it did not last for long. A number of regions (SFR?) would not sign onto the program because it did not include all of the classes. That in turn led to the current Majors program and thereafter the Super Tour was introduced. Peter Olivola is probably better versed to recite the precise history so I defer to him.

Also, keep in mind that HST events are effectively the same as Conference Majors other than they are primarily run at "pro" tracks and have streaming and podium celebrations.

Correct. The original Majors plan (aka the Kephart plan) was unveiled at the 2011 Runoffs. The driver for the plan was the proliferation of National races, leading to dilution of racing quality (and event finances). Regions were unwilling to give up 'their' National, hoping that some other Region would do so, instead. So everybody suffered.

I sat in on some of the discussion leading up to the announcement. It was done with the best will in the world, but ignored some of the demographic and business realities. My own feeling is that there was an assumption that, somehow, SCCA could recreate the fat entry lists of the mid-2000s. (I remember 400-car Regionals at Summit.) Of course, those were just a sugar high founded on easy credit, and never recovered after the GFC.

The Kephart plan was fairly radical. The essentials were fewer events (Nationals became Majors), and a split between the top eight (I think) classes, who would get streamed into headline events, and the rest, who would have their own events. Plus a couple of types of one-off events. In Kephart's unfortunate word, this would 'cluster' competition.

It made good sense for the drivers in the favored classes, and not-so-good sense for other drivers, who could see themselves being demoted to second-class membership, as well as many/most Regions who did not have the density required to make this a business success.

As you noted, the original concept did not survive very long. Opposition from Regions on the West Coast and Plains was fierce, and the concept quickly evolved into what we see today. And, a Divisional path added to the proliferation and complexity. The recent announcement brings HST back into fairly close alignment with the original Kephart plan.

I am convinced that there is very seldom anything new in SCCA. Every 10 or 15 years, we forget past experience and try the same things over and over again.

[Lotus7]

While this may not be ideal, it is clear that SCCA is not okay with just FF/FV formulating a run group. If we want either class to race at Super Tour events, then we need to come up with some other combination, and FC is the only other viable class available...

...If we can get FC/FF/FV as the 8th run group at Super Tour events, then that would be ideal,

Just being the devil's advocate here, but FC is already(still) welcome at Super Tours, grouped with FA;
what incentive do they have to want to be with FV's instead?

[Ed Womer]

See below.

Hi John, I sure hope that you and others don't think I am criticizing you or others opinion. Your explanation of the process sure does seem quite cumbersome, even if those who use it seem to think it works. If there is one thing age and experience teaches you is a lot of times procedures are added to other procedures until it is unusable, even if it seems to work.

I am not an experienced computer user who expertly knows the way around. I am based on the opinion things that should be simple to navigate, by a novice user, otherwise the perception is that those in the know don't want it to be easy to use which makes it difficult to use, so no one uses it. You even mentioned the club website is difficult to you as well.

Please realize that most are appreciative of you spending the time to volunteer for these things. I have and now being retired, am willing to volunteer for things, but usually only what I have experience in, no reason to deal with bureaucracy that I learned, firsthand, as a county worker my last 20 years of work.

I remember something I learned from racing, the old saying KISS, keep it simple stupid. I think that is a good outlook on how things should be.

Maybe I will try by sending another letter/email to the boards and see how it works. My last time, although after the rule was passed it feel on deft ears. A bad rule is a bad rule, be prepared to fix it if it was ill conceived. This is referencing the rain light rule.

Ed

[Mschumi101]

Just being the devil's advocate here, but FC is already(still) welcome at Super Tours, grouped with FA;
what incentive do they have to want to be with FV's instead?

First is that FC and FF will share the track at the runoffs, so best to start exposing all drivers to that throughout the season to be as well prepared as possible for the high stakes finale. This would be my largest and arguably most important reason for grouping the two cars together.

In talking with my friends in FC now, the FC and FE2 create very similar lap times, but do it in very different ways. The FE2 cars are quicker on straights, but slower in corners, which can make for some very frustrating racing when the classes become mixed on track. There are also a few select slow "Atlantic" class cars which get in the FC battles as well. Also see Bob's comments above about sharing the track with Sports racers and the issues this has caused.

That "large bore formula group" is a very large run group with many mixed classes, FC being one of the slowest. Bringing FC over to the "small bore formula group" to run with FF and FV would even out the numbers in both run groups to a more manageable number, probably closer to a 50/50 split in car count at most events. The FC guys would have to deal with slower traffic, yes, but they wouldn't have to deal with the even more frustrating similar pace cars with different speeds. FC would be the defacto "fast" cars in the group, creating a very different, and probably more enjoyable dynamic.

Personally I had similar issues with a few F600s this season where they were extremely quick in a straight line, but much slower in the corners, despite running about the same lap times as our FFs. The largest instance of this for me was at Mid Ohio super tour where an F600 spun off track and took a full lap to rejoin. I had a 2-3sec lead over the FF field and he rejoined directly in front of me, and was a few sec slower than me through the whole second half of the track, but kept in front due to his straightline speed advantage down the straights. He wiped my lead away backing me up into my competition. He then got in the middle of a 4-car FF battle for the lead, ignoring blue flags being a lap down to us on track and making bold overtakes to split our group up. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has had frustrating issues like this in a multi-class race. I think its better to have compatible cars with differing lap times, rather than similarly paced cars sharing groups. So I know what the FC guys would be dealing with in an overly large group of similarly paced cars, while our group needs an extra class to be "viable" in the eyes of the SCCA, one which FC would fit.

[John LaRue]

The problem that exists is scheduling the necessary run groups over the course of an HST weekend. The grouping of FF/FV/F6 was/is fine, the problem is having time to fit that group into the HST weekend schedule under a double race format. As per the announcement of 10-25:

To address crowding in other run groups that are highly subscribed and often at the group limit threshold, SCCA has decided to reallocate the on-track session time of the small open-wheel group to create space in the schedule.

Breaking FC out of the FA/FC/FE2/P group and adding FF/F6/FC creates another run group which doesn't resolve the problem. (Personally, as an FC driver, I have no objection to that grouping.)

The only solutions for this (to my knowledge) is to either cap the run group entries, eliminate a run group, or alter the event format to "find time". Significant time is lost between sessions (getting cars on/off track and clean up). Per the 10-25 announcement:

Note that the 2025 Chicago Region® June Sprints® will be a three-day event, but Chicago Region is still considering its event format and run groups. This will be confirmed at a later date.

I think that the Chicago Region is considering the option of reverting to the historical format for June Sprints which featured a single race. As compared to the current two race format it provides a similar amount of track time, but opens up time on the schedule to add FF/FV/F6 and the other additional run groups all while staying within the prescribed minimum required track time per the GCR:

3.1.1.D.2. Super Tour Events

a. The National Office has developed standard formats for each type of U.S. Majors Tour event,

and works with Regions to create a specific schedule, which must be approved by the Head

of Road Racing, who has final authority.

b. There shall be a maximum of two (2) races per race weekend. At least one race for each race

group will be 35 minutes in length with a maximum of 50 miles (variations may be approved

by the head of Road Racing and published in the supplemental regulations). The other race of

the weekend shall be a minimum of 25 minutes in length.

c. Minimum track time

1. Two-day events shall have a minimum of two (2) qualifying sessions totaling at least 35

minutes of non-racing track time available per Majors class entry.

2. Three-day events shall have a minimum of one practice session and one qualifying sessions

totaling at least 50 minutes of non-racing track time available per Majors class entry. One

practice session and one qualifying session are recommended. End-of-session hardship

policy is recommended.

[sauce_racer]

[QUOTE=John Nesbitt;669481]

It made good sense for the drivers in the favored classes, and not-so-good sense for other drivers, who could see themselves being demoted to second-class membership, as well as many/most Regions who did not have the density required to make this a business success.


The only difference now is that FF, FV,F6 are now the only ones being made second-class members. The original Majors made the majority of classes without the numbers the second-class members. Not one run group.
For being a member driven club it seems like we the members were not considered or even asked about this. Or how we could fix the 'low participation' that is happening.

Ted,
In that instance the chief steward should've gotten involved and black flagged said car for ignoring of flags and creating the potential of a more serious issue on track. Anyone who wants to argue with me that ignoring a blue flag doesn't warrant a black flag go for it. If they ignore a blue what is stopping them from ignoring a local or full course yellow? Or red? I've seen enough in my years racing that people and some of the things that happen never cease to amaze me anymore.


Just my opinion.

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

[Matt Clark]

The only solutions for this (to my knowledge) is to either cap the run group entries, eliminate a run group, or alter the event format to "find time".

literally this. we have been removed to make room for more Miatas (SMX), per the announcement post....
https://www.scca.com/articles/201899...-group-changes

.... because Mazda is pushing SMX.
https://www.scca.com/articles/201899...arts-discounts

[rockbeau25]

Why is there this time crunch all of a sudden? Classes come and go but these overall run groups have existed just fine for decades.

3 day Super Tour events can hold more than 7 run groups just fine. Look at the June Sprints and copy it elsewhere. The June Sprints are the best run event in the country, I would even argue better than the Runoffs.

2 day Super Tour events, okay sure, stick to 7 run groups. Put SMX with SM or T4. These 2 day Super Tour events aren't anywhere near popular enough that entry caps should even cross anyone's mind. That's a red herring, plain and simple.

There were a whopping 20 cars at Hallett in the T2-T3-STU-SMX group.

37 in a COMBINED SM-SMX group at NOLA.

But sure, let's tell FF and FV they can't race on the off chance these other groups double their entries.

[Hardingfv32]

37 in a COMBINED SM-SMX group at NOLA.

But sure, let's tell FF and FV they can't race on the off chance these other groups double their entries.

Seven (7) entries for the FF/FV group/session at that event!

Maybe all the other entries were wondering why waste track time on those 7 entries.

Brian

[John Nesbitt]

literally this. we have been removed to make room for more Miatas (SMX), per the announcement post....
https://www.scca.com/articles/201899...-group-changes

.... because Mazda is pushing SMX.
https://www.scca.com/articles/201899...arts-discounts

So what? Mazda Motorsports supporting Mazda racers is a bad thing? You will need a stronger argument than that.

[Matt Clark]

So what? Mazda Motorsports supporting Mazda racers is a bad thing? You will need a stronger argument than that.

I never said or even hinted it was a bad thing.
But I guess arbitrarily eliminating an entire genre of competitors (the entire smallbore openwheel group) from MEMBERSHIP CLUB events isn't a strong argument anymore.

[John LaRue]

Good questions Rock. I will do my best to reply but you may need to look further as I don't have all of the answers.

Why is there this time crunch all of a sudden? Classes come and go but these overall run groups have existed just fine for decades. SMX was the exacerbating factor. In its first season the class averaged 23.1 at HST events and its sudden popularity caused an over-subscription of run groups at a few of the HST events. That brought focus upon the small bore open-wheel run group which is normally the smallest and was under subscribed at some events.

3 day Super Tour events can hold more than 7 run groups just fine. Look at the June Sprints and copy it elsewhere. The June Sprints are the best run event in the country, I would even argue better than the Runoffs. True. SCCA is looking for a consistent product across all HST events thus a base of 7 run groups which could be broken out if over-subscribed or for 3-day events. (There is an exception due to low car counts for the west coast.) There are also variations in available daylight as we move from Sebring in January to Sprints in June which is a consideration. As per my previous post, this is more of a formatting/scheduling issue than anything else.

2 day Super Tour events, okay sure, stick to 7 run groups. Put SMX with SM or T4. These 2 day Super Tour events aren't anywhere near popular enough that entry caps should even cross anyone's mind. That's a red herring, plain and simple.

There were a whopping 20 cars at Hallett in the T2-T3-STU-SMX group. And only 11 in FF/FV/F6.

37 in a COMBINED SM-SMX group at NOLA. And only 7 in FF/FV/F6.

But sure, let's tell FF and FV they can't race on the off chance these other groups double their entries.

Trust me, I (we) feel their pain. In my personal opinion the answer comes in two parts. First, entries would have solved all of the problems for the small bore open-wheel run group. With few exceptions we, the formula/prototype racers, simply aren't showing up in the same numbers as the other classes. With the added pressure for track time the formula/prototype classes become an easy mark for extinction. Yes, they are heritage classes and unique to SCCA as compared to NASA and some of the other organizations, but at some point the argument of the bean counters begins to win the day. Bottom line, if we had all shown up to race this problem would not exist. FF and FV are not entirely to blame however as their numbers individually are not that bad (9th and 11th if I recall correctly). Their problem comes from the fact that they were grouped with F6, and together they represent the smallest run group. So again, back to my earlier statement; this is a run group issue more so than a class issue. We can dissect the run groupings and come up with all sorts of alternatives, but in the end two open wheel/prototype groups are required to include everyone and three are preferred. Even if we resolve the entry issue there now remains a problem of having enough time during an HST event to host the necessary number of run groups. IMHO, this is most easily resolved by changing the format of the event. That however, based on SCCA survey results, does not appear to be a popular option; the majority prefers the double race format. There are some other "more unique" concepts that were presented but did not gain traction with the powers that be. I hope that this helps to convey the issues that exist, nothing happens in a vacuum.

[Mike B]

So what? Mazda Motorsports supporting Mazda racers is a bad thing?

At the expense of other classes that have been around for decades, absolutely.

[John Nesbitt]

literally this. we have been removed to make room for more Miatas (SMX), per the announcement post....
https://www.scca.com/articles/201899...-group-changes

.... because Mazda is pushing SMX.
https://www.scca.com/articles/201899...arts-discounts

I never said or even hinted it was a bad thing.
But I guess arbitrarily eliminating an entire genre of competitors (the entire smallbore openwheel group) from MEMBERSHIP CLUB events isn't a strong argument anymore.

Review your first post: "because"

I completely agree that zeroing out small open wheel is an outrage, particularly when alternatives exist. But, to assert that it happened "because" Mazda supports Mazda racers is not going to convince anybody.

[Bob Wright]

7 FF/FV entries at NOLA...and that is the crux of the matter.

Maybe we should collectively start to think about how it could be fixed? A lot has been voiced in the previous 4 pages of posts but jumbled and not in a concise format easy to read and understand.

There is no shortage of FFs, FVs and FCs out in the marketplace, they're just not doing a lot of racing. It could be argued that as classes get combined the SCCA experience gets worse, so fewer people come out to race and therefore the classes get more combined, etc, etc. Dilution and alternatives are playing a big part of the above and that is a fact of life.

How about this:

Accept that FF, FV and eventually FC and FA will most likely get un-invited from the runoffs, so forget about it. Focus on the regional championships that are available in many divisions. Build the participation from a grass roots level (read B Spec revival) and with larger numbers get preferential treatment from the regions. Note what the NE FVs have done with their group. Call your friends, focus on two or three key events each year, and maybe they don't have to all be SCCA events. Post your choices here and on the relevant FB pages so others know what you're thinking and can make their plans.

But don't just stop racing, get the cars out of the garages.

Start planning now for next year and spend a little bit of time each week. Between last August and now I have rebuilt and prepped three cars for competition next year and I'm a one person show. It's not that hard.

[Matt Clark]

Review your first post: "because"

I completely agree that zeroing out small open wheel is an outage, particularly when alternatives exist. But, to assert that it happened "because" Mazda supports Mazda racers is not going to convince anybody.

I guess I was a little unclear in my thought process... but if you read the various official announcements & look at the new group breakdowns, we literally lost "our" group because of SMX.
the SMX class that used to be grouped with others, but now has its own group, because of a SCCA decision.

Again, I will point out the irony of SCCA insisting "we" are what made SCCA unique, then doing this.

[DaveW]

Review your first post: "because"

I completely agree that zeroing out small open wheel is an outage, particularly when alternatives exist. But, to assert that it happened "because" Mazda supports Mazda racers is not going to convince anybody.

Did you mean "outrage"?

[John Nesbitt]

Did you mean "outrage"?

I think that the 'outage' was in my spelling (or typing).

Thanks for the catch. Corrected.

[John LaRue]

7 FF/FV entries at NOLA...and that is the crux of the matter.

Maybe we should collectively start to think about how it could be fixed? A lot has been voiced in the previous 4 pages of posts but jumbled and not in a concise format easy to read and understand.

There is no shortage of FFs, FVs and FCs out in the marketplace, they're just not doing a lot of racing. It could be argued that as classes get combined the SCCA experience gets worse, so fewer people come out to race and therefore the classes get more combined, etc, etc. Dilution and alternatives are playing a big part of the above and that is a fact of life.

How about this:

Accept that FF, FV and eventually FC and FA will most likely get un-invited from the runoffs, so forget about it. Focus on the regional championships that are available in many divisions. Build the participation from a grass roots level (read B Spec revival) and with larger numbers get preferential treatment from the regions. Note what the NE FVs have done with their group. Call your friends, focus on two or three key events each year, and maybe they don't have to all be SCCA events. Post your choices here and on the relevant FB pages so others know what you're thinking and can make their plans.

But don't just stop racing, get the cars out of the garages.

Start planning now for next year and spend a little bit of time each week. Between last August and now I have rebuilt and prepped three cars for competition next year and I'm a one person show. It's not that hard.

I absolutely agree that the most important thing is to get the cars to the grid. Participation at select Majors would do the most good as it will help to preserve Runoffs status. The home run, IMHO, would be for us to somehow combine the SCCA and FRP grids, at least for some events. I am advised that there are some impediments to this that are above my paygrade and given such have stepped aside as directed.

[E1pix]

…to assert that it happened "because" Mazda supports Mazda racers is not going to convince anybody.

That’s one opinion.

Matt’s point seems dead-obvious to some others.

I do have a question… where did this large, near-instant influx of SMXers come from?

It’d take years to repeat this in any non-Mazda class, supporting Matt’s points.

[John LaRue]

That’s one opinion.

Matt’s point seems dead-obvious to some others.

I do have a question… where did this large, near-instant influx of SMXers come from?

It’d take years to repeat this in any non-Mazda class, supporting Matt’s points.

The class was "incubated" at the Regional level. As I understand it, Mazda also promoted this as a pro class and would purchase track time from regions and other organizations. Mazda guaranteed a minimum number of entries for track time at the 2023 VIR Runoffs. SMX was given time which was not allotted to other classes. They qualified in the final time slot on Thursday and raced in the final time slot on Sunday; there were 18 entries.

[John Nesbitt]

That’s one opinion.

Matt’s point seems dead-obvious to some others.

I do have a question… where did this large, near-instant influx of SMXers come from?

It’d take years to repeat this in any non-Mazda class, supporting Matt’s points.

And your point is ... ?

Mazda supports motorsports. Gee whiz, isn't that a good thing?

The Miata/MX-5 clearly hits a sweet spot with participants; years of strong entries prove it. More entries make for better racing, which makes for more entries. A positive feedback loop. SMX was a series before it became an SCCA national class. This year's Runoffs had 27 entries, IIRC. Clearly, there was an unsatisfied demand in SCCA.

The fact that Mazda Motorsports offers a time-limited 15% discount on competition parts is nice. But nobody - repeat, nobody - took up SMX because of that. It is simply a bonus for people who had already bought in.

As I wrote above, it is truly unfortunate that SCCA chose to zero out small open wheel in most HST events (NOT Majors, Regionals, or Runoffs), particularly when an alternative existed. But, as John LaRue points out, the only sure solution if people want to preserve HST space, is to enter events.

[E1pix]

John, your approach can’t do much to explore solutions… if anything, it can piss people off.

Anyone considering buying a car for the affected classes, or owners that are several mandated updates behind, just to enter races to “save the class,” is beyond many pocketbooks, if not rational reasoning.

Perhaps the views of those SCCA *lost* should be viewed as valuable — if not of even more value than those who can and do race no matter what.

Regardless, that kind of “ageless” competitor commitment is aging out and not at all being replaced.

Beyond, the risks to the Club from putting too many eggs into one corporate basket brings up visions of the Titanic.

The class was "incubated" at the Regional level. As I understand it, Mazda also promoted this as a pro class and would purchase track time from regions and other organizations. Mazda guaranteed a minimum number of entries for track time at the 2023 VIR Runoffs. SMX was given time which was not allotted to other classes. They qualified in the final time slot on Thursday and raced in the final time slot on Sunday; there were 18 entries.

Thanks as always, John.

We were at VIR. Honestly, I couldn’t help but wonder if the four GT1 drivers withdrawing their *entire event* had anything to do with SMX having found time slots...

This will be met with likely no new Christmas cards coming my way… or clear acknowledgment that I’m not just a yammerin’…

But even though we have “too many formula car classes”, it’s interesting that Vee is almost alone in thriving while not having a Mazda at the National level.

Too bad in retrospect that FF and FC never used Mazdas in the formula to link that bridge, but the real victim here seems to be the only open-wheeled class that’s still a blast to watch and race in to anyone you ask — and maybe the tightest and funnest (?) group of racers of all — while (mostly) retaining its original affordability and innovation precepts…

Meaning, Vee.

Seems the only threat to those original ideals have been a few too many mandated or necessary parts — (like manifolds and shocks and disc brakes and cameras and Flagtronics and rain lights and belts and helmets and even slicks) — that could have been avoided, or spread out, or at least been easier to manage with just a little more conversation with those paying the entry fees. Cheaper means more cars aside of anything else.

Going out on a limb… if counting 60+ years of entry fees up since Vee’s inception, except for maybe Mazda classes in this century, I’d wager that Formula Vee funded the largest portion of entry fees OF ANY SINGLE CLASS over the entire life of SCCA.

Somehow, disconnecting from that just feels wrong.

[FVRacer21]

At Nola, FV was the 13th most popular single class.

There were 15 classes with less entrants (some with 0)

In the beginning FV started with FP, then got split out.

Before F440, we were grouped with DSR as not many showed up.....

Looking at select Races 2024 : Formula Group F600, FF, Fv
RA ST 51 entries (2nd was 36)
Mid Ohio ST 29
Blackhawk Majors 31!
Sebring ST 17
Watkins Glen ST 20

NOLA ST 7
Motor Speedway Houston 1
Thompson 3 (all regional Drivers)
High Plains 1

Maybe drivers are already voting with their wallet as to where they want to go...

I wonder if other classes show a similar pattern?

https://www.scca.com/pages/majors-participation-2

I would love to do a data eval on the rent a ride drivers at NOLA.

Dropping the Formula Group from tracks where they don't show up seems like a reasonable decision, but dropping them where they DO show up???

ChrisZ

[John Nesbitt]

John, your approach can’t do much to explore solutions… if anything, it can piss people off.

..

If you troubled to read my post a few above, you would see that I did offer a feasible solution that preserved small open wheel and SMX.

I actually raced small open wheel. I don't like this decision any more than you do. But I can see how it happened, and I can see a very narrow path to restoring small open wheel at HST events.

I would not say that I was arrogant (I read your post before you changed it). I would say that I was direct, with a side order of realistic, hold the nostalgic fantasy.

[Purple Frog]

I 've read a lot of posts about the costs of rain lights, belts, fire systems, flagtronics, tires, helmets, etc. as being detrimental to entry.

Somehow those things seem to not be detrimental to Mazda drivers. Go figure.

[E1pix]

The only common denominator being Mazda’s support.

[sauce_racer]

That’s one opinion.

Matt’s point seems dead-obvious to some others.

I do have a question… where did this large, near-instant influx of SMXers come from?

It’d take years to repeat this in any non-Mazda class, supporting Matt’s points.

SMX was a stand alone series before being brought into SCCA. If my memory serves me correctly, it was brought in as a 'regional' class. From the numbers the club posted, they reported 787 total entries for SMX this entire season. My question is looking back, were all of those entries only at club events or were they also at pro races? I didn't investigate further into it and I haven't had the time to deep dive back into it. I could be saying that and be completely wrong. However, when I was at the Majors and HST events in my area I don't remember there being that big of a count of those cars.

Either way, I can't race until at least Labor Day. I'm trying to talk Jeremy into getting in my car, we've done a lot of work to it and it is almost race ready. Other than getting people to show up to events, I'm not sure what our options are to try and combat this. I know that may not make a difference. But I don't want to see FF or FV disappear.

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

[f500racer]

I have both a F6 and FC. I have raced an FE2. It would be much more fun to be with the smaller open wheel cars in the FC than the mixed group for a lot of reasons.

The real crux to everything that is happening is entries. I tried to enter as many of the “FC weekends” that I could knowing full well I was out of my league with where I am with the car. But you have to enter to get noticed.

I agree getting together everyone to get noticed with the classes. I’m trying real hard to put a “money race” together for F6 at a Mid Ohio regional just to show the entries but have a great time as a group. It can happen, as I saw 15 S2000 cars show up for such a thing in the fall.

At the end we have to prove ourselves that classes belong. But in the end we can regionalize a championship that isn’t the Runoffs and still feel good about why we race. I realized that is while ago. It is racing against who is there and not a singular event.

JNS

[E1pix]

I would not say that I was arrogant (I read your post before you changed it). I would say that I was direct, with a side order of realistic, hold the nostalgic fantasy.

I dunno John, “Nostalgic fantasy” probably identifies many (if not most) who enter racing to start with.

We all know nobody comes in to say, improve their driving. They come in from a moment or period of inspiration to race, or compete, or feel cool, or be in the atmosphere… doesn’t matter, whatever it takes so long as they’re out there with the thoughts and goals and moments and even friends that are likely to follow.

Certainly we can all agree that it’s a wonderful sport but can get better.

Obviously we can’t go back… but with everyone here of the very same interests, it’s pretty sad if we can’t go forward with what’s been learned. Nobody wants “MCCA.”

This has long been a passion sport.

Thankfully, many still feel the same.

[Mmbeau]

Too bad in retrospect that FF and FC never used Mazdas in the formula to link that bridge

F2000 did, but allowing those cars to participate in FC was fought tooth and nail for a number of years for God only knows what reason. Now that they finally let them race it is under a ruleset that is so restrictive it's no wonder why none of them show up.

I would have thought with how much influence and money Mazda is (supposedly) throwing around that Mazda, the CRB/BOD as well as the competitors would all have wanted this. Almost certainly politics at play.