
Originally Posted by
924RACR
Exactly how I feel.
One other thing I'd like to add into the discussion.
There's this statement by those up top, supporting the National line, that we can work our way back into Runoffs/National competition simply by making the numbers, getting cars out of garages and back at races.
While I agree this is a reasonable and appropriate response... I have to ask the obvious question, what threshold do we need to make to be welcome back? Would that be the 4.0 average participation requirement? What about if we make 3.0, or 3.5, or some other number below 4.0?
Do we get to bump another class that's already in the Runoffs but not making 4.0?? If a class meets the new figure of 5.0 average entries it receives an automatic invitation, period. Runoffs eligible classes which do not meet that number can receive an invitation, it is not automatic.
How can we expect to make those numbers if we're not invited to the premiere club events, the Super Tour??? By attending the Majors events which count the same as the HST events but are less expensive and usually 2 vs 3 day in length. The Prototype and P2 class are still included in the HST events so you personally are set for 2025. For FF/FV/F6 they will also reportedly have additional races (at Regionals) which will count as Conference Majors so there should not be a reduction in opportunities to race, it just won't be at the HST events. This "might" prove to be the better deal. Hopefully Topeka will announce those alternative dates shortly.
Seems like we're being given the usual lip service, if you actually think this out; in theory, there's a way back in... but the reality of trying to achieve it is just not plausible. I don't like that this is where we are either, but its a result of not having enough cars on the grid, period. The internet makes it easier for us to complain and pontificate about how things should be. Racing, SCCA, your car set up, the weather... will never be perfect. We can try to make things better and should, but we also, as a collective group, need to stop tearing down what we have and participate. Think back to the pre Apexspeed/Internet days. We read about matters such as this in the printed version of Fastracks and, if we had strong feelings, would call our BoD or CRB representatives and/or write a letter. Today the vast majority of communication on such a topic will be via social media which likely won't be seen by the decision makers. Many seem to scream and yell about the injustice but don't want to participate in solving the problem(s). The postings on social media wouldn't be so bad but the discussion rarely stays on point and do more to push people away from our sport than to draw them in. In my reflections the problems and decline of formula car racing in SCCA seem to track pretty closely with the increasing popularity of the internet and social media, coincidence perhaps.
As an aside, I see my letter #36541 "Create a Vision Statement for Formula and Prototype Racing" is once again tabled by the boards. So that letter-writing is working out real good. Maybe if they keep tabling it long enough, the problem (having formula cars and prototypes in SCCA run groups) will go away and they won't have to answer the hard questions
All of the "General" letters were tabled during the decision making process; responses (to several hundred letters) will be in the coming issues of FT. BTW, thank you to all of the AC, CRB, Staff, and BOD members who assisted on those.
I think the vision statement is an interesting idea; the question is, who will prepare it and once it is in writing is it to be debated, voted upon, or taken as the gospel? Given the complexity of the matter and the details that would be a part of such would there ever be a consensus or would it further divide and dismantle the formula and prototype racing within SCCA? .