2021 and 2022 Majors Participation

With the 2023 Runoffs Class Tracking page on the SCCA's web site now complete, I opted to do some additional computations beyond what's shown there and it's not pretty. Year over year, really only 4 club racing classes are "stable": GTL, SM, GT2, and FE2. The rest saw double digit percentages in decreased participation year over year with T1 seeing the largest percentage decrease.

The 2022 Majors events (not including Runoffs) saw an average of 194 participants compared with 216 in 2021. Total event participation decreased from 2021 to 2022 by 938 entries; that's a lot. Even the much-hyped B-Spec saw quite a decrease in both year over year total (-22%) and Runoffs participation (-51%).

The year over year participation change is normalized to account for 1 additional event in 2022. Thus, even though GT2 saw a total participation count increase in 2022, their participation actually decreased as a percentage of events. So, GT2 needed at least 239 in 2022 to account for the additional event to break even. This could be accounted for by having a certain number of GT2 cars that will go to a certain number of events. All other things being equal, if you then increase the number of events the average participation will decrease.

So, what are GTL, SM, GT2, and FE2 doing to help keep their numbers somewhat stable?

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=104816&stc=1
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/ima...BJRU5ErkJggg==

I think the sad reality is runoffs location. Very few west coast drivers this year.

When held out west, there is a decline of east coast drivers.

The traveling runoffs help get more people involved but always suffered from geographic.

And while that experiment is officially over, it seems that anywhere east of the rockies is okay.

It's a big country. Maybe some sort of other championship would get more participation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

I think the sad reality is runoffs location. Very few west coast drivers this year.

When held out west, there is a decline of east coast drivers.

The traveling runoffs help get more people involved but always suffered from geographic.

And while that experiment is officially over, it seems that anywhere east of the rockies is okay.

It's a big country. Maybe some sort of other championship would get more participation.

---

Indy hangover. Indy was centrally located, easier to get to, and had better lodging. More of a bucket list track too. The decline will probably continue next year until excitement builds for the next Runoffs location.

FC drop off had much to do with 2021 being a much promoted class anniversary year celebration thing

I would be interested to see a comparison to 2019...

I suspect that since Covid messed up a lot of 2020 plans, there may have been some bounceback/overshoot in 2021, based simply on people having the itch to race again, maybe spending less (or none) on racing the prior year, etc. In that case, 2022 would be a return to normal.
Of course, as others have mentioned, there are probably other factors at play as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple Frog

I would be interested to see a comparison to 2019...

---

Here you go, 2022 vs 2019 Majors counts by class:

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=104817&stc=1

Jeff

My interp of the Guy in Purple’s interest was to compare the 2022 VIR Runoffs to 2019’s, also held at VIR.

If so or if not, that comparison eliminates Runoffs location and travel variances, as the same thought was already in my head.

I distinctly recall SCCA moving towards location variety in 2006. Mid-Ohio had held the Runoffs for what, 15 years, after Road Atlanta did the same for over 20. The idea was getting both Coasts to come, and the concept started with three years in Topeka as a centralized location. I spoke with maybe a hundred drivers over those three years, and the consensus was that location was not at all loved — specifically, the track.

How that affected the mindset for following locations is hard to know.

Thanks for doing this, CheckeredFlag — as distressing as it is to see...

2021 FC having higher numbers than 2019 and 2022 due to the anniversary? Maybe. Still, a lot of negatives in Teuobk's data. Combine that with my data and you get some scary stuff. I think what we're showcasing here is the debate about FC (please don't debate it here, there's a thread for it) is only a small part of what's affecting Road Racing.

For the west coast most likely was fuel cost to tow, diesel being well over 5 to 7 bucks a gallon, that's a no brainer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

2021 FC having higher numbers than 2019 and 2022 due to the anniversary? Maybe. Still, a lot of negatives in Teuobk's data. Combine that with my data and you get some scary stuff. I think what we're showcasing here is the debate about FC (please don't debate it here, there's a thread for it) is only a small part of what's affecting Road Racing.

---

I don't know what debate you could possibly be talking about so I won't comment. ;)

For some reason I keep coming back to geography. IIR the FC Majors participation are West Coast, Midwest, South East.

Since FRP became a path to the RO, I think they pull the most cars in the east - more than Majors. - which does skew SCCA numbers.
Did they all go to the runoffs?

I think only 1 traveled from the west coast. We consistently have 10 cars running most weekends.

Only 2 FC's used the 'Pro path' (FRP). Those who qualified generally had enough Majors or divisional events to qualify that way. There was one FF and 2 FX's. Not a big cross over. The five who took advantage of the 'Pro path' all participated.

When SCCA put performance obstacles back into place it curtailed our team's ability to use the Pro path to qualify for the Runoffs. With our busy F1600 schedule we have been able to select our SCCA events in between, Unfortunately, that often meant 1 race in several different conferences, which would not predictably provide the points required. We purposely select the tougher events with good fields, which means that I cannot tell my customer whether they will need to do one, two, or three SCCA events to score the required points to qualify. So bringing 3 FF entries to the Runoffs in 2019, 2020, and 2021 ...... meant just one FF Runoff entry, in what was essentially a rental as that customer ran his own FF car in 3 SCCA events. Not necessarily a complaint, but an explanation as to how the rule change prevented me from selling Runoff participation to my customers. If reducing Runoff FF entries was the goal, then SCCA achieved that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Wright

Only 2 FC's used the 'Pro path' (FRP). Those who qualified generally had enough Majors or divisional events to qualify that way. There was one FF and 2 FX's. Not a big cross over. The five who took advantage of the 'Pro path' all participated.

---

That's awesome. Now that you got the Pro path working we just need to get SCCA to count them in the 'participation' like they do Majors. So Majors and Pro. Should boost the numbers a bit. :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by problemchild

We purposely select the tougher events with good fields, which means that I cannot tell my customer whether they will need to do one, two, or three SCCA events to score the required points to qualify.

---

Last in a good grid is better than first in a bad grid. I think there's a saying about fishing like that !

I'm not sure 2022 is such a good year for any comparisons. The economy faltering along with high gas and diesel price impacted the travel plans of a lot of people and not just in racing. It's anecdotal but I have heard of people with rented beach houses that stayed home rather than paying the travel costs, thus losing their deposit. I've heard more than one racer mention the high diesel cost combined with the 7-8 mpg of their motor home kept them at home and local races only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

I'm not sure 2022 is such a good year for any comparisons. The economy faltering along with high gas and diesel price impacted the travel plans of a lot of people and not just in racing. It's anecdotal but I have heard of people with rented beach houses that stayed home rather than paying the travel costs, thus losing their deposit. I've heard more than one racer mention the high diesel cost combined with the 7-8 mpg of their motor home kept them at home and local races only.

---

During the week, qualifying sessions saw a drop in participation. Many competitors packed up and went home worried about the coming storm. Others in the southeast didn't show for the same reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanW

During the week, qualifying sessions saw a drop in participation. Many competitors packed up and went home worried about the coming storm. Others in the southeast didn't show for the same reason.

---

The SCCA really needs to consider the possibility of a major storm in the fall when considering Runoff sites in the SE. Just think of what would have happened if the Runoffs were at Daytona this year. For me, I'm not going to take my car across the entire US to a track I haven't been on to get limited run time over a week, with iffy weather, not to even include the associated costs for doing so.

I still don't understand why COTA is not being considered for the Runoffs. I keep hearing it is the cost, but seriously, there are other organizations that run there and don't seem to have a cost problem. It is centrally located, definitely a bucket list type of track, and offers reasonable accommodations and logistics. I'm sorry, but Danville just doesn't come close to Austin.

Well, I'll take Danville all day long over Austin :)
And yes, I have been to both.

OTOH, I can see the value in a more central point to attract both coasts to the venue. Austin can certainly have bad weather however.
Really, when you try to decide a venue based on closeness to competitors you have to look at where they come from primarily. If the Midwest is further for 75% of the competitors it's Midwest location isn't really a plus. I seem to recall a study someone did where the best locations were further east because of the large numbers of east coast drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

Really, when you try to decide a venue based on closeness to competitors you have to look at where they come from primarily. If the Midwest is further for 75% of the competitors it's Midwest location isn't really a plus. I seem to recall a study someone did where the best locations were further east because of the large numbers of east coast drivers.

---

SCCA should definitely be able to provide that. I'm wondering if it's based on attendees/past attendees or active licenses.
When they send out those surveys of your plan to attend, and you say no, IIR they do not ask why.
So it's kind of a self fulfilling answer. "West Coasters rarely go."

The further it is, the likelihood of attendance drops exponentially.

If weather is a consideration they would always be held in SoCal, but we have no venue! :meatball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing

SCCA should definitely be able to provide that. I'm wondering if it's based on attendees/past attendees or active licenses.
When they send out those surveys of your plan to attend, and you say no, IIR they do not ask why.
So it's kind of a self fulfilling answer. "West Coasters rarely go."

The further it is, the likelihood of attendance drops exponentially.

If weather is a consideration they would always be held in SoCal, but we have no venue! :meatball:

---

I can't find where I *think* I saw that bit, so have no clue how it might have been figured. I seem to recall a map showing the concentration of all SCCA licensed racers.

Doesn’t SCCA still pay a Runoffs travel fund like they historically did before?

I well recall a yellow and blue, totem pole-decorated B Production Corvette at my first Runoffs in 1972. Although even then I presumed the car ran in Nor Pac region, with serious commutes to events, the driver himself lived in Alaska!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

Doesn’t SCCA still pay a Runoffs travel fund like they historically did before?
...

---

Well... kinda. SCCA Does PAY a 'travel fund', but NOT like they used to. The payout is FUNDED by an ADDITIONAL FEE tacked onto the Majors Entry fees at ALL Majors events. When Majors participation is down, so is the amount of the fund. So whatever ends up in the fund gets divided amongst the top THREE of each class/Conference .. and that's a LOT of people. I figured up my 'tow fund' reimbursement against what it cost me to attend... the tow fund won't pay my tow fuel ONE WAY to the Runoffs... and I live only JUST outside the minimum payout locales. It's higher for those coming from FAR AWAY, but still doesn't even begin to 'TOUCH' the costs associated with attending the event.
I also figured out what my 'payout' was vs the amount I paid INTO that fund from my personal Majors participation.. I did NOT even come close to 'break even'.

Steve, FV80

Thanks for clarifying the details of the travel fund, Steve.

I don’t know where the money used to come from... but collecting it from a Regional driver deciding to do, say, the June Sprints once a year doesn’t seem right on its face.

The more I read about Majors racing today, the more I want to sell my car before ever even seeing it. If my waiting 59 years to race and my thinking this way isn’t an example of why grids are weak of late, I don’t know what is.

The last thing we’ll do is spend retirement funds just to realize what a mistake that was. Little wonder newbies do something different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E1pix

The more I read about Majors racing today, the more I want to sell my car before ever even seeing it. If my waiting 59 years to race and my thinking this way isn’t an example of why grids are weak of late, I don’t know what is.

---

They're weak in SCCA because there are other places to take your car. Don't sell it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLS

I seem to recall a study someone did where the best locations were further east because of the large numbers of east coast drivers.

---

You may be thinking of the map I prepared for the BoD about 10 or 12 years ago. To build it I mapped the distance from a major hub of membership in each of the other Divisions to the track in question, then calculated the average travel distance. The map does NOT account for the number of SCCA members per Division, much less Runoffs qualifiers per Division. It was just a simple visual to aid their discussion. The map itself was the 2010 census report of counties of the 48 contiguous states divided into quintals. Dark blue represents the highest population density; white the lowest.
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=104874&stc=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyngengr

The SCCA really needs to consider the possibility of a major storm in the fall when considering Runoff sites in the SE. Just think of what would have happened if the Runoffs were at Daytona this year. For me, I'm not going to take my car across the entire US to a track I haven't been on to get limited run time over a week, with iffy weather, not to even include the associated costs for doing so.

I still don't understand why COTA is not being considered for the Runoffs. I keep hearing it is the cost, but seriously, there are other organizations that run there and don't seem to have a cost problem. It is centrally located, definitely a bucket list type of track, and offers reasonable accommodations and logistics. I'm sorry, but Danville just doesn't come close to Austin.

---

Everything I have heard about CoTA has been bad. The paddock area is too small for the Majors that have been held there, let alone the Runoffs. From what I have heard, the track personnel are less than friendly for club racers. I haven't been there, so I could be mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

Everything I have heard about CoTA has been bad. The paddock area is too small for the Majors that have been held there, let alone the Runoffs. From what I have heard, the track personnel are less than friendly for club racers. I haven't been there, so I could be mistaken.

---

The reason that paddock area seems small is because most people are struggling to get into the main paddock area next to garages. I have been to events at COTA that used the entire Lot A parking on the outside of grandstands as paddock area. There is a large paddock area inside of Turn 12. Also, there is a good bit of space outside of Turn 13.

The potential problem with these 'expansion' areas is that cars need to travel to and from paddock to grid. This is made a bit challenging by the single road that runs between Tunnel 1 and Tunnel 2. Pedestrian car and truck traffic through this route would need to be controlled, or not allowed at times when cars are coming to grid, or getting off track. A possible work around for this is to require that all cars in a class paddock in a similar area. An example: all SRF will paddock inside Turn 12. This will keep the vast majority of traffic on Tunnel 1/2 road going in the same direction at certain times. Same can be said going to and from Lot A.

As far as 'track personnel being less than friendly'.... I am not sure how this is actually quantified. Though if this were actually the case, I would think the participation numbers at the Southern Conference Super Tour would show this. Also, I am not sure if the droves of people that attend the November event with SVRA will have noticed this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Clayton

You may be thinking of the map I prepared for the BoD about 10 or 12 years ago. To build it I mapped the distance from a major hub of membership in each of the other Divisions to the track in question, then calculated the average travel distance. The map does NOT account for the number of SCCA members per Division, much less Runoffs qualifiers per Division. It was just a simple visual to aid their discussion. The map itself was the 2010 census report of counties of the 48 contiguous states divided into quintals. Dark blue represents the highest population density; white the lowest.
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=104874&stc=1

---

Thanks Stan, and you're right, that is what I was thinking of. I remember the map once I see it. I'm mis-remembering the part about what it represented, thinking it was SCCA racer or member density rather then the pop at large. OTOH, I think it is relevant.

Having been at COTA at all the SVRA events, it is a great track and the people are usually Texas friendly. You can manage to anger anyone if you try hard enough. In our race travels across the country I have certainly been some places much less friendly, and many with much less space.

When I charted the data, I was primarily trying to point out Majors participation, not just the Runoffs. We can all agree that VIR was known ahead of time that participation would drop from Indy, but I was surprised by such a Majors drop-off, too. When that happens, the "Compliance Fee" going to the SCCA for SM, SRF3, and FE2 drops off; same for the tow fund. All this funding dropping off has to have been noticed by someone.

I already know that we're not going to run the FE2 at VIR in 2023, so if Majors entrance fees go up too much to compensate, maybe we'll just stick to divisional events. I dunno; just thinking ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mmi16

Everything I have heard about CoTA has been bad. The paddock area is too small for the Majors that have been held there, let alone the Runoffs. From what I have heard, the track personnel are less than friendly for club racers. I haven't been there, so I could be mistaken.

---

I have raced twice at COTA and have nothing but good feedback. I love the track and would absolutely attend the Runoffs there.

At the CRB meeting at the 2019 Runoffs, we were told that the paddock is too small. I agree that there are plenty of paved areas outside the track that could be used, but many cars would have to top off fuel on the grid. I saw this first-hand at the first COTA Majors race.

I'd like to clarify my last post. I was looking solely at "Runoffs Eligible" Majors participation. I would like to add that Total participation is not so grim but does seem stagnant. See chart below.

https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/att...d=104914&stc=1

I know people have been talking about having the runoffs at COTA and to me that would be great and would love to race at it in the future. There is a new race track in Missouri called Ozarks International Raceway. I think it would be a great track for future runoffs because it is close to being in the middle of the country any direction. It just opened last year and the owner has been improving the facilities trying to make it more racer friendly. The owner takes in input from everyone that talks to him and see's if it would be worth doing. Everyone that I talked to that raced at this track loves it and can't wait to come back to the track. I put a video of my on board footage of my last race.

https://youtu.be/bXFYrLzbpMM

I've been to Ozarks International as well. Great track. Long. Lots of elevation changes. To host an event like the Runoffs it will need a substantially bigger paddock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CheckeredFlag

I'd like to clarify my last post. I was looking solely at "Runoffs Eligible" Majors participation. I would like to add that Total participation is not so grim but does seem stagnant.

---

This would indicate to me that there's a growing problem with classing if an increasing percentage of drivers are running in classes that aren't runoffs-eligible. If people are showing up with a car that doesn't "count" just to get on track in something, that's probably just the tip of the iceberg - how many people are choosing to not show up at all because their car isn't in a class that "counts" anymore? There's probably a decent chunk of missing participation from that on both the open-wheel and tin-top sides of things.