"Fixing" National Racing

[S Lathrop]

I think that National racing for the development formula cars (F500/600, FV, FF, FC, FB, and FA) is a dying sport.

Just look at the number of new participants in these classes per year. Not many, if any. Most of the new participants appear to be going to the street-spec something.

SCCA has poached the market for the traditional formula classes with FE and before that FM. Those participants would have been FF or FC customers, possibly. But even with those classes, the total of the formula cars is not much. Collectively we are becoming a thing of the past.

At one time the formula cars were between 1/3 and almost 1/2 of all race participants.

Today the formula cars are maybe 20% or less. Hardly worth giving 2 run sessions on a weekend.

Remember that this is the Sports Car Club of America, not the formula car club of America.

I don't think that there is anything that can be done to improve the situation for the formula car people in the SCCA National or Regional racing program. But the pro series that Mike Rand is running does offer the type of program that once was part of SCCA.

I think that the future is for SCCA to embrace programs such as the FF and FC pro series and make those programs a parallel race series to the SCCA National racing and have them participate in the SCCA Runoffs. SCCA is currently divided geographically. Why not add special interest groups under the umbrella of the SCCA club racing program?

[Hardingfv32]

1) The National racing program provides a smaller number of events where (hopefully) the best teams show up, rather than dividing the top talent among all of the potential events. This forces someone to have to race other top teams in order to gain points, rather than allowing them to cherry-pick low-attendance races.

2) Having a separate National program allows regional races to include local class options or combined sanction events that would not fit under national rules. Examples are IT, Spec-7, vintage groups, SSM, FS/ASR, and a whole host of other regional-only classes. If you try to combine regional and national, you will end up either diluting someone's regional group or having to exclude certain run groups. While there are certainly ways that this could be done without disenfranchising anyone, I think the mess surrounding the WDC Region's open-wheel run groups a few years ago is a very good example of why we need two separate "classes" of racing - an awful lot of regions just wouldn't have room in the schedule for the national guys to show up on top of a well-supported regional weekend. (Weaker regions may be in the opposite situation, OTOH, and these make good candidates for Rationals.)

3) Having separate Regional events creates a lower-stress place for cars/drivers/teams to race while developing their car, skills, and track procedures, as well as for groups of local drivers who find the social aspects of racing with their friends more compelling than spending $50K/year to get that last tenth of a second in the chase for a National championship. Do you really want to have 20 or so "National" teams with semi-haulers showing up at every regional event and pushing the locals (who are the real bread and butter of the regions) out to the nether regions of the paddock? Conversely, do you really want a stone-cold green newbie showing up at the June Sprints the weekend after his/her second drivers' school with NO other wheel-to-wheel racing experience? While it's probably fine for him/her to enter a rational out in the hinterlands in a 140-car weekend, an event like the Sprints or the Glen Nationals just ain't the place for someone to figure out what the flags mean and whether or not they have their brake bias knob backwards.

1) Force participants the race certain Nationals just to qualify for the Runoffs seems like a dated model. It would seem SCCA has acknowledge that with their current very weak Runoffs qualifying requirements.

2) While your point about 'diluting someone's regional group or having to exclude certain run groups' is valid in some cases, it is becoming less valid as the car counts continue to fall. As an example, West of the Rockies there are only one or two events that are fully booked Regionals, Sears Point and Laguna Seca.

3) Lower stress for Regional participants or a place for rockies to learn is not an affordable option with the current car counts. These are both great features, but something has to go if the club intends to improve event finances?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

I think that the future is for SCCA to embrace programs such as the FF and FC pro series and make those programs a parallel race series to the SCCA National racing and have them participate in the SCCA Runoffs. SCCA is currently divided geographically. Why not add special interest groups under the umbrella of the SCCA club racing program?

I have nothing against allowing the participants qualifying for the Runoffs through a Pro Series. I personally do not think the Runoffs will be that be an attraction to Pro Series participants.

I do say leave the Pro Series on their own. What benefit has the Pro Division provided the general membership? SCCA does not need more administrative layers.

For that matter what is the benefit of Solo, Rally, etc.? Are there in studies that indicate that their inclusion is a benefit to the Club in general? I do not think you can show any cross over. All of these activities just make for a bloated SCCA administration. Big has not been better in the case of SCCA.

Brian

[Speed Sport Engineering]

Of coarse we don't know that the split caused the reduction in car count. The car counts are/were falling in Divisions that did not split. You go to the races you are interested in regardless of division. Is winning the Division important?

Brian

Brian,

The split created 2 divisons, each with their own scheduling. So it effectivly took a fixed pool of drivers and workers and doubled the nationals on the schedule. There is a large population west of the dividing line, but the east side has all the tracks. Thus Cendiv is stuck with 1-3 tracks with lots of drivers, while Great Lakes has more tracks but less drivers.

It really, really, killed the national program in the midwest. Last year if you tried running some of both the key CenDiv and Great Lakes events, it created 7 races in 6 weekends due to the doubles. It was insane.

They need to be put back together. If it really is a member driven club and drivers are a key part, it should get done. We need to band together to make it happen. I'll put some effort into it if I have support from all the other drivers.

[KevinFirlein]

Having actually competed in the F2kCS since day 1 and talking with many competitiors I happen to know for a fact , not a guess, that if SCCA changed its rules and allowed the pro series to count towards Runoffs qualifications there would be significant involvement in the Runoffs from the competitors. What no one is interested in is spending extra money to run boring 4 car races to get qualified under the current rules that takes away from your budget, both time and money. If you could just show up and run the Runoffs that would be different story. And while I am not sure I agree with allowing that to happen I do think it would benefit the Runoffs by adding so really top notch cars to the mix.

[Marshall Mauney]

1) Force participants the race certain Nationals just to qualify for the Runoffs seems like a dated model. It would seem SCCA has acknowledge that with their current very weak Runoffs qualifying requirements.

What? Have you looked at the changes to the runoffs qualifying requirements over the past 4 years? It's gotten HARDER to qualify, not easier. You've made this up out of whole cloth - it has nothing to do with reality.

2) While your point about 'diluting someone's regional group or having to exclude certain run groups' is valid in some cases, it is becoming less valid as the car counts continue to fall.

That's only true where car counts are falling. You should see the open-wheel groups we had at the Grattan double last year, or look at the SM and SSM run groups in MARRS. Well-run events are still getting plenty of entrants.

3) Lower stress for Regional participants or a place for rockies to learn is not an affordable option with the current car counts.

Again, what are you talking about? If you don't provide the type of event that the regional drivers are looking for, we'll lose them. The most "unaffordable option" is to ignore what the customers like about the product today.

SCCA has poached the market for the traditional formula classes with FE and before that FM. Those participants would have been FF or FC customers, possibly.

1) FM was not a SCCA spec class - you've posted this twice now. FM was created as a lower-tier pro series by an outside group, not by SCCA, nor by Enterprises.

2) I'm one of those participants, and I can tell you that I would NOT have gone to FF or FC. After running FF, F500, and SM, I went FE because I wanted to race a spec car. Not all of us want to focus on the hot new part of the week - some of us just want to go out and race.

But even with those classes, the total of the formula cars is not much. Collectively we are becoming a thing of the past.

Again, how do you figure this? Outside of FB, our numbers are quite high compared to the tin-tops (save SM & STU, which clearly bring big numbers). Granted that it varies from region to region, but CenDiv certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with open-wheel car counts.

[S Lathrop]

[quote=Marshall Mauney;328455]1) FM was not a SCCA spec class - you've posted this twice now. FM was created as a lower-tier pro series by an outside group, not by SCCA, nor by Enterprises.

2) I'm one of those participants, and I can tell you that I would NOT have gone to FF or FC. After running FF, F500, and SM, I went FE because I wanted to race a spec car. Not all of us want to focus on the hot new part of the week - some of us just want to go out and race.



Marshall:

I know the history of FM and what came before the Mazda engine was installed in that chassis. My description of the process by which FM was included as an SCCA class is for sure a one sided, self-serving, explanation. What you may not know is the representations that were made when FM was established as a class and were not adhered to by SCCA. Spec vs. development classes are like religion and politics, each to his own preferences.

[mousecatcher]

SCCA has poached the market for the traditional formula classes with FE and before that FM. Those participants would have been FF or FC customers, possibly.

Spec vs. development classes are like religion and politics, each to his own preferences.

These two statements seem to be self-contradictory.

[Marshall Mauney]

What you may not know is the representations that were made when FM was established as a class and were not adhered to by SCCA.

Fair enough - I didn't start racing until '99, so I wasn't around for that situation. Would love to hear about it someday, though.....

Spec vs. development classes are like religion and politics, each to his own preferences.

Very true. Personally, I think we need some of each. It's tough to argue the success of SRF, SM, FE, FM, RotaxMax, etc. - there are clearly a lot of people that really like the idea of a spec program. Heck, IRL is basically a spec series.

That said, I also really like the engineering appeal of the pure development classes like the sports racers - they're just not for me in my current situation.

So, how do we keep enough of each type of program to meet the needs of the consumers? If we say that SM and SRF are the obvious options for sports racer and sedan, then we need at least one spec option for open-wheel. The trouble, of course, is that we have two (FE & FM) that are pretty close in both performance and participation. The obvious (and incorrect, IMO) solution is to combine them. Of course, this immediately removes the benefit of having a "spec" series, since one or the other chassis will have the advantage at any given track. I, for one, am not particularly thrilled with the idea of a "spec" class that requires the front-runners to have the "right" car for any given national - or any given Runoffs location.

[S Lathrop]

Fair enough - I didn't start racing until '99, so I wasn't around for that situation. Would love to hear about it someday, though.....


Very true. Personally, I think we need some of each. It's tough to argue the success of SRF, SM, FE, FM, RotaxMax, etc. - there are clearly a lot of people that really like the idea of a spec program. Heck, IRL is basically a spec series.

That said, I also really like the engineering appeal of the pure development classes like the sports racers - they're just not for me in my current situation.

So, how do we keep enough of each type of program to meet the needs of the consumers? If we say that SM and SRF are the obvious options for sports racer and sedan, then we need at least one spec option for open-wheel. The trouble, of course, is that we have two (FE & FM) that are pretty close in both performance and participation. The obvious (and incorrect, IMO) solution is to combine them. Of course, this immediately removes the benefit of having a "spec" series, since one or the other chassis will have the advantage at any given track. I, for one, am not particularly thrilled with the idea of a "spec" class that requires the front-runners to have the "right" car for any given national - or any given Runoffs location.

I can largely agree with you on this post.

But I have been an engineer in Indy lights with the T97 Lola and the Dallara. I can tell you for certain that drivers who come up through the spec classes do not arrive at the IPS level with the requisite skills. At the lower levels, the spec formulas control the cars to the point where drivers learn very little about setups and how to maintain a setup at the peak of performance. The IPS series has lot of limitations but setup is not one. The shocks are spec but the valving and settings are not. Take my work for it but there are over 5000 possible settings for a single shock. Springs are free and range from 800 to 3000 lbs./in. that is just for one corner.

Then again, if you just want to get on a race track for fun and relaxation, learning the in's and out's of setup can diminish the fun factor a lot. A poorly setup car is not fun. For others it is the key to outperforming the guy next to you.

The important topic here is fixing nationals. I don't think that for open wheel racers there is much that can be done. What everyone wants is single class races with full fields. Mixed groups don't work very well in open wheel racing with large car counts. But within the national racing program, there is no option. In short you don't like it with FE's, FMs and FCs are mixing it up when each is intent on his race within a race. Add into that mix add some FAs, FBs, C & DSRs.

[iamuwere]

Count me as an FE driver that didn't want to go to FB/FC/FF because I didn't want to be in an continual arms race for latest and greatest wings, shocks, spring perches, bodywork, gears, wheels, etc.

Don't think that I don't like the engineering challenges. I would love to have a three or four spring set option in FE so I could tune more to my preferences. It wouldn't add much cost, but is outside the spirit of this sort of class.

I wanted a rock solid class with limited parts needs. My next class when I went to FE was either SRF, FE, or SM. I'll race most anything, really. This isn't a spec debate, but the continual spec bashing is a bit goofy and insists on unfair generalizations. I sent my seven year old motor to be dyno tested and it is still in spec. I love an engine this old still in a 1% window. That is cheap racing.

Jim

[Speed Sport Engineering]

http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=50909


Interesting...

[Will Velkoff]

Do you think this is the first step towards replacing our current National program?

[Stan Clayton]

http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=50909

Interesting...

Interesting indeed! So is this the feared backdoor effort to reduce the number of National Classes?

[R. Pare]

"Additionally, recognizing that participating in the Majors Pilot events could hamper a driver’s ability to qualify for the 2012 National Championship Runoffs® through the traditional process, any driver that starts at least one race on each of three Majors weekends (in the same class) will receive a Runoffs invitation."

Oh great - so to qualify for the Runons now in those divisions, all you need to do is just start 3 of these races? No need to actually be competitive?

Is this a joke? A misstatement?

[Amon]

I was thinking the same thing!

Mark

[TimW]

"Additionally, recognizing that participating in the Majors Pilot events could hamper a driver’s ability to qualify for the 2012 National Championship Runoffs® through the traditional process, any driver that starts at least one race on each of three Majors weekends (in the same class) will receive a Runoffs invitation."

Oh great - so to qualify for the Runons now in those divisions, all you need to do is just start 3 of these races? No need to actually be competitive?

Is this a joke? A misstatement?

I think its considered a 'startup process' to get it going. Do the runons really matter, especially qualifying for the runons? Really?

So, we bitch and moan that national racing sucks and no one is doing anything. They do something and not even 60 minutes we're picking it apart. Nice.

[cooleyjb]

"Additionally, recognizing that participating in the Majors Pilot events could hamper a driver’s ability to qualify for the 2012 National Championship Runoffs® through the traditional process, any driver that starts at least one race on each of three Majors weekends (in the same class) will receive a Runoffs invitation."

Oh great - so to qualify for the Runons now in those divisions, all you need to do is just start 3 of these races? No need to actually be competitive?

Is this a joke? A misstatement?

Name more than a couple classes that really doesn't apply to already. Runoffs invitations can be had by cherry picking events in every class I bet.

[Darren Brown]

I think its considered a 'startup process' to get it going. Do the runons really matter, especially qualifying for the runons? Really?

So, we bitch and moan that national racing sucks and no one is doing anything. They do something and not even 60 minutes we're picking it apart. Nice.

To me the bigger deal is the BOD changing the schedule after it has been posted. At my work we have to bid for vacation well in advanced. I already scheduled the time off for our Texas Motor Speedway double national. Now with this deal, I can not race at that event since FC is not in the top 10 special classes.

Oh yes, this will increase participation telling 18 other classes to stay home

Darren

[Matt King]

All six Majors races in 2012, including the BFGoodrich Tires Super Tour events and the Invitationals, will feature a common pre-event registration process, chief steward and management team from the National office for continuity and consistency, while still being operated by the local Regions to provide the local flavor and atmosphere. The idea is to take the best elements of the Club Racing experience and meld them with some components often found at professional events. Making events better than, and different from, other events is a key focal point.

This is a good idea. It certainly looks like they have focused on duplicating a few elements that make the semi-pro series popular. It will be interesting to see what the entry fees are for these events. I will definitely consider attending the one at Heartland Park in July.

[Matt King]

Nevermind. Wrong track.

[Tom Maycock]

The split created 2 divisons, each with their own scheduling. So it effectivly took a fixed pool of drivers and workers and doubled the nationals on the schedule.

FWIW, I don't think "doubled" is really accurate.

I understand part of the issue is splitting the pool of drivers in terms of divisional points chases, having a much smaller number of "in division" races to choose from, and so on. And there's no question the split has some impact along those lines.

But the actual number of events hasn't changed much at all.

For example, I believe the 2006 (pre-split) schedule featured 11(!) nationals in CenDiv, 4 on the "west" side and 7 on the "east" side, and I think 10 or 11 nationals was the norm for most of the 2000s. Not sure about earlier years.

Since the split, the new CenDiv has held 5, and sometimes 6, nationals, with 5 on the schedule this year--so one or two more than before on the west side.

It looks like GlDiv has held 7, 7, 6, 6, and 7 in those years, with 6 on the schedule for this year, so about the same as in previous years.

So, you're looking at +1 or +2 events, at most, in total across both divisions.

Suppose you just glued the two existing 2012 schedules back together into a single division with 11 races. Do you think it would materially affect per-race turnout?

Regards,
Tom

[S Lathrop]

Majors:

I am impressed with what they are trying to do. It is a bold move. Absolutely not something one would expect to see proposed let alone enacted.

[R. Pare]

I think its considered a 'startup process' to get it going. Do the runons really matter, especially qualifying for the runons? Really?

Yes, the Runons DO matter - at least to those of us who actually remember when only the best 3 or 4 from each division were invited.

So, we bitch and moan that national racing sucks and no one is doing anything. They do something and not even 60 minutes we're picking it apart. Nice.

My commentary said nothing about the Majors as a concept. The concept of the Majors is a welcome idea that will hopefully work in ramping up some excitement. The problem is with the automatic Runons invitation : all you now need to do is show up for 3 races, run a couple laps dead last before parking it and presto - "Hey I qualified for the Runoffs!"

If that particular item were dropped from this new program, I doubt that anyone would even notice, nor would likely it have any effect on how many people came out for these events.

Name more than a couple classes that really doesn't apply to already. Runoffs invitations can be had by cherry picking events in every class I bet.

That is true in too many areas and classes unfortunately, but that is a function of low car counts, not a function of official policy in what will hopefully be high turnout events. All that this sort of automatic invitation does is cheapen the perceived quality of the Runons even more.

[Matt King]

Yes, the Runons DO matter - at least to those of us who actually remember when only the best 3 or 4 from each division were invited.

That was then and this is now. We can't turn back the clock by wishing things were still the way they used to be. I applaud the SCCA for finally taking a big step to move out of the box and try something truly different. With this program it looks like they really have heard some of the feedback that is constantly provided here on the internet and made what looks like a solid attempt to try something new that could actually change the status quo.

[Steve Bamford]

I like where it is written that it is acknowledged that SCCA can not be all things to everyone at all events. This appears to be what people have been asking for, at least the ones in the larger car classes for a weekend event.

[Steve Demeter]

I hope that the majors concept is further refined so that just starting 3 events gets a runoffs invite.

At least in the rest of the divisions, you have to at least finish the races and be in the top 10 (IIRC) to qualify.

I agree with Richard that the priocess and prestige of the runoffs has been diluted by making it so easy to qualify.

Years ago, one had to run competitively at least at 6 Nationals, and 3 years I spent every dime and nickel doing up to 9 Nationals trying to make it to the Runoffs.

It was a major accomplishment then.

And it was easy to fit it into a week, cauyse there were not 6 or 7 hundred entries in however many classes therea are now. Each class had it's own race.

But that was then this is now and at least the BOD is trying to do something different and hopefully more exciting.

[Matt King]

Why is everyone focusing on the Runoffs? This is obviously not about the Runoffs. In fact, I doubt many people who are serious about the Runoffs would even participate in this program. I think this is aimed at the people who feel that something is missing from the entire Nationals program, including the Runoffs.

[John LaRue]

The thought process is that these "Invitational" races will draw a higher level of comppetition and thus the "relaxed" invitation requirement. I don't know as though that will be the case in fact, but it does serve as an inducement for participation in those events. Given the "ring the bell" standard for Runoff's who really cares at this point? Runoffs really would be better as an open race anyway until the entries are too much to handle. Perhaps someday, if and when entries need to be limited, the National events can return to something like they were in the past.

I see this as a step in the right direction. It creates, as someone pointed out, a semi-pro environment for the better subscribed classes and may cause them to be less susceptible to being siphoned off. On the other hand, at least two of the classes (SRF and SM) already have decent accomodations on regular National weekends (their own run groups) so they may not see as much benefit from this program as other classes who never have such an opportunity.

All in all a good step forward. I am very curious to see how the non-invitational events work out and what those will turn out to be.

John

[dick patullo]

The majors is a pilot. Much of what will be done is a prototype or a test of sorts. The alternate method for runoffs qualification is merely so that those that do step up to what we believe is a series with more competition are not kept from the year end big show. Was this the best way to handle that? I don’t know, if not we will learn and adjust before next year.
It is also important that the existence of the majors has no other effect on the runoffs. Any discussion of the future of the runoffs be it location, number of classes of format is total separate of the Majors concept.

[mousecatcher]

"Additionally, recognizing that participating in the Majors Pilot events could hamper a driver’s ability to qualify for the 2012 National Championship Runoffs® through the traditional process, any driver that starts at least one race on each of three Majors weekends (in the same class) will receive a Runoffs invitation."

Oh great - so to qualify for the Runons now in those divisions, all you need to do is just start 3 of these races? No need to actually be competitive?

I agree, it is great! Hopefully they drop the requirement to start a race at all. Come one, come all, to the runoffs. 107% in qualifying to eliminate the dangerously slow people.

[RobLav]

Welcome to the formula car insanity Dick.

[dick patullo]

Welcome to the formula car insanity Dick.

Oh I am a pretty regular lurker here. Phil normally covers what is need here well but I was part of the group that put this together so I thought I should contribute.

[Stan Clayton]

Oh I am a pretty regular lurker here. Phil normally covers what is need here well but I was part of the group that put this together so I thought I should contribute.

Let me add my thanks to those here who appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on these unofficial forums, Dick. Phil does a great job, but it's good to hear other voices, as well.

Since you brought up the issue of Runoffs location, number of classes and format, can we expect to see more from the BoD in the near future on these topics? I know they are near and dear to everyone's heart, and we're all ears on these issues.

Thanks, Stan

[dick patullo]

Well the runoffs is at Road America for two more years. The unique length of that track means there is no big push to limit any national classes from attending as long as we are there. The pain of two class racing seems to me to be less than not inviting people.
I expect that we will try to move it for 2014 but that discussion really is a year away. The current format severely limits the number of tracks that can hold the event. That will be an interesting discussion.
There is a separate discussion on the runoffs schedule. There is an idea being floated that would have a rolling schedule, like the sprints, but more so. It would not be a two event like Butch is suggesting but would have the benefit that no individual driver would have to be there more than 4 days. Same track time but less down time in between. It does mean of course on some days there is racing for some and qualifying for others. Overall event length stays the same. Again may help runoffs be more attractive to some competitors. I expect this may be a convention discussion.
The call for class consolidation as I am sure you know is pretty much a result of the Board suspending 2.5. The CRB was asked to go back to their committees and try to develop a plan based more on having the right class mixes to serve the market rather than an arbitrary number. The CRB may have an outline of a plan by March. If the BOD buys in then I expect that would go out for input. Of all the issues this one is the one I would not bet much on but the BOD asked it be explored and I guess that makes sense.
I cannot emphasize enough that the Majors, the Runoffs and the call for class consolidation are pretty much separate issues even though they are interrelated. There is no grand conspiracy here. They do not let me fly the black helicopter but I do know where the keys are kept.

[Stan Clayton]

Thank you for the comprehensive answer, Dick. It goes a long way towards allaying my concerns about hidden agendas.

[Todd Butler]

Thank you for the comprehensive answer, Dick. It goes a long way towards allaying my concerns about hidden agendas.

Stan,

As one of the other BoD'ers that lurks and ocasionally posts here (I'm much more active on Spec Racer forum), there are no hidden agendas. No black helicopters, no Masonic conspiracies, no Trilateral Commission, no NAFTA take over conspiracies, no UN takeovers, no Commies under the bed (well unless you listen to Rush and watch Fox "News" and live in Orange County, CA birthplace of Richard M Nixon )

There is a lot going on as Dick mentioned. One of the interesting things one learns as a BoD member is that things seem so simple from the outside. Just do this or just do that, but so many things are intertwined the way SCCA has evolved over the years. (Note evolution can mean forward progress and survival or evolving to a dead end!) As a simple(?) example membership dues and current Runoffs (revenue) contribute to funding the SCCA national office activities. How/if we select a new track after RA has a financial impact that needs to be comprehended in any format models we want to entertain particularly if we want to open it up to more tracks or say to rotate the Runoffs between East, Middle, and West. Sounds so easy, rotate the Runoffs between tracks to give everybody a chance to race at a reasonaby close Runoffs once ever 2-3 years, but that implies that we have viable financial models (contracts) that works at multiple tracks over multiple years. Much easier said than done.

Please note, just because it's difficult should not become an excuse for doing nothing. Doing nothing is a decision by itself. I can tell you that the BoD I've been on for the last 2+ years does recognize that change is necessary and is trying to adjust. It just takes a long time to turn around an aircraft carrier in Baltimore Harbor as our esteemed BoD chair likes to say, but turn it must!

Cheers,

Todd Butler
Area 13 NorPac Director

[Charles Warner]

Stan,

no Commies under the bed (well unless you listen to Rush and watch Fox "News" and live in Orange County, CA birthplace of Richard M Nixon )

Well, maybe no SCCA-related agenda.

[Stan Clayton]

Stan,

As one of the other BoD'ers that lurks and ocasionally posts here (I'm much more active on Spec Racer forum), there are no hidden agendas. No black helicopters, no Masonic conspiracies, no Trilateral Commission, no NAFTA take over conspiracies, no UN takeovers, no Commies under the bed (well unless you listen to Rush and watch Fox "News" and live in Orange County, CA birthplace of Richard M Nixon )

Thank you for posting here, Todd, but I am disappointed you chose to equate legitimate concerns about the future of the Club's National class structure to "black helicopter" conspiracies. Even if you meant it completely in jest, which is not at all clear, your 2+ years on the BoD should have cautioned you against making such flip responses in public.

Moreover, other BoD members privately admit that some members of the BoD's Planning Committee are agitating for a radical reduction in the number of National classes, so it's not an unreasonable stretch to draw a line between that information and the cryptically worded directive to the CRB to "actively manage" the class structure.

So if you want the members to stop cooking up conspiracy theories, open and frank communication is a better tactic IMO, which is why I thanked Dick for his posts. Ridiculing members' concerns, OTOH, is counterproductive at best, and fuels the fires at worse.

There is a lot going on as Dick mentioned. One of the interesting things one learns as a BoD member is that things seem so simple from the outside. Just do this or just do that, but so many things are intertwined the way SCCA has evolved over the years. (Note evolution can mean forward progress and survival or evolving to a dead end!) As a simple(?) example membership dues and current Runoffs (revenue) contribute to funding the SCCA national office activities. How/if we select a new track after RA has a financial impact that needs to be comprehended in any format models we want to entertain particularly if we want to open it up to more tracks or say to rotate the Runoffs between East, Middle, and West. Sounds so easy, rotate the Runoffs between tracks to give everybody a chance to race at a reasonaby close Runoffs once ever 2-3 years, but that implies that we have viable financial models (contracts) that works at multiple tracks over multiple years. Much easier said than done.

Please note, just because it's difficult should not become an excuse for doing nothing. Doing nothing is a decision by itself. I can tell you that the BoD I've been on for the last 2+ years does recognize that change is necessary and is trying to adjust. It just takes a long time to turn around an aircraft carrier in Baltimore Harbor as our esteemed BoD chair likes to say, but turn it must!

Cheers,

Todd Butler
Area 13 NorPac Director

From my own time volunteering for the Club (9 years on the CRB and F/SRAC), I do understand the impact of the Runoffs on the Club's economic well-being. I also agree that rotating it between east and west probably can't be made to work. The "Left Coast" is simply too far away from the Club's centers of gravity for moving the Runoffs out here to ever work. And like most western members who do attend the Runoffs, for me the specific "back east" location is almost immaterial once the decision is taken to attend. There just isn't enough difference between RA and VIR for it to make that much difference. So yes, move the Runoffs around as needed and keep it at prominent tracks that challenge the best drivers and makes economic sense to the Club and track, and you won't hear any complaints for me on that regard.

If you are seriously looking for ideas to strengthen the Runoffs financially and logistically, look no further than the model used at the SCCA Solo National Championship. This year some 1100 members traveled to the tall grass prairies of Lincoln, Nebraska for a week of fun and thrills. Did the competitors have to prove they have "Dan Gurney" sized stones or travel all over the country to get qualified? No. They had to have entered an event in the past 12 months. Specifically, from the 2011 Solo Rules:

4.2.C.2. Eligibility to enter the Solo National Championship is limited to persons having competed in either a Divisional Solo or a Solo National Tour event in the previous twelve months, current National Solo Champions, or event officials as listed in Section 5 of either a Divisional Solo or a Solo National Tour event conducted in the previous twelve months.

Want to strengthen the Runoffs while simultaneously supporting the National Racing program, including the Majors? Simple, invite every competitor to the Runoffs who has entered a National race in the past 12 months. The best will continue to enter lots of races to hone their skills, while others will enter the races they can fit in, AND come to the Runoffs to support the Club and their class. It's a win-win for all concerned.

Thank you again for joining us here.

[Hardingfv32]

As a simple(?) example membership dues and current Runoffs (revenue) contribute to funding the SCCA national office activities. How/if we select a new track after RA has a financial impact that needs to be comprehended in any format models we want to entertain particularly if we want to open it up to more tracks or say to rotate the Runoffs between East, Middle, and West.

How about funding the national office with membership dues only? Can the Club afford a national office anymore?

This is similar to the way the last US war was funded. There was no immediate financial pain. Would members support a large national office if all the cost had to be supported by membership fees? I think not!

Using Runoff revenue is a dishonest way of supporting the cost of the SCCA's national administration.

Brian