Runoffs Format

[bryancohnracing]

John,

Been there, did it, got hired to do it, quit because of it. Don't miss the politics, the mean, nasty volunteers(entightelment has a strange way of making sane people mean). Most don't understand that one of the biggest reason I left was the fact that members were allowed to berate, abuse, acuse, lie, cheat and steal and blame the National staff all with imunity. Boy can I tell some stories... I understand that the new Pres stands up for the staff. Good for him!

The only thing I didn't do was run for Director, which I seriously considered in the mid 90's. At the time I hade several staff members aksing me to run. In the end I made the right choice in not running.

Getting back on topic:

Has anyone submitted a formal proposal to the CRB to change the 2008 and beyond format? I know Mike thinks its an 09 implementation, but knowing SCCA and the fact that change is slow, it will take some test runs of sorts to even be attemtped in 09.

Maybe a regular season event should set up and set the bar real high?

[John Robinson II]

I just read this entire thread and I want to thank you all for making me realize there is no way I will ever attemp to race in a national class for the purpose of making an attemp at the Runoffs. It sounds like it is not only not worth it but actually a big pain in the a$$.

To be honest I have a fault where after three days of anything I get bored. Like the old saying "Family, friends and seafood: after three days it all starts to stink."

Tom , I would agree with you that the runoffs are a big pain and it is way to long. If there are no changes next year I will do it on a much shorter schedule. BUT if you want to run against the fastest guys around You have to go where everyone meets.

John

[Tom Sprecher]

BUT if you want to run against the fastest guys around You have to go where everyone meets.

John

Yeah, but that's easy for you to say being the fastest guy around in FF.

Maybe, one day...

[Agitator]

I know that the attendee numbers were discussed earlier - I don't know that bringing more competitors is the answer. Sure, SCCA can brag about how many drivers attented, but how does that benefit the competitors?

As mentioned earlier, the Runoffs used to be very difficult to qualify for. If you qualified you damn well went. I can GUARANTEE that a higher percentage of drivers that qualified ended up going before the Runoffs left Road Atlanta.

Limiting testing would go a long way to eliminate time and costs and not letting the uber-rich have yet another advantage. I can remember back in the early 80's when my dad decided he just wasn't going to waste a week at the Runoffs so he showed up on Wednesday, the last day of qualifying, and put his car on the outside pole (the story gets even better considering the fact that he did it with the tires he had driven his last race on!). I dare say that could never happen again with so much access to test these days.

A split schedule - 4 days/4days - 1/2 of the classes for each four day session sounds good. Or also the suggestion of different venues....but I think 2 instead of 3 venues would be more manageable - particularly from a volunteer/worker perspective.

Just some random thoughts.
James

[Matt Conrad]

I really don't have any answers to how to fix this problem, but it is pretty obvious that there is a problem. I think there's a large number of variables involved, but the main factors have to be the cost, the time required, the location of the event, and don't discount that the economy has some uncertainty that I'm sure kept some away as they considered whether to spend tens of thousands of dollars on one race. One thing I've looked at is which classes are attending the Runoffs.....and more importantly....which one's are not.

By my calculations....Starters at this year's event....the top 5....

1. FV
2. SRF
3. SM
4. EP
5. AS/GTL (tie)

...and then the bottom 5....

21. S2000
22. DSR
23. FM
24. FA
25. CSR

The top 5 classes averaged 37 starters....and all above 30 competitors. The problem is that the bottom 5 only averaged 17 starters....and none of those classes had more than 20 cars. That's pretty bad for a National Championship event.

Another thing that is interesting is that all of the bottom 5 classes are for purpose-built race cars. But, the class that really stands out to me is DSR, as that class had 32-plus cars for the past three years....yes, even at Topeka in 2006...and for 2007 they only had 19.

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Cars, LLC

[racer27]

IMHO, all other factors aside (Location, Economy, Class specific issues, etc), you have to find a way to re-work the schedule so that you are not blowing most of your vacation days to attand one event. I was asked to do some crewing and could not as I needed to save some days for family oriented activities. You got to find a way to get a single team, running in a single class, in and out in a week or less.

[Jon Jeffords]

Matt,

Not to highjack this thread, but I wonder if the DSR participation has declined as a result of the domination of the Stohr. Much like the Swift DB-1 did to FF fields back in the mid 80's, it appears you now need to bring a Stohr WF-1 to the Runoffs in order to finish near the top.

Have we seen the last of the AMACs, Beasley's, Cheetahs, Lola 540's, or will we be seeing a Club DSR class soon?

[Matt Conrad]

Jon,

I don't think there's any question that the new WF1 is the only car to have if you want to compete for a National Chanmpionship. But there's only so many people that can afford to plunk down $85,000 and the high costs associated with running a top flight program each year.

Here's another interesting DSR tidbit....

For the four prior years at the Runoffs, there were at least 14 different makes of cars that started the race.....and in 2007....only 8.

.....back to thread at hand....

I just think there's a very small market of people to draw upon that have the money, time and ability to make a run at winning a National Championship......especially the way the format is laid out today. I hear alot of people say that they do it to be a part of the event, but to spend $20K+ to go to an event just for the "comraderie".....seems pretty illogical to me. I'd rather spend the same amount of money racing for a whole season.....

Matt Conrad
Phoenix Race Works, LLC

[Stan Clayton]

The contracts with HPT and Speed for next year are already signed, so I don't see MAJOR changes to the event occurring. Nonetheless, we can strive to improve the existing model. It seems that quality qualifying time was a priority with folks I spoke with. How would you feel about 15 minute qualifying sessions each day with every class qualifying by itself, rather than 10 classes a day being split into 7-8 minute sessions while "sharing" a 20-minute session with another class?

Stan

[John Robinson II]

Stan,
Doesnt the 24 class limit start next year? And wont that negate the need for combined sessions?

John

[DaveW]

Stan,

IIRC, we did that at least once in the past (at Mid-Ohio?), and not many people liked that either.

The complaint was that there was not enough time to get an unobstructed lap in just 15 minutes. Of course, back then, we may have had only two days of qualifying,

[Dave Gomberg]

I understand that what I am about to propose does not go anywhere near far enough to satisfy many of the points made in this thread. But, what it does do is to tweak the current schedule in ways that answer some complaints. Basically, it trades the pre-race warm up sessions for a better qualifying schedule. And for those who do not choose to run the test days, it shortens the total days for a number of race groups. (By the way, the time allocations for between session cleanup and lunch are the same as the current schedule. Specifically, qualifying sessions alternate 5 and 10 minutes between sessions, race plus cleanup is 55 minutes and lunch is one hour.)

Dave

[Stan Clayton]

John, the 24 class rule is scheduled to go into effect with next year's Runoffs, but that will not negate the need for grouping classes if we stick with daily 20 minute sessions. It will reduce the pairings from 5 per day to four, but that still leaves one-third (8) classes paired every day. The question I ask is, "how important is qualifying by oneself?" Is is important enough to cut your time from 20 minutes per day to 15?

DaveW, you may be correct, as I did not attend the early MO Runoffs. That said, what do you favor, retaining the present groupings at 20 minutes (risking the SOM splitting you into two 7-minute sessions) or a plan that has each class qualifying by itself?

Good idea, DaveG. How do you guys feel about a day off during Runoffs week? That okay if you get longer (and presumably better) qualifying sessions?

How about reverting to Monday being practice?

Stan

[KelleyHux]

Dave G -

As a flagger, I like your idea. You have shortened the days for qualifying (ending near 5:30 instead of 6:00). I'm also presuming that the race times would again be green flag times, and that the 5 minute mark on the grid would occur approximately 12 mins prior to the time listed on the schedule. I would encourage you to submit it to the "powers that be". I suspect you can get support from the other classes (i.e. non-open wheel) as well.

Stan - is the CRB part of the "powers that be" in this situation? Or is it strictly handled by the National Office Staff, the Race Chairman, and the Chief Steward?

Thanks,
Kelley Huxtable
"PLAY SAFE"
DMVR
F&C/Registration/T&S

[Stan Clayton]

Stan - is the CRB part of the "powers that be" in this situation? Or is it strictly handled by the National Office Staff, the Race Chairman, and the Chief Steward?

Yes, the CRB works with the Staff to produce the Runoffs schedule. Stan

[Dave Gomberg]

Dave G -

... I'm also presuming that the race times would again be green flag times, and that the 5 minute mark on the grid would occur approximately 12 mins prior to the time listed on the schedule...

Yes, you are making the correct assumptions. I followed the existing schedule with regard to time between sessions so that we could compare apples-to-apples. I don't know how many racers will object to losing the morning warm up sessions on race day, but I know many who don't bother with them now.

Dave

[Matthew DiRenzo]

I would support Dave G.'s proposed schedule over the more complex suggestions. I could care less about track time in a quantitative sense, i.e. how many times we get to drive around in circles, but I do care about the quality. Securing a higher probability of as little as 5 quality laps per session would satisfy me. That being said, the Runoffs schedule doesn't factor in my decision to attend the event; expense does. I can't see how that situation can be improved without abolishing the test week, which I'd support wholeheartedly... but it'll never happen.

And while I would greatly prefer (and even campaign for) a better venue, HPT's not going to keep me away. Whether we race at WGI, Spa, or a K-mart parking lot, the exercise remains the same. Not going solely because the track is "lame" smacks of high order excuse making... sorry.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some change to the Runoffs eligibility system to make National races mean something. As it is, you can qualify with little to no effort in many (most?) classes. Serious competitors often do the absolute minimum and spend most of their time testing for the Runoffs (or, perhaps, saving their money for the ridiculous Runoffs test week?). Very boring, but that's probably another can of worms entirely.

[Stan Clayton]

I would support Dave G.'s proposed schedule over the more complex suggestions. -snip-

And while I would greatly prefer (and even campaign for) a better venue, HPT's not going to keep me away. Whether we race at WGI, Spa, or a K-mart parking lot, the exercise remains the same. Not going solely because the track is "lame" smacks of high order excuse making... sorry.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some change to the Runoffs eligibility system to make National races mean something. As it is, you can qualify with little to no effort in many (most?) classes. Serious competitors often do the absolute minimum...

Welcome back, Matt...long time no see!

I too like DaveG's suggestion and am forwarding it to the rest of the CRB.

And I agree with your sentiments about why folks go to the Runoffs. It reminds me of something DaveW wrote recently (paraphrased), "I don't go to the Runoffs for the challenge of the track. I go to meet the challenge of the best FC drivers in the country."

Finally, it is kind of an urban legend that lots of Runoffs-oriented racers do the minimum number of races to qualify, and then sit on the sidelines until October. The reality is more complex, as the average racer who qualified for the Runoffs did 5.7 races this year (right at 1 less than in 2006). Some did do just 4 races...no doubt about it, but probably at least as many did 8 or more.

What is true is that it is easy to qualify for the Runoffs. Only one class in one Division qualified over ten drivers, and that was SM, which qualified 11 in one Division. Other than that one lonely guy, every single driver who entered 4 races qualified for the Runoffs. The open question in my mind is whether making it more difficult to qualify will somehow improve the Runoffs. Anybody want to take a stab at it?

Stan

[Drivers Services]

The open question in my mind is whether making it more difficult to qualify will somehow improve the Runoffs. Anybody want to take a stab at it?

Stan

Stan,

I will.

A small point perhaps, but on several occassions I have watched as drivers who quite frankly didn't belong at the Runoffs determined national championships. Taking out the leader or leaders as they were being lapped. Sometimes less than half way thru the race. I've watched as some off the pace and frankly inept drivers took out contenders and favorites in qualifying. The drivers I'm talking about aren't the "best of the best" in many and in some cases any aspects. I'm sorry, if you're 10 seconds off the pace every session you shouldn't be at the runoffs. Our current "Top Ten" rule eliminated exactly "one lonely guy". Why bother having the rule? It's not doing the job of helping make the Runoffs the best of the best.
So yes I would say making it more difficult to qualify would have a fair chance of improving the Runoffs.

Later,
Jim Little
Drivers Services