How many National classes?

[martyb]

(snip)
Obviously they will have to run the other classes designations (FB would have FA on the side, etc.)

There's nothing obvious about this at all. Just because two classes are in the same session doesn't mean that the FB's will have to run as FA's; hell, unless someone can do a good Mark Jaremko imitation, the FA's would have 5 seconds a lap on us!

Marty

[M.Sauce]

The idea of inviting the other National classes to the Runoffs to run in existing Runoffs classes was a concept only.It was put out to get feedback.It may have been premature but the best of intentions is often misunderstood. Some of us have recommended that we have only 3 sessions at the Runoffs for each class.No combined sessions. 1 25 minute and 2 20 minute sessions.This will allow each class to run all its sessions by itself and not ever be split or combined with other classes.We will probably have to do away with the warm ups though.If qualifying sessions and race are scheduled properly we should be able to work with that.What will our competitors think about that type of schedule.Let us know. Mike Sauce

[SStadel]

Mike, What is your feeling on splitting the classes into three groups so that everyone is not there for a week (or two) for 4 sessions on track?

Marty, You missed the point. FB is not going to the Runoffs in '08. The board was talking about allowing the classes that didn't make it on participation to run with an existing class, much like FSCCA ran as FA's as did FM's originally. And its pretty OBVIOUS to everybody where the FB's would have to run.

[Raceworks]

I disagree. Anarchy has never worked and leads to what we have now. The Club leadership has to determine the direction they want the Club to go and anyone who does not find a venue or class they like may go elsewhere. The Club should not, and can not, be all things to all people.


This is the result of kowtowing to the "all things for all people" concept supported by some financial incentives along the way. Unfortunately Pandora's Box has been opened and to regain the proper structure many racers would be disenfranchised.

I wasn't speaking about "being all things to all people" or "anarchy" but a reasonable democratic process. The club leadership is certainly free to come up with whatever they want to as a direction for the club. If the membership doesn't agree, they are equally free to choose new leadership in the next election cycle. If I want to race with an organization where the leadership has no accountability to the membership, and is free to pull the rug out from my feet whenever they like, I'll go race with NASA. As annoyed as I get with SCCA, at least there's a mechanism by which I have SOME input into the process.

There used to be a tremendous difference between regional race cars and national. No more. So, the question of a difference between regional and national racing is a valid one.

Well, that's the point I was trying to make. We need to come up with distinctions & rules, and actually abide by them.

We won't get into the debate of whether the ease of attaining a national license has decreased the safety aspect of club racing. I marvel at the attitude that just because someone has raced with "national" drivers and beaten them means they are competent racers. Nothing beats experience, as in the amount of seat time you have.

Most of the problems I've had at Nationals tend to be with some of the more experienced drivers rather than newbies. Newbies are slow, but they also tend to watch their mirrors. That being said, I tell my students & customers they should do at least a full season (8 races minimum) of regionals before even THINKING about competing at the national level. Yes, I've seen new guys do well at their local races, but more often than not those prodigies get their lunch handed to them at the Runoffs or the June Sprints, and many times they quit racing altogether. (Of course, there are exceptions to this rule as well).



Really, I'd like to see the club take the following directions with the racing programs:

1) Abolish Pro Racing, unless it really is making a LOT of money for the club. Otherwise, we need some real numbers on what the real cost-versus benefit to the club is for having World Challenge as a series. World Challenge & Trans Am are/were great series and it's certainly a nice flagship product, but the Club ought to be first and foremost about the membership and I don't really see what this operation really does to benefit the members.

2) National Racing ought to be about the best of the best. This means maybe we ought to take a look at reducing the number of classes to come up with a national championship that is more meaningful. This by logic means we ought to look at the top 10 or 15 most popular classes, and that's what the national championships are. By that same token, we need to stop trying to create national classes instantaneously, especially when there isn't any real clear demand. Base the top classes on participation and ONLY participation numbers (not history, not sentimental value, not the fact that a chassis builder says it can sell cars). This may mean that at the bottom 10th or 15th class gets swapped around every year or two, but in fact this may help garner more attention.

3) Keep regional racing relatively open. I think there is a place for "all things to all people" in regional-level racing. Regional racing ought to be about fun and learning, and it should also be the testbed for any new classes. Creating "instant national classes" for FB, DP, & BP was pointless, especially since they can't go to the Runoffs and as such, aren't really national classes at all. It doesn't even help with National entries as such, since on average a handful of cars showed up.

[Raceworks]

It appears that many well concieved ideas go by the wayside because of the club idealology.Many people have recommended many different ideas of how to change/improve our programs. No one wants their ox gored even if it is best for the club. Therefore change is slow and successful improvement is even harder to achieve.

Well, I would have had no problem with having my class combined had it been:

1) Actually based on something other than what was (in my opinion) an obvious attempt to keep some dying tin-top classes at the Runoffs. You know, like a lack of participation in the two classes concerned.

2) Not being combined with a class that is also a revenue stream for SCCA Enterprises (i.e., Conflict of Inetrest).

Really, I thought the idea was particularly daft with that idea & the CSR/DSR combination because all 4 classes were relatively healthy and popular.

If you're going to aggrivate someone in the club, it's a lot smarter to aggrivate the people in the less popular classes. For one thing, the club loses fewer members if they all get p.o.'d and join NASA.

[M.Sauce]

I personally don't think the BOD can make any decision without aggrevating someone.We don't try to aggrevate anyone but we always do.The idea behind bringing other classes to the Runoffs within existing classes had nothing to do with saving any class.GT3 had a reasonable position because combining them with any other class was going to be very difficult to achieve in the short term.They were at least above the minimum participation rule so consequently GT3 was not on the radar as being a class that would be adversely affected by the 24 class rule. GP did not even make the minimum participation numbers to remain a National class and it was easier to combine them.This was the thought process behind the decision.It had nothing to do with Tin tops or type of car.

[Steve Demeter]

I agree with Sam.

At this point in time, the series in SCCA Pro Racing are not even a blip on anyone's radar screen except for the participants.

Now when there was factory participation in the Trans AM, the Can AM was healthy and the Formula 5000 series was around, Pro Racing got a ton of great exposure for SCCA.

And they produced some of the best racing EVER.

But they are gone and I can not see what pro racing does to benefit the club as a whole in it's present form.

[M.Sauce]

Steve- I believe there are several factories involved in World Challenge.Porsche,Cadillac,Chevrolet,Dodge,Mazda come to mind .I am sure I left some out.It is a larger series than you think.It is however not the IRL,Champ Car or American Lemans.I will only support a viable and fiscally responsible Pro Racing program.It has to be selfsufficient for me to support it.It accounts for 10-12 % of our members and does give the Club credible and positive posture in American Motorsports.However the club in my opinion should not support it financially when it becomes a fiscal drain.

[Larry]

Mike,

We seem to be in agreement on most things (but not all). I've got to tell you, though, that I admire your willingness to clearly state your opinions on this board! I wish more BOD members were so forthcoming! There is no doubt in my mind that you do what you believe is in the best interest for the club. We need more like you on the board.

Larry Oliver

[M.Sauce]

Larry- Thanks for the words of kindness.I had no idea this job was this hard. I will tell you we need more drivers-competitors on the BOD.The insight of the competitor is necessary and historically rarely there.I call them the way I see them and I will never lie to the club members.Sometimes that is my greatest strength and sometimes it gets me into trouble. Happy New Year.