The shrinking participation out here is partly do to the vast number of choices for the use of time and playmoney that people have. For those who grew up with cars as a central part of life when there were no Xgames,video games and Internet it was easy to channel our interest to racing. Also the ethnic make up of the population has changed to include vast numbers of people who see cars as about as interesting as a toaster.
Mark I'm only talking about national participation. If you go back to the 70 and most of the 80's Cal Club was the largest region in the country by double. In the last 5 years So Pac has lost road racing in two of it's regions, LV and SD. Cal Club is at less than half of it's membership. I only suggest that if the runoffs were to move around you would see a more balanced number in national participation.
Michael Hall
Got a job
Race a bike
Cal Club
considering the small % of scca licensed drivers that actually ever enter the runoffs, it's hard to believe that scca membership in any part of the country is affected by where that event is held. to say that west coast membership or national participation is down due to the location of the runoffs? i don't buy it.
md
[size="1"][ June 04, 2003, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: mark defer ][/size]
Mark I'm not at all proposing that where the runoffs are held is in direct perportion to the overall membership in the SCCA. What I am saying is that NATIONAL participation in the west would increase if the runoffs were move to Sears. At the same time you would see those numbers decrease in the eastern divisions therefore giving more equal participation numbers
Michael Hall
Got a job
Race a bike
Cal Club
michael,
most national guys i know in fc would still be running the same events if there were no runoffs. for most of us, running nationals is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. it's nice to have the runoffs to look forward to, but it's the racing throughout the year that makes go back to the track each spring. so no, i don't think participation numbers would change that much. wish someone else would chime in, don't you?
md
The title fight in my own division motivates me more than the Runoffs. But then I'm just fighting with the same people all the time, on the same tracks, so it's fun to race at big events or great tracks in other divisions two or three times a year. Some years when the economy is good, we're fortunate to attract national and divisional champions down here for our double in February, which adds to the fun, a lot. Fortunately, from Austin it's 1000 miles to Road Atlanta and the same to Phoenix, which makes it a straight through drive if need be. I can even handle the three day August event at Laguna Seca because Neil Porter (and others, I'm sure) can put me in a top notch car for reasonable bucks, and that's a highlight every year.
The Runoffs is just a little over the top when it comes to time and expense, so I can only get worked up about that once every three years or so. It's not a national championship, it's the Runoffs! I'm looking forward to it this year.
[size="1"][ June 05, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Nick St. Laurent ][/size]
I am not sure how this fits into the overall discussion, but figure it is a good item of discussion. While I very much enjoy Runoffs, they tend to get a bit boring in simply fighting all week for an ultimate lap time for a grid position. I have mentioned to a few a format that would bring some excitement and greater importance to EACH session on track. It is as follows:
Session 1: Qualification
Session 2: Qualification
Session 3: Heat race 1 (grid per qualifications)
Session 4: Heat race 2 (grid inverted or per finish in heat 1)
Session 5: Heat race 3 (grid per total points from heats 1 & 2)
CHAMPION is determined by total points from all 3 heats.
As it stands we are on track five times. Four of those are for 20 minutes and the race is 30 minutes or a total maximum track time of 110 minutes.
If we allowed for two 20 minute qualifying sessions we would have 70 minutes to run three heat races or just over 23 minutes each. This would appear to be ample time to get in 12-14 laps per heat. Using points from each heat would give a good test of the overall champion over several days and most likely differing conditions. Inversion of the field would really test one's patience, passing abilites and level the field for someone who had an off qualifying session.
The biggest thing I see is it would make all of the sessions important whereas now there are several throw away days if the weather is reasonable.
Something to think about. Regards, John
This thread has wondered quite a bit. I agree with John that the Runoffs format could be improved. I am not sure how one actually accomplishes this, probably the comp board initiates it based on input letters.
1) The first improvement would be to get rid of the Monday practice. Everyone serious tests and it is a total waste of time.
2) Reduce it to 1 or 2 qualifiers max.
3) I prefer the longer races of 23 laps. So, run 2 qualifiers and 2 races of 23 laps. Same total track time and everything counts.
4) Combine the 2 race finishes to determine the winner. If there is a tie, then qualifying position sorts it out.
Whatever is done, 3 qualifiers and one practice is not optimum.
I agree with John. I think every race weekend would be better with the same sort of idea, a qualifier and then heat races motocross style, or heat races and a final. A typical SW div weekend could be Sat am qualifying, pm race, then two races on Sunday. Shorter races wouldn't bother me a bit as long as total track time was the same. For spectators, I think having more races, but shorter ones, would be better. It would make the fights more intense. Long races can get boring, especially if the leader checks out.
John-That is a great idea.Do you think that anyone who might make those decisions would listen?My experience since 1974 is that change is brought about very slowly and sometimes with great difficulty.I am all for changes that enhance our SCCA programs.The Runoffs format is tired and sometimes boring and a championship decided by one race is only a crap shoot at best.Count on many racers to agree with your concept but not as many to help change it.Historically we have not had near enough say in these kind of issues and was mostly our own fault.We can organize and communicate so much easier now so maybe we can be more successful.I think that the SCCA BOD should appoint several racers to a commitee to improve the Runoffs event.Maybe by having racers have input some of our ideas would bring positive changes like John's idea.
Mark Defer has stated my feelings about National racing exactly. We try to make the majority of the SE Div Nationals every year, but we haven't gone to the Runoffs since they left Atlanta. The races are the reason we go through the hassle. The Runoffs are nice if you have the time and money. Changing the Runoff format or location might bring in some more participants, but I don't see it having a huge impact. Central Division has the biggest FC numbers, so Mid-Ohio is probably optimum for our class.
Jim
I race Nationals, period. The only time I run a regional is if it's a regional/national weekend and sometimes I'll pull out of the regional. I raced a regional last year, because my partner was entered and then had to attend a funeral. Since it was a double regional and I was at the track helping I ran on Sunday (with the appropriate driver's change, etc. per the stewards). I've qualified for the Runoff's several times, but only attended once ('91). Too little time on the track, with too much time away from home. That's the end of the story. On another thread started by GT1, I've stated my ideas for changing the Runoff's to a format that I would attend. But with the already large fields (for most classes), I doubt there will be a change.
Competition One Racing
racer6@mchsi.com
The Runoffs have been at Mid Ohio for 9 years.I think it is time for change.I think you could attract different drivers if you change the location.I like Mid Ohio but with many competitors running the same speed there are not enough passing areas.Eliminating the keyhole will
help.Ultimately down the road we may not have any other choices when Heartland Park is renovated.So lets run some other tracks before the Runoffs is locked in at Topeka.I don't believe that the numbers will suffer if the event is moved away from Cen Div.Maybe we can find better weather too.
Has anyone thought of haveing a split Qualifying
sesson ? say FC go out first then Mazdas then the reverse order the next sesson?
Just an idea. soon as the last FC is in turn
1 then send out the 1st Mazda ??
Splitting groups in qualifying, in my experience, does not really help much. In a few laps, everything is pretty much randomly distributed, almost as if they were never split. In a race, of course, it does work, since the cars are not so tightly packed when the two groups begin to mingle.
Dave Weitzenhof
Except for AeroSports and DaveW's last posts, this thread has ranged far from the original topic of FM/FC at the 2003 Runoffs. Many people have strong thoughts on how (and where) we determine our National Champion, so that's why I started the other thread on "Runoffs Format".
Obviously I've been reading both threads and there are a number of good ideas out there. Is the concept of the Runoffs "broken"? Absolutely not. Can it be improved? Certainly (just as any lap is NEVER "perfect").
Before changing direction, however, it's usually a good idea to have an idea of where you want to go (and changing the direction of SCCA IS possible). Erik is already on the BOD and some of you know that I've "unofficially" announced my candidacy for the Area 12 spot that will be voted upon in late 2004. Yes, it's akin to turning the Titanic, but knowing where we want to go is the first step.
Please check out the other thread for additional thoughts...
Butch Kummer
2006, 2007, 2010 SARRC GTA Champion
I just had an e-mail conversation with Bryan Cohn at SCCA that got around to this subject (FC & FM grouped together for all Runoffs practice and qualifying sessions).
Apparently, the only way anything will happen to re-do the grouping at this point is an "RFA" (request for action) at the race itself, if there are too many cars in the group.
Dave Weitzenhof
Dave-Do you think that is realistic an RFA.Depending on that might give us false hope.What do you think the number of cars would have to be before FC can get at least one qualifying session by itself?I planned on running my FC at the Runoffs and am not looking forward to running with the FM's.FC has had 25 or more entries the last few years and this does not seem fair.FC ranks 3rd in participation throughout the year so this does not seem logical to me.
I won't be holding my breath hoping something will happen. I sent a lot of requests to various people in SCCA, and either they replied "I can't do anything" or I got stonewalled. If a lot of FC's and FM's show up, we might get something done, but it would probably take 40 cars total (my guess) or a bad incident before the chief steward would do anything.
Apparently, there are a few pro FM races scheduled very near the Runoffs week, so their numbers might be low.
At this point I've resigned myself to having to share the track all week with the FM's and to try to stay away from them as much as possible.
[size="1"][ July 24, 2003, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: DaveW ][/size]
Dave Weitzenhof
Looking at the Runoffs Entry lists, ( http://www.scca.org/amateur/club_rac...y_formula.html ), it may be that this is no problem at all, as only 4 FMs are currently registered.
I just wanted to agree with Dave W. and David and make this the 100th reply !!
Lee
The entry numbers for the Runoffs are pretty staggering. FC and FM are at 26 and 26 entries each so far and there is a day or two left to recieve postmarked entries. We will likely have over 50 to 55 cars on track for each session. If we want our own session, we have to get an RFA signed off by the chief steward. The numbers have been done so that FF can be combined with FC and FM. We need to oraganize an RFA to have FF and FM combined for a day or get a split short session for FC and FM like they did at last years second MidOhio National.
Speaking of MidOhio Nationals, they did the same grouping again for next weeks national, which means we will probably have at least 55 formula cars again on track if the numbers are like last year.
ric,
the entry list at the scca's web site show only 21 entires total between the 2 classes. where are you getting those numbers?
md
Mark-just called SCCA- there are 26 entries- they haven't updated the web page yet.
Gee, with only 12, I might even have gone out there....
----------
In memory of Joe Stimola and Glenn Phillips
50 plus cars is going to be terrible.No clear laps.But it will be the same 50 plus cars if combined with FF.I am entered in both classes so I would not vote for FC and FF together.
Mark, I called SCCA HQ. You can call and talk to Brian or someone in club racing. Those numbers will be posted within a day or so I was told, but they are not secret.
It was not my suggestion to combine FC with FF but rather to combine FF and FM for a session or 2. It would seem to be fair that FC should have their own qualifier at least once.
They have something like 760 total entries so far. Not all will be accepted but the number of participants this year is huge.
Personally, I would much rather have a shortened (13 or 15 minute) single group qualifier than the combined 20 minute 55 car episode. I guess we could do it F1 style.
thanks for the info ric.
i'm really suprised that with the decrease in national entires this year the runoff entries are running so high. i too would rather run a abbreviated session rather than run all sessions with such a high number of cars on track.
however, i would like to run with the FFs just to see mike jumping in and out of 2 cars during the session.
on the bright side, looks like we'll have the biggest field of FCs that we've had for a while.
and bob, get off your ass and come on down for the week. you'd do well and have a great time.
md
Yesterday, I e-mailed Bryan Cohn and the Runoffs chief steward, David Nokes. I got a reply from Bryan.
My question:
Just read in the FF2000 site that the Runoffs entries are now 26 FC and 26 FM, and they are still coming in. Looks like we should have at least one separate qualifying session, doesn't it ?!?
His reply:
We are working on a plan to give the SOM's.
You should be prepared to petition the SOM as well.
Bryan
Seems like it would have been more efficient if SCCA had handled this properly when we wrote to them early on.
Dave Weitzenhof
Hey Mark ,I guess you like watching a big round cork being forced into a rectangular opening twice in one session.Thanks Mark.
This is somewhat a dilemma. It only directly effects 26 of the best drivers in the SCCA. (or 52, if you count the FM drivers being placed in the same mess) If all 26/52 sent in all sorts of letters, it still looks like a small minority.
Yet, in reality it demonstrates to all SCCA members what a "head-in-the-sand" mentality some of those in charge have in dealing with change. This one issue doesn't effect most of us, but the way it is being handled is symtomatic of how each of us will be treated when our unique issue comes up.
I'm still pissed at Nokes reply back on May 27th. I'm betting the next thing we hear is "Oh, it's too late to do anything about it. You should have approached us sooner. We'll be glad to present it to next year's committee."
OUCH!! Tooth marks in my tongue...
Dave Weitzenhof
Are we ready to stage a protest if we don't get a session to ourselves? How about a four by six formation cruising around the track on the last qualifying day? That would get someone's attention. Seriously, though, we could present our viewpoint en masse during one of those tent meetings.
No matter what happens in qualifying, I'm sure our race will get sorted out Sunday evening according to talent and experience, when we'll all be at our best. Hard, fair competition, no stupid moves, have fun, make friends, and roll the cars into our trailers. A crashfest - like I've seen way too often in televised "pro" races -when we're out there with "our own" would look mighty stupid and destroy our credibility. I can't stop laughing when we go play at our local indoor karting facility... hope there's a little of that at the Runoffs.
[size="1"][ August 21, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Nick St. Laurent ][/size]
Just got an e-mail from David Nokes, Runoffs chief steward:
________________________
David,
I requested and the SOMs have approved a change to the Runoff's qualifying schedule. The newly approved schedule has FC running alone on Wednesday (8:00AM) and Thursday (1:25PM), combined with FM on Tuesday.
Thanks for your input. See you at MidOhio.
Dave
____________________
So the input we (Rick Silver, Erik Skirmants, myself, etc.) had to David Nokes, Bryan Cohn and others in the SCCA, plus the presence of 50 or so combined FC, FM entries, produced a good result!
Thank you, SCCA.
Dave Weitzenhof
This one issue dragging on since last May almost had me thinking there was something to Mattberg's union idea. [img]redface.gif[/img]
I am glad it was resolved sensibly. My faith in the system is somewhat restored. [img]smile.gif[/img]
Has anyone seen an updated schedule showing this change? The one on the SCCA Runoffs website hasn't been changed yet. I'm trying to schedule a couple of things around when I'm on track, so I would just like to be sure I know when that is.
Dave Weitzenhof
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote