Rationals

[Amon]

Since we beat the "Spec-Tire" topic to death over the past few weeks, I thought I'd
ask everyone's opinion on Rational's. They aren't going to save or stop the escalating
costs, but maybe we can get more FV drivers together in one location. I propose:

1.) Two classes, FV for those who are seeking National points and attempting to make
it towards the Runoff's, and CFV for those who are attending as "Regional" drivers
and seeking points for a Regional championship. It would be almost like a class
within a class, and the highest CFV would be considered 1st in class and if they
finished in the top 9, they would be excluded from Nationl points so NOT to take
away points from those listed as National points seeking drivers.

2.) My hope is that it would get more Vee's on the track at one location, reduce the
number of Nationals/Regionals so we don't have too many races thinning the heard
and give the Vee's a stronger voice and maybe our OWN race group such as SM.

3.) I know there would be a larger difference in talent, so the fast National drivers
might be lapping more cars than normal, but the class would come together as
a whole and maybe those Top National Driver such as Mike V., Rick S., Steven D.
and others could give pointers or tips to those less talented or newbies just starting
out in the sport etc....

Just a thought that my ADD mind came up with so let please let me know?

Thanks!

Mark

92' Protoform P-2/05'

[craigs]

I really like the Rational that we run in New England (I hate the date though). It allows regional drivers to see their old buddies and equally important shows the regional driver what the next level is like as far as speed and car prep. Personally, seeing how much faster and consistent top level national drivers are pushes me to be better.

We all run the same sessions and are scored seperately. We run a R or N on the rear sections of our cars so we know who is who, but in general we all know any way.

[D. Rader]

Are All Classes/Groups Both National, and Regional at that event, or just FV? Dale

[craigs]

All classes not just FV.

[Amon]

Dale,

I assume you mean the one's run in New England?


Craig:

How if any, has the VEE attendance changed by going to the Rational and how
accepting have the National driver's been towards this change? I know it would
be more challenging for them since they might have their race disturbed by a
backmarker etc. But I do like the fact that you're scored seperately and each
car is marked so you know who you're racing against.

Mark

[craigs]

The rational was probably one of our lowest attended vee races of the year with only 11 drivers. It is held in April when the snow is just about gone up here and replaced a weekend that was traditionally a double school where instructors and students typically stay around and race the next day.

I didn't notice any hard feelings after sessions. Looking over the merged qualifying results it doesn't appear that their were two seperate levels of driving talent. It went:

N N R R N R R N R R R

Craig

[Rolling Stone]

The rational was probably one of our lowest attended vee races of the year with only 11 drivers. It is held in April when the snow is just about gone up here and replaced a weekend that was traditionally a double school where instructors and students typically stay around and race the next day.

I didn't notice any hard feelings after sessions. Looking over the merged qualifying results it doesn't appear that their were two seperate levels of driving talent. It went:

N N R R N R R N R R R

Craig

What a coincidence!NNRRNRRNRRR is the noise my F1200 exhaust makes at 6000 RPM

[Bob Neumeister]

The ones we had in the Rocky Mtn. division you registered as a National or Regional or both. Of course both cost more money. Some people registered as both and were scored as how they finished in Reg. race and Nat. race seperatley, so each day counted as 2 races. This helped the guys that just wanted to keep their license without going to very many races.

[Amon]

Bob,

Was the attendance (+/-) from the usual numbers, and any issue's as a result
of mixing Nat/Reg. drivers?


Mark

[Bob Neumeister]

Amon, It probably brought out 2 or 3 more FV guys that would not have been there for just a National. My thoughts are that this would happen at 1 or 2 Rationals in the division and they would reach their race quota for the year and not show up again if every event was a Rational. But it is always nice to have more FV's show up. There was no problem with mix of Reg and Nat FV drivers. Different subject; If you race with FF in your divisions then guess what happens? You are now racing with Club Fords at Rationals - no further comment.
bob

[Amon]

Bob,

In NEOHIO we usually don't get too many CF's (1-2) regionally so I imagine
they wouldn't be much more of a problem at Rational's. However, we usually
have issue's with slow F5's across the board. I took care of the slow CF (10 yrs ago) that always showed up at M-O by going over her left rear wheel and crashing down to earth on her left front as she braked on the front straight. I was done for the
weekend but she soon retired and we never saw the car again. Boy did I get
a bunch of pats on the backs for that one since she was a moving chicane and ruined
many races, but it wasn't intentional on my part.....

Mark

[Bill Bonow]

Strange thing about Regional classes, they tend to be, well regional.

Nuby talks about CF being an issue, and rightly so. Around here, CF's getting mighty thin and we don't give it much thought. Well, guess what... Rocky Mountain averaged 6.0 CF cars per Regional last year! The strongest division for CF (almost double over 2nd place NorPac!) in SCCA.

I see Nuby's point.

[budawe]

In SF region we have a well subscribed CF group and while running and watching many regionals last year, I hate to admit that virtually every vee race was altered due to the slower CF's and probably over half of the winners were favored by the lead group being broken up. Nationals are completely different unless we have a slow poke. Some of the national folks I've talked with are reluctant to commit the resources to an event with the above issues.

The rationals are still under development but the idea was to increase national race opportunities without the financial burden that some national only weekend present. Just today at our annual Sewards training, the idea of spec and open tires running together came up. Not to restart the spec tire discussiion but in SF we run the AR's as a regional spec tire and the national tire is open. The only way a driver can be scored for both races is to run the spec tire and be uncompetitive in the national.

[Diamond Level Motorsports]

Bill,

Last year we averaged over 8 CF in SFR.

Brian,

Good luck with those CF's in the rational............ Especially at Sears.

[Bill Bonow]

Scott,

Rationally speaking, I do see your point. I was Majorly thinking Divisionally about Regional racing on a National basis. Food for thought, will we next see the birth of the Majorational?

You know, an FV with a little more kick would have less trouble with CF cars

[problemchild]

Much like so many of the SCCA issues, Rationals will help grow entries and improve racing in some areas and have the opposite effect in others. I did 4 yrs of Regional racing between 20 yrs and then 3 more yrs of National/Pro racing. If you are a serious racer, then it tends to be the poorly-driven cars in other classes that give you the problem ...... and vice-versa. There are atleast 4X the number of "slower" cars at a Regional as National. This is OK at Regionals as it is part of our system of developing racers .... it just conflicts with serious racing. Lapping "beginner" FVs would be just as treacherous for Siebenaler and Shields as dealing with slow CFs.
I like that SCCA is allowing Rationals for Regions that think they need help, but don't think there is a place for them everywhere at this time.

PS ..... I still don't understand why they are called Rationals instead of Negionals

[Tiago Santos]

I understand how a vee dealing with a sloooow CF can be bad, it has happened here a number of times. But what do the fast fords think of the fast vees when they're lapping them? Isn't this all just part of club racing?

[budawe]

Yea, slow cars are an issue. Problem is if Roger or Rick pass a slow vee it's done with. A slow CF can blast by you on the straight, and then it's back to square one. Maybe if I bolt in a Sabaru I can blast by them and forget it.

[Tiago Santos]

I see. Maybe a rule that any car that gets lapped by a vee needs to pull into the pits for a 5 minute penalty?

[Amon]

Tiago,

How about any FF, CF or FC that gets passed by a Vee is required to go straight
to the "black flag" pit box for lack of driving talent?


Mark

[problemchild]

Come on guys ..... don't be "elitist". Everybody has to start somewhere.

I got accused of being elitist, when on this very sight, I suggested that cars at the Runoffs should be black-flagged prior to being lapped. I've been called alot of things before, but never elitist.

At some tracks, lapping cars 10 secs per lap slower can be tough. Nelson is one of those, where the slow cars handle so badly over the bumps, the drivers just drive in the middle of the track everywhere, seemingly too busy holding on, to look in their mirrors.

[Amon]

Greg,

I'm not trying to be an elitist by any means because I was one of those who came in last
at my first race ! If you're faster than a FC or FF/CF with a car that has 1/2 to 1/3 the horsepower then there's a problem with either the instructor who passed them at driver's school, or that individual who needs more track time at another school or Friday testing day. I know we want to get the newbies on the track racing but at what cost to those who'll have to lap that individual, or worse yet getting stuck behind these driver's who throw the anchor out in the corners and then hammer it down the straight etc....
I agree with you that cars getting lapped at the Runoff's should be "Black-flagged".
Those who are doing the lapping have worked too hard to have their race screwed
up by a back-marker whose having a bad day or the car isn't mechanically 100%.

Mark

92' protoform P-2/05'

[Matt King]

SCCA drivers schools don't teach you how to drive, they teach you how to conduct yourself on the track and the students are evaluated on following procedures, observing flags, and situational awareness in reacting to various on-track scenarios. I have never seen or heard of students being evaluated on driving skill. Just because someone is significantly off the pace doesn't mean they wouldn't pass a driver school if they showed awareness of the skills that are being evaluated.

Just because someone is slow doesn't necessarily make them unsafe if they are predictable and know how to react around faster traffic. There are plenty of fast guys who are bigger hazards to themselves and others!

[butch deer]

I see no difference in preparation rules between regional and national FV'S and since most "regional drivers" already have competed in 6 regional races they can simply go to any national or regional race they want. Most of my 48+ years in SCCA I could not afford to mount a full national season so I simply ran the races closes to home without reguard to there classification as regional or national. If the local guys want to have a regional series they ca spesify the races and count the points excluding any "National" drivers from your private series standing. When the Valvoline Pro Vee series was going we had a regional drivers class which excluded anyone who earned 12 or more national points in any of the previous three years. (Define your own regional driver criteria).
On the other hand the the BOD has instituted policies within the past 10 years or so that while perhaps helping promote larger "Runoff's" fields they have done so at the expence of regionals. Regional drivers who are defined by running in regional only classes not experience or ability are left with a dimishing number of events in which to participate and could benifit from Rationals as in most cases they would fit right in with an existing race group and help make many races more sustaianable.

[problemchild]

Sorry Mark. My elitist comments were made in fun.

[Amon]

Greg,

No problem, I kinda figured you we're trying to put one over me!


Ciao'


Mark

[protoform]

In the NER rational last year, I don't believe we had a choice to have points in the national and the regional. We had to make a choice 1 or the other. Not both.

The other earlier comment about having full formula vee fields is great. We all would love it, but there will always be the 1 or 2 f500 or club fords that will shows up and the only place to put that car is in with the vee's. thats club racing.
I also completely agree with Greg Rice about black flagging a lapper at the runoff's and do it before he or she gets in the way of the leaders. They shouldn't have to try and get around a lapper at the end of the race. Most do get off line and let them thru, but sometimes it doesn't. happen. I would also like to see the old format for qualifying for the runoff's. finish the 4 nationals to qualify and add in 1 thing. a 107% rule like formula 1 or since we are amatures make it 110% then that puts it on you to qualify, when you get there . If you don't think you can don't go. It would help keep the costs of getting to the runoff's down. The money you would save would pay for the trip.

[D. Rader]

The Combined F500, FV quallifying at the runnofs didn't seem to be a problem. They went off the grid, we waited about 45 seconds I think, and then we rolled out. But that is a VERY long track. That may work at a rational just as well. I also agree that we should go back to the "old" runoffs point system. Top 10 in division make it, period (or even before that, top 6) In the north east, if you wanted to go to the runoffs, you had to make just about every in div. national, and sometimes 1 or 2 out of division. It was a dog fight right to the end, and everyone made it to just about every race. Class entries were good. When it changed to "4 races, and your in" Guess what happened. people went to 4 races, and the runoffs. I beleive SCCA did this to raise runoffs entries, but national entries went down. The current system of X amount of points (I think it's about 35 now) and your in, promotes the same thing. We did that many events because it was required for us to make it to the runoffs. (I'm sure not all divisions were like this, but it was my experience) It really ment something to just qualify for the runoffs then. I think if we went back to the origional point system, at least national entries would go up, and there would be minimal problems with laped cars, Etc. at the runoffs because the "thinning of the heard" has already been addressed. Dale

[butch deer]

The Combined F500, FV quallifying at the runnofs didn't seem to be a problem. They went off the grid, we waited about 45 seconds I think, and then we rolled out. But that is a VERY long track. That may work at a rational just as well. I also agree that we should go back to the "old" runoffs point system. Top 10 in division make it, period (or even before that, top 6) In the north east, if you wanted to go to the runoffs, you had to make just about every in div. national, and sometimes 1 or 2 out of division. It was a dog fight right to the end, and everyone made it to just about every race. Class entries were good. When it changed to "4 races, and your in" Guess what happened. people went to 4 races, and the runoffs. I beleive SCCA did this to raise runoffs entries, but national entries went down. The current system of X amount of points (I think it's about 35 now) and your in, promotes the same thing. We did that many events because it was required for us to make it to the runoffs. (I'm sure not all divisions were like this, but it was my experience) It really ment something to just qualify for the runoffs then. I think if we went back to the origional point system, at least national entries would go up, and there would be minimal problems with laped cars, Etc. at the runoffs because the "thinning of the heard" has already been addressed. Dale

I believe that in recent years the BOD of SCCA has followed a short sighted policy that was made in order to attract large(not necessarily quality) fields at the runoff,s. That policy has hurt the fields at both National and Regional races. Anyone who has seriously competed at the runoffs knows it requires roughly half your yearly racing budget. That money comes at the expence of running other races for many competitors.

[protoform]

I raced against a guy at njmp he set a new track record. He was very fast. I asked why he didn't go to the runoff's and he said too expensive.