Concorde Plan?

[rave motorsports]

I was reading through the Fastrack published today and at the very bottom there was mention of " The Concorde Plan". It was said that it was layed out in earlier minutes and dealt with class stability. I looked through several months of previous Fastracks and did not find anything. Does anyone know what the Concorde Plan is?

[Purple Frog]

Yes.

[rave motorsports]

I'm resisting several smart A*# comments. LOL. Can we have a brief explainations from those of you who know what it is?

[Purple Frog]

To be able to explain it fairly is really above my pay grade.

My interpretation, 30 words or less: A plan to create a fixed stable class structure that would hold firm for a period of 10 years and not be able to be altered by future administrations".

[budawe]

Simply put, Purple Frog is very close. The actual plan is far from even being on paper and other than mention of BOD discussions in our minutes, nothing specific has been in Fastrac. The concept was mentioned in BOD chairman John Walsh's Sports Car column a month ago and has a lot of work to be done even before any public discussion can begin.

The club has struggled for decades with it's class structure. While the old 2.5 rule attempted to make things more structured, it did not address emerging and changing markets, or new cars, very well. As BOD's changed, sometimes philosophies changed and that made things very unpredictable and challenging. The current BOD would like to change that.

As things are now, there are so many classes that on most Majors weekends very few classes have enough cars to be considered a real race. Not only does that make for boring races for everyone, it's virtually impossible to promote events and draw spectator interest. The BOD thinks that at the very highest level of our racing that should change.

There is little doubt that the overriding challenge in this project will be for those whose classes may be eliminated or consolidated. Since this will be a decades long project, those who will be affected by any changes will have years to decide how to adjust their programs or cars to the new class structures.

While the details are still well into the future, we do know that regional racing will not be affected by class changes. The regional program has always been a incubation area for cars and classes, and we don't think that should change.

We currently have no short term timelines and I don't expect any substantive announcements in 2014. Please be patient and remember that membership input will be an integral part of this project. While it is way too early to get involved with class specific discussions, I would appreciate your global views of how SCCA class structures should look like. Thanks for your patience and as they say, "stay tuned".

[rave motorsports]

Thanks for the explanation. In my opinion this would be something long overdue. However that said my Regional only class wouldn't be effected and makes me reconsider my initial desire to wish to become a majors class. Looking forward to watching the up coming debate.

[Hardingfv32]

...Since this will be a decades long project...

1) Are any current (average age) SCCA members going to be alive to see the benefits? I think this is just a diversion from the current difficult problems faced by the Club that the Board should stay focused on.

Solve our current problems before dreaming about the future.

2) How can the Board possibly forecast what type of cars we will be racing in SCCA even one decade out? I would think flexibility would be a benefit. Is the Club going to embrace Electric or migrate to Vintage?

3) There is no structure/document that can restrict the Club to a set future. It is a pipe dream.

Brian

[rave motorsports]

I actually am at least supportive this BOD is looking at the possibilities. They could just sit on their hands and not even explore solutions. I have been critical in the past like others but one of my concerns has been no long term plan. This appears to be an attempt at that. IMHO a long term plan with short term plans and goals is a successful formula. At least in my past.

[Purple Frog]

There is some hesitation by potential car owners and car builders to invest in a class that may be wiped out by a vote of the CRB/BOD a year or two out. Thus there is some thought that a "concorde agreement" might provide some stability for investors.

[TimW]

Solve our current problems before dreaming about the future.

Yes because an organization with a vision is such a horrible thing. But go ahead and enjoy your myopia.

[problemchild]

Yes because an organization with a vision is such a horrible thing. But go ahead and enjoy your myopia.

And you think SCCA management has a vision?

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

All I see is blaming the economy and repeating the same operations that have brought the last 20 years of decline. The two significant initiatives, moving the Runoffs around, and the Majors programs, have hurt National racing and destroyed Regional racing.

As much as I hate agreeing with Harding ..... SCCA just surviving another 3-5 years will be surprising. Vision and action will be required or we will all be racing events organized by independent promoters. That will work much better for some classes than others.

[Doug FST 5]

Budawe states the problem "....rule attempted to make things more structured, it did not address emerging and changing markets, or new cars, very well".

Purple Frog states the proposed solution "...A plan to create a fixed stable class structure that would hold firm for a period of 10 years and not be able to be altered by future administrations".


How does a plan that allows for no changes for a decade better accommodate emerging and changing markets?

Doug FST 5

[Steve Bamford]

Maybe a 5 year plan would make more sense but I see about the same amount of hope for that as a 10 year plan.

Unfortunately it has been proven that even if the SCCA firmly believes in their rule package that if enough resources are thrown into a legal lawsuit things can come undone. I realize that is not the norm however it is just one more example of how things can change.

No organization can be all things to all people & keep everyone happy. The SCCA greatly suffers from trying to please everyone, IMO.

[Wren]

As things are now, there are so many classes that on most Majors weekends very few classes have enough cars to be considered a real race. Not only does that make for boring races for everyone, it's virtually impossible to promote events and draw spectator interest. The BOD thinks that at the very highest level of our racing that should change.

The fact that the BOD would let the thought of spectators have any influence on this decision should be enough to tell everyone just how poorly executed this plan will be.

When every sporting event in the US is looking at a reduced number of spectators coming to the their events in the future and making plans to deal with it, the SCCA management is evidently going to hope that somehow we start getting spectators.

And you think SCCA management has a vision?

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."

All I see is blaming the economy and repeating the same operations that have brought the last 20 years of decline. The two significant initiatives, moving the Runoffs around, and the Majors programs, have hurt National racing and destroyed Regional racing.

As much as I hate agreeing with Harding ..... SCCA just surviving another 3-5 years will be surprising. Vision and action will be required or we will all be racing events organized by independent promoters. That will work much better for some classes than others.

SCCA management doesn't have a vision and doesn't seem to understand leadership. Everyone would do well to consider the leadership qualifications when they vote for their BOD rep rather than choosing the person who is friendly at the track.

Reducing the number of classes has become an end rather than a means to an end. SCCA management seems to think that reducing the number of classes by any means neccesary is the right thing to do.

Focus on improving the experience for your customers and everything else should flow from there.

Spectators? Just damn.

[Matt King]

Spectators? Just damn.

What's that? Spectators? Don't talk about spectators. Are you kidding me? Spectators? I just hope we can have a race.

[Amon]

What good are spectators if there aren't any cars to watch?

I seem to remember the USSR's (Soviet Union) 5 year plans in the 60's, 70's & 80's, and we all know how well those went!

Mark

88' Citation 002'

[Purple Frog]

On the other hand there are those that say the original 'Concorde Agreement' saved F1 from killing itself. Just saying.

[cory mcleod]

On the other hand there are those that say the original 'Concorde Agreement' saved F1 from killing itself. Just saying.

So part of this agreement will be that all SCCA race teams get to start sharing in the revenue?

[Steve Bamford]

On the other hand there are those that say the original 'Concorde Agreement' saved F1 from killing itself. Just saying.

With all due respect you can't compare the SCCA with F1.

[rave motorsports]

Leave me out of the revenue sharing if it means I have to share in the $116,000 loss as of Junes operating budget. There's your sign that just doing the same old thing is not working.

[problemchild]

With all due respect you can't compare the SCCA with F1.

If we had a Bernie amongst us, we would have no worries

I would have no problem with a "concorde agreement" if it was part of some enlightened reform. SCCA needs to split itself into several different factions, each responsible for different parts of the racing community who need their own representation and services.

[Wren]

I was reading through the Fastrack published today and at the very bottom there was mention of " The Concorde Plan". It was said that it was layed out in earlier minutes and dealt with class stability. I looked through several months of previous Fastracks and did not find anything. Does anyone know what the Concorde Plan is?

To answer the original question of the OP, their is an outline from Mike Lewis in the July 2014 Fastrack.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/...k-July%201.pdf

Unfortunately it has been proven that even if the SCCA firmly believes in their rule package that if enough resources are thrown into a legal lawsuit things can come undone.

Speaking of leadership failures...

I don't know how a BOD member can talk about "credible competition."

With all due respect you can't compare the SCCA with F1.

If they want to borrow the name, that's fine. But, I think that our "leaders" really don't understand the differences.

[Will Velkoff]

If we had a Bernie amongst us, we would have no worries

I would have no problem with a "concorde agreement" if it was part of some enlightened reform. SCCA needs to split itself into several different factions, each responsible for different parts of the racing community who need their own representation and services.

Exactly my thoughts of a Formula/SR division and a Fender'd division to start.

I thought the FRP Mid Ohio weekend was an excellent example of how this model should look going forward (all single class run groups).

FV
F5/6
Pro FF
Pro F2000
Pro Atlantic
DUFFUS (FF and CF)

That is 6 solid race groups right there. If you set it up such that there are not too many events throughout the season (IMO one of SCCA's current problems), then you could get large Formula car turnouts at each event and keep the racing good/customers happy.

To start, I would think that SCCA should run less events per year to try and get better car counts at each event, to try and get this thing back on its feet. The 3-5 car turnouts per weekend per class are getting old. Unfortunately I don't have the time or money to go pro racing so this is my only option (thank god for the DUFFUS concept).

[Purple Frog]

Lots of folks dream of a weekend schedule like this one from M-O:

FV
F5/6
Pro FF
Pro F2000
Pro Atlantic
DUFFUS (FF and CF)

But.... what does it take to make it happen?

1. Somebody, or some organization, has to sign a contract usually 9 months in advance to rent the track, usually with a VERY LARGE PORTION OF THE RENT PAID MONTHS IN ADVANCE.
We are talking $17,000 to $25,000 per day.

2. That person or organization has to have deep pockets and some confidence that if they throw a party the guests will come.

What could possibly go wrong?

Bad weather.
Another event nearby.
Trash talk on social media.
Some folks didn't get their cars ready.
Some had to take their kids to a soccer tryout.
The stars not lining up.

Monday morning you wake up $20K in debt.

That is why in my other thread I stated that in order to get great events we may have to go to a system of pre-paying in advance with no guarantee of a refund if you don't show.

For the most part during the last 50 years SCCA racers have been able to play without having any skin in the game. In recent years in the SEDIV if you decide not to show on Friday night, you are not charged a dime. Meanwhile the region still faces the bills. Such a deal.


We'll look back to SCCA in 2014 as a good deal.

[Dennis McCarthy]

How does a plan that allows for no changes for a decade better accommodate emerging and changing markets?

Building and selling cars and or driving a race car long term is a major financial undertaking for most individuals.

I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that car manufacturing is necessary to the long term health of racing.

As I've openly stated before, the guys currently producing a few cars a year are all a bit long in the tooth and quite frankly I'm surprised they even want the headaches of doing so at this point in their life.

The idea behind the plan allows for several advantages to manufactures and drivers.

First, it might allow a person who is actually willing to risk exorbitant capital to build cars and go through all of the expense of the teething pains, to know their car may actually be a viable product that they can actually sell and someday maybe see a return on their investment or at least break even. There is certainly not much incentive for anyone to build a car right now knowing some new flavor of the week may put their investment in the dumper.

Secondly it would allow for drivers to invest monies in a product that has a resale value and to purchase and own spares that have a resale value as well.

On both the club and the drivers side, it would allow for promotion of a stable class racing such as the NER FV guys are doing and to try ideas such as Frog suggests.

Doug, if FST didn't exist ,would all of the guys who converted and or built FST cars not race or would they simply race FV or FF?

If F1000 didn't exist would all of the people who have purchased and or built one never raced or would they probably simply race an FC?

At least someone is perceiving there is a problem and trying to address it. If anyone has better ideas don't be shy let's hear them....

[butch deer]

[QUOTE=Dennis McCarthy;442618]Building and selling cars and or driving a race car long term is a major financial undertaking for most individuals.









Doug, if FST didn't exist ,would all of the guys who converted and or built FST cars not race or would they simply race FV or FF?


Can't speak for Doug but FST brought me back to SCCA. Otherwise I would have stayed running vintage. Leaving regionals alone would have been fine 5 or more years ago but the actions of the BOD in the last few years have cut regionals in the cendiv to a point where there are very few of them. Hey I live in Illinois-no regionals in july or august. Kiss most of my season away or spend big bucks on travel.

[Hardingfv32]

While running restricted group/class type events does look appealing, they would would have to be few in number so as to force competitors to these dates. I wonder if this highly restricted calendar would work for the majority of SCCA competitors. This is a hobby, not a career/business like pro racing. Are that many people going to have the calendar flexibility to support such a restricted racing calendar? There are a lot of other things going on these days. And if you can not conform to the schedule then one ends up with very few race dates for a given season. A negative participant outcome is very likely for the Club.

Brian

[mmi16]

If we had a Bernie amongst us, we would have no worries

I would have no problem with a "concorde agreement" if it was part of some enlightened reform. SCCA needs to split itself into several different factions, each responsible for different parts of the racing community who need their own representation and services.

If we had Bernie amongst us - we would be priced out by his license fees, let alone any other fees.