Mid-Ohio 2016 Majors Race

[donnie b]

I think we are paying around 40% more for the entry fee for the FRP over a Majors event, both are three days long. it appears we are receiving 40 % more track time with the FRP over the Majors. So, basically the entry fees are equal in terms of value or money VS time on the track.
I actually think the FRP is cheaper, if you add up the extra cost to get to another event to get the 40% more track time that we already receive from FRP. The extra tow time, extra gas from towing, extra time off of work to get to another event, hotels and meals( maybe one day of these) , buying another set of tires for another event( use same set at FRP in the same weekend which has 40% more track time).

just my thoughts, like comparing things, apples for apples.
don

[problemchild]

like comparing things, apples for apples.

Yes, they are fairly equal if you compare quantity of tracktime.
It is a much more subjective comparison when comparing quality of tracktime. Some people would rather win easily over 2 other cars running 5 seconds per lap under their potential. Others would rather drive the race of their life to finish 8th in a 20 car field. Some people would probably find the stability of schedule and consistency of operation at a FRP event to be boring

Whether poor vision, or just unintended consequences, the whole Majors program has just been devastating for racers in the Great Lakes and Northeast area. SCCA racing that was still solid as recently as 5 years ago, is just a mess. While more people should be taking advantage of FRP events for their own selfish benefit, SCCA Club racing needs some major restructuring. Lets get back to more events that are "Solid" and away from a few "Super" events. Instead of taking care of our core business, we are expanding Pro racing, starting bracket racing events (complete garbage) and organizing all kinds of peripheral events. Either management does not know what they are doing, or they have decided to let Club Racing die off and are focusing on developing their future business. Either way, Club Racing is in trouble. It seems everyone is so busy fighting for their own needs within their own class, that nothing is being done to fix the big picture.

[GT1Vette]

First off, anyone trying to convince Butch (me) that coming up with a way to allow FRP (and other similar series) events to count towards Runoffs eligibility is preaching to the choir. At this time, however, Butch (me) is in no longer in any position to help with this.

Is it a good idea? Personally I think so, but as Bob & I both wrote yesterday, there are obstacles to overcome.

Could it be done? I very much think so, but all parties (in no particular order - Topeka, BoD, FRP, SCCA regions, tracks, prep shops, racers, etc.) need to be willing to work together to make it happen. I know a lot of people here thinks it's easy, but you're wrong.

And to Frog's point about Indy in 2017, I could see qualifying races in a number of classes, maybe even mine!

See y'all at the track...

[Steve Demeter]

Steve, your entry fee quote is wrong. All the entry fees and test day fees are on DLBRacing.com

We generally load in Thursday afternoon (limited test days this year per team requests) and are gone Sunday evening.

Bob, That is why i said IIRC. It has been 10 years since I checked entry fees and stuff for the series. It was beyond my means then due to needing series tires etc. That is why I said IIRC.

Like I said it is a great series, but not for everyone.

[Todd Butler]

IMO, the pro races should count as restricted class Majors.
Man will my ass get fried for this comment.

Jay,

That has been suggested in the past. Previous BoDs shot it down. The suggestion has come back up again. You should write your respective BoD representatives. Who knows.... the rules for 2017 Path to the Runoffs have not yet been set.

I think it would be highly unlikely that a 100% Pro path to the Runoffs would be approved. We are not in the business of supporting those races and we do want to encourage participation in the Majors and Divisional path to the Runoffs races. One could argue for possibly some combination of Pro races + at least one Majors or Divisional qualifying race and that should count as an alternate path to the Runoffs.

Todd (ex-BoD) Butler

[Todd Butler]

Taking slight exception to Butch above....I think we're making this too complicated.

We accept SCCA Pro licenses to run Majors and Runoffs. There is no reason we'd have to have SCCA Inc (aka Club Racing) sanction the Pro events to have them count. Like Majors and Divisional paths, we just define a participation and a performance criteria....X number of Pro races, 1(?) Majors or Divisional qualifier, assign points for Pro finishes the way we do for Majors and we're done. The only deal I'd see having to do is arrange to get official race results from the Pro side of the house.

This is not rocket science. BOD could set this path pretty easily. As pointed out above guys are already running the Pro series and not doing Majors, so counting Pro races and mandate at least one Majors/Divisional qualifier to be in that path would not hurt Majors/Divisional races and would likely enhance the respective Pro classes at the Runoffs.

Todd (ex-BoD) Butler

[Steve Bamford]

Taking slight exception to Butch above....I think we're making this too complicated.

We accept SCCA Pro licenses to run Majors and Runoffs. There is no reason we'd have to have SCCA Inc (aka Club Racing) sanction the Pro events to have them count. Like Majors and Divisional paths, we just define a participation and a performance criteria....X number of Pro races, 1(?) Majors or Divisional qualifier, assign points for Pro finishes the way we do for Majors and we're done. The only deal I'd see having to do is arrange to get official race results from the Pro side of the house.

This is not rocket science. BOD could set this path pretty easily. As pointed out above guys are already running the Pro series and not doing Majors, so counting Pro races and mandate at least one Majors/Divisional qualifier to be in that path would not hurt Majors/Divisional races and would likely enhance the respective Pro classes at the Runoffs.

Todd (ex-BoD) Butler

Seems pretty simple as you put it Todd.

I would for sure have run at least one SCCA Club Major event this year if this were the case.
I was looking at this years schedule early on & thought it was only two events and was going to make that work but when I realized it was three there was no way I could fit that in along with Pro events. Mid Ohio would have been one of the tracks I could have made work for the Runoffs as travel distance is about 6-7 hours.

I can't speak for others but for me it would have meant at least one more entry for FF & FC that won't be there this year.

[GT1Vette]

Taking slight exception to Butch above....I think we're making this too complicated.

We accept SCCA Pro licenses to run Majors and Runoffs. There is no reason we'd have to have SCCA Inc (aka Club Racing) sanction the Pro events to have them count. Like Majors and Divisional paths, we just define a participation and a performance criteria....X number of Pro races, 1(?) Majors or Divisional qualifier, assign points for Pro finishes the way we do for Majors and we're done. The only deal I'd see having to do is arrange to get official race results from the Pro side of the house.

This is not rocket science. BOD could set this path pretty easily. As pointed out above guys are already running the Pro series and not doing Majors, so counting Pro races and mandate at least one Majors/Divisional qualifier to be in that path would not hurt Majors/Divisional races and would likely enhance the respective Pro classes at the Runoffs.

Todd (ex-BoD) Butler

Valid points, Todd - where were you two years ago?

I'll admit that when I first thought of having having the FRP weekends sanctioned as Majors Festivals it was because certain members of the (then) BoD were criticizing the lack of festivals (and associated income) being created by the Majors program. Anything *I* suggest appears to be immediately dismissed by Topeka, so if the current BoD is more open to such an idea maybe the Planning Committee could suggest it? Coming from the BoD would make it much more likely to happen.

[reidhazelton]

Questions, and I have no preference so they are just questions.

If SCCA Pro sanctioned events are counted as pre-req's for the Runoffs, what incentive do the regions have for even considering it? They are already scraping for every entry they can get, so why would they willingly give up those valuable entry dollars? If I were on a BoD for a region, I'd be 100% against this.

Second, If you allow in FF/FC/FA under the FRP, they why wouldn't you also do it for GT1 (Trans Am), GT2, T2 (or whatever the World Challenge cars fall under), BSpec, ect. There are a lot of classes with 'pro' alternatives. Wouldn't this further hurt the regions?

Third, I think there may be some people (no, not me) who will be slightly put off by having 'pro' drivers compete in 'amateur' racing. Doesn't that further blur the lines of Regionals/Majors/Pro classifications? Would there be more people put off, and not attend, than there would be 'pros' who come to offset the loss?

[Steve Bamford]

Questions, and I have no preference so they are just questions.

If SCCA Pro sanctioned events are counted as pre-req's for the Runoffs, what incentive do the regions have for even considering it? They are already scraping for every entry they can get, so why would they willingly give up those valuable entry dollars? If I were on a BoD for a region, I'd be 100% against this.

Second, If you allow in FF/FC/FA under the FRP, they why wouldn't you also do it for GT1 (Trans Am), GT2, T2 (or whatever the World Challenge cars fall under), BSpec, ect. There are a lot of classes with 'pro' alternatives. Wouldn't this further hurt the regions?

Third, I think there may be some people (no, not me) who will be slightly put off by having 'pro' drivers compete in 'amateur' racing. Doesn't that further blur the lines of Regionals/Majors/Pro classifications? Would there be more people put off, and not attend, than there would be 'pros' who come to offset the loss?

All good points & would need to be considered.

If I was a region I would want the entrants however currently if you look at FC as an example, they simply aren't there. I don't think changing it for FC would make a difference. How many at last years Runoff's? FF might be a little different however these days it doesn't seem much cross over from "Pro" (have to laugh at little at that) to Club racers either way. A few years ago yes, but not now. It seems people either choose one or the other now.

I guess I take the approach of wanting to compete against as many cars as possible.

[reidhazelton]

I guess I take the approach of wanting to compete against as many cars as possible.

Right on, and I totally agree and I think it would help bring back some of the meaning to the Runoffs that has been lost in some classes.

From a region standpoint, there are some regions that are scraping by each year just to break even. The regions, as far as I know, don't profit one bit from the Runoffs so they don't care how many entries there are. They are just hoping to fill 3-5 weekends a year with enough entries to be able to do it again next year.

[Todd Butler]

Questions, and I have no preference so they are just questions.

If SCCA Pro sanctioned events are counted as pre-req's for the Runoffs, what incentive do the regions have for even considering it? They are already scraping for every entry they can get, so why would they willingly give up those valuable entry dollars? If I were on a BoD for a region, I'd be 100% against this.

Second, If you allow in FF/FC/FA under the FRP, they why wouldn't you also do it for GT1 (Trans Am), GT2, T2 (or whatever the World Challenge cars fall under), BSpec, ect. There are a lot of classes with 'pro' alternatives. Wouldn't this further hurt the regions?

Third, I think there may be some people (no, not me) who will be slightly put off by having 'pro' drivers compete in 'amateur' racing. Doesn't that further blur the lines of Regionals/Majors/Pro classifications? Would there be more people put off, and not attend, than there would be 'pros' who come to offset the loss?

What Steve said (below you, above me) these guys are already racing Pro, what's to lose for the Regions? And as I said, can't see any way a 100% Pro path would count, a driver would have to so some (TBD) Majors/Divisional races + the Pro stuff. Today you have to participate in 3 Majors or 4 Divisional Runoffs qualifiers. Maybe it's 2 Pro + 1 Majors or 2 Pro + 2 Divisional, but that atleast requires some club participation.

And yes if we did it for the Formula cars there is no reason we could not do it for Trans Am as well.

TA may or may not be different but I'd bet 80-90% of your "pro" formula guys are really just Club Racers out for more track time and better quality run groups. Nothing "Pro" as in making a living or using those as stepping stones to F1. And having actually raced against some TA Pros in SRF (because the TA guys could not test in their TA cars at upcoming race tracks) real Pro drivers in my admittedly limited experience are actually quite respectful of us amateurs.

[Todd Butler]

From a region standpoint, there are some regions that are scraping by each year just to break even. The regions, as far as I know, don't profit one bit from the Runoffs so they don't care how many entries there are. They are just hoping to fill 3-5 weekends a year with enough entries to be able to do it again next year.

Specifically why BoD requires a minimum number of Majors or Divisionals. To try and drive some level of participation in the Regions. Admittedly this is for the national racing program. Figuring out how to drive regional level racing is a different story.

[cooleyjb]

FRP could run a race weekend at one of the lower turnout majors. Work with the region to get their own groups.

[Steve Bamford]

FRP could run a race weekend at one of the lower turnout majors. Work with the region to get their own groups.

Wouldn't work as track time is much longer for an FRP event then a Major event, plus FRP really has no need to work with SCCA Club & deal with some of the added politics involved in a Major weekend.

FRP has three run groups, FA, FF & FC...so that would take 3 of the 8 or so run groups with 20 or so cars in each of those three groups. I don't think other club racers would be happy with that mix & also getting less track time.

[B Reid]

I think allowing Pro + Major combination to qualify for the Runoffs would boost participation in the Majors events, not harm it. I would consider doing a couple Majors and possibly the Runoffs if this option was open.

[2BWise]

Better yet, why were there only 19 finishers at the Blackhawk event last weekend and only 10 registered for Pitt in two weeks (Things w/Wings group)? There is something broken if one event is pulling 500 entrants and the others in the same time frame are barely pushing 200.

[stonebridge20]

Better yet, why were there only 19 finishers at the Blackhawk event last weekend and only 10 registered for Pitt in two weeks (Things w/Wings group)? There is something broken if one event is pulling 500 entrants and the others in the same time frame are barely pushing 200.

Move the Runoffs to Blackhawk or Pitt and see what happens to car counts.

[2BWise]

Of course, but you don't have to run the Majors event to get practice time. In fact, running the Majors is probably the least effective way to do that. You're better off going for the test day and leaving.

[cooleyjb]

Wouldn't work as track time is much longer for an FRP event then a Major event, plus FRP really has no need to work with SCCA Club & deal with some of the added politics involved in a Major weekend.

FRP has three run groups, FA, FF & FC...so that would take 3 of the 8 or so run groups with 20 or so cars in each of those three groups. I don't think other club racers would be happy with that mix & also getting less track time.

People immediately dismiss because of X reason. FRP if it wants to help their guys go for the runoffs could run inside a Majors. Yeah, less track time but the cost would be less so the entry fee could be less. Or they could rent the entire track on Wednesday get the extra track time.

If you want to kill two birds with one stone there will be a trade off.

Of course, but you don't have to run the Majors event to get practice time. In fact, running the Majors is probably the least effective way to do that. You're better off going for the test day and leaving.

accomplished two things at same time. Track time at MidO and qualification for for the runoffs. And competition breeds higher car counts.

[AGMelv]

I am pulling out for the listed reasons. Last few years were actually OK but i think it was more luck than anything else. The pro race a few weeks later is looking pretty appealing right now.

We're doing the same if we can manage to get the pieces of the puzzle in place before July.

Maybe more guys following suit will bring down the field size for those set on doing the Majors.

[problemchild]

I think it is smart for SCCA to get more quality entrants to the Runoffs, but there will not be any huge crossover from FRP events to require some big organized program. Just open it up Pro racers that do reach a certain participation level in Club Racing. Certainly, there will be less of an issue in the next two years, with the Runoffs in a proper location relative to the majority of it's customer concentration. Once you start rotating it away from the population again, you will need to find more ways to attract more entries.

[Steve Demeter]

with the Runoffs in a proper location relative to the majority of it's customer concentration.

Problemchild you could have not said it any better. Have the Runoffs near the majority of the customer base and guess what, lots of entries.

[David Locke]

Of course, but you don't have to run the Majors event to get practice time. In fact, running the Majors is probably the least effective way to do that. You're better off going for the test day and leaving.

Precisely. The Majors will not be useful practice time for the Runoffs with that many cars on track.

[Kartracer33]

They had the same grouping of classes at Pitt race for the majors. There was no problem there. All clean laps under green!

[Steve Bamford]

They had the same grouping of classes at Pitt race for the majors. There was no problem there. All clean laps under green!

How many cars in the grouping there?

[David Locke]

How many cars in the grouping there?

12. Versus 64 at Mid-Ohio.

[Steve Bamford]

12. Versus 64 at Mid-Ohio.

Agh...that's not a very good comparison then now is it? Mid Ohio is also a much shorter course but if you wish to say 12 cars all played nice on a longer track and should have no issues on a shorter track then who am I to argue?

[David Locke]

Agh...that's not a very good comparison then now is it? Mid Ohio is also a much shorter course but if you wish to say 12 cars all played nice on a longer track and should have no issues on a shorter track then who am I to argue?

I don't wish to say this. It's certainly not my view.

[Steve Bamford]

I don't wish to say this. It's certainly not my view.

Wasn't meant to be to you David, was just using your numbers as the example. It was meant for Kartracer33.

I do hope that Mid Ohio can do the same and run all clean laps, previous events with that many cars of that mix show it to be difficult.