2019 Runoffs class eligibility

[stonebridge20]

https://www.crbscca.com/public/runof...fsTracking.php

[EYERACE]

………...and then there's the …………….SURPRISE!!!!...…...invented new class that we've never heard of before class...…..consistent with the past actions of the SCCA

[John Nesbitt]

………...and then there's the …………….SURPRISE!!!!...…...invented new class that we've never heard of before class...…..consistent with the past actions of the SCCA

I am guessing that you refer to the recently-announced GT-X class for homologated GT cars.

https://www.scca.com/articles/201083...ogated-gt-cars

On one level, it sounds a bit like ITE-all-grown-up - a catch-all class for ex-pro cars, with no promise of competitiveness/equalization.

There is some logic in finding a place in Road Racing for ex-pro cars (see also: 016, PFM, F4 etc.) These cars are sometimes/often a poor fit with existing GT class rules; it causes heartburn in Tech.

As far as impinging on OW groups, I think likely not. They would get grouped in with the Big Bore group at non-Runoffs events. It is hard to see this generating enough entries through the year to qualify for a Runoffs invite, especially when you consider the no-effort-at-equalization provision.

[Lotus7]

I am guessing that you refer to the recently-announced GT-X class for homologated GT cars.

https://www.scca.com/articles/201083...ogated-gt-cars

wow, seriously? a catch-all class for FIA GT3 and SRO GT4 cars?

who do they expect is going to buy a $400k car to run regionals or majors ...
sheesh, one would think scca has more pressing issues to focus on ....

[Daryl DeArman]

who do they expect is going to buy a $400k car to run regionals or majors ...
sheesh, one would think scca has more pressing issues to focus on ....

Unless you are a BoD or CRB member who just so happened to get a good deal on one or two recently. . .that's my guess at least.

[John Nesbitt]

Unless you are a BoD or CRB member who just so happened to get a good deal on one or two recently. . .that's my guess at least.

And that is only your guess. My guess is different. Neither of us were present at the relevant CRB and BOD meetings.

I do know that, in my role as an event official, I have dealt with new-to-SCCA drivers who wanted to race their homologated GT cars in an existing GT class. They bumped up against demands to modify their cars to meet GT rules. Typically, they walked away in frustration.

On the face of it, GT-X provides a clean way for such cars to run in the Big Bore group at Regionals and Majors. That inflicts zero harm on open wheel. GT-X will never accumulate the sort of mass needed to generate a Runoffs invitation.

I am willing to bet that you could poll every last event organizer in the Club. Not a one of them would turn away even one or two more entries in Big Bore.

This whole thing has nothing to do with open wheel, except to the degree to which it shows the Club willing to embrace new blood.

[RussMcB]

Seems like the new GT-X class is a good thing, like Formula S. Without those catch-all classes, SCCA wont have a choice but tell those folks to go away.

Now, I would be shocked if they (GT-X) were able to race at The Runoffs without meeting minimum counts (but I don't think that is on the table).

[cory mcleod]

Several comments about GT-X never having enough participation to make it to the Runoffs. They may not ever get an automatic invitation, but if the club wants them in the Runoffs they will be there. That's the part of the current Runoffs rules I will always have a problem with, which definitely could have an effect on OW classes.

[Farrout48]

Simply put, Regional races need every entry they can get. We usually made room for any car that was safe to drive. Divisions/Regions can create any class they want to. Have to admit that we once turned away a guy who showed up with a roll bar made up of large square tubing piece welded together.

[Daryl DeArman]

, I have dealt with new-to-SCCA drivers who wanted to race their homologated GT cars in an existing GT class. They bumped up against demands to modify their cars to meet GT rules. Typically, they walked away in frustration.

As they should. Trying to make everybody happy you end up making nobody happy.

On the face of it, GT-X provides a clean way for such cars to run in the Big Bore group at Regionals and Majors. That inflicts zero harm on open wheel.

It shouldn't matter if it does no harm to open wheel guys. The folks running in the big bore with fenders group might have a different take. More entries, just for the sake of more entries, doesn't always make sense if the quality of racing is further diluted.

There aren't many FST or FS cars out there, why not let them race at Majors to boost the entries. Both would slot nicely in the FV/FF group and the wings and slicks group. . .

[Peter Olivola]

AThere aren't many FST or FS cars out there, why not let them race at Majors to boost the entries. Both would slot nicely in the FV/FF group and the wings and slicks group. . .

As long as it's not a Super Tour and the organizing region provides for it in their sanction, they already can.

[Daryl DeArman]

Are these GT-X cars going to be permitted to run in a Super Tour event? If so, why the philosophical difference?

[John LaRue]

The reality is that today fewer and fewer people are of the mindset as we, the current SCCA Road Racing participant. The truth is new competitors are looking for turn key cars. This is particularly true in our world of open wheel racing. In the last five years only a handful of cars have been built to the formula car class rules we have in SCCA. Most of the new open wheel cars are built to a spec for a pro series. Those cars, when cast off, t are baited to the club as a great bargain and pressure is put upon the advisory committees and CRB to classify them for competition. (The same goes for the GT type cars only to a greater degree.) As pointed out, we are often left trying to fit a square object through a round hole. The cars were not built to the formula yet exhibit "similar" performance. Do we compromise an existing class or long standing formula to accommodate a limited number of "one off" spec cars or exclude them from competition and let them go elsewhere? There is not an easy button to push on this sort of stuff. The CRB is very cognizant of class proliferation and is working to make racing better for all. If you have questions concerning that GT class then pick up the phone and call Peter Keane, the incoming chair of the CRB.

[rsmart]

Are these GT-X cars going to be permitted to run in a Super Tour event? If so, why the philosophical difference?

From the SCCA announcement:

The GT-X class will be eligible at all Regional, Majors and Hoosier Racing Tire SCCA® Super Tour events in 2019. That will not include the 2019 SCCA National Championship Runoffs®, although it could be considered for future Runoffs events.

[John Mosteller]

John how could one get in touch with Peter Keane ?

[rcrmike]

It's very interesting that we keep repeating similar situations. The SCCA, in general, does the most to disenfranchise its own regions and members, while simultaneously doing everything to cater to "competing sanctioning bodies", and adopting their castaways into the existing SCCA classes.

A competing sanctioning body might possibly create only a dozen or two pro series cars. Then the SCCA invites those handful of expensive factory-backed orphans to play havoc with the hundreds of loyal regional and national longtime SCCA members with an investment in an existing SCCA class. It's hard enough to understand the rules of our own car, plus our competitor's marque. We must now study foreign rules created outside of our control. (The FIA defaults to the French definitions when push comes to shove). One rulebook is enough. Similar headaches occur whether it's this proposed GT-X class or open-wheeled classes.

Here is the latest huge debacle. Did anyone notice that the SCCA dumped the FIA F4 cars into FA? Can't promise how competitive those feeder-series slugs might be in this fast FA class. Recently, they've also dumped the FIA F3s into FA. Both those FIA international "progression classes" are waaaay different performance wise. The newest dictate is to now move FB into FA. None of these cars are compatible. To appease the SCCA Pro contingent, they chose NOT to send the European FIA created future F4 & F3 castaways into the regional-only FS catchall class. This makes the previously popular FA class an abortion of dissimilar cars. That's one way to eliminate a national class. Brilliant. Tick everyone off! I am not blaming anyone, it just happens this way.

Where are all those brandy-new Formula Lights Honda powered cars that the SCCA Pro Series Department enthusiastically promoted only yesterday? Didn't think it all the way through, did they? What clubby SCCA member is going to repair those Formula Lights, F3, F4 bargain-purchased composite chassis when they get damaged? They were designed for professional rental shops to crash and replace over the short-lived series rules before updating to the next chassis, not to keep and Band-Aid forever. These are essentially disposable cars. Not to mention, they weren't designed to be competitive outside their pro series among other makes.

A few years ago, SCCA "gave away" FA, F2000, and F1600 entrants to a "competing" sanctioning organization, but allowed those same drivers to accrue points toward our exclusive Runoffs invites. Those very racers support competing organizations with entry fees, to the detriment of our SCCA regions entry numbers and decreasing 2.5 rule participation totals, but are then invited with open arms to our invitation-only Runoffs Championship to compete against loyal SCCA members who have supported the regions and club. The regions treasurers should be livid by now.

I am curious why SCCA, SCCA Enterprises, and Pro SCCA are embracing so many "Communist Classes" and wish to do away with our own SCCA formula-written type rules where creative budget-racers can campaign various manufactured chassis and engines or build their own version to the common ruleset, just like the amateur-built and campaigned GT & Production classes. One-make classes are great, but not for everybody. Especially not the middle-class clubby racers who make up the majority of the membership. Are the engine/chassis/tire manufacturers paying SCCA to have these exclusive classes and series? These latest classes do not promote stability when SCCA is used as a dumping ground for ex-pro series expired racecars. These so-called professional racers don't want to "invest" in the SCCA, but they sure want the SCCA members to increase the "resale value" of their worn out junk when they are done playing it. Why not invite ex-drift, ex-IndyCars, and ex-Cup Cars while we are at it? Maybe we can squeeze in those 1000HP turbo rice racers too.

Communist Classes: That require spec everything. Chassis, engines, & tires.
Spec Miata
SRF, SRF Gen 2 & 3
FM
FE, FE2
Formula Lights
FIA F3
FIA F4

The top few are really good classes, but where will it stop? We are diluting mostly the formula drivers into a variety of unnecessary new classes or lumping them into FA because we ushered away those popular cars and drivers. Everyone looses. Now we expect the GT pro series cars to become GT-X eligible in amateur racing. Why not homologate Checker Cabs? There are more of them!

What's with IMSA and their FIA only factory-built prototype classes? And we wonder why they can't attract more than a few entrants with million dollar budgets for FIA Communist classes. Even the international car manufacturers can't afford it. Does the FIA resemble the NWO within the racing world? (Check out the FIA website, which closely resembles the topics of the United Nations Agenda. I dare everyone to go look.). They've infiltrated every racing continent to embrace their European classifications for racing and FIA licenses from karting through hybrid F1 and now Formula Electric. Why? Now we wish to embrace their pro GT cars in amateur racing. If it was really professional, they should have had an accountant depreciate their asset from day-one.

How about the IndyCar one-make series. Boring!

It use-to-be that USAC, CART, and IMSA invited popular SCCA classes as a support race for their spectator events. Our members have always graciously "volunteered" to work their spectator events for a beer and a hat. We work their events, and they showcase our up and coming talent. What happened to that two-way professional relationship? Today our talented SCCA drivers must buy their way into the same venues.

Are we an amateur club or professional racers? We keep confusing the two.

That's my biased opinion, your mileage may vary.
Mike

[John Nesbitt]

.. rant .. FIA .. rant .. French .. rant .. European FIA .. rant .. SCCA Pro Series Department .. rant .. exclusive Runoffs invites .. rant .. "Communist Classes" .. rant .. manufacturers paying SCCA .. rant .. Communist Classes .. rant .. homologate Checker Cabs.. rant FIA Communist classes .. rant .. Does the FIA resemble the NWO .. rant .. FIA website, which closely resembles the topics of the United Nations Agenda .. rant .. infiltrated every racing continent to embrace their European classifications ...

Your argument might, perhaps, maybe, possibly, conceivably carry more weight if you stated your name. Are you involved in the Club as a driver or volunteer? If so, identify yourself. "rcrmike" in "PA" could just as easily be a troll in Leningrad masquerading as someone who overdosed on eggnog and Fox News.

[John Nesbitt]

At the risk of tearing the scab off an old wound, I am looking at entries for the VIR Super Tour.

Obviously, this is a preview/test for this year's Runoffs. A very stout entry (>550 before shrinkage due to weather; latest number ~520). Every class, except a handful, has a healthy entry list.

The outliers (i..e. single digits) are:

FA - 4
FB - 2
FC - 3
FM - 6

FE (FE+FE2) total 22.

And GT-X has as many as FB.

[billtebbutt]

Your argument might, perhaps, maybe, possibly, conceivably carry more weight if you stated your name. Are you involved in the Club as a driver or volunteer? If so, identify yourself. "rcrmike" in "PA" could just as easily be a troll in Leningrad masquerading as someone who overdosed on eggnog and Fox News.

....On a surprisingly popular previous thread some weeks ago, I posted John's exact message (above). Got something to say? Well then step right up and say it. Everyone's thoughts are welcome here! But have the courtesy to use your damn name, or have your name in your profile. Otherwise keep your opinions to yourself. It's not kindergarten folks.....

Peace and love,

BT
(Bill Tebbutt - it is in my profile)

[Zcurves]

At the risk of tearing the scab off an old wound, I am looking at entries for the VIR Super Tour.

Obviously, this is a preview/test for this year's Runoffs. A very stout entry (>550 before shrinkage due to weather; latest number ~520). Every class, except a handful, has a healthy entry list.

The outliers (i..e. single digits) are:

FA - 4
FB - 2
FC - 3
FM - 6

FE (FE+FE2) total 22.

And GT-X has as many as FB.

FRP race next weekend at Road Altlanta is well subscribed in FB. No need to tear the scab, but you can draw your own conclusions from that.

[problemchild]

FRP race next weekend at Road Altlanta is well subscribed in FB. No need to tear the scab, but you can draw your own conclusions from that.

As always, "The chicken-egg, Which came first?" analogy comes into play. Formula Alphabet groups are just not happy places to be, at the best of times, coupled with 500+ racers squeezed into a that paddock and adjoining fields, commuting to hotels 1hr away, etc. As someone who worked very hard to find better alternatives for my customers, I am absolutely amazed that that many people are enthused to go to this event. I just cannot believe that anyone with a FF, FA, FB, or FC car would choose this event over FRP next weekend or the FRP VIR event in July. Clearly, SCCA still have many people that find their show an attraction worth the bother.