New Club Racing Proposal

[Mike B]

I'm very disappointed in this group and the complete lack of discussion leading up to this evening's SCCA presentation and comments afterward. Summary here: https://www.scca.com/articles/201857...-on-all-levels

I understand that some of you live and breathe the Runoffs but I'm very weary of that single race determining classes, run groups, and, well, just about everything for the other 120+ races throughout the season. I don't know the actual data and Eric P didn't provide any in the presentation but I'm guessing there are at least 4000-5000 licensed drivers that may or may no be active. Yet, the club caters to the 600-900 drivers that attend a single race at the end of the year. It's the tail wagging the dog if there ever was one.
My biggest concern with this is that I can run an entire season minding my own business, and the next season my class can be eliminated, rendering my car worthless (again).
SCCA now talks about reducing and consolidating classes but by all means let's add CSX, SMX, SMT, SM2, C-spec, D-spec, FX and any number of other classes that nobody asked for.

[FVRacer21]

Mike,

I watched the webinar and wondering why the board has not lit up. There was more excitement about the rain light! Maybe most did not see it, getting ready for this weekend’s racing. Heading to Lime Rock, so will have to review the details at the end of the weekend.

ChrisZ

[924RACR]

Maybe they learned their lesson by not letting any details slip beforehand? So we can't get worked up prior and show up organized?

Not like it matters; despite what many like to say, while we are a club we're not being like one any more, and the Board are deciding the direction they want to go without considering our input.

[group3]

So, 3 on track sessions for the runoffs, 2 Qualifying days and the race, 3 testing days are optional. That will basically double the entry, or more if you want to test/prep.
I would say not a lot of bang for the buck. If they include all 5 days in the entry fee, then yes, that would seem good.

[924RACR]

Convenient link to both the text and the video (if you feel like watching 22 min of this meeting could've been an email)...
https://www.scca.com/articles/201857...-on-all-levels

It's nice to see the comment "...and diversity of class offerings will be among the criteria considered" when talking about paring down the number of classes.

Though one has to wonder just how many groups of Miatae can we put in the paddock/on the schedule before we realize that we lack diversity of offerings...

I appreciate that there's a stated intent to "Improve competition and drive greater participation by strengthening qualification criteria" - but I wonder if simply raising the bar for Runoffs entry threshold is enough to actually make competitors and competition better. I think there's a lot more that needs to be done, right down to the grassroots/divisional level, to truly achieve that - and I don't see any plan to address that.

I very much do not care for the Runoffs continuing to move in the direction of less value for our entry dollar.

I am very concerned about how the club continues to operate not as a club, paying only lip service to our input.

I would like to hear in much more explicit detail just what the management of SCCA sees as the future for formula and prototype racing, what is the vision if there is any. Because from where we're sitting right now, it feels like we are very much a nuisance they'd much rather have go away to make room for more Miatae.

[rockbeau25]

Maybe they learned their lesson by not letting any details slip beforehand? So we can't get worked up prior and show up organized?

Not like it matters; despite what many like to say, while we are a club we're not being like one any more, and the Board are deciding the direction they want to go without considering our input.

I get the impression that (much like the rainlights) this is really already set in stone and no amount of pushback is going to change things. Anyone with an SRF, SM, SMX, B-Spec, or FE2 was probably watching with glee. The rest of us are probably wondering if we'll all be driving "FAs" in a year or two or racing elsewhere.

So, 3 on track sessions for the runoffs, 2 Qualifying days and the race, 3 testing days are optional. That will basically double the entry, or more if you want to test/prep.
I would say not a lot of bang for the buck. If they include all 5 days in the entry fee, then yes, that would seem good.

Not to mention they'll have to offset the cost of losing 8 or more classes and hundreds of entries. I wouldn't be surprised to see $1000+ Super Tour entry fees and $2500-3000 Runoffs entry fees or those classes that make the cut.

In what world does making the barrier to entry higher increase participation?

[John Nesbitt]

I watched the webinar with a growing sense of déjà vu.

You could trace the breadcrumbs back to Bill Kephart’s proposal in 2010, which he presented at that year’s Runoffs. In a nutshell, he proposed to narrow Runoffs-related racing (what we used to call Nationals) to the most heavily-subscribed classes. That morphed (and distorted) into the Majors of today.

Some of us were discussing SCCA futures at last weekend’s Summit Point event. There was a rough consensus that SCCA Road Racing would divide in two paths. One was Majors/HST/Runoffs; the other Regional racing. Regional racing would continue to decline in parts of the country, leaving only the stronger Regions, typically in population concentrations.

Obviously, there are winners and losers in Prill’s presentation. It is good news for the heavily-subscribed classes.. A compressed Runoffs schedule has been a perennial request from participants. The cost for that is eliminating weaker classes from HST and the Runoffs. Again, obviously, if I were in one of those classes, I would be unhappy.

Much will depend on how Topeka implements this. Given SCCA history and governance, I would not be surprised to see it watered-down. As ever, the devil is in the details.

[John Nesbitt]

..


Not to mention they'll have to offset the cost of losing 8 or more classes and hundreds of entries. I wouldn't be surprised to see $1000+ Super Tour entry fees and $2500-3000 Runoffs entry fees or those classes that make the cut.

In what world does making the barrier to entry higher increase participation?

Consider some actual numbers. At the 2023 Runoffs, there were 25 classes entered. The bottom 7 by participation, based on final results, totaled 58 entries. Not "hundreds". As against that loss of entries, consider the savings to participants and organizers from shortening the event by two days. Makes perfect sense in money terms.

[rockbeau25]

Consider some actual numbers. At the 2023 Runoffs, there were 25 classes entered. The bottom 7 by participation, based on final results, totaled 58 entries. Not "hundreds". As against that loss of entries, consider the savings to participants and organizers from shortening the event by two days. Makes perfect sense in money terms.

Keep in mind that's with the current qualification rules, and 2023 was also a down year for the Runoffs across the board (much smaller than this year's June Sprints for reference). There will be people turned away in the heavily subscribed classes too (not a huge number, but some) once the new qualification rules are in place, and the bottom 7 will almost certainly be more than 58 entries the next couple of years. You're right, maybe it's a net positive or wash financially, which makes sense if you're a bean counter in Topeka, but I will forever hate the optics of the Runoffs having so much influence on the overall decision making of the club. As soon as classes start being consolidated or cut just to save some time in the Runoffs and Super Tour schedules, it punishes the guys that still show up and race their local Majors and Super Tour events but have no intention of ever doing the Runoffs.

[Mike B]

Consider some actual numbers. At the 2023 Runoffs, there were 25 classes entered. The bottom 7 by participation, based on final results, totaled 58 entries. Not "hundreds". As against that loss of entries, consider the savings to participants and organizers from shortening the event by two days. Makes perfect sense in money terms.

Again, people get so wrapped up in the Runoffs and don't see the bigger picture. Sure, it's only 58 entries at the Runoffs (round numbers=$58,000 loss of revenue). Those 7 classes/58 drivers have now been alienated and will find somewhere else to race throughout the season. That's 58 drivers that will not enter 5-7 races in a season. The financial hit to the club is now compounded (58 drivers x 7 races x $600 entry fee=$243,600). As Rock points out, '23 was a down year so the impact could actually be greater.

I know this continually falls on deaf ears but for the love of god, please stop making all of Club Racing about the Runoffs.

[CheckeredFlag]

Looking at the 2025 Runoffs Class Tracking, at this point it starts to form up which classes of the 8 would get the cut from the 2026 Runoffs if things don't change.

AS, F6, GT3, GTL, P1, P2, and T1 for sure, with GT1 and T2 on the cusp. We'll need these data updated post-Road America HST in order to get a clearer picture. FX and F5 are listed there but they've already been cut, right? With P1 and P2 where they're situated, these proposed changes could bring about an end to Prototypes at the Runoffs.

My list above has some of the fastest cars in the SCCA in it (P1, T1, and GT1). It would be a shame to lose all those fast classes that are great to watch.

FA's and FC's are hanging in there and could be safe, IMO.

2025 Runoffs Class Tracking (crbscca.com)

Then if Majors events allow non-Runoffs classes, mixing the two types in run groups seems sketchy when you got folks needing all the points they can get in order to make the top 1/3 of their class.

[Mike B]

With P1 and P2 where they're situated, these proposed changes could bring about an end to Prototypes at the Runoffs.

Given the makeup of the CRB that will never happen. They'll move P2 into P1 to help prop up that failing class, like they did (and continue to do) with FA.

[f500racer]

As I race both a F6 and FC, this really gives me the warm and fuzzies.

Oh well, I’ve pretty much only raced at Mid Ohio given the proximity to my house. It just validates my path to track champion or something like that.

Jeremy Swank

[924RACR]

Given the makeup of the CRB that will never happen. They'll move P2 into P1 to help prop up that failing class, like they did (and continue to do) with FA.

It seems like it's just a matter of time, and if you don't think so, I think you're living in denial... which is unfortunate, P2 is actually healthier with more cars coming onto the scene, while P1 is a rich man's game... we (P2) make 95% of the speed with half the budget or less... when, not if, we get swallowed into P1 we will end up disappearing in the deeper spending waters... which will come to resemble the Dead Sea, to muddy the metaphors...

Though maybe with the Spec Radical Regional class, that opens up a much more reasonable path of progression from SRF3 to the full-tilt prototypes, if you are like me and think maybe fenders over your wheels (not to mention sidepods) are a good thing... particularly if the pace of those Radicals can be kept at a reasonable distance from SRF3. Right now, diving into even a regional P2 car is an insane jump (in speed), and many who've tried can't handle it and end up bailing for slower cars.

But I think losing a full-tilt Prototype class is just as dangerous to Club Racing as losing a full-tilt Formula or tin-top class like FA or GT1; these are aspirational cars, and need to have a home, to inspire new blood to join the party.

No-one's ever gonna get an adrenaline rush from standing next to an FV when it fires up, any more than they would from a SM. You need GT1 cars, P1s, and things like Atlantics to get that going. Those are the Dodge Vipers, the ZR1 Corvettes, etc, of the racing world: they get people on the lot to drool and want to get in on the action, then go home with a SM or an FV or an SRF to try and work their way up. They are just as important a part of Club Racing as the actual entry-level classes like FV, SM, BS... they provide the drive, the motivation, and the entry level classes provide the availability.

Otherwise, why ever spend all that money to step out of the simulator and onto the real race track, if your computer makes better noises and more adrenaline than the real deal??

Trying to get anyone in the National office to recognize this and work to codify such a concept, well, who knows...

Industries hire executives for big bucks; one of their few tangible outputs is things like a Vision Statement... which those of us in the trenches always hate as useless fluff to justify their salaries, vague meaningless wand-waving noise with no bearing or influence on the day-to-day operations in the plants and offices.

Yet what happens when your executives don't even produce that as an output? Then you don't have Leadership, you can hardly be said to even have Management. Instead, you're left with Bureaucracy.

So here we are.

[CheckeredFlag]

Given the makeup of the CRB that will never happen. They'll move P2 into P1 to help prop up that failing class, like they did (and continue to do) with FA.

So are you saying that a class having direct representation on the CRB and/or BoD has more influence than a class that doesn't? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[cory mcleod]

Here are my thoughts:

1. I definitely "get so wrapped up in the Runoffs." I don't go every year, but I race because of the Runoffs. Without the possibility of the Runoffs, I can't justify all the time and money throughout the year. The result will be that I quit. SCCA will not miss my entries or annual membership fee, but how many others will do the same thing? Maybe they've studied that and the answer is, "Not too many,"

2. SCCA club racing hasn't been "aspirational" for a long time, unless you count moving to a class that allows more mods to your Miata.

3. None of these changes surprise me. It's just another step toward SCCA national-level club racing just being a bunch of Miata classes plus a few spec classes. SCCA is a business with "club" in the name. I don't see anyone in Topeka losing sleep over a few Prototype or GT1 entries in exchange for more Miata entries. In today's racing world, focusing on more street-car classes will ultimately result in more members and participation. Maybe they'd be interested in a class using a formula or sports racer body on a Miata chassis?

[Mike B]

It seems like it's just a matter of time, and if you don't think so, I think you're living in denial... which is unfortunate, P2 is actually healthier with more cars coming onto the scene, while P1 is a rich man's game... we (P2) make 95% of the speed with half the budget or less... when, not if, we get swallowed into P1 we will end up disappearing in the deeper spending waters... which will come to resemble the Dead Sea, to muddy the metaphors...

You pretty much described F1000 and what they did with it just a few years. This will forever be a sore spot with me and drives how I vote in club elections.

But I think losing a full-tilt Prototype class is just as dangerous to Club Racing as losing a full-tilt Formula or tin-top class like FA or GT1; these are aspirational cars, and need to have a home, to inspire new blood to join the party.

FA is absolutely aspirational and I would jump at the chance to drive an 008, 014 or 016. The problem is that FA is no longer made up of those cars. Aside from the June Sprints, most races are populated with PFMs, Ligiers and an occasional F1000, or whatever other class the CRB has thrown in to try to help their numbers. Hell, less than half the entries for the Sprints are "true FAs". I think FA should be allowed to thrive or die on its own merits, as should P1.

[Rick Kirchner]

Seeing (and hearing) Jerry Hansen run his RT-4 at IRP was my inspiration.

The 016 should never have happened. Heck, $20K Toyota re-builds should never have happened.

I don't think this sport can be saved. In a decade, it will look more like horse racing.

The economic decisions made in the late 60s/early 70s, which looked good then, were allowed to go off the rails, and here we are.

Enjoy it while you can, before economics and legislation do it all in.

[lowside67]

Hell, less than half the entries for the Sprints are "true FAs". I think FA should be allowed to thrive or die on its own merits, as should P1.

On its own merits, ALL the cars in FA (including real ones) will die and no longer have a race. Likewise with P1 and P2. If you combine F1000/PFM/FA and P1/P2 into two classes, they both presumably will be large enough to have runoffs status and continue on.

I can completely agree I'd rather have all the classes have their own homes, but if the alternative is ONLY combine or die, isn't combined the lesser of two evils?

-Mark

[Mike B]

If you combine F1000/PFM/FA and P1/P2 into two classes, they both presumably will be large enough to have runoffs status and continue on.

It hasn't quite worked out that way, given the FA entry list for last year's Runoffs. Personally, I have no interest in spending $20K on an engine just to compete for 8th place in FA. Here's an idea: why don't we restrict the true FAs down to F1000 hp levels? Hint: see posts 12 and 15.

[lowside67]

I would say it has worked out looking at the Sprints for this year... there are 27 cars registered in FA, which coincidentally is the same amount as P1 and P2 combined. I also know of a number of competitive and podium capable guys in FA who believe the F1000 might actually be faster than the current restricted and ballasted 016 package, including one who owns both and is making the decision which he will run at runoffs because it's very close.

In my opinion, if we want there to still be a place to race prototypes, P1 and P2 are going to need to be one class, and that class will need to be between the pace of the two classes now. There are a number of ways to significantly reduce costs without adding a bunch of costs to do it (which is what the P2 rules require).

In King Mark's land of a new sports racer class from a clean sheet:
1) Current P1 aero allowance. No switching costs for any current P1 cars, many P2 cars have been modified to fit into P1 and can remove tunnel blockers at low cost, and there are many sidelined Stohr WF1s that are only P1 aero legal and people don't want to incur the cost to make P2 legal. Plus more performance, at little to no additional cost and reliability.
2) Motors - need to make stock motors competitive. Current generation P2 motors (aka stock 1L motors) run at 1000lbs, no restrictors, and are the baseline performance metric. Older 1L motors can be modified, and run at the same weight and no restrictors. Modified 1L current motors run at 1075 with a restrictor. Balance Hayabusa and auto-powered cars accordingly.
3) Brakes - get rid of stupid P2 rule requiring 2-piece brake calipers, disallow carbon rotors.

That is a winning package that significantly reduces the running cost and unreliability cycle of modified motors, and is the least pain to get people competitive with. I come up with those ideas in the mindset of the Stohr WF1 - and I recognize people with older cars will have complaints, but frankly those cars are not competitive in current P2 or P1 either, so they are hardly worse off and what is the alternative - nowhere at all to race?

-Mark

[Mike B]

I would say it has worked out looking at the Sprints for this year... there are 27 cars registered in FA, which coincidentally is the same amount as P1 and P2 combined.

You're right but remember that it's all about the Runoffs. The club leadership doesn't care about those pesky races during the summer.

I also know of a number of competitive and podium capable guys in FA who believe the F1000 might actually be faster than the current restricted and ballasted 016 package

They're mistaken.

In King Mark's land of a new sports racer class from a clean sheet:
1) Current P1 aero allowance. No switching costs for any current P1 cars, many P2 cars have been modified to fit into P1 and can remove tunnel blockers at low cost, and there are many sidelined Stohr WF1s that are only P1 aero legal and people don't want to incur the cost to make P2 legal. Plus more performance, at little to no additional cost and reliability.
2) Motors - need to make stock motors competitive. Current generation P2 motors (aka stock 1L motors) run at 1000lbs, no restrictors, and are the baseline performance metric. Older 1L motors can be modified, and run at the same weight and no restrictors. Modified 1L current motors run at 1075 with a restrictor. Balance Hayabusa and auto-powered cars accordingly.
3) Brakes - get rid of stupid P2 rule requiring 2-piece brake calipers, disallow carbon rotors.

This is actually a good start and I could get behind almost all of it IF the only answer is to combine classes. I don't believe it is. Good luck getting the P1 guys to go slower.

what is the alternative - nowhere at all to race?

What about regionals?

[DanW]

Edited for clarity.

Well, completely understand about combining classes. That will hurt the combined classes as we have seen.

The part of the proposal about reducing the number of days to a total of two days of testing, two of qualy and two of racing is a big plus. 10 days at VIR and Danville got really old and fairly costly for a humble volunteer....

[Speed Sport Engineering]

There were a lot of quotes used throughout the presentation that instilled an attitude of evolving and moving forward. I'll take that as they don't care much about class legacy and history.

Combine that with the guidelines for determining runoffs invites - "participation, potential for growth, and class diversity", and you can see how they are leaving the door open to make class invites subjective in nature. How do you quantify growth potential and diversity? Those will come down to a matter of opinion.

All of this to shrink the runoffs by 2 days.

The correct path for all of this is to progress over time, not the nuclear option being presented. Cutting 1/3 by 2026 seems idiotic.

Maybe that's why they want us all to have Flagtronics systems so badly this year, so we're forced to buy them before we are forced to park our cars.

[Steve Demeter]

I'm very disappointed in this group and the complete lack of discussion leading up to this evening's SCCA presentation and comments afterward. Summary here: https://www.scca.com/articles/201857...-on-all-levels

I understand that some of you live and breathe the Runoffs but I'm very weary of that single race determining classes, run groups, and, well, just about everything for the other 120+ races throughout the season. I don't know the actual data and Eric P didn't provide any in the presentation but I'm guessing there are at least 4000-5000 licensed drivers that may or may no be active. Yet, the club caters to the 600-900 drivers that attend a single race at the end of the year. It's the tail wagging the dog if there ever was one.
My biggest concern with this is that I can run an entire season minding my own business, and the next season my class can be eliminated, rendering my car worthless (again).
SCCA now talks about reducing and consolidating classes but by all means let's add CSX, SMX, SMT, SM2, C-spec, D-spec, FX and any number of other classes that nobody asked for.

WTF Have thery lost their ever loving minds

[allof6]

Deleted

[Dee]

I sold my Swift 016 and bought a Historic Datsun 510, time for just fun!!!! No BS

[mmi16]

I view this as a step in transforming SCCA into the Miata Club.

They can exclusive themselves right out of business. At one time SCCA was the only 'club racing' game in town and had their pick of competitors, car classes and race tracks. That ended with the turn of the century - there are a plethora of competing organizations that are syphoning the members that at one time were the heart of the SCCA.

While the Runoffs may be the crown jewel of SCCA Club Racing - it is not the be all and end all of CLUB RACING. Too many think the entry to the Runoffs should shut out most of the SCCA's competitors, to be more professions.

CLUB racing should not be confused with PRO racing, and that confusion is be promoted by Topeka.

[reidhazelton]

In what world does making the barrier to entry higher increase participation?

This is exactly what I said 10 years ago. The reply from the BoD was, quite literally, "$100 or $200 in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter." That showed me right there all you need to know. Say that two times each year over the last ten years and see where that gets the Club....

I went back to a National/Major/Super Dooper Tour or whatever they call it now and the amount of semi haulers was way more than there was 10 years ago. SCCA has marketed itself into a very weird niche where their customers are mostly people with significant;y high incomes than just 10 years ago and can afford SCCA, but don't have an alternative. Those with an alternative (FF, FC, FA, S2000, GT1, GT2, etc) all go elsewhere.

What classes with an alternative racing series have more participation in SCCA than the associated "pro" series alternative? Not one. That should tell SCCA something.

[stonebridge20]

I sold my Swift 016 and bought a Historic Datsun 510, time for just fun!!!! No BS

Smart move.

[B Farnham]

Below is the alternative that I sent in to the CRB. I doubt anything will change but it was worth a shot.

"I don't want to disagree with the current 2025 plan without providing an alternative. For the classes that have the most participation such as SM and SRF the plan works very well. They'll max out each year and have a strong number of cars. However for most other classes the car counts will go down.

My proposal would be to set a minimum or maximum amount of entries. For example those that qualify with the current plan for 2025 would be sent an invitation. If they plan on going to the Runoffs they need to accept the invitation. If they decline then the invitation moves to the next person. This would then continue until the class reaches whatever minimum number of participants that is set (each person would still need at least 3 weekends to qualify).

This would ensure that the car counts don't decrease dramatically. I don't want to see 5-10 classes with 10 or fewer participants and another 5-10 with less than 20.

The goal is to increase HST and Majors participation and this would still accomplish that. But it's the best of both worlds with making it competitive to get a guaranteed entry but also keeps the numbers up at the Runoffs."

-Brian

[RideMore]

In one of the posts above a kind person shared a link to 2024 Runoffs qualification/entry data. Some facts from that data:

The average total entries at the 2023 and 2024 majors is 147 cars.

15% are SM and 15% are SRF.

So 70% are not SM and SRF. 70% is a very significant number and those voices and entries should mean something to the SCCA.

[group3]

The reason SCCA is going to 18 classes for the Runoffs is for race day scheduling, they can run 9, let’s say, 20-minute qualifying or practice sessions before lunch and the same after lunch, with time for pulls, lunch and unforeseen issues.

Currently, part of the invitation description to the Runoffs included a provision whereby a class needed to maintain a 4 car per race average of Majors/Super tour over the season or they would be on probation or not invited. It has never been implemented but now the management is taking a chainsaw to the class groups.
Why not keep the classes as they are and not invite the probation classes to the runoffs? (There never was a notification, that I am aware of, sent by the SCCA to the probation classes; hey, you guys are on probation, get your numbers up or you are out for the next Runoffs...)
Then, why not form an ad-hoc committee (underneath existing committees) for each of those classes, comprised of racers that run in those classes, contact the racers in those classes throughout the membership and see what can be done? How do we increase numbers? Should classes combine?

As for participation numbers and qualifying for the Runoffs, I have sent in my letter to the CRB. It is a way to increase participation at the Majors/Super Tour events and would not limit an invitation to the runoffs…here it is; slightly edited for this forum…

2025 Runoffs Proposal Tracking # 36285
All points for Super Tour and Majors results count toward Runoffs qualification.
You must beat someone on track to receive full points, otherwise ½ points.
The final standings in your class after the season sets the grid for the Runoffs.
Weight Super Tour points more favorably than Majors points; i.e. 30 points for a win on the Super Tour race and 25 points for a win at a Majors race on down.
No requirement to be in the top 1/3 of your division, if you are 50^th in points you can go to the Runoffs.
Keep the minimum number of participation events on the national schedule to 3 separate race weekends and minimum 3 race results.
Overpopulated class invitations to the runoffs are limited to the maximum number of cars allowed on track.
Runoffs include 2/3 days of testing and the race. 5 days total. No need for qualifying, the grid is set based on season long points standing.
Winner take-all, the points accumulated only establish Runoffs grid, Runoffs racers start with zero points. So, the national champion is the runoffs winner, unlike now.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

I've never been to the runoffs but I'm certainly not towing for 8 days to run for 2.
We keep talking about classes but..
Have they taken the shine off the runoffs?

Maybe we need to turn our own last race of the season into our own multi division championship?

[LarryWinkelman]

I hope that SCCA will consider member input and take alternatives to their plan seriously. I'll write my letter, but I don't have high confidence. I am generally in favor of the concept of a shorter Runoffs, more stringent qualifying standards, and reducing classes that simply aren't viable.
That said, and given the large disparity in car counts and Runoffs entries from one class to another, isn't another possibility to go with 18 races, but have roughly half of them single class, and the rest (overall lower participation classes) paired up? Nobody loves multi-class racing, but isn't that a better alternative than just not inviting 8 classes?

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Instead of having runoffs participation based on participation of the last 2 years make it based on participation in majors the runoffs year!

When based on prior years there is no incentive to participate this year which drives down numbers for future runoffs. If it's based on the current year and signups through September there is an incentive to get out there and affect things now.

There could be a scoreboard running all year to show the top 18 classes. This will get people calling others to participate.

[allof6]

They should be looking at the participation numbers geographically instead of nationally. You have some tracks that are raced majors at 2-4 times that struggle to pull 100+ entries. So the results are skewed.

[mmi16]

With this proposal -

Is the intent to increase participation in Club Racing or decrease participation in Club Racing.

Historically, most organizations want to GROW. To me, this proposal says SCCA wants to die.

[FVRacer21]

I am working on my letter but just to bring up some points:

By the map they showed - we are a East of the Mississippi club. (then why are we in Topeka?)
Sounds like we need to put effort into helping those out West.

They want to cut down to 7 days - just do one day of SCCA practice, 2 qualifying days and 3 race days and you have 6. Let the track run practice days on weekends before.

It is time for us to come into the present - come up with a procedure for ranking drivers across the country, like they do for tennis players. The top 30 in ranking get an automatic invitation - after that you have next xx depending on how many of the first 30 accept. (details being worked on, but it involves how many drivers you beat on track and by lap time. Allowances for past champions, Runoffs appearances etc.)

If you make it harder to qualify for the Runoffs (good thing), today you will naturally reduce entries. If you go with a system like above, you might still have some slower drivers, but you can fill fields that way.

Reducing classes is great but what if we have more than 18 strong classes - who decides?

just some thoughts.

ChrisZ

[Garey Guzman]

I've never been to the runoffs but I'm certainly not towing for 8 days to run for 2.
We keep talking about classes but..
Have they taken the shine off the runoffs?

Maybe we need to turn our own last race of the season into our own multi division championship?

SEDiv has the ARRC in November and I've done that as often as possible! Never entered the Runoffs and I'm less likely now. I race for fun and really don't think spending $5k or whatever is going to seem like more fun that a sub-$400 Regional, which is really the best bang for my racing buck.