New Club Racing Proposal

[Mike B]

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.

I'd wager there are more club racers like you than there are hardcore Runoffs racers. And yet, that single race is what's going to determine the classes we can run in at that Regional (for fun).

[reidhazelton]

I think the changes to the Runoffs schedules is a good move for most people. What worries me is the significant cut to classes. SCCA doesn't have a good track record with consolidating classes and, in my memory, when SCCA tried to they ended up losing the class entirely.

[EACIII]

I think the changes to the Runoffs schedules is a good move for most people. What worries me is the significant cut to classes. SCCA doesn't have a good track record with consolidating classes and, in my memory, when SCCA tried to they ended up losing the class entirely.

Exactly. S2000 is still a popular class. They just don't run with SCCA anymore.

[douglap1]

For years, it seems that SCCA has worked at dividing National / Majors / Super Tour Racing from the lowly Regional Racing programs, and it looks like the latest "proposed" changes are just more of a move in this direction.

Of course, Mr. Prill says this new initiative "allows Regions to focus on local championships, low barrier to entry racing like that offered through the Race Experience program, and new participants for the Regional race weekends." Reading between the lines, it looks like the next step will be a return to the "National" vs "Regional" racing license program to try and lure in the track day folks ( https://www.scca.com/pages/race-experience ).

Personally, I think all SCCA races should have the same stature and promotion from SCCA, with a nation wide points system where the National Run-Offs event is by invitation to the top 10% points winners, with the Run-Offs being a double points event rather than a winner take all event. However, there is no way that scheme is ever going to even be considered. The SCCA National Office needs some big-time select advertising events to promote and sell, and they see regional racing as an extension of their time trials program.

The SCCA is the only national race sanctioning body that continues to run "real race cars" as Carroll Smith would say. We Formula and Prototype guys need to stick together and not get pushed out the door.

[Mike B]

I think the changes to the Runoffs schedules is a good move for most people. What worries me is the significant cut to classes. SCCA doesn't have a good track record with consolidating classes and, in my memory, when SCCA tried to they ended up losing the class entirely.

Agreed on both points. The proposal is contradictory in that they are making the schedule more attractive to more casual racers that might not otherwise go to the Runoffs, yet making it more difficult for them to go by restricting the classes. A smarter person might infer that this will result in reduced entries.

[924RACR]

The SCCA is the only national race sanctioning body that continues to run "real race cars" as Carroll Smith would say. We Formula and Prototype guys need to stick together and not get pushed out the door.

This right here - key point. And we need to leverage our numbers to beat that into the heads in the National office before they write us off the calendar...

[DaveW]

There's a saying, "death by a thousand cuts." From Wikipedia:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death by a thousand cuts is a form of torture and execution originating from Imperial China.

Death by a thousand cuts may also refer to: (psychology), the way a major negative change which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments is not perceived as objectionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what's happening to formula car racing. Every small negative increment (price increases, expensive requirements, worse schedules and groupings, etc., etc.) brings us closer to the end.

[reidhazelton]

There's a saying, "death by a thousand cuts." From Wikipedia:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death by a thousand cuts is a form of torture and execution originating from Imperial China.

Death by a thousand cuts may also refer to: (psychology), the way a major negative change which happens slowly in many unnoticed increments is not perceived as objectionable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what's happening to formula car racing. Every small negative increment (price increases, expensive requirements, worse schedules and groupings, etc., etc.) brings us closer to the end.

And SCCA is usually holding the knife....

[Rick Kirchner]

So the answer is likely staring us right in the face.

The East Coast pro series is the model. Pacific F2000 used the same model when it first stood up.

1) organize a stand alone open wheel organization
2) write your own rules
3) negotiate with whatever groups are running in your area - SCCA (especially regionals!), Vintage, NASA, POC, etc to run the tracks you want when you want. Do away with stacking all the important races early in the season and run to the end.
4) are events likely to be more expensive? Maybe, but you can stop worrying about all the club BS.

I suppose some guys will bitch and moan about having to run with rookies etc, since there wouldn't necessarily be two-tier licensing arrangement. Get over it and give back by mentoring the new/slow guys.

Set up regional chapters, NW, SW, SE, NE, SCentral, NCentral, etc. Take the champs and pick a central-ish race near the end of the season and run for a championship if you must.

Have fun for a change. Let the hyper-competitive, win at all costs guys buy the car du jour from Enterprises and fight amongst themselves.

[allof6]

Rumor at Gratten was that there is a TV deal floating around for the runoffs but the class count needs to be reduced to satisfy the request. Don't know how true, but...

[TimH]

So the answer is likely staring us right in the face.
...Have fun for a change. Let the hyper-competitive, win at all costs guys buy the car du jour from Enterprises and fight amongst themselves.

Yes. However, let me add that your OW-only organization does not need to stand on its own. Sharing the track with a HPDE organization still allows for 6-10 sessions/weekend with attractive cost-sharing. NASA seems to be SCCA-lite in that regard, but there are other HPDE and vintage options.

[Rick Kirchner]

Yes. However, let me add that your OW-only organization does not need to stand on its own. Sharing the track with a HPDE organization still allows for 6-10 sessions/weekend with attractive cost-sharing. NASA seems to be SCCA-lite in that regard, but there are other HPDE and vintage options.

Exactly

[Phil Creighton]

They say things never die but this proposal sounds exactly like the original Steve Petty plan from years ago. (early 90's) It relies on those dis-enfranchised from the Runoffs buying a car to run in an eligible class. Problem is that its not what happens in reality.
Still dont know why the mixed class idea for the Runoffs never really took off - they run that way all year.
Just 2c

[iamuwere]

I think this is a proper progression. There are so many times I am at the track and hearing the wings and things group complain there are too many classes (closed wheel stuff) yet there are only 1 or 2 cars in several of the formula/prototype classes.

It simply doesn't make sense to have so many classes with so few competitors. Who are you racing against? If you want to just go drive fast, do a track day.

It is a good day when half of the P1/P2 cars finish a race or aren't struggling to meet the 115% rule after qualifying.

FC and FF have great homes in other series with good/great car counts and high level competition.

If you are in a class that offers an automatic podium at a Majors event, it should be under threat.

[Steve Demeter]

The GLD FC/CFC series that Keith Averill has been spearheading has gotten a number of otherwise stay at home cars out.

What is needed is more series within SCCA races like that!!!1

They have a group of enthusiastic folks running every year.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

My letter #36381

Re: Proposals for Changes - Runoffs, Super Tour and Majors

There are several areas that need reconsideration.

Class Participation:
I cannot find in the summary any new proposal for how a class qualifies for the runoffs or Majors participation.
It is being assumed that the last 2 years of 4 cars per event average is the rule that will be maintained.
Additionally, in the proposal there is talk of reducing classes at Majors and Super Tour events.

Consider:
For some people, consistent annual participation is not an option. Personal economics is a large factor in racing and racing is a large discretionary expense.
The constant questioning of participation and class eligibility is in of itself disruptive to participation.
Making class qualification based on multiple years of participation means we all have to participate completely for 3 years. (2 to qualify a class, 1 to qualify the driver for the RO)

Proposal:
Make class participation in the runoffs based on CURRENT YEAR participation in runoffs path events. Participation in many classes goes in waves. This will maximize the participation at the runoffs because it will reflect the participation in the current year. Update a participation scoreboard after each Majors. Drivers can encourage other drivers to get out there to boost a class – because it matters NOW. Basing qualification on what happened 1-2 years ago is what has been happening at it does not guarantee participation in the Runoffs.

Consider:
For some regions, if you aren’t racing in the Majors you aren’t racing. And now you are talking about eliminating classes for some Majors and Super Tour events.
In my own club (CalClub) the first 3 events of the years (with the best weather) are Jan-Majors, Feb-ST, Mar-Majors. The first regional event is June (low turnout because of heat) and then nothing until October.
Majors events get premium weather leaving regional events out in the cold or heat. Can a class ever really recover when they need to do it via participation in the lowest participation events?
If a class drops out of Majors qualification does it take 2 years to re-qualify and another 2 years to Runoff qualify them?
When you really want to drive people to these events, why are you considering restricting them?
Additionally, class grouping makes some events very unwelcoming to some classes.

Proposal:
Drop the idea of restricting classes in Majors and Super Tours. For many these are the only events that matter. Make it mandatory (not discretionary) for Race Directors to re-group classes based on entries.

Consider:
Driver qualification for Runoffs has been a bit of a roller coaster. Do you increase participation by letting any old schmuck run some races and qualify or do you invite only the cream of the crop?
For some, just being there is the event for them. Watching the 2014 Laguna Seca runoffs brought me in to racing. Sonoma 2018 was the target and I missed it. The runoffs coming back out west was eliminated.
So, tow 10 days, race 4. Not going to happen for me and many others. Participation from members out west is bleak simply because of the location.

You will eliminate ‘sub events’ like the FC 30th anniversary at Indy. All those types of celebration events will move to the June Sprints where they can maximize participation.
Looks like they have over 560 entries this weekend. Everyone welcome and a better class distribution than other ST events. Are they going to eliminate classes at the clubs whim? They existed before the Majors program.

Proposal:
Start calling the nation championships the National Championships. I don’t know where the term runoffs came from but in just about every sport the playoffs are the elimination rounds to the final event.
People outside racing don’t understand the term.

No matter how people qualify for the runoffs you will get your National Champion in each class. Making it qualifying and invitation only does increase prestige but doesn’t guarantee entries.

If you really want it exclusive, hold 4 championship runoffs across the country at Majors events in September and invite the top 3 from each to the National Championships. Provide a tow fund and more.
12 entries in each class makes a very manageable event and it can be short and the location doesn’t have to accommodate 1000 entries for 10 days.
Those 4 events would be big, affordable (reduced travel cost) and meaningful. And probably make the club more money.

Conclusion:
For a variety of reasons, not every racer is actually in the market for runoffs participation – notice how I say ‘in the market’ – they are club members but the event is not on their menu.
Serve them better on what they are in the market for.

All these class qualification proposal talk about is elimination and it just adds uncertainty to people considering participation.

[mmi16]

The real question is - Is PARTICIPATION of members wanted or not.

As the costs of racing continue to increase faster than the cost of living it becomes harder and harder to justify spending in come cases close to $5000 for a racing weekend when you start adding up Entry Fee, Towing Costs, Motel costs, food, race fuel, race tires etc.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The real question is - Is PARTICIPATION of members wanted or not.

As the costs of racing continue to increase faster than the cost of living it becomes harder and harder to justify spending in come cases close to $5000 for a racing weekend when you start adding up Entry Fee, Towing Costs, Motel costs, food, race fuel, race tires etc.

I believe members do want to participate. Costs are getting in the way.

But in addition to the costs you mention for a weekend, they aren't even going to 'get back in' if the 'finish' is unobtainable.
That being class elimination threats, reduced ways to qualify (Majors only) etc.

All my suggestions reduce travel and increase opportunity.

[JoshuaJustice]

I really don't understand why they need to axe classes entirely. Not enough prototypes? Okay, group P1 and P2. They can run together on track - they do all year. Not enough FAs and FCs? Okay, group them.

The insistence that the Runoffs only have single-class races is the reason they keep running into this problem. Instead, they "solve" it by combining cars into a single mega-class (see FX) and then pull a shocked face when everyone who was in the slower classes in the new mega-class decide they're not going to bother to make the trip when they're uncompetitive. Instead of making mega-classes, make groupings. There's no reason for FX to exist, they could just go "yeah FM, F4, and F2000 will all run in the same race" and have a 3-class race and it'd be fine. Had they done that with FA we wouldn't have the situation with true Atlantics, PFM, F1000, etc.

So now they're going to kick more cars into the "regional class only" dumping ground? Lovely. I'm sure this will do wonders for participation in regions where most of the racing is done in Majors because there isn't enough population density to run a lot of regionals. Not like we've had multiple race weekends on the verge of cancellation due to not getting enough participation, or anything.

[Mike B]

At the risk of reviving this horse...

I think this is a proper progression. There are so many times I am at the track and hearing the wings and things group complain there are too many classes (closed wheel stuff) yet there are only 1 or 2 cars in several of the formula/prototype classes.

It simply doesn't make sense to have so many classes with so few competitors. Who are you racing against? If you want to just go drive fast, do a track day.

I completely agree that it doesn't make sense for someone to race against themselves and there's nothing to brag about when someone "wins" a race when he was the only entrant (we all know someone like that), but why is that your concern? Or the SCCA's concern? There could be a race group with 20 cars and those 20 cars could be in 20 different classes. Dumb, I know, but the SCCA's only responsibility is to provide a place for them to race. Let those individual classes do the work to build their preferred class. If someone wants to drop a Chevy 2.0L in his Reynard and create Formula Cobalt, more power to him. It's on him to get other people to do the same thing but it's impossible to do if there isn't some place to run them. Sure, he will not be able to enter the Runoffs but believe it or not, there are lots of members that don't GAF about the Runoffs. Possibly the best option is to make it a regional only class as a place to incubate, or for existing classes that have fallen out of favor to regroup (or just race alone). Unfortunately, that isn't what the CRB/BOD has done in the past. There are still plenty of FMs, F1000s, S2000s, etc that are racing elsewhere or just sitting in garages because the SCCA axed those classes. There's absolutely no reason they can't be classified as regional only. If nobody shows up, so be it. If one car shows up, so be it. If a group is able to rally and build a class, then we can talk about nationals. Or maybe they'll be content to run a championship within the regional schedule.


If the club continues to cater to SM they will alienate the classes that get their races cut short so SM can have a 65 minute race. They will have a tough time getting enough spec car entries to cover track rental in the future after the real race cars have become fed up with playing second fiddle.

[RussMcB]

I know this discussion is more about the higher levels of SCCA Club Racing (not mostly regionals like I've mostly done), but wanted to share a thought about this (not directed at you, Mike).

<snip> ... it doesn't make sense for someone to race against themselves and there's nothing to brag about when someone "wins" a race when he was the only entrant (we all know someone like that), ...

That guy has been me for the past few years, when I raced in FS and FX (and FB before it went away).

I always felt it wasn't my fault others stopped showing up in my class. I had a big investment (for me), so not easy to just sell a car and everything (at a loss) to start new in a different class.

But, recently I have sold off my formula car package to start in a more healthy class (HP - don't laugh), but that has meant a year off while I build the new car.

That's all. I just wanted to share this view from a low budget racer, in love with fairly fast formula cars. It seems that's becoming rare. Thanks for letting me vent.

[CheckeredFlag]

It is a good day when half of the P1/P2 cars finish a race or aren't struggling to meet the 115% rule after qualifying.

FC and FF have great homes in other series with good/great car counts and high level competition.

If you are in a class that offers an automatic podium at a Majors event, it should be under threat.

Since Mike snipped the rest of Jim's post, I'll put it here. I think these three sentences are the meat of Jim's argument and Mike ignored them. The last sentence is the strongest of all and it hits at the heart of what Mr. Prill and others desire going into 2026 (emphasis my own).

If there is a group of 20 cars and all 20 are different classes, that could be dangerous. Here's an example (don't read more into this than the hypothetical it's meant as): P1's and FX's sharing a group requires a lot of skill on the part of all in that group. Some FX drivers struggle to be within their own class's 115% rule, not to mention being within 115% of a P1, or even a P2. This requires the P1 to be very, very cautious about FX's he is lapping. Having a place for classes that can't keep up their numbers forces dangerous circumstances like very fast cars on track with slow cars.

[cory mcleod]

I really don't understand why they need to axe classes entirely. Not enough prototypes? Okay, group P1 and P2. They can run together on track - they do all year. Not enough FAs and FCs? Okay, group them.

The insistence that the Runoffs only have single-class races is the reason they keep running into this problem. Instead, they "solve" it by combining cars into a single mega-class (see FX) and then pull a shocked face when everyone who was in the slower classes in the new mega-class decide they're not going to bother to make the trip when they're uncompetitive. Instead of making mega-classes, make groupings. There's no reason for FX to exist, they could just go "yeah FM, F4, and F2000 will all run in the same race" and have a 3-class race and it'd be fine. Had they done that with FA we wouldn't have the situation with true Atlantics, PFM, F1000, etc.

So now they're going to kick more cars into the "regional class only" dumping ground? Lovely. I'm sure this will do wonders for participation in regions where most of the racing is done in Majors because there isn't enough population density to run a lot of regionals. Not like we've had multiple race weekends on the verge of cancellation due to not getting enough participation, or anything.

I agree 100% with your point, but isn't the current proposal focused on limiting current national classes in Super Tours and the Runoffs, not bumping classes from national to regional status? Did I miss that part?

[Mike B]

Since Mike snipped the rest of Jim's post, I'll put it here. I think these three sentences are the meat of Jim's argument and Mike ignored them. The last sentence is the strongest of all and it hits at the heart of what Mr. Prill and others desire going into 2026 (emphasis my own).

I didn't ignore it, rather I felt my argument addressed it. It seems redundant but here is how I would respond to that last sentence:

If you are in a class that offers an automatic podium at a Majors event, it should be under threat.

Why? Again, why do you (that's a collective "you") or the SCCA care if there's only one car in a class? We can all make fun of Russ but for the exact points he made, he has his reasons for doing that. Why should he be deprived of running a car that he enjoys and at the level that he chooses, and be forced to sell a car for a fraction of what it was worth the previous season? Because tHe rUnoFFs!

If there is a group of 20 cars and all 20 are different classes, that could be dangerous. Here's an example (don't read more into this than the hypothetical it's meant as): P1's and FX's sharing a group requires a lot of skill on the part of all in that group. Some FX drivers struggle to be within their own class's 115% rule, not to mention being within 115% of a P1, or even a P2.

I understand that this a hypothetical example but at the second biggest race of the year last weekend there was exactly one FX. It's a class that, to my knowledge, nobody asked for and I believe that if the cars that were lumped into it were left alone there would've been multiple FMs, maybe some F4s, etc. None of those cars want to try to compete with completely different cars that will never be equalized. (see also, F1000).

This requires the P1 to be very, very cautious about FX's he is lapping. Having a place for classes that can't keep up their numbers forces dangerous circumstances like very fast cars on track with slow cars.

We're already doing that at Regionals. With a little bit of effort, cars can be grouped by potential or historical laps times, possibly a slow F/SR group and a fast F/SR group. We all have a pretty good idea which group a given chassis/engine/aero combination could be assigned.

[Mike B]

I agree 100% with your point, but isn't the current proposal focused on limiting current national classes in Super Tours and the Runoffs, not bumping classes from national to regional status? Did I miss that part?

The proposal seems to imply that those lower participation classes would be axed or combined with other classes, like FM, F1000, S2, and probably others, never to be seen again.

[Steve Davis]

The proposal seems to imply that those lower participation classes would be axed or combined with other classes, like FM, F1000, S2, and probably others, never to be seen again.

I'm pretty sure that HQ cannot bump cars or classes out of SCCA. The only classes that HQ 'follows' are the one they want, but any region can allow any car that meets safety specs. I seem to remember that HQ specifically said that the old original Spec Renault was EXCLUDED from SCCA competition at some point, but I'm probably mis-remembering that. Pretty sure I saw that there was a GROUP of them racing somewhere in the last year or so.. maybe at a regional/divisional.. or maybe some other sanctioning group. But I still think that, if there were enough of them, any region having an event COULD give them a place to race .. even if not competitive (FS? ASR?).
Steve, FV80

[racerjon1]

I'm pretty sure that HQ cannot bump cars or classes out of SCCA.
The only classes that HQ 'follows' are the one they want, but any region can allow any car that meets safety specs.

If we're talking "HQ" as the National Office this is truth. The CRB makes the decisions and while "HQ" has input at times, we still get to put in letters in the system like everyone else. The National Office *just* got a voting member of the CRB this year, and it's only one. (Scott Schmidt)

If "HQ" is the CRB/BOD then they can make decisions that remove classes from Majors/Supertour/Runoffs - AKA "National" Classes. But as long as a car meets GCR 9.3 (or is in 9.1.C.2) those cars can run at Regional events.

I seem to remember that HQ specifically said that the old original Spec Renault was EXCLUDED from SCCA competition at some point, but I'm probably mis-remembering that. Pretty sure I saw that there was a GROUP of them racing somewhere in the last year or so.. maybe at a regional/divisional.. or maybe some other sanctioning group. But I still think that, if there were enough of them, any region having an event COULD give them a place to race .. even if not competitive (FS? ASR?).
Steve, FV80

Original Spec Racers (Sports Renault) are are "officially" included in ASR, but also 100% still allowed at Regional Events, and the CENDIV and GLDIV have rules for the "Sports Renault" and run them as classes at Regional events. I think in particular Detroit Region has a half dozen (or maybe more) that run the Regional events at Waterford Hills.

Fun fact on this.. when event results are reported we upload them into the system and there are specific columns in the .crv file that have to be filled and one of them is "class" and the classes can only come from a specified set of data. E.g., the National Office has to "know" the class and have assigned it an abbreviation in order to upload results.

• SR is still the original Spec Racer/Sports Renault.
• SRF is Spec Racer Ford
• SRF3 is the current generation.

Same with FE/FE2 - it's part of why the names don't get changed back, because those classes can still be run regionally. The region/division just has to submit a "rule set" to be able to point to.

[Mike B]

Classes. But as long as a car meets GCR 9.3 (or is in 9.1.C.2) those cars can run at Regional events.

Are you saying that if a few FMs, S2000s or F1000s wanted to get together to race at a Regional event they would just need to work with the organizer? None are in 9.1.C.2 but would meet 9.3. What category ruleset would they follow? Even if these cars meet 9.3 they could still show up with turbos, carbon brakes, full tunnels, full width wings, etc. in the absence of a category in the GCR. This is why they have, for all intents and purposes, been bumped from the SCCA.

Why would it be so difficult to simply add them back into the GCR and call them regional only classes?

[SteveG]

Are you saying that if a few FMs, S2000s or F1000s wanted to get together to race at a Regional event they would just need to work with the organizer? None are in 9.1.C.2 but would meet 9.3. What category ruleset would they follow? Even if these cars meet 9.3 they could still show up with turbos, carbon brakes, full tunnels, full width wings, etc. in the absence of a category in the GCR. This is why they have, for all intents and purposes, been bumped from the SCCA.

Why would it be so difficult to simply add them back into the GCR and call them regional only classes?

I race an S2000 regionally and our Supps say bring a copy of the 2013 GCR. Easy stuff.

Steve

[Mike B]

I race an S2000 regionally and our Supps say bring a copy of the 2013 GCR. Easy stuff.

Steve

Good to know, thanks!

[racerjon1]

Are you saying that if a few FMs, S2000s or F1000s wanted to get together to race at a Regional event they would just need to work with the organizer? None are in 9.1.C.2 but would meet 9.3.

Short Answer: Yes.

This is how we got "Club FF" and "Club FC." We've seen this happen this past year for the street-tire FV crowd (NEDIV), and for FF's with vintage tires (also NEDIV).

Note: The classes mentioned can all run at SCCA Regional events in either Formula S, Formula X or A Sports Racer. Some of them even get to add some performance enhancing things in ASR/FS (See ASR and FS rules in the GCR for specifics.) But, even with some performance-enhancement allowed an S2000 would be against an F5000 car in that case, so competitiveness is not a consideration, only participation.

What category ruleset would they follow? Even if these cars meet 9.3 they could still show up with turbos, carbon brakes, full tunnels, full width wings, etc. in the absence of a category in the GCR. This is why they have, for all intents and purposes, been bumped from the SCCA.

Because of the aforementioned "competition" aspect, if they wanted their own class, e.g., a Regional "FM" class or a class that allowed turbos on Formula Continentals, the answers are this:

If desired for more controlled competition, a Regional Only class may be submitted by a Region (or division) and would fit into their respective Formula Car or Sports Racer categories.

The steps are:

1. Have a ruleset (allow turbos, don't allow turbos, copy the GCR from the last year the class ran, whatever.)
2. Make sure those rules require the 9.3 (9.4) minimum safety standards. (E.g., an S2 regional class would still need to put the FIA rain light on even if it's rules came from 2000-whatever.)
3. Host those rules somewhere they can be referenced in event supplemental regulations.
4. Submit those rules for National Office approval/get them approved
5. Include class in event registration.

So here is how the process would work.. say you have a few people who want to run Formula Continentals, but with forced induction. There is no way that's going to become a National/GCR class, but your region/division can create a class because that group makes a difference.

So, you build a ruleset. All cars must meet GCR "minimums" for Formula Cars. That's where 9.3 comes in. From there you write the rules for turbo sizes, weights, etc. You send the rules into the National office and we look at them, determine they meet our minimums, and "approve" it as a Regional class. The class goes into the database (Super Formula Continental, AKA "SFC") Bam, now it's a Regional class. This is how we have things like "IT-X" or "Showroom Spec Miata" or "Grand Touring American."

Because the National Office is only concerned with those safety minimums, it's up to the region for competition rules enforcement for their specific classes.

Note: If you bring us something like a 700-HP class using FC chassis we're probably going to look at it with a close eye to determine the appropriateness of the chassis construction and potential speeds - so this is just an example, and not a promise of acceptance.

Why would it be so difficult to simply add them back into the GCR and call them regional only classes?

The issue with putting it back in the GCR is that you run into a time/effort-management issue. If the class is in the GCR now it's expected to be managed by the FSRAC -> CRB -> BOD process and we can assume the reason a class might be dropped is probably that the number of entries are not worth the time needed to manage it.

So if there are 5-10 cars in your region and it makes a big difference - it's worth it for your region (or division) to maintain that class/rule set. But if there are that many nationally, it makes it very hard to justify that effort on a national scale.