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.