New Club Racing Proposal

[John Nesbitt]

I first joined SCCA in 1967, have been frustrated over the years, quit and rejoined a few times. This last stint rapidly approaching 30 years. Someone in a previous post mentioned SCCA finances and it would be nice as a member to see a financial statement. At one time it was published yearly in Sports Car, back when Pro Racing was losing money. Then the accounting format was changed, and you needed a forensic accountant to understand the numbers. Then they quit publishing it altogether. One night I spent 2 hours searching online without luck to uncover that single document. ...

Log in on scca.com, and go to your Profile page. Under Member Resources, click on File Cabinet. Click on General Information (5th tab down). You will see audited financial statements for the past few years.

[grapefarmeral]

Log in on scca.com, and go to your Profile page. Under Member Resources, click on File Cabinet. Click on General Information (5th tab down). You will see audited financial statements for the past few years.

Thank you

[CheckeredFlag]

Log in on scca.com, and go to your Profile page. Under Member Resources, click on File Cabinet. Click on General Information (5th tab down). You will see audited financial statements for the past few years.

Thanks for the tip. The audited financial reports for Fiscal 2023 should have been completed in May, 2024 but are not available.

[cory mcleod]

(8/21/24 EDIT: See the posts below with updated info - SCCA is not currently considering combining FF and FC.)

Others have alluded to this, but everyone racing FF and FC still needs to be concerned. I had a long conversation with the head of SCCA club racing while waiting on a flight to the June Sprints. Obviously the main topic of our conversation was the (then) recent announcement and first webinar. He specifically mentioned that they want to combine FF and FC.

My initial thought was that combination would be almost impossible, and the fact that they're running the separate classes together in 2025 seems to agree. I have no additional info, but can only think of bad possible outcomes as they make necessary decisions to get down to 18 total Runoffs classes for 2026.

[brian styczynski]

Thanks for the tip. The audited financial reports for Fiscal 2023 should have been completed in May, 2024 but are not available.

https://scca.zoom.us/webinar/registe...#/registration

Mike Cobb has a meeting scheduled tomorrow night and the description has he will be covering YTD Financials..... so maybe 2023 as well?

[racerjon1]

I had a long conversation with the head of SCCA club racing while waiting on a flight to the June Sprints.... He specifically mentioned that they want to combine FF and FC.

I've been in the rooms during these discussions and just texted Jeff B - other than running FF/FC in a single group for Runoffs 2025, there has been zero discussion of trying to put FF and FC together into a single class.

I panicked a bit when I saw this post, reached out to confirm. His guess is when talking to you about classes in general he mentioned that the fact the FF/FC chassis rules are the same creates a larger market as compared to classes that are, "on an island." That general topic, along with combing FF/FC into a single group for the Runoffs must have created some confusion.

[douglap1]

I've been in the rooms during these discussions and just texted Jeff B - other than running FF/FC in a single group for Runoffs 2025, there has been zero discussion of trying to put FF and FC together into a single class.

I panicked a bit when I saw this post, reached out to confirm. His guess is when talking to you about classes in general he mentioned that the fact the FF/FC chassis rules are the same creates a larger market as compared to classes that are, "on an island." That general topic, along with combing FF/FC into a single group for the Runoffs must have created some confusion.

Actually, I heard that back when Nick Craw was President, he commissioned a study which recommended requiring FF cars to be modified to FC spec. That might have worked at one time, but I'm not sure some cars like the Spectrum could carry an FC engine.

The easiest cars to equalize and combine into FC would of course be the FE2 cars. But then SCCA wouldn't have a racing class monopoly. Darn that conflict of interest thing.

[rockbeau25]

If FF and FC have to run together from now until the end of time, so be it. So long as both classes can coexist with their own ruleset and not some bastardized combination like what is happening with P1 and P2. I will never understand why this wasn't an option for FB and P2...but I guess I'll be thankful my class in unscathed for now.

[cory mcleod]

I've been in the rooms during these discussions and just texted Jeff B - other than running FF/FC in a single group for Runoffs 2025, there has been zero discussion of trying to put FF and FC together into a single class.

I panicked a bit when I saw this post, reached out to confirm. His guess is when talking to you about classes in general he mentioned that the fact the FF/FC chassis rules are the same creates a larger market as compared to classes that are, "on an island." That general topic, along with combing FF/FC into a single group for the Runoffs must have created some confusion.

That's hopefully good news for FF and FC. Maybe it was just a fleeting idea and I don't expect him to remember the details of our conversation (he is constantly speaking to members and I only had one conversation with him), but I am 100% sure that he mentioned they were looking at combining FF and FC. It stuck in my mind so specifically because my immediate thought was, "That's pretty much impossible." Regardless, I will edit my previous post for accuracy.

[reidhazelton]

I've been in the rooms during these discussions and just texted Jeff B - other than running FF/FC in a single group for Runoffs 2025, there has been zero discussion of trying to put FF and FC together into a single class.

Maybe I missed something, but surely whoever said this meant same run group, and not same class. An FF with a Zetec and wings is an FC. Merging the two is the same thing as eliminating FF. No one is going to convert a FF to an FC.

Merging the two classes would be the single stupidest decision in SCCA history. Worse than F4 - yeah, I went there.

This sounds like something that would come from someone who knows nothing about open wheel cars. It would be the same as combining GTL with GT1 because they are both tube frame cars, so just change engines. Easiest thing in the world.

[Lotus7]

Maybe I missed something, but surely whoever said this meant same run group, and not same class. An FF with a Zetec and wings is an FC. Merging the two is the same thing as eliminating FF. No one is going to convert a FF to an FC.

Merging the two classes would be the single stupidest decision in SCCA history.

No one I've spoken with believes the scca means to combine FF and FC into one class, (the way they did P1 and P2), they will just always be on track together in the same run group. Since that includes qualifying sessions, I'll be curious to see if they grid for the race in order of times, regardless of class, or if we get split starts ...

[Peter Olivola]

No one I've spoken with believes the scca means to combine FF and FC into one class, (the way they did P1 and P2), they will just always be on track together in the same run group. Since that includes qualifying sessions, I'll be curious to see if they grid for the race in order of times, regardless of class, or if we get split starts ...

The only way this class combination into a single race group works is with a split start.

[John LaRue]

Please re-read the press release, FF and FC are not being combined other than in the same race group at the 2025 Runoffs. The cars are very compatible and hopefully, with a proper split start, enforcement of a time percentage rule, and use of the Flagtronics FCY/Code 35, there will be limited interaction between the classes during the race. The plan is 18 races and18 classes in 2026, so combined races are not anticipated beyond 2025.

None of this has been easy, there are no perfect answers. If there are ways to improve upon the decisions that have been made, then please send your ideas to https://crbscca.com/ Comments on social media and APEX don't count, sorry.

Let's get out there and enjoy our race cars, racetracks, and racing friends. Nothing will ever be perfect, it never has. There have been complaints since the day I started racing and they will be there on the day I quit - we all need to do our best to enhance the program and enjoy all of this for what it is.

And, if you are so inclined, offer up your time to join one of the Advisory Committees, SCCA is always looking for new people. Being involved will give you a new perspective on how this organization works, why decisions are made, and an appreciation for those who came before us. While it does take a commitment of time and effort, the experience is very rewarding. You can submit your "resume" to https://crbscca.com/

Regards,

John

[924RACR]

If there are ways to improve upon the decisions that have been made, then please send your ideas to https://crbscca.com/

Does this even mean anything any more? When decisions are being made before our letters are read, or without regard to them?

To wit, a concrete example: my letters # 36512/36541 (actually more or less the same letter, about exactly this issue) are sitting on the CRB agenda. They were submitted at the beginning of July, after the first announcement of the pending consolidation.

But they seem to still be stuck in the CRB while the decisions by National go ahead...

[John LaRue]

Does this even mean anything any more? When decisions are being made before our letters are read, or without regard to them?

To wit, a concrete example: my letters # 36512/36541 (actually more or less the same letter, about exactly this issue) are sitting on the CRB agenda. They were submitted at the beginning of July, after the first announcement of the pending consolidation.

But they seem to still be stuck in the CRB while the decisions by National go ahead...

Your two letters and 189 others are presently tabled on the CRB agenda so it would appear to the author that their letter is "stuck" at the CRB level. All of those letters that were submitted in advance of the face to face meeting were categorized, tallied, and read by each CRB member, Staff who was involved in the meetings, as well as the BoD liaisons and most likely all of the other BoD members. The letters were discussed ad nauseum in the context of the discussions and helped to guide the decision making. Letters that have since been submitted have also been reviewed and considered. Eventually the letters will be processed and responses will be provided to the authors.

[924RACR]

Thank you for clarifying.

I hope we can find a better way forward out of this that doesn't leave Club Racing a shell of what it once was...

[teamfun]

I really don't understand the SCCA's approach. If the goal was to reduce the number of groups at the Runoffs to provide a better quality field, more track time and a friendlier format... I would proposed leaving the classes as they are and announce that the Runoffs would take the top 18 classes based on participation in the HSTs and Majors for that calendar year.

Wouldn't that achieve the aforementioned goals, preserve the value of our cars, and actually increase participation?

What am I missing?

[BLS]

I really don't understand the SCCA's approach. If the goal was to reduce the number of groups at the Runoffs to provide a better quality field, more track time and a friendlier format... I would proposed leaving the classes as they are and announce that the Runoffs would take the top 18 classes based on participation in the HSTs and Majors for that calendar year.

Wouldn't that achieve the aforementioned goals, preserve the value of our cars, and actually increase participation?

What am I missing?

That would be way too sensible...

[CheckeredFlag]

I really don't understand the SCCA's approach. If the goal was to reduce the number of groups at the Runoffs to provide a better quality field, more track time and a friendlier format... I would proposed leaving the classes as they are and announce that the Runoffs would take the top 18 classes based on participation in the HSTs and Majors for that calendar year.

Wouldn't that achieve the aforementioned goals, preserve the value of our cars, and actually increase participation?

What am I missing?

But what if that strategy affects a class a CRB or BoD member is in, hmmm? Can't have that!

[BeerBudgetRacing]

But what if that strategy affects a class a CRB or BoD member is in, hmmm? Can't have that!

They just need to be clear and honest. Enterprises classes are exempt from all this. We know it. They know it.

Let's move on to better solutions than class elimination threats.

[Mike B]

They just need to be clear and honest. Enterprises classes are exempt from all this. We know it. They know it.

He isn't talking about FE2.

[CheckeredFlag]

They just need to be clear and honest. Enterprises classes are exempt from all this. We know it. They know it.

Enterprises classes are successful. SRF3 and FE2 have strong numbers; they don't need the CRB or BoD on their side. In fact, Enterprises, the CRB, and the BoD have pissed me off about FE2 on several occasions.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Enterprises classes are successful. SRF3 and FE2 have strong numbers; they don't need the CRB or BoD on their side. In fact, Enterprises, the CRB, and the BoD have pissed me off about FE2 on several occasions.

Again, with a lot of these classes, geography and timing make a difference.

When I went to FC in 2014 I had looked at FE and there were 2-3 cars on the grid here. 12+ FCs.
The classes was relatively dead here until the FE2. FE2 cars usually make all the Majors races but rarely the regionals.

Let's also be clear. They killed FE, just like SRF, SRF2 and made NEW classes. They get to spec check writing

So, "current Enterprises Classes are successful" would be more accurate. FE2 and SRF3 are good classes and seem to have settled in nation wide. SRF, SRF2, FE, and ESR are all dead and gone.

Does Enterprises just make their own decisions and tell the CRB: this is now the spec?
Do they need everything reviewed?

So, what does this tell us. Classes need to evolve to stay current? And when FC racers propose a change 99% are nixed. That 1% represents a rain light !

[CheckeredFlag]

Does Enterprises just make their own decisions and tell the CRB: this is now the spec?
Do they need everything reviewed?

Unfortunately, it seems to be that way sometimes. In the rainlight debacle, the FE/2 class had an out because its class rules stated that any rain light would qualify, overriding the general formula rule set. The president of Enterprises submitted the letter to the CRB to change it even though he races SRF3, not FE2. Two months ago, he submitted a letter that the FE2 cars need FIVE Hoosier decals on the car; then last month he submitted a letter changing it to THREE. Jeez!

[Todd Butler]

Unfortunately, it seems to be that way sometimes. In the rainlight debacle, the FE/2 class had an out because its class rules stated that any rain light would qualify, overriding the general formula rule set. The president of Enterprises submitted the letter to the CRB to change it even though he races SRF3, not FE2. Two months ago, he submitted a letter that the FE2 cars need FIVE Hoosier decals on the car; then last month he submitted a letter changing it to THREE. Jeez!

Current Enterprises cars classes are successful because Enterprises can evolve and update the car as parts and systems become unobtanium. SRF2 Ford 1.9L Escort to SRF3 Fiesta 1.6 twin cam, stock Mazda trannys to straight cut gears to finally Sadev, ditching the ancient Renault Alliance brake calipers, solid to vented rotors etc, to the myriad other spec parts upgraded. One can’t help but wonder if a really neat class like S2000 would still be around instead of confined to Vintage if it had allowed upgrades? From a distance looking at SCCA classes, too many classes, from Prod to Formula are stuck in the past and failing to evolve and failing to evolve they eventually die off.

And fun fact, having been involved in the FIA rain light mandate, Enterprises was actually supportive, they just asked for a 1 year transition period based on number of cars to convert, engineering a new spec light housing or developing one to fit existing housing on the SRF. It was BOD that killed that and said Enterprises did not have to meet the mandate.

[stonebridge20]

One can’t help but wonder if a really neat class like S2000 would still be around instead of confined to Vintage if it had allowed upgrades? From a distance looking at SCCA classes, too many classes, from Prod to Formula are stuck in the past and failing to evolve and failing to evolve they eventually die off.

24 S2's
50 FF's
Entered in this weekends VRG race at Watkins Glen.

[John LaRue]

24 S2's
50 FF's
Entered in this weekends VRG race at Watkins Glen.

Great numbers. Is that attributable to the fact that there are far fewer events on the calendar?

[BrianT1]

Great numbers. Is that attributable to the fact that there are far fewer events on the calendar?

I would also ask, what is the average age of these competitors and also how many of them are retired and or own there own business. It's easier to attend races when you don't have to go to work or if you own your own business you can take as much time as you need.

Brian

[Rick Kirchner]

Perhaps not as far fewer as you might think. Vintage is not monotonic like the SCCA. Many folks will race with SVRA (as the only really national group that also bought up a lot of clubs with premier dates at premier tracks) and then will race primarily with their home club like VRG, VARA, SOVREN, CSRG, etc.

While VARA only hosts four races a year right now (down from six when we had California Speedway and pre-2008 crisis) I have the opportunity to race with SVRA at Laguna and Sears.

The only thing that keeps me from having even more choices is the lack of Pinto FC in CSRG, but I could also run with an AZ group at several tracks around Phx and Tucson, and if I relished a really long tow, Portland or the tracks around Seattle which is sort of like you northeast guys going to Daytona.

[Teuobk]

I would also ask, what is the average age of these competitors and also how many of them are retired and or own there own business.

As another data point, last month RMVR here in Colorado had 39 FFs and 25 FVs at our August race (our "Race Against Kids' Cancer"). I don't have data on business ownership, but I can tell you that the mean age of the FF drivers was 56 and the median was 64, with the skew in the mean due to 25% of the FF drivers being under 40.

Jeff

[E1pix]

That’s no data point, that’s a data cinder block.

Vintage is taking over the world, and lessons to be learned there, for sure.

It seems to clearly admit that the old days were better, or at least that we’re not replacing the guys doing this as a lifetime passion.

[Roland V. Johnson]

Brian, owning your own business does not let you take off whenever you want. It gives you the opportunity to work as much as you need to.

[racingflyboy]

Brian, owning your own business does not let you take off whenever you want. It gives you the opportunity to work as much as you need to.

One of my friends that owns his own biz, says he likes being self employed, because he only has to work half days, and NO ONE tells him which 12 hours!

Steve

[stonebridge20]

One of my friends that owns his own biz, says he likes being self employed, because he only has to work half days, and NO ONE tells him which 12 hours!

Steve

I actually took two days off last week for some fun with Covid.

[patman]

I'm kind of burned out on the politics of this, so how about I just tell you all a story?

In 2019 I sold my FC and bought an AMAC which was previously raced in vintage as a DSR. I felt that FC had too much specification to an outdated formula for me, and I loved the openness of P2 and the higher tech feel of the bike powerplant. I don't have a lot of money, but I support myself by running a one-man speed shop, so I have a lot of skill and tools. P2 was perfect.

After a year or so of updating the car, I was winning majors races and super tours sometimes. I went to the runoffs in 22 primarily as a learning experience, but in the rain I made it to 4th before the car got stuck in 5th gear, finished 7th. Learned a lot, made a couple friends. Mission accomplished. I didn't have time or budget for runoffs in 23, but I won a few races and another conference championship, and I was turning laps at vir about 1s off the runoffs leaders at a test day, so I felt I was making progress but not quite there.

So I spent my 24 race budget on an engine upgrade. (Still did 2 SCCA race weekends though to support the club) New engine, ECU, wiring harness, etc. RA was a far tow for me anyway, and a home track to a lot of P2 guys. My life is busy with kids, house, shop, etc, but I am slowly getting this car to where it might actually win against the top P2 guys.

Now this ****. I have twice the money invested in this car as I could hope to get out of it. There is really no way to make it competitive in P1. To be honest, it is already a handful to drive at P2 speeds. Maybe I could get it there if I rebodied it and stretch the wheelbase, and threw away my new motor for a bigger one, but it would be years of work, and another 2x the value of the car at least.

I thought SCCA valued the underdog build your own guys like me, but this sudden ruining of years worth of planning, effort, and expense soundly disproved that. So now what am I to do?

I can sell my AMAC, pull in extra work over the winter, and probably buy the sh*ttiest WF1 I can find. But it would take at least 2 years to make it competitive in P, and I expect P participation to be roughly the same as P1, and in any case nowhere close to the moronic P1+P2 assumption. So who knows how long that will last. Probably not a great investment.

I tried NASA, didn't really work for me. Tried spec Miata, boring. Maybe build a chumpcar. Either way, probably not SCCA. Or I may just go back to instructing and quit racing completely. Maybe no big loss to the sport, but I do also have 2 kids who liked to go racing too... So who wins here?

Please also understand that running a small business, raising kids, building a house, and so on isn't super easy in 2024 America. Racing is one thing I get to do that I really enjoy. That keeps me sane and happy and pushing on every day. This isn't that big a deal really, but then again it kind of is to me.

Now that story time is over, those who seem to think this is a good plan, please feel free to tell me what you think I should do.

[Peter Olivola]

This is not a comment on the plan, just a suggestion to continue participation in the sport:

Join the stewards program.

We need your experience and perspective and with the right mentoring, I think you would enjoy it.

[Hardingfv32]

I thought SCCA valued the underdog build your own guys like me, but this sudden ruining of years worth of planning, effort, and expense soundly disproved that. So now what am I to do?

You simply cannot ignore the 'racing' politics of SCCA and its competitors. Maybe decades ago things were more steady state, but not now.

'Underdog build your own guys' is simply a competitor population too small to be politicly viable. I would say this is not a recent trend either. So this should have been a part of your competition planning.

Brian

[E1pix]

So this should have been a part of your competition planning.

By all means, blame the competitor — THE CUSTOMER.

Imagine it was your money, though based on your posting history, you can’t.

[FVRacer21]

By all means, blame the competitor — THE CUSTOMER.

Imagine it was your money, though based on your posting history, you can’t.

Even though I have been through so many Sales Training sessions, calling members "customer" is not realistic.

We want to be treated like customers, but think about it. A customer buys from a vendor who makes a specific product.

If you don't like the product, you go to a different vendor.

A customer does not demand a vendor make a product to his liking - in fact I was taught how to handle and fire (if necessary) a customer who demanded unrealistic products.

However; we spend lots of money and make multi-year plans. We have to have the Comp Board and Directors respect and consider that every time they make a decision. We have seen how one person can affect the rules (you probably can figure what this is about), and how MANY letters did not sway that.

If we have learned anything, we learned we have to pay more attention to what is going on, yell when something is wrong, and be ready to vote with our feet. Anyone got a better idea?

ChrisZ

[E1pix]

Fair enough, Chris.

Sounds like you’re saying a Club owes its members a little more than a Business does its customers.

I agree if so, especially in cases where a sudden rules change costs a member a pile of money.