I resorted and copied that table.. Doesn't mean much, but Vee is 8th of 28 on the overall class list for Majors participation across the nation for 2024. Just a curiosity...
SRF3 787 SM 725 SMX 298 STL 275 GT2 242 B-Spec 224 FE2 217 FV
178 FA 166 T3 156 FP 143 EP 141 T4 139 FF 138 GT1 117 FC 115 STU 109 HP 106 AS 97 GT3 91 T2 91 F6 87 GTL 84 T1 81 P2 80 P1 79 FX 59 GTX 41
Steve, FV80
Racing since '73 - FV since '77
That isn't the philosophy behind the Super Tour. It's been divided into two separate halves of the country since the beginning and was a response to sponsor requests to reduce the number of events they support.Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
Before you jump on that consider the original philosophy behind the shift from Nationals to Majors, which was also an effort to reduce the number of events in the top category. Behind it was the idea that there are fundamentally two kinds of racers in the SCCA: Those who have the desire and means to find the best competition and those who primarily run "local" events. Reducing events at the top level was designed to cluster competition to satisfy the former with the expectation that the various Regional programs would work for the latter. At the time, there were strong Regional programs in much of the country. There still are.
Looking even further back in SCCA history, the HST/Majors/Regionals configuration mirrors the Nationals/Divisionals/Regionals set up pre-Runoffs that determined national champions on the basis of points which favored those who could afford cross country travel. The elimination of Divisionals and creation of the Runoffs to determine national champions had a long run, but was beginning to strain not just the National office, but individual regions due to declining participation and too many events spreading entries out. Blame for that was a circular firing squad.
The current situation is not occurring in a vacuum. The rise of other organizations can't be ignored in identifying what needs to be done to maintain the SCCA Road Racing programs. Another external factor are the changes in auto manufacturer involvement most easily associated with the demise of British Leyland and rise of Mazda. To complete the list is the reduction in the number of people working on their own cars but still interested in racing. For good or ill, SRF is a response to that and is naturally viewed through the lens of your own situation.
From my personal perspective, two specific things have contributed to the decline of formula car racing in SCCA. The first was the acceptance of the ADF/Swift as legal FFs. The second was the legally disastrous creation of FE. That class is finally showing some strength, but it was birthed for the wrong reasons and struggled long enough that had it not been an Enterprises class, would have been axed or folded into an existing class over a decade ago. The former drove numerous FF constructors out of the sport and it was the plethora of constructors supporting the class that contributed to its vitality. The latter diluted class participation, further highlighting weakness in formula car classes. There was also the external factor of the CART/IRL split and subsequent curtailment of interest and participation in FA.
TL;DR over the past 40 years there have been both internal and external changes in/to formula car racing in the SCCA that have and are driving a reduction in formula car class participation and the club sees a need to respond. It's natural to decry that which threatens your self interest. There is also the uncanny parallel between this and national politics: Class over Club = Party over Country.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
I mostly agree with you, except maybe for the "Class over Club" part.
SCCA cannot ask someone who has spent tens (or many tens) of thousands of dollars on their car simply to write it off in the interests of clustering competition (to borrow Kephart's infelicitous word). The HST announcement basically invites open wheel and sports racer owners, particularly small open wheel, to vote with their feet (and dollars).
John Nesbitt
ex-Swift DB-1
Half - let's look at the map:
https://www.scca.com/supertour
Where is the division? For Left coasters there are only 2 - and they are essentially 2 days apart. Anything else is 2+ days away.
That's why the 80% racers did 80%. They ignored the left coast. Kind of a theme....
There are 13 FC signed up for a November event at ButtonWillow. Normally good turnouts. but since ST and Majors are all that count for your stats....
Just announce this week we lost a Majors event because SCCA thought we had too many. This means y'all just drove UP the cost of participating in the runoffs for a large market - all classes. Watch those numbers fall.....
I really don't think management understands the separation the desert and rockies creates and the added cost to travel.
Refer back to the map. We might as well be a different country altogether.
How would you "fix" the problem you've identified? I spent ten years in the Rocky Mountain Division heavily involved in event planning and operations. There are Majors in RMDiv that are closer to SoCal than Seattle and we even tried creating a schedule that would get Majors participants on the road home by noon Sunday.
Nada
Zip
Zilch
It looked like then and sounds like now the West Coast wants to do its own thing. Understandable. The population center of SCCA Road Racers is somewhere in the vicinity of Kansas City so add in the Great Plains to the list of barriers.
Are any West Coast tracks even interested in hosting the Runoffs? That's been a draw for out of division entries in HST/Majors and even Regional events. Maybe on the appeal of producing better competition, like the premise stated about how competitors are divided.
So add geography over club to class over club.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
Interesting. Did RMDiv ever consider running events on back-to-back weekends similar to Homestead/Sebring?
If I can get 2 race weekends from a long tow, I'm more likely to show up than just a one off. Not sure how many others feel this way.
-Jeff Jorgenson
IIRC best we could do was two in three weekends. I'm no longer in RMDiv and my point was about geographic limitations.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
FF
Peter, I am not sure how the ADF and Swift brought down SCCA FF. If anything the Swift brought the need for a "new car of the year" to a halt for years. I can make a good case for unlimited tires, SFI time limits on all safety equipment, high dollar rain lights etc and Honda engines just might keep a few cars in storage though.
Roland Johnson
San Diego, Ca
Thank you Peter. I understood your point. I was wondering if scheduling two races on back to back weekends was thought of as a way to mitigate the travel issues caused by the geographic concerns.
I did what I was told to do and sent a letter in June. It's been tabled every month. Supposedly there will be an answer in the next Fastrak. But the recent removal of a Majors from CalClub indicate to me they are going a different direction.
I have always claimed there to be a geographic problem. This country has very expansive unpopulated areas.
I addressed that in my proposal/letter. I think I posted it earlier in this thread.
Yeah. West coast has had to do whatever we can. There is no FRP, etc. so we have to work within the SCCA framework.
Pacific F2000 used to go to Vara events. They did a TransAm event in 22.
I have no inside info on what track wants to host the runoffs. But my proposal/letter addressed the problem of host 1000 entries. Hint: The answer is you don't. Geographically located championship events with the winners going to a smaller but more prestigious National Championship.
With that you could host the event at almost any track.
Easy to explain, I think. FF was sustained originally by a combination of chassis builders/importers/prep shops, engine builders and the irrational belief that any of us could be the next Grand Prix Champion of the World. One of those was substantially curtailed by a significant, de facto rules change made to admit the ADF/Swift which resulted in a very rapid decline in other constructors and related prep shops. The decline in FF entries substantially predates your list.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
How is that any different than the east/west division in HST?
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
Observation about Steve Davis's 2024 participation list
So SMX (now its own group now in the HSTs) had 298 entries.
FV and FF together were 316.
Maybe the BoD is using new math, bit I'm pretty sure 316 is still more than 298.
Thanks,
Tony Stefanelli
The events in each area are winner takes all - like the runoffs. The podium gets invited to the runoffs.
It gives an "accessible" end of season event to all racers, not just those that can tow for 10 days and be away from work for 2 weeks and foot all that cost.
If there is an event that is doable by more people, you'll get more people running the majors/ST - because there will be a point to it.
One of the things that is twisted about Majors/ST is there is no point in running them unless you plan to go to the runoffs.
For many people that is simply not in the cards.
Give them a reachable event and you may see an increase in Majors participation.
It's curious that SCCA is the only game in town that decides its national championship on the basis of a single race.
I would think creating a West Coast Championship, much like SARRC, MARS, etc., would satisfy that same need without having to involve the rest of the country in your geographic angst.
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
I am writing a history of the issues with FF and up to six pages I think. The Swift was not the only factor but it was instrumental in the increase in expense due to the unique use of castings. The original car was in our shop as it was bought at the Runoffs for Jeff Andretti to run, so I had a really good look at it next to the Crossles and Mondiales we were selling. One of these days I will finish it. But think about when the Sports Renault came on the scene…..
ChrisZ
Insignificant and off-topic Chris, but I did some minor lettering on the Andretti Swift at the ‘84 Runoffs.
What mostly springs to memory is “Thanks Mom & Dad” on the tail, along with some crew names. I got a kick out of that after watching “Dad” run for nearly twenty years, including at Montreal and the Glen after Ronnie died.
Once we think we’ve mastered something, it’s over
https://ericwunrow.photoshelter.com/index
I don't think the west coast is the only place that people have difficulty with travel distances.
I don't exclude Enterprises from contributing to the decline, but would Sports Renault have been able to garner support from competitors if the sudden increase in FF cost to run at the front hadn't occurred?
Peter Olivola
(polivola@gmail.com)
IMHO, no. Suddenly you had to have a Swift, and there was no indication at the time that the "car of the year" aspect wouldn't continue - it took a few years for the other manufacturers to NOT produce really competitive designs - we had the somewhat ungainly 84 VD which was immediately dropped in favor of a side-radiator swift-ish design, the 85 Reynard disaster where they just reverted to an updated 84 design for 86, etc. Steve produced the Citation Centurion, beautiful and fast but it didn't seem to sell a lot. Crossle produced a Swift design that wasn't as good as well. Lolas 640 series weren't bad but that was the end for them in FF. It seemed the customer base wasn't interested in developing any other chassis when you could just buy a Swift that worked.
So owners looked at the SR, which was guaranteed stability and cost less than a FF to boot. So yes, the Swift played a role but the SR was the nail in the coffin - a bunch of guys jumped there.
And to Roland's point, at one time the budget racer could get take-offs from Firestone and Goodyear, The big manufacturers underwrote race tires as part of advertising as I've heard the story. And then along came Hoosier, who didn't have a "win on Sunday sell on Monday" philosophy - more of a "fastest tire regardless of cost" philosophy - and produced 3 heat cycle tires. The overall cost of tires went up dramatically. Funny how we all love them now without considering how detrimental they were long term to the sport. The spec FC tire is pretty good - not as fast as an Avon, but lasts a long time - but they could have made that compound and reduced the price more than a decade ago - cheaper and lasts longer maybe draws some competitors back, perhaps too late by the time the deal was done. And then there was an unnecessary switch to radials and associated costs......I'll assume that was driven by manufacturer desire for a "modern tire" matching their road car stuff that didn't draw any other manufacturers back, we still just have Hoosier.
What was the de-facto rules change that allowed the ADF/Swift? I've often heard of it but not the specifics.
Even then there were beginning to be "tire of the week/month/year" issues with manufacturers other than Hoosier making softer/faster compounds. So, as said above, there would had to have been a spec tire, or, more unlikely, an agreement between tire manufacturers to limit that competition. THAT would have been REALLY hard to enforce because tire compounds are such a complex chemistry that even the manufacturers have trouble specifying the components to produce a consistent tire. Look at when GY shifted their production to Chile - the 160 compound was never as good after that, even when they brought production back to the US.
So that's really no different from someone making a faster car. The controls have to be REALLY tight - leading to spec cars (or spec tires).
Last edited by DaveW; 10.29.24 at 5:37 PM.
Dave Weitzenhof
I was teching back then, so I didn't see the details the way you did. I remember that's when we started marking tires for the one set per weekend rule as a back door way of controlling that creep.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote