Scca eliminated classes

[E1pix]

^^^ Noticed that forever, always accompanied by “Hmmm, Yeah…”

Curious what the F6 guys think here… though coming from no personal experience, it seems it’d be creepy to be in a F6 surrounded by Fs — if not also very tenuous for having presumably less line-of-sight.

[924RACR]

^Probably not as intimidating as having a 6' wide P2 filling BOTH of your mirrors at the same time! LOL

(Yeah, I'm that guy...)

[Brian Graham]

https://www.crbscca.com/

Thanks Jonathan for the link, you made it easy. While I am not not happy with this latest move, bitching about it here does little. I sent a letter and I urge everyone who is reading this now 4 page post to do the same. Will it help? I have no idea but it is the least we can do in this situation. I personally am looking at a loss of 5 race weekends with multiple customers that will hurt our team. Maybe there is still time to effect a change.

Brian.

[TimH]

For many years ff and FC were grouped together and there isn't a problem. Central division national races were grouped this way.

FF and FV can often play together, too, but FV and FC are just too different.

[Mschumi101]

I would not recommend having FV & FC in the same group. There are more than enough cars to make a decent group with just FV & FF, and FC is too fast everywhere to be safe with FV. Having driven & crashed both, the thought of being in a FV hit by a FC is rather scary.

Lets not forget, that the issue is not really low turnout in FF/FV, it's literally stated it was because you cannot combine the eliminated group of cars safely with others.

While this may not be ideal, it is clear that SCCA is not okay with just FF/FV formulating a run group. If we want either class to race at Super Tour events, then we need to come up with some other combination, and FC is the only other viable class available.

After analyzing data from the runoffs, FC and F6 have very similar straight line speeds. Looking at qualifying speeds in the trap, I saw F600's hitting up to 146mph, consistently north of 140mph on the straights. The FC's were in the low 140s, with a 143mph the highest I saw sifting through. So closing speeds would actually be more favorable with FC compared to F6 as they run now. The bigger difference would be in braking and mid-corner speeds, but I don't think those are that far off between the classes for low-mid speed corners. The FC doesn't gain a significant amount of time over an FF in mid corner speed, it is maybe 2-3mph in the mid speed corners, and very similar in the low speed corners. Vee's are fairly quick through the corners as well, probably also very similar in the low speed corners. I am working with others to compile this data and will share it in a letter to the CRB. Biggest differences would be in the high speed corners, such as T1, carousel, kink at Road America. But in the instance of the carousel, even the FF cars can easily pass around the outside of a Vee without the need for the Vee to alternate their lines. Passing in the other mentioned corners comes more down to situational awareness and driver etiquette.

In short, if FV could share a track with FF and F6 without issues, I don't believe adding FC in place to their run group would be a huge change. If it means allowing the FF and FV back into super tour races, then I would argue this is the way forward. Not to mention FF and FC will need to share the track at the runoffs next year, and neither group shares the track in Majors or ST events, so neither car is familiar with each others closing speeds and tendencies.

If we can get FC/FF/FV as the 8th run group at Super Tour events, then that would be ideal, allowing all runoffs eligible classes a chance to race at Super Tour events and participate in whatever SCCA event they please. If FV drivers are not okay with sharing the track with FC's, then they don't have to register for those events, but at least they had the opportunity to race. Clearly the SCCA doesn't want us racing in our own groups despite being the two healthiest Formula classes outside of FE2, so we need an alternative to pitch to attempt to get back on the schedule, and this is the best way forward in my opinion.

[Bob Wright]

Last January the FCs raced with the FVs at Homestead. It worked but required the FC drivers to be careful and courteous when passing the FVs. We were. I think FF and FV together have to have the same issue. I'm much more fearful as a FC of being on track with P1/P2 cars- I've been taken out multiple times over the years.

I think SCCA management thinks the FVs shouldn't be racing with anyone else (I kind of agree) and that's one of the reasons they bounced them from HST in spite of the participation numbers.

[sauce_racer]

Vee is the 7th most participated class in the SCCA. FF is still in the top half at 13th. F6, okay sure. Of course, it's an easy copout for the SCCA to say this is the smallest run group, goodbye, when there are 3 (now 2) classes in this run group as opposed to the 5 or so classes that make up most of the other run groups. Make the run groups at HST events FC-FF-FV and FA-P-FE2. Then we would have two medium-sized, balanced groups, rather than one large group and one small group. FC and FF are together at the Runoffs from now on anyway, why not start getting them acclimated to sharing the same track? It's a better alternative than telling certain classes they can't race.

While we're on the topic of participation, the GT1-GT2-GT3-GTX-T1-T2-AS group only has one class that is in the top half of participation, so why didn't they start there? Hint: CRB.

I still have not seen a good reason why there is this desperate push to save track time all of a sudden. Classes come and go, but the overarching event structure and class groups have existed just fine for a very long time. And no, don't say the Runoffs.

I pointed this exact same thing to Jeremy and my Dad when I saw the announcement on Friday. I could hardly believe it when I looked at some of the numbers and the reality that SCCA is saying 'screw you' to us in open wheel classes. I haven't raced much in the last few years because life happens and now I can't plan my return after I have the baby.

What is most offensive in this, SCCA says HST is the premier road racing event other than the Runoffs. So why would you get rid of FV? FF maybe I can argue we don't have enough at times, but FV absolutely not. If the club was really concerned about not having enough time then they need to go back to the original frame work of the Majors and correctly implement it. If I remember right, that was supposed to be weekends with ONLY the top 10 classes based on participation. Instead, they made it everyone can show up and run their same run group.

Not sure that frame work of the Majors would actually work now. But it is more frustrating to think that they'd rather just write all of us off than even try to make a place for us.

Maybe its my hormones..Maybe I'm realizing that the club I was raised in doesn't want my run group anymore. Either way, I've not been this angry with the club until now.

Meg Sauce-Grenier
SowDiv FF#10

[Steve Davis]

Megan makes a great point.. I agree that, AS I RECALL, the initial INTENT of MAJORS was to plan events with the top participating CLASSES to produce the BEST COMPETITION EVENTS possible to lead into the Runoffs... we all, at least most of us, interpreted that to mean 'high level competition' and 'more concentrated numbers' for the events.

I guess that for forgotten right off the bat.

I wonder why the initial plan fell away so rapidly ? .. Perhaps the, later developed, HST RULES took precedence?

From my perspective, at this point, this total thread is water over the dam(n). I do wish things were different, but I'm too old to wait around another 5 years to see if anything changes.
Steve, FV80

[John LaRue]

Megan makes a great point.. I agree that, AS I RECALL, the initial INTENT of MAJORS was to plan events with the top participating CLASSES to produce the BEST COMPETITION EVENTS possible to lead into the Runoffs... we all, at least most of us, interpreted that to mean 'high level competition' and 'more concentrated numbers' for the events.

I guess that for forgotten right off the bat.

I wonder why the initial plan fell away so rapidly ? .. Perhaps the, later developed, HST RULES took precedence?

From my perspective, at this point, this total thread is water over the dam(n). I do wish things were different, but I'm too old to wait around another 5 years to see if anything changes.
Steve, FV80

The "original" Majors program was implemented, but it did not last for long. A number of regions (SFR?) would not sign onto the program because it did not include all of the classes. That in turn led to the current Majors program and thereafter the Super Tour was introduced. Peter Olivola is probably better versed to recite the precise history so I defer to him.

Also, keep in mind that HST events are effectively the same as Conference Majors other than they are primarily run at "pro" tracks and have streaming and podium celebrations.