Small Formula car HST elimination...

[Ed Womer]

Just a thought, but what we're seeing now is old farts squaring up against kids and their parents in impound.

What! I really hope is that your understanding of what I said and I am talking about driving on the track not bs in impound. When they show up and get in a customer car that maybe someone else did this or that they think that they will as well. I have been at this a long time and have found out from experience, that most likely won't be true.

As for us old farts, for me it took time and money to get and upgrade my car to a competitive level. I have also come to realize that if you are struggling and not a total moron, you might get sympathy from experienced drivers at least so you are not a danger to them. The help and advice usually ends when you start to threaten them ON the track by just being faster. Unfortunately, not everyone is a good SPORT when it comes to that.

Ed

[Peter Olivola]

Club racing is UNSEEN by the general public. There is NO promoting it. Yes, that is what we expect SCCA to do. I watch the TransAm series on TV. Mazda runs ads. SCCA doesn't. Hmm...

If I were to have guessed further up this thread where you were actually going, this would have been it.

My involvement in the world of advertising is way out of date and I'm sure someone reading this will have up to date information, but are you seriously suggesting SCCA spend membership money on TV advertising? Aside from the direct expense of placing the ad do you have any idea what ad production costs are? The resulting increase in membership and entry fee costs would make you scream like a stuck pig.

[Ed Womer]

After think about this impound portion of this discussion, I think I might have realized what could possibly be happening. I was quite active at the local indoor go cart track, which was the Autobahn chain. Being a regular customer and I started to do the league races just for something to do. Well that really opened a can of worms between us experienced road racers versus the go cart people. Come to find out there are to very different rules or driving conduct on track. We in SCCA road racing were taught that it isn't your turn until fully alongside the car you are overtaking. That means front wheel to front wheel. Well go cart drivers think if the get the front wheel near in line with the other car rear wheel it is their turn and the car being overtaken must yield. My reply was how can I know there there when everything is fast happening and no mirrors.

So you might want to find out how they were taught to drive and what they consider acceptable. That could be what you are interpreting as bad behavior in impound.

Ed

[John LaRue]

In 2024 the HST had an impressive 1462 unique drivers. A driver can count their best 6 race finishes plus Runoffs towards the HST Championship. Effectively, a driver would have to compete in at least 3 separate HST events to contend for a top finishing position within the Series Championship. Interestingly, only 20% of the drivers who participated in the HST did so in 3 or more events. Conversely 80% of the drivers participated in only 1 or 2 HST events during the season. One might conclude from this that drivers are participating in HST races, but not because they are part of the HST Series. It is interesting to compare the percentage of FV and F6 drivers who ran in 3 or more HST events to other classes which remain as part of the HST.

2024 HOOSIER SUPER TOUR
		DRIVERS WHO	% OF DRIVERS
		PARTICIPATED	WHO PARTICIPATED
	UNIQUE	IN 3 OR MORE	IN 3 OR MORE
CLASS	DRIVERS	HST EVENTS	HST EVENTS
SMX	65	43	66%
FE2	49	19	39%
FV	49	13	27%
F6	26	7	27%
T3	49	12	24%
P1	21	5	24%
SRF3	217	49	23%
T1	27	6	22%
SM	201	42	21%
GTL	29	6	21%
GT2	73	15	21%
BS	72	13	18%
T4	41	7	17%
GT1	36	6	17%
GT3	25	4	16%
FC	37	5	14%
STL	90	12	13%
FP	46	6	13%
STU	36	4	11%
AS	31	3	10%
HP	31	3	10%
T2	31	3	10%
P2	22	2	9%
FF	42	3	7%
GTX	19	1	5%
EP	47	2	4%
FA	50	2	4%
COMBINED	1462	293	20%
BEST 6 HST RACES + RUNOFFS
COUNT TOWARDS HST CHAMPIONSHIP

[Peter Olivola]

After think about this impound portion of this discussion, I think I might have realized what could possibly be happening. I was quite active at the local indoor go cart track, which was the Autobahn chain. Being a regular customer and I started to do the league races just for something to do. Well that really opened a can of worms between us experienced road racers versus the go cart people. Come to find out there are to very different rules or driving conduct on track. We in SCCA road racing were taught that it isn't your turn until fully alongside the car you are overtaking. That means front wheel to front wheel. Well go cart drivers think if the get the front wheel near in line with the other car rear wheel it is their turn and the car being overtaken must yield. My reply was how can I know there there when everything is fast happening and no mirrors.

So you might want to find out how they were taught to drive and what they consider acceptable. That could be what you are interpreting as bad behavior in impound.

Ed

Whose bad behavior? In my experience, former Kart drivers are well aware of the differences, more so since we've added Appendix P.

[E1pix]

Ed, I suspect what you described is an indoor karting phenomenon — which to be fair is not at all the same as dedicated karters in IKF, WKA, or SKUSA, and running their own equipment.

[BLS]

In 2024 the HST had an impressive 1462 unique drivers. A driver can count their best 6 race finishes plus Runoffs towards the HST Championship. Effectively, a driver would have to compete in at least 3 separate HST events to contend for a top finishing position within the Series Championship. Interestingly, only 20% of the drivers who participated in the HST did so in 3 or more events. Conversely 80% of the drivers participated in only 1 or 2 HST events during the season. One might conclude from this that drivers are participating in HST races, but not because they are part of the HST Series. It is interesting to compare the percentage of FV and F6 drivers who ran in 3 or more HST events to other classes which remain as part of the HST.

2024 HOOSIER SUPER TOUR
		DRIVERS WHO	% OF DRIVERS
		PARTICIPATED	WHO PARTICIPATED
	UNIQUE	IN 3 OR MORE	IN 3 OR MORE
CLASS	DRIVERS	HST EVENTS	HST EVENTS
SMX	65	43	66%
FE2	49	19	39%
FV	49	13	27%
F6	26	7	27%
T3	49	12	24%
P1	21	5	24%
SRF3	217	49	23%
T1	27	6	22%
SM	201	42	21%
GTL	29	6	21%
GT2	73	15	21%
BS	72	13	18%
T4	41	7	17%
GT1	36	6	17%
GT3	25	4	16%
FC	37	5	14%
STL	90	12	13%
FP	46	6	13%
STU	36	4	11%
AS	31	3	10%
HP	31	3	10%
T2	31	3	10%
P2	22	2	9%
FF	42	3	7%
GTX	19	1	5%
EP	47	2	4%
FA	50	2	4%
COMBINED	1462	293	20%
BEST 6 HST RACES + RUNOFFS
COUNT TOWARDS HST CHAMPIONSHIP

Pretty clear. There is a problem in that some classes with low participation can be combined with other similar classes easier than putting slow/fast open wheel cars together, so I understand it's not always as clear as it looks.

The problem as I see it is removing classes from your "Super duper series" that have decent participation doesn't give anyone confidence that the SCCA will not just exclude the class from other events. Who wishes to invest in FF/F6/FV when they are being shoved aside?

[924RACR]

...Interestingly, only 20% of the drivers who participated in the HST did so in 3 or more events. Conversely 80% of the drivers participated in only 1 or 2 HST events during the season. One might conclude from this that drivers are participating in HST races, but not because they are part of the HST Series.

A smart management team would look at these numbers and try to understand why the HST product is achieving such a low success rate, and how to make the offering more appealing to entice a higher participation level. After all, core concept is a nationwide championship... yet attendance is spectacularly low among drivers competing at that level.

Of course, a typical American-style management team would instead look at this from the wrong end, for example coming to the conclusion that a very acceptable size pool of entrants are being spread far too thinly across too many "bins" - and if we could just concentrate and focus things down by externally restricting the number of classes, events etc, then the ratios would go up!

See what I did there?

I'd love to give more examples of just how badly this data could be misused to generate utterly unhelpful conclusions... but I just can't get my head that far up my nether regions to see that viewpoint.

Doesn't really matter to me; I've bailed, we've been sidelined and uninvited from the "Big Show" so it's all academic to me at this point - there are better places to go race now, SCCA just doesn't offer a worthy product any more thanks to thought processes like these.

[Ed Womer]

Ed, I suspect what you described is an indoor karting phenomenon — which to be fair is not at all the same as dedicated karters in IKF, WKA, or SKUSA, and running their own equipment.

That could be possible. I have grown up in central PA and am well aware that the few times I go to roundy round races it seems acceptable to get inside the overtaking car and muscle the way thorough. I don't think I have seen anyone penalized for that type of driving.

I have also seen on track even with drivers in their own car seeming not to care and will get mad at you for not just getting out of their way.

[John LaRue]

That could be possible. I have grown up in central PA and am well aware that the few times I go to roundy round races it seems acceptable to get inside the overtaking car and muscle the way thorough. I don't think I have seen anyone penalized for that type of driving.

I have also seen on track even with drivers in their own car seeming not to care and will get mad at you for not just getting out of their way.

Check out some serious kart racing. Last 2 laps at 34:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6gdkQcnHU

[CheckeredFlag]

Check out some serious kart racing. Last 2 laps at 34:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6gdkQcnHU

Would the winner get a penalty in the SCCA? Probably.

[John LaRue]

A smart management team would look at these numbers and try to understand why the HST product is achieving such a low success rate, and how to make the offering more appealing to entice a higher participation level. After all, core concept is a nationwide championship... yet attendance is spectacularly low among drivers competing at that level.

Of course, a typical American-style management team would instead look at this from the wrong end, for example coming to the conclusion that a very acceptable size pool of entrants are being spread far too thinly across too many "bins" - and if we could just concentrate and focus things down by externally restricting the number of classes, events etc, then the ratios would go up!

See what I did there?

I'd love to give more examples of just how badly this data could be misused to generate utterly unhelpful conclusions... but I just can't get my head that far up my nether regions to see that viewpoint.

Doesn't really matter to me; I've bailed, we've been sidelined and uninvited from the "Big Show" so it's all academic to me at this point - there are better places to go race now, SCCA just doesn't offer a worthy product any more thanks to thought processes like these.

Vaughn I think that you nail it on the head by pointing out that HST is a nationwide championship. As I see it, there are only a handful of classes which have enough cars spread across the nation to support such a series and there are not enough SCCA racers in the other classes who will travel across the country to do so. It looks to me like most of the classes have geographical pockets of population and competition. Perhaps we would be more successful if we catered to the customer at their location rather than trying to convince them to travel to these expensive national races. The data clearly shows that few are travelling or chasing the HST championship. The HST cherry picked what was the best National or Majors races and it is those races which are driving participation in the series, not the fact that those races are part of the series. The HST was the catalyst for change that has driven the wedge between the members/classes.

I also think attention needs to be brought to the cost of putting the HST show on the road. There is a substantial number of full time staff and part time stewards who are on the road for those 10 events which cater to an extremely small percentage of the membership. We must think not only in terms of labor, equipment (trucks/trailer), and travel costs, but also the lost opportunity costs. What is the true cost of those key personnel being out of the office and/or focusing on a series which caters to such a small percentage of the membership. Is that the best allocation of resources given the current state of the road racing program or could their time be better spent working to improve non HST road racing programs and assisting regions? Would the Hoosier sponsorship money dry up if the HST was shelved or could it be allocated to other events so long as tire sales continue in similar volume?

My wife worked for Kraft/General Foods and one of the product lines she was responsible for on a national basis was BBQ sauce. Certain sauces sold well in particular geographical areas and not so well in others. She did not waste time trying to sell customers something that they didn't want. (Don't try to sell ice to Eskimos, sell them hot coffee.) Each geographical area was catered to with the product(s) in which they held an interest. If we organized and managed the programs/races based class rather than event perhaps we would be more successful. Why does every race have to offer every class? The primary reason I see is revenue; If classes are cut to improve the on-track experience the track costs don't change. Tony Stefanelli has made a good suggestion of combining road racing with other programs such as track time, solo, etc... so that the classes can be paired down to offer a better experience, but costs can still be covered with alternative revenue sources. This approach also helps to cross pollinate between programs and might prove to be a better way to grow the road racing program.

[Peter Olivola]

Vaughn I think that you nail it on the head by pointing out that HST is a nationwide championship. As I see it, there are only a handful of classes which have enough cars spread across the nation to support such a series and there are not enough SCCA racers in the other classes who will travel across the country to do so. It looks to me like most of the classes have geographical pockets of population and competition. Perhaps we would be more successful if we catered to the customer at their location rather than trying to convince them to travel to these expensive national races. The data clearly shows that few are travelling or chasing the HST championship. The HST cherry picked what was the best National or Majors races and it is those races which are driving participation in the series, not the fact that those races are part of the series. The HST was the catalyst for change that has driven the wedge between the members/classes.

I also think attention needs to be brought to the cost of putting the HST show on the road. There is a substantial number of full time staff and part time stewards who are on the road for those 10 events which cater to an extremely small percentage of the membership. We must think not only in terms of labor, equipment (trucks/trailer), and travel costs, but also the lost opportunity costs. What is the true cost of those key personnel being out of the office and/or focusing on a series which caters to such a small percentage of the membership. Is that the best allocation of resources given the current state of the road racing program or could their time be better spent working to improve non HST road racing programs and assisting regions? Would the Hoosier sponsorship money dry up if the HST was shelved or could it be allocated to other events so long as tire sales continue in similar volume?

My wife worked for Kraft/General Foods and one of the product lines she was responsible for on a national basis was BBQ sauce. Certain sauces sold well in particular geographical areas and not so well in others. She did not waste time trying to sell customers something that they didn't want. (Don't try to sell ice to Eskimos, sell them hot coffee.) Each geographical area was catered to with the product(s) in which they held an interest. If we organized and managed the programs/races based class rather than event perhaps we would be more successful. Why does every race have to offer every class? The primary reason I see is revenue; If classes are cut to improve the on-track experience the track costs don't change. Tony Stefanelli has made a good suggestion of combining road racing with other programs such as track time, solo, etc... so that the classes can be paired down to offer a better experience, but costs can still be covered with alternative revenue sources. This approach also helps to cross pollinate between programs and might prove to be a better way to grow the road racing program.

While this might seem like a snarky comment, it's actually very serious and addresses virtually all the issues and implements all the suggestions raised above:

The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs.

[924RACR]

I also think attention needs to be brought to the cost of putting the HST show on the road. There is a substantial number of full time staff and part time stewards who are on the road for those 10 events which cater to an extremely small percentage of the membership. We must think not only in terms of labor, equipment (trucks/trailer), and travel costs, but also the lost opportunity costs. What is the true cost of those key personnel being out of the office and/or focusing on a series which caters to such a small percentage of the membership. Is that the best allocation of resources given the current state of the road racing program or could their time be better spent working to improve non HST road racing programs and assisting regions? Would the Hoosier sponsorship money dry up if the HST was shelved or could it be allocated to other events so long as tire sales continue in similar volume?

That is a REALLY good point.

Ever since this whole push to dump the small bore formula classes, drop races and groups and classes to concentrate competition at the top by providing less and less opportunities etc really lit off last year, I've been asking why isn't National putting effort into building the grassroots programs?!??

They're executing the typical American mismanagement approach of thinking less is more, so if we get smaller and smaller, the better it'll be... without grasping that all they're doing is pushing the throttle down as we race to the bottom of the spiral and closing the doors!

It's like making orange juice from concentrate (to borrow another food analogy, no doubt quite imprecisely)... they complain about the product being weak, so they want to boil it down more and make less volume, increasing the strength of the solution.

Instead, I say why don't we get more oranges?!???

They are keen to make top level competition - Runoffs and the like - be more and better and sharper by letting fewer and fewer participate. If we have only 50 drivers in FA competing nationwide, why are we letting half of them come to the Runoffs? They don't represent the cream of the crop, it should be just the top 10!

I say, the REASON having 50-70-100 SM drivers compete at the Runoffs is so impressive is because there's hundreds of them competing nationwide... and even making it to that level, to join the show, is impressive.Because they're standing at the top of a HUGE pyramid.

But the pyramid isn't impressive because of that shiny little gold cap at the top; it's impressive because when you stand at the bottom, the sheer size of it is mind-boggling.

The same way, ALL classes need and deserve to be built at Regionals, at Driver's Schools.

So where does National, who holds the keys to the rulebook and the race schedules, get off on dumping all of that on the regions without any support???? Just a little too hard to deal with, and not sexy enough? Don't know what to do if you can't get a tire company etc to sponsor a school or a regional?

The entire system is the Club Racing product, and any meaning a championship has is based on what foundation it's built on; National needs to stop being obsessed with the latest shiny thing from a sponsor and get back to building the basics, WITH its membership.

[brian styczynski]

One might conclude from this that drivers are participating in HST races, but not because they are part of the HST Series. It is interesting to compare the percentage of FV and F6 drivers who ran in 3 or more HST events to other classes which remain as part of the HST.

A letter was approved by CRB to deal with the loss of this qualification route for FV and FF.

I think you are correct, most HST entries are just local Majors that happen to be a HST. But as you noticed, many FV drivers in the oversubscribed Northern Conference were using the HST runoffs qualifying route, doing 3 HST races should have easily gotten them a runoffs invite at their home track. So they took a trip to Sebring or Hallett in addition to mid ohio and June sprints.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs.

Can't really disagree with that.

I did make a proposal to change the way it works here:
https://www.apexspeed.com/forums/sho...l=1#post665547

[BLS]

"The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs."

I'd like to hear how that solves the problem? Or does it solve a different problem?

I can't imagine you think eliminating the runoffs will cause SCCA to then include FF/F6/FV in HST events. Maybe I lack imagination.

[Peter Olivola]

"The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs."

I'd like to hear how that solves the problem? Or does it solve a different problem?

I can't imagine you think eliminating the runoffs will cause SCCA to then include FF/F6/FV in HST events. Maybe I lack imagination.

Eliminating the Runoffs would return the club to its pre-Runoffs method of deciding national championships or not having a national championship at all. It would allow the club to focus on Division/Area/Region programs which, as John pointed out, have different mixes of class participation. There may or may not be an HST in that scenario at all.

When I was asked to do a study of participation by Division and class in Nationals prior to the adoption of the Majors program it was with an eye toward sliming down the number of classes competing within the Majors. One of the things that proved surprising was the numbers showing only four classes were in the top 10 in all Divisions throughout the country: SRF, SM, EP & FV. That's an indication that we are not as cohesive as we'd like to think.

Another aspect of the original thinking behind the Majors program was/is Bill Kephart's observation that there are two kinds of people involved in SCCA (Club) Road Racing: A) Those with the means, skills and desire to seek out and race against the best competition and B) Those who primarily run local events. Yes, there are those who run more than locally but aren't pursuing the best competition, but it's been my experience that the generalization is substantially accurate.

There's no question there are more category B competitors than A. That would argue in favor of shifting emphasis to serving those competitors. Being focused on the Runoffs detracts from that.

[924RACR]

Exactly: ditch the Only One Big Race That Matters should reset the entire concept of Club Racing. So much of what Club Racing is revolves around the Runoffs, everything above the Regional Race level should be completely revisited.

What's the point of a Super Tour? Does the current implementation serve any purpose without a Runoffs to qualify for? Clearly not, since it's only use, by 75-80% of the club, is to qualify for the Runoffs.

Likewise "Conference" championships - presumably those would disappear.

What about Majors? Do they serve any greater purpose than a Regional

What about licensing? You only need an SCCA license to run Majors/HST/Runoffs - I can run countless seasons of racing with SCCA with only a general membership.

If we ditch the distinction of Majors/HST from Regionals - does that ease scheduling challenges? Probably could do a lot, without the pressure to qualify for Runoffs in time.

Etc, etc - every aspect should be reconsidered, giving the chance to re-focus the entire organization to the foundation and making things healthy again.

[Ed Womer]

Check out some serious kart racing. Last 2 laps at 34:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6gdkQcnHU

Needless to say I didn't watch the entire video but if you pay attention you should notice that it seems perfectly ok to hit someone from behind to upset them and go by. In the local track I visited for quite a few years I ended up learning to do so to pass people who only were interested in keeping you behind them. The track was so mickey mouse and nothing more than an indoor version of autocross. I was able to do it without hitting them but just get in touch with them and push them when they wanted to turn and cut in and make the pass. My years as an equipment operator certainly helped.

In FV we have always pushed drafted but I will immediately get on someone who does the nasty-car version of hitting you. You can nicely push without upsetting your most likely friend and both go faster.

Ed

[BLS]

Eliminating the Runoffs would return the club to its pre-Runoffs method of deciding national championships or not having a national championship at all. It would allow the club to focus on Division/Area/Region programs which, as John pointed out, have different mixes of class participation. There may or may not be an HST in that scenario at all.

.... (shortened by me )

Thanks Peter, I see what you are driving at now. It's not a solution to the immediate problem.
OTOH, the old way from when I was a kid seemed to work well, regionals/nationals and the runoffs as a championship race. Maybe that wouldn't work in todays world. Maybe it's time for one level racing, in the hands of the regions, but I do think a championship race is still a good idea. I certainly do not have the wisdom and experience many of you possess.

[Peter Olivola]

Thanks Peter, I see what you are driving at now. It's not a solution to the immediate problem.
OTOH, the old way from when I was a kid seemed to work well, regionals/nationals and the runoffs as a championship race. Maybe that wouldn't work in todays world. Maybe it's time for one level racing, in the hands of the regions, but I do think a championship race is still a good idea. I certainly do not have the wisdom and experience many of you possess.

I'm not sanguine about one level of racing, but not for the reasons usually cited (inexperienced drivers creating problems when being overtaken/lapped.) It's been my experience that experienced drivers are more apt to take advantage of inexperienced drivers in those situations. Too much history with RFAs and protests on this subject since we started with Rationals and now allowing regional classes into non-HST Majors.

[John Nesbitt]

I'm not sanguine about one level of racing, but not for the reasons usually cited (inexperienced drivers creating problems when being overtaken/lapped.) It's been my experience that experienced drivers are more apt to take advantage of inexperienced drivers in those situations. Too much history with RFAs and protests on this subject since we started with Rationals and now allowing regional classes into non-HST Majors.

Most of the concern around experienced/inexperienced drivers mixing is moot because the former Regional/National license distinction no longer exists. Everybody has a Full Competition license.

In terms of on-track etiquette and rules awareness, I have seen a greater gap between drivers who went through SCCA driver school -vs- drivers who came in via commercial schools. In fact, the situation was better when two SCCA schools were required. But that ship has sailed.

[JoshuaJustice]

What percentage of HST drivers actually attend all 10 events? Or even more than, like, 3?

Anyway, I want to make a point about NOLA in particular. That track, and that event, is very much an aberration.

Yes, last year, participation was up because of the replacement of CotA (which decided they wanted way too much money) and this year participation was down a bit. I expect participation to be down even more next year as everyone kind of got that race "out of their system" so to speak - we hadn't gone there in a few years, last year there was rain which made a mess of the weekend for everyone, this year it was a dry race, pristine weather, nothing wrong in that regard. (Stewarding drama in a few races notwithstanding, I won't get into that here, I've had that argument elsewhere enough times already.)

The last time I looked at the entry list, there were 4 Louisiana drivers in there. The rest of it was Texas drivers and drivers from far enough away it's reasonable to assume that the entry list was filled out by it being a Super Tour. That race is not viable as a Majors, let alone as a Regional, unless NOLA has an absolute bevy of cars in regional-only classes that would come out to play if allowed (and I doubt that, since they didn't run their own Regional race prior).
So it is reasonable to assume it is either a Super Tour, or a nonexistent race. Incidentally, participation would have been higher had the Formula Mazdas (which are still a force in Texas even if National doesn't care about them) still been welcome, and the small-bore formula bunch had been welcome. In Texas at least, a lot of them got the memo and moved over to vintage-land a long time ago. Until Jay and the FF guys got a bee in their bonnet last year and decided to go try to make FF a thing in Texas SCCA again there was effectively zero local participation aside from the Barrons running a couple races in FV for Runoffs eligiblity, and whatever random dude in any given year showed up for a race or two in a small-bore formula car because he didn't realize there was no competition. Ironic that now there's actually a group of FF guys and they don't get a chance to add to the participation because of the National run group decision. Oh well. Between those two groups there'd probably have been over a dozen cars added (and therefore over a dozen entry fees paid) but that's out of the question now.

If NOLA is on the schedule next year I don't imagine it will do well at all. Everyone's kind of like "okay yep we did the track we've checked that box" (for the first time in however long) and CotA is still charging way too much money so I don't know what the plan is gonna be - I'm not privy to those conversations. If the Powers That Be in National give the FF and FV guys a shot maybe they get enough additional participation to make up for everyone who just goes "nah I'm not gonna bother towing again", but if they don't change track or open up to allow additional classes, then I expect the event to be a participation failure next year. (Personally, I'm not going to do NOLA if it is indeed a race in 2026, and I originally wasn't going to do it this year, but NOLA is roughly halfway between where I live now and where my parents live, and we met up that weekend so my parents could finally watch me do a race in person.)

Anyway, the point I'm ultimately making is that NOLA almost certainly isn't viable as anything other than a Super Tour. I seriously question whether the location and track are appealing enough in conjunction with the tow distance to make it remain viable as a Super Tour more than about twice a decade on participation numbers. The track is nothing to write home about (no offense, but it's a flat and bumpy track on marshland), and if you're there for a race weekend can you really be "doing New Orleans" when you have to wake up Saturday and Sunday morning and get in a race car?

(If I were in charge I'd move that Super Tour to Eagles Canyon, but I'm not in charge or privy to those conversations in any way. And the haters will probably claim that I'm biased because I tend to do well at ECR, hah!)

As for the series as a whole, the Super Tour as this national championship series doesn't really make sense because:

1. You don't actually win a championship by doing well in all the events
2. Nobody actually goes to all the Super Tour events anyway
3. A significant chunk of the people who go to a Super Tour event are doing so because it's a local event and would run it as a Majors

On the flip side, specific events such as NOLA largely need the additional draw from people using Super Tour as an alternative Runoffs qualifying mechanism, or the Super Tour being seen as a "special" event and therefore the event being "worth" traveling to in order to make sufficient participation to justify the event's existence.

It's odd. The Super Tour is at once not a national pro (or pro ladder) racing series, but at the same time not really suitable for the local club guys either. When every Majors class was eligible for a ST it wasn't that big of a difference, but once National started eliminating classes from participation and preventing run groups from being combined, it made the event significantly worse for the local guys. For most entrants, we don't care about these events as a Super Tour event, we just care about the fact that the ST makes up a couple of the events on the calendar within driving distance of us.

Here's my take, ultimately. If they want to be a national 10-race points chase, they need to figure out a way to get a dozen or so designated classes across six or so run groups to get enough prize money and contingency to actually get people towing across the country to do all ten races (and take it out of the majors/regional championships so we aren't "obligated" to run them), and make the Runoffs into a "finale" rather than a separate winner takes all race.
If they want to just have the Super Tour be "we send cameras around the country to these 10 races a year to put them up on youtube for a little extra marketing" then let the local conferences/regions make their decisions about which classes are eligible and how to combine them, with the National org not interfering - basically just turn them into "Super Majors" (which is what they effectively were when there was no distinction between Majors classes and ST classes).

The ST is structured as a 10-race points chase, which nobody does for two reasons:1, because the Runoffs is a single winner take all race, and 2 there's not enough financial backing or TV presence for anyone to bother running in it as a 10-race points chase anyway. Anyone who's sufficiently talented is going to go run a series where there's more of a chance of paying the bills and getting the sponsor in front of more eyeballs or using the series as a stepping stone to a "pro" career. (Any of the car-specific Cup series, SRO, VP Challenge, F4, FR Americas, TA2, etc.) On the flip side, the forcing of one-size-fits-all national regulations means there's no ability to adapt to which classes and run groups have more or less participation in different parts of the country to make the event a more suitable one for the local guys in any particular region. In sum, the current state of affairs is basically the worst of both worlds. It's trying to blend together wildly disparate goals and failing to really achieve any of them. As the saying goes, "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both."

[rockbeau25]

Scrap the Super Tour.

Bring back simple to understand Nationals and Regionals.

X amount (3-4) of National starts + X amount of points earns a Runoffs invite.

5-10 year freeze on class addition/subtraction/consolidation. Let the classes self-govern and thrive/die off on their own merit. They can choose which events they want to prioritize like FF and FC are doing already.

If the event is sanctioned by SCCA, the participation counts towards class numbers (yes, even regionals). Stop punishing classes like FC (and I'm sure others) that have strong regional programs/series but receive no recognition for it.

Give the regionals more freedom to experiment with event format, whether it's giving a class that normally wouldn't have their own run group their own run group, 2 day vs 3 day weekends, 1 race vs 2 race weekend, etc

[Peter Olivola]

Scrap the Super Tour.

Bring back simple to understand Nationals and Regionals.

X amount (3-4) of National starts + X amount of points earns a Runoffs invite.

5-10 year freeze on class addition/subtraction/consolidation. Let the classes self-govern and thrive/die off on their own merit. They can choose which events they want to prioritize like FF and FC are doing already.

If the event is sanctioned by SCCA, the participation counts towards class numbers (yes, even regionals). Stop punishing classes like FC (and I'm sure others) that have strong regional programs/series but receive no recognition for it.

Give the regionals more freedom to experiment with event format, whether it's giving a class that normally wouldn't have their own run group their own run group, 2 day vs 3 day weekends, 1 race vs 2 race weekend, etc

Topeka doesn't dictate Regional formats. The regions are free to structure Regional events just about any way they want including running a Restricted Regional with a limited number of classes. There is already a wide variety of Regional race formats to be found throughout the country.

[John Nesbitt]

Topeka doesn't dictate Regional formats. The regions are free to structure Regional events just about any way they want including running a Restricted Regional with a limited number of classes. There is already a wide variety of Regional race formats to be found throughout the country.

What Peter says. Restricted Regionals are long gone. I chaired a committee that revised the GCR 12 years ago. One of the things we did was to scrap Restricted Regionals. Regions can format events pretty much as they like to suit their business needs.

A Regional with entries limited to red cars with even car numbers? No problem!

[BeerBudgetRacing]

If the event is sanctioned by SCCA, the participation counts towards class numbers (yes, even regionals). Stop punishing classes like FC (and I'm sure others) that have strong regional programs/series but receive no recognition for it.

I think this is the single most important issue.

Give the regionals more freedom to experiment with event format, whether it's giving a class that normally wouldn't have their own run group their own run group, 2 day vs 3 day weekends, 1 race vs 2 race weekend, etc

The lack of regional control over the run groups at Majors and SuperTours is one of the main reasons people do not attend.
We've all been over the geographic differences in class popularity. And I know the ST Director CAN change groupings, but there are limits, rules and "a process". As our regional director said to me " ya, they act like it's our first rodeo ". When many regional directors can probably tell you the best way to group their members.

[Rick Kirchner]

Let the classes self-govern and thrive/die off on their own merit.

There ya go. Get the national office out of micro-managing class rules. Instead, set up a framework for class self management (in other words, standards) and get out of the way. Limit rules making to actual matters of safety and construction (again, standards).

[Peter Olivola]

There ya go. Get the national office out of micro-managing class rules. Instead, set up a framework for class self management (in other words, standards) and get out of the way. Limit rules making to actual matters of safety and construction (again, standards).

Seems to me that's exactly what the class advisory committees do.

[Mike B]

Seems to me that's exactly what the class advisory committees do.

Only to be shot down by the CRB or BoD because they know better.

5-10 year freeze on class addition/subtraction/consolidation. Let the classes self-govern and thrive/die off on their own merit. They can choose which events they want to prioritize like FF and FC are doing already.

There ya go. Get the national office out of micro-managing class rules. Instead, set up a framework for class self management (in other words, standards) and get out of the way. Limit rules making to actual matters of safety and construction (again, standards).

If I was king of the SCCA I would get rid of the CRB and FSRAC and the accompanying conflicts of interest (real or perceived). Each class would need to create a committee that decides the rules and direction of their own class and need to have near-unanimous agreement among the participants on any change that would then be presented to the BoD. Similar to what Tony is doing with FF and the recent tire rule change. It makes no sense that the CRB and FSRAC make decisions for all classes but most of the classes have no representation on either. Give the power back to the people that are most affected by it.

[924RACR]

Seems to me that's exactly what the class advisory committees do.

And now we see the violence inherent in the system!!!

ORA - Do you feel repressed now?

[Peter Olivola]

If I was king of the SCCA I would get rid of the CRB and FSRAC and the accompanying conflicts of interest (real or perceived). Each class would need to create a committee that decides the rules and direction of their own class and need to have near-unanimous agreement among the participants on any change that would then be presented to the BoD. Similar to what Tony is doing with FF and the recent tire rule change. It makes no sense that the CRB and FSRAC make decisions for all classes but most of the classes have no representation on either. Give the power back to the people that are most affected by it.

In the early years of the Super Tour program there was an effort to gather competitors and hold open meetings. Anyone remember those? I do, having attended several in my steward capacity. It's unrealistic to think any group of SCCA competitors could ever agree on anything. Those meetings highlighted how people can be worked up about an issue and two of them will propose diametrically opposed solutions.

The club is structured the way it is and while they frequently produces outcomes that engender antagonism toward the process, I strongly doubt there is an alternative that would produce less dissention.

[Rick Kirchner]

It's unrealistic to think any group of SCCA competitors could ever agree on anything.

And yet, a bunch of guys got on here and created F1000 out of dust. Can't say I agreed with the need for the class and the economics were fanciful, but they got it done.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

In the early years of the Super Tour program there was an effort to gather competitors and hold open meetings. Anyone remember those? I do, having attended several in my steward capacity. It's unrealistic to think any group of SCCA competitors could ever agree on anything. Those meetings highlighted how people can be worked up about an issue and two of them will propose diametrically opposed solutions.

Maybe that should have been an indicator that the Super Tour program would always be contentious.
Most probably felt they didn't need it.

It's near impossible to get people to agree on solutions to problems that don't exist.

[Peter Olivola]

And yet, a bunch of guys got on here and created F1000 out of dust. Can't say I agreed with the need for the class and the economics were fanciful, but they got it done.

No question F1000 was mishandled. Had it been granted Regional only status as originally requested the class would have had time to build numbers into something not so easily forced into FAtl. However, I don't see how that's analogous to giving classes control over their own rules.

At some point, a given class has to fit within the current program structure (changing that structure is a related by different issue.) Formula classes are particularly vulnerable to being excluded due to the limited number of run groups within a given event and the rules against combing formula cars with tin tops. The F1000 move the FAtl is a different issue, with the intent there being the preservation of a class the CRB/BoD thought was important to preserve.

This is an example of the conflicts that have arisen. They were resolved to the satisfaction of some and dissatisfaction of others. Giving control to class members won't change that. Someone has to referee inter-class conflicts and event structures.

[Peter Olivola]

Maybe that should have been an indicator that the Super Tour program would always be contentious.
Most probably felt they didn't need it.

It's near impossible to get people to agree on solutions to problems that don't exist.

That's not how those meetings went down. Specific issues were raised by attendees, discussed with the conflicts noted above, rinse and repeat. I don't recall any conversations about the Super Tour itself.

[Mike B]

No question F1000 was mishandled.

The F1000 move the FAtl is a different issue, with the intent there being the preservation of a class the CRB/BoD thought was important to preserve.

Bold text added by me. You don't intend to but you're making my point for me. No CRB=no mishandling of issues that don't affect them. Or that positively affects one member of the CRB.
Of course you'll always have dissent in any group but it's incumbent upon the rest of the group to sell an idea to the dissenters and get close to unanimous. The new FF tire rule is a perfect example of how this system could work. Tony and others worked within their group to show the benefits of the rule to those that disagreed and the support became so overwhelming that the BoD couldn't say no. If an individual class committee comes to the BoD with full agreement from most of the class, they should simply rubber stamp the change. If the class committee doesn't have full buy-in they need to either do more convincing of the dissenters or drop the idea as not having merit.

The club is structured the way it is and while they frequently produces outcomes that engender antagonism toward the process, I strongly doubt there is an alternative that would produce less dissention.

The broader point that several here are unintentionally making is that the racing world has evolved but the SCCA is still stuck in the '60s (see also: HST). "That's how we've always done it" will be the death of Club Racing, even SM. You even hit the nail on the head in a different thread:

The way forward for the SCCA is the elimination of the Runoffs.

The sooner we get rid of the Runoffs or at the very least regionalize it, the better. So many of these class structure problems will go away and racing throughout the country, especially the west coast, will get stronger.

[S Lathrop]

In the early 1960's, I was showing cutting horses. To win the state championship, you had to win the most money in your class.

The bigger shows paid more money and part of the entry fee went into the purse so shows with large classes earned you more money and helped you toward the championship. The shows were not ranked as we do in auto racing. What was important was the number of entrants because that determined the size of purse purses. At a minim I could win enough to pay for my gas to the show and maybe have dinner money.

Maybe an alternative to the current system of ranked racing events where we awarded points based on the number of entrants in a class and the position you finished.

Entry fees were dived between an office charge, which the event organizers kept and an added fee which went into the purse. Back then it would be $10 office charge and a$10 added to the purse for a total fee of $20. These numbers are 1960's dollars.

Just a thought from an old man.

[Peter Olivola]

Bold text added by me. You don't intend to but you're making my point for me. No CRB=no mishandling of issues that don't affect them. Or that positively affects one member of the CRB.
Of course you'll always have dissent in any group but it's incumbent upon the rest of the group to sell an idea to the dissenters and get close to unanimous. The new FF tire rule is a perfect example of how this system could work. Tony and others worked within their group to show the benefits of the rule to those that disagreed and the support became so overwhelming that the BoD couldn't say no. If an individual class committee comes to the BoD with full agreement from most of the class, they should simply rubber stamp the change. If the class committee doesn't have full buy-in they need to either do more convincing of the dissenters or drop the idea as not having merit.

The broader point that several here are unintentionally making is that the racing world has evolved but the SCCA is still stuck in the '60s (see also: HST). "That's how we've always done it" will be the death of Club Racing, even SM. You even hit the nail on the head in a different thread:

The sooner we get rid of the Runoffs or at the very least regionalize it, the better. So many of these class structure problems will go away and racing throughout the country, especially the west coast, will get stronger.

The FF tire rule change is something within the class. I agree it's a model for intra-class rules management. The issue of inter-class rules management is where your argument hits a rough ride. Class proliferation has created a situation where the club is trying to pour ten gallons into a five gallon container. Something has to give and that means spilling things on the floor. Won't matter with or without a CRB. Someone will have to make a decision.

Right now, and for Regional racing only, that's the local regions. If we are to retain a national championship the need to manage which classes are eligible will remain.