Restricted Regional Discussion

[Andy Bettencourt]

Up here in NER, we have a lot of cars for very little track space. LRP and NHIS are only a sliver over 1.5 miles so we are talking 38 cars on track without a waiver, 44 cars at best. We also do not run on the same weekends as Nationals. We have Regional only weekends and National only weekends...

With Regional only classes there are over 40 classes in most areas. Here - ITS, ITA, ITB, and our two versions of Spec Miata (SM and SSM) make up over 50% of the entries. Yup, about 12% of the classes make up 50% of the cars.

With 2 run groups of open wheelers, that leaves 5 run groups with classes than could (and often do) have enough entries to fill up more than half a run group. So you than have to fit around 25 classes into those 5 groups - and there are many issues to take into account - like speed differential, weights, etc. Some groups just shouldn't be put together for a variety of reasons.

Yesterday at a Regional, there were 6 cars in the 'big bore' open wheel run group. Granted, this was on an enduro weekend where they were not eligible to run and bad weather was predicted, but this run group is never even half filled, with 9 classes!!!!

Finally to my question: :happy204:

What Regions, if any, do restricted regionals? How do they work? What sort of political climate is involved? Do you like it or hate it? Do you have any friends that run in the restricted classes that are sour? Do they understand the issues and the reasoning?

I hate to even suggest that we exclude drivers. It makes me ill. However, when some of the IT and SM run groups have to consider registration cut-offs or consolation races while 2 run-groups remain so under-utilized, I wonder what is best for the region as a whole. Keep in mind that these guys COULD go run Nationals if they so chose. (SM will be the same next year, but it is often the largest class in most areas so it is a sort of moot point).

I am trying to be more active with my local Comp Board and I want to make an INFORMED proposal this winter on a variety of ideas I have and have bounced off freinds and teammates. Can this work?

NER will be initially opposed to it - and rightfully so I think. We want to accomodate all drivers in all classes...but where do we draw the line and who has to suffer when problems occur? I am willing to bet that if you could provide more value to the racers in terms of track time/dollar, you would make up easily in additional entries what you lost by eliminating the 2 open wheel groups.

I would also think this idea would only be reasonable for 1-2 events per year, maybe on the first day of a double or something like that. I haven't thought it all through but would like some input - FOR AND AGAINST so I can decide to even go forward with the idea. We all know everyone can never be made happy, but what make the MOST happy while still producing a profitable event/season?

Thanks,

AB

[racer14itc]

The idea of restricted regionals to accomodate popular classes on the surface seems like a good idea...to those who race in those classes. But if you look at it from the region/division persective and a longer term point of view, this could hurt the national racing classes in the regions/division down the road. Where do the future national racers come from? Regionals! And if you exclude these non-IT or SM racers from the regionals, how are you going to generate interest in those classes for the future? Yes, I know SM will become a national class next year so that is a moot point. But what about the other 20 classes?

It's just not reasonable to expect folks to begin racing in IT and then build another (non-IT) car to run nationals later. The advent of limited prep in production has given an avenue for a lot of IT cars to move up to nationals and production so that has been addressed. But if you exclude SRF's, Formula cars, A-sedans, GT, etc., from regionals, how can you expect these classes to attract future competitors so that the class can survive in the long run?

It would seem to me that restricted regionals might be a slight case of "cut off your nose to spite your face". :(

MC

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dang! I knew I couldn't write it up correctly if I tried!

My idea is not to preclude any class that is not IT or SM. It is essentially to look at the run gorups that are pitifully subscibed and try an event or two without them. Up here, the run groups would be the two open wheel groups, probably different in other areas. Not wanting to talk specific classes but to talk in generalities to see if it even makes sense...

Your point is very valid but I am not suggesting that all National classes never get to run a Regional ever again, just a couple events that can accomodate all the well subsrcibed classes in full at a nice value for the dollar.

I hope this isn't coming off as primarily exclusionary or 'his group is better than hers', it's an idea I need more info on. Thanks Marc, I know you are active on other boards and respect your opinion as a Regional and National racer...

AB

[mgyip]

Andy,

The DC Region started TALKING about this last winter - don't everyone get their panties in a bunch, we're just TALKING and certainly NOT acting upon our discussions. In our discussions, the intent was to combine the open wheelers (Wings and Things to quote the irrepressible Don Barrack). This was met with a resoundingly negative response from the affected classes (no surprise) as well as from the stewards.

The loudest objections (of which there were many) was a speed differential where F500s are simply too slow to play with FAs and FCs. The objection to "But you can run Nationals" was that "We don't want to run Nationals" which was coupled with "we don't want to be forced to travel out of region". Both are valid reasons and since I've never driven an open wheeler (they don't make an "extra-wide body" car for me), I can't comment fully on the speed differential issue. However the DC region struggled thru a speed differential issue when it combined Production cars with Showroom Stock. The nay-sayers forsaw carnage as SS cars turned in on Prod cars that, while slow on the straights, rocketed around the turns due to their slicks. After a few years of this, the relatively small number of SS cars aren't a problem for anyone other than themselves and the same goes for the Production cars.

The overall climate within the DC region is more than a bit tense. With SM/SSM increasing their ranks daily, some of the fear is that their leadership will attempt to take control of SCCA and force everyone to conform to the will of SM/SSM. While I don't believe this is the case, SM/SSM is STILL a 300 lb Gorilla albeit offering a white lily instead of bareing it's teeth.

Is there a good solution? No - not yet although with SM going National in '06, that will change the face of Club racing since a portion of the Club racers will go to Nationals (some will do both, some will go National for a while and return to Club, some will go National ony). As I suggested in early '05, we really need to wait until the middle/end of the '06 season to see how SM/SSM shakes out.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy Bettencourt Posted Today, 11:06 AM
Up here in NER, we have a lot of cars for very little track space. LRP and NHIS are only a sliver over 1.5 miles so we are talking 38 cars on track without a waiver, 44 cars at best. We also do not run on the same weekends as Nationals. We have Regional only weekends and National only weekends...


Here's another way to take this, it sound like you need more track space. Why then don't you push for a track development committee? Surely more tracks to run at will benefit everyone who's interested in running any class. In the San Francisco/Bay Area SCCA developed Thunder Hill as a place to add track capacity. It also adds to driver development and recruits new drivers thru HPDE's. I've had a couple of rides around Thunder Hill and can say it's a very interesting track. Just thought this would be a less divisive approach after all even Formula V should have a place to run too.

James

[mlytle]

how about f500 movng to wka weekends or lawnmower race weekends? :happy204:

the run group issue is a major one i wdcr. 9 run groups, three of which (srf, wings 'n things and 500/fv) rarely fill half a grid. the IT, miata and srx7 groups represent 2/3's of the racers, yet are crammed into four run groups. evidence the closed out groups for this weekend. i am all for combining undersubscribed groups or having restricted regionals. if someone wants to race a national class, they can go race the national series. regional classed don't have that option.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Aug 29 2005, 07:19 PM
Here's another way to take this, it sound like you need more track space. Why then don't you push for a track development committee? Surely more tracks to run at will benefit everyone who's interested in running any class. In the San Francisco/Bay Area SCCA developed Thunder Hill as a place to add track capacity. It also adds to driver development and recruits new drivers thru HPDE's. I've had a couple of rides around Thunder Hill and can say it's a very interesting track. Just thought this would be a less divisive approach after all even Formula V should have a place to run too.

James

59236


Excellent idea...and one that NER has been persuing for years now...a new track. As far as developing current stuff, we are operating in environments where the locals would love to see the track dissappear (Lime Rock) or at least add on to the already rediculous amount of restrictions. NHIS is a roval and is a patchwork piece at best, I doubt that the current ownership would spend money to add to Club days when they make millions during their 2 NASCAR weekends each year.

I think we need solutions that operate within our current limited infrastructure...I wish it wasn't true.

AB

[racer14itc]

Originally posted by mlytle@Aug 30 2005, 12:49 AM
how about f500 movng to wka weekends or lawnmower race weekends? :happy204:

the run group issue is a major one i wdcr. 9 run groups, three of which (srf, wings 'n things and 500/fv) rarely fill half a grid. the IT, miata and srx7 groups represent 2/3's of the racers, yet are crammed into four run groups. evidence the closed out groups for this weekend. i am all for combining undersubscribed groups or having restricted regionals. if someone wants to race a national class, they can go race the national series. regional classed don't have that option.

59240


So what you're saying is that if someone wants to race a prod car (or other national class) in the MARRS series, they either have to stay home (restricted regional) or race in a potentially unsafe race group? Not everyone wants to travel all over the division to race in nationals. For example there is only one national race at Summit Point during the year; if someone wanted to stay and race locally, you'd be OK with treating them like a second class citizen just because they wanted to race something other than IT or SM? Not a very hospitable attitude... :angry:

I feel for the folks in the oversubscribed classes. I wish there was an easier solution. But also remember not everyone wants to race a Miata or stay in IT forever.

MC

[Bill Miller]

if someone wants to race a national class, they can go race the national series. regional classed don't have that option.

And there folks, is the rub.

When you've got classes that are only allowed to run Regionals, they should absolutely get preferential treatment. If you can only run 8 run groups, and each Regional-only class pulls enough cars to fill its respective group, they get as many groups as they need. If it means combining all the open-wheel cars in one group, you put all the open-wheel cars in one group. Whatever it takes. If people in those classes don't like it, they can run Nationals. Some cars have an option, and some cars don't. To me, it's inconscionable to send racers home, because their group is full, when they can't go run National races. You don't want to run Nationals, or you don't want to have to travel, that's YOUR CHOICE. But don't expect to get the same treatment as someone who does not have that choice.

This is only going to get worse, as long as we maintain this artificial seperation of Nationally-recognized, Regional-only classes. The whole "Hey, you haven't run 6 races, so you're not experienced enough to run w/ us." rhetoric is so much clap-trap. To say that it's ok for someone on a Novice book to run w/ 20+ ITS cars at a Regional, but it's not ok for them to run w/ 2 or 3 GP or HP cars at a National is really a bunch of BS. It's even more so, when those 2 or 3 cars are just parading around to get a finish to qualify for the Runoffs.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by racer14itc@Aug 30 2005, 01:48 AM
I feel for the folks in the oversubscribed classes. I wish there was an easier solution. But also remember not everyone wants to race a Miata or stay in IT forever.

MC

59246



There is an easier solution Mark. Make all Nationally-recognized classes (those w/ a CS section in the GCR) eligible to run any race. Now, rename the races from Regional and National, to Non-Qualifying and Qualifying (relating to qualifying for the Runoffs). Take the top 20 classes from the prior year, and make them eligible for the Runoffs. Take the top 4 - 6 other classes (best of the rest) for the _current_ year (by some cutoff date, say 9/1), and make them eligible for the Runoffs. If you're trying to go, you run Qualifying races, if you're not, you don't have to. And if you're worried about novice driver experience, you make them run 6 Non-Qualifying races before they're able to run Qualifying races. We live in a free-market economy, let natural selection sort things out. Poorly subscribed classes shouldn't be allowed to go to the big dance.

[Peter Olivola]

You and I (and, hopefully anyone else) don't need to argue this again. I would like to suggest, however, that if the region can muster the will to run Restricted Regionals, that would be one way to go. Another option is the way things were handled when FF and FV were the monster classes. Practice/qualifying was split and half the maximum allowed were taken from each to make up the grid with the fastest on pole and everyone in that group in the same line. Those too slow go home. It hurt, but it was fair.

Combining all formula cars in the same run group would get my attention as a Steward and I would be willing to pursue it via protest and appeal on safety grounds.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 30 2005, 01:59 AM
This is only going to get worse, as long as we maintain this artificial seperation of Nationally-recognized, Regional-only classes. The whole "Hey, you haven't run 6 races, so you're not experienced enough to run w/ us." rhetoric is so much clap-trap. To say that it's ok for someone on a Novice book to run w/ 20+ ITS cars at a Regional, but it's not ok for them to run w/ 2 or 3 GP or HP cars at a National is really a bunch of BS. It's even more so, when those 2 or 3 cars are just parading around to get a finish to qualify for the Runoffs.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 29 2005, 10:27 PM
You and I (and, hopefully anyone else) don't need to argue this again........ Another option is the way things were handled when FF and FV were the monster classes. ....... Those too slow go home. It hurt, but it was fair.

Combining all formula cars in the same run group would get my attention as a Steward and I would be willing to pursue it via protest and appeal on safety grounds.

59250


First, "it was fair"?????

So I buy my race car, get my comp lic, show up, but I'm in the slow part of the group...(hey..I'm new!)....and it's "Hey, nice try, but you have to go. But come back with your money again real soon, ya hear!?"

Uh, thats fair???

No, it's not fair. We're not pros! It costs a bundle of money just to get to the race, much less to pay the entry fee. It sounds as though the losers payed the entry (turned a wheel) but didn't get to race. Even if they got a partial refund, it sucks.

I don't think that is a proper solution.

Miller and I may have disagreed (and agreed ) on issues in the past, and while his "non qualify/qualify race" plan has a couple hitches in it, its really a better solution than the one currently in use, and I think he has hit upon some good concepts.

It makes NO sense for the National Championship to have races dedicatated (and get TV time!) to 19 cars with a spread of 14 seconds seperating the fast from the slow! That's embarassing! And it wasn't just one class either.......look at any MARRS or NER ITA race and you'll likely see more cars and closer racing, LOL.

The future of SCCA is not 23 GP cars parading around seperated by 20 seconds.....A LAP!!!! The Runoffs has gotten major TV coverage, but I have wondered how it is viewed by the potential "newbie", and my conclusion is that we are not only wasting a great marketing chance, but actually posioning possible future races.

Nobody can look me in the eye and tell me that the system doesn't need work.

The whole National qualifying thing is a joke in most areas.

Non visionaries will scoff at ideas like Millers, but ideas like that have a lot of merit.

[pgipson]

We ran a "Restricted Regional" for several years in AZ, but we didn't call it that. We started a race called the Spring Invitational as a benefit race for a local organization. In our case it was Phoenix Children's Hospital. We invited select classes to run, typically those that could put a full field on the track (also a short track -- PIR, 38 cars max.)

We did this for several years, often including one or more of the SCCA "pro" series (Pro Spec Miata, Zetec fords, ACRL). It was a lot of fun for the workers and for the drivers that particiapted. But we caught hell from the drivers that got left out, open wheel, CSR&DSR, Vee's, GT, etc.


This past year the race was a standard regional race. But we tried to keep the fun in it by having a MAJOR worker party, and some other good things.

But I for one missed the old format, of course my class was always invited.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 30 2005, 02:27 AM
You and I (and, hopefully anyone else) don't need to argue this again. I would like to suggest, however, that if the region can muster the will to run Restricted Regionals, that would be one way to go. Another option is the way things were handled when FF and FV were the monster classes. Practice/qualifying was split and half the maximum allowed were taken from each to make up the grid with the fastest on pole and everyone in that group in the same line. Those too slow go home. It hurt, but it was fair.

Combining all formula cars in the same run group would get my attention as a Steward and I would be willing to pursue it via protest and appeal on safety grounds.

59250



Really Peter, it's "fair" [sic] to take someone's money and not let them race? It's "fair" for those that don't get to race to subsidize those thta do? This is Club Racing. We supposedly do this for fun. BTW, that's about as "fair", as telling drivers they can't race, because you've got a run group of 10 cars. You want fair? Structure it such that if you've got more entries than you can handle in a given class, they get to bump the smallest run group, provided that they have more cars than the run group in question. For example, let's say that the max run group size is 50 cars. You get 70 entries for Group 1 (say a week before the event). By that same cutoff date, you've only gotten 15 entries for Group 6. Guess what, the 15 people in Group 6 get a letter w/ their entry refunded, due to 'lack of participation', and the folks from Group 1 get the Group 6 slot.

As far as my Qualifying/Non-Qualifying concept, you didn't put up any good reasoning against it the last time, so I don't see that as changing now. It's time for the Regional-only classes listed in the GCR, to quit subsidizing National racing.

And I'm not saying that my Q/Non-Q concept doesn't need some refinement, or fleshing-out, but at least I'm trying to come up w/ ideas to improve things. It's the 21st century, and the climate in this club has changed. It's time for the structure to reflect that climate. And Jake, thanks for the kind words.

[Peter Olivola]

It's fair because, on a nationwide basis it would ensure that SCCA doesn't franctionalize. We're close to that now with some significant differences in class participation from division to division. The one thing that distinguishes our racing from NASA or EMRA or ICSCC or Midwest Council is our National Championship program. Allowing local participation on the basis of local preferences would quickly intensify the problem of divisional differences into an unmanagable state.

Any change that penalizes current competitors in pursuit of new participants is not my idea of a good thing for this club.

[Mazmarc63]

[quote]
It's time for the Regional-only classes listed in the GCR, to quit subsidizing National racing.

Interesting statement Bill. Over a decade ago three wise men in the SEDiv created a divisional enduro series called ECR (Endurance Championship Racing). This was a series for IT and SS cars only(restricted?). It was developed to help fill the schedule due to the lackluster entries at the May National weekend at Daytona. Can you say subsidize??

Over the last few years the Central Florida Region has included an IT only(restricted) regional race at the January.........you guessed it, National at Sebring.

Not that my rant provides anything to Andy's question. Bill's statement just reminded me of the "way it has been" for many, many years in CFR and how our Comp board chooses to "use" restricted regionals as an option.

[RP Performance]

Combining all formula cars in the same run group would get my attention as a Steward and I would be willing to pursue it via protest and appeal on safety grounds.

59250
[/quote]


Is it really that bad to combine the open wheel cars? If we get any FA's it is only one car. I run in a group of 50 cars with a large speed difference also but with less room on the track because of the number of cars.

[dyoungre]

To flip it around, what is the difference between a restricted regional and a national, except for the list of classes that can NOT participate? We currently have one but not the other. Can we have concurrent regional and national races at the same track, on the same day? I believe that solution would then leave out the regional licensed drivers who run in a national class - not a large group.

I don't see what would be unfair about having one restricted regional for each (restricted) national race held in each region.

[Knestis]

Geesh. Raise the participation threshold to something sensible, enforce it, and make poorly subscribed classes go away completely and permanently, say over 10 years once its on probation - and the problem disappears in a puff of logic. The lack of strategic planning in Club Racing continues to amaze...

K

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 29 2005, 09:59 PM
When you've got classes that are only allowed to run Regionals, they should absolutely get preferential treatment.


I completely agree.

"National" races are restricted to National-only classes. "Regional" races should be restricted to Regional-only classes, with an opportunity for National class cars to race as space is available. Regional racers are already shackled with shorter races to begin with, and now have to "compete" for track time with cars that have other opprotunities to race *PLUS* vintage and a lot of other catch-all classes.

Given that there are nowhere near as many National races as Regionals, I propose a compromise: 50% of the Regional races should be Restricted. I, for one, would gladly pay 50% more entry fees for less groups and more track time, and I bet a dollar to a donut that goes for a lot of other guys.

You want to race in a National class, go National racing, but don't expect the remaining SCCA drivers to accomodate you if you're uninterested in the tough competition. Regional races are not intended to be cheap track time for the National racers, either. Hey, sorry if you don't want to compete in National races in your Formula Ford, Formula Continental, or Production car; *I* don't want to have to compete with you for track time. Regional racing in the Northeast is very quickly becoming a poor value for the dollar.

And Andy: don't feel bad about shutting out specific segments of the membership; not only do we already do it now, it's coded into the GCR. It's called National racing. - GA

[gran racing]

Andy, you say “I hate to even suggest that we exclude drivers” but isn’t that exactly what happens with National events? “We don’t want to be forced to travel out of region”??? Going along with what Dave just said, in ’05 LRP hosts two National ONLY races and NHIS has one. So what is so wrong with having two races for a restricted regional? Absolutely nothing.

One thing that may put a kink into the plans are LRP’s ever increasing track costs. I wonder what impact that will have as I’m sure it will increase yet again next year. Will there be the same types of car number issues there have been in the past? I hear more and more drivers talking about skipping LRP events due to the costs, but who knows if that’s just talk.

“Those too slow go home.” Now this really rubs me the wrong way. How F-ed up would that be? Welcome to SCCA club racing rookie, thanks for the donation and we hoped you enjoyed your $250 qualifying session. Next please. There are many other situations that could also cause a person to qualify poorly. Even the fastest guy can have a mechanical issue. Or there are situations like I was in last year when the qualifying session at Summit was the first time ever on the track. (For the 1st qualifying session I came in dead last.) :(

I know we don’t want to go back to this discussion again and maybe it’s just because I’m fairly new to SCCA but I still don’t understand what the difference between regional vs. national racing is. (Other then the t.v. time national gets.)

[mgyip]

Originally posted by racer14itc@Aug 29 2005, 08:48 PM
So what you're saying is that if someone wants to race a prod car (or other national class) in the MARRS series, they either have to stay home (restricted regional) or race in a potentially unsafe race group?

59246


Not exactly - in the case of LOW PARTICIPATION as a group and the ability to run Nationals, the classes would become restricted. Since the Production class is grouped with GT Pintos and Showroom Stock, their participation levels are sufficient enough that they haven't been identified as a problem. The same goes for Big Snore, GT cars, T1, T2 and AS.

Much of this argument is about participation - if your class (and it's corresponding group) doesn't participate beyond 3-4 cars, why should a region be forced to allocate an entire race group (in the DC Region's case - 50 cars)? Is this any more fair to say "Hey, you with 3-4 cars, you HAVE a place to race - come on down" and also say "Hey, you with 50 cars, go away - we don't have room for you - sorry"? One of the Formula groups in the DC Region commented that the mere threat of restrictions brought back 1 or 2 cars but in a class that only had 1 or 2 cars to begin with so while they increased their ranks by 100%, they didn't do much for swelling the class participation.

Ultimately which is worse? Upsetting 10-15 open wheelers by "peeing in their sandbox" and forcing them to either swell their ranks or go National OR upsetting 40-50 IT or Miata drivers by telling them that the races are full b/c the Region wants to protect the classes with lower participation.

There's no perfect answer since everyone gets squeezed. However, I've heard plenty of "it's unsafe" talk but no empirical evidence. In the discussions within the DC Region, the FA, FC and F500 folks all commented about speed differentials - hmm, sorta like ITE/SPO vs ITC in an Endurance race? Open wheel cars do have some special considerations but using the same logic, we shouldn't combine any groups b/c of potential speed differences.

[racer14itc]

I think that for the most part this is a localized situation with the WDCR region and NER. What you have is a high density of regional racers combined with small tracks such as Summit Point, Lime Rock and NHIS. Here in the SEDIV, the racers are spread over a much larger area and the tracks are bigger (VIR is 3.27 miles, Road Atlanta, 2.5, Sebring 3.7?, etc.). So the issue of sending people home is virtually non-existant.

Solution? Build bigger tracks in the NEDIV! :023: I assume the restricted regional discussion isn't an issue at Watkins Glen or Pocono?

I hate to see this discussion degenerate into a pissing contest between the "national" and "regional" race camps. Every national racer started out as a regional racer at one time.

MC

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will play a little devils advocate:

Just becasue I run a class that is ELIGIBLE for Nationals, doesn't mean I want to run them. Understand that these classes are also ELIGIBLE for Regionals. I know, IT is a Regional only group and that is what the issue is.

If Regional only classes become so big that the value proposition decreases, something has to be corrected - I think we can all agree.

To me, it isn't about National class exclusion. It is about running a few events that INCLUDE all the best subscibed classes. There are plenty of RO classes that don't make squat for numbers up here...ITE, SPO, SPU, Legends, etc. BUT - those classes are typically groups with other classes and make up a decent sized run group. It bothers me a LITTLE that some of these RO classes are so poorly subscribed, but as long as the run group is big, who cares?

Let me ask this - what do your open wheel classes look like? Up here, what I call 'big bore open wheel' is made up of FA, FSCCA, FC, CFC, FM, S2000, CSR, ASR, DSR, SRSCCA, FF, and FS. Some of these I don't even know what they are...this group has averaged 11.0 cars per race this year. A high of 15 and a low of 6. Hello? The other open wheel group here is FV, F500 and NCF...this group has seen as high as 20 but as low as 6.

My initial thoughts would be to have an event or two without these two groups in an effort to at worst add value to the event for the big classes and at best be able to accomodate the largest classs without restricting entires or consolation races.

It makes sense to me but I am still not sure my region (of which the leaders of I have tremendous respect) will buy into it.

Patullo, can you give us some more devils advocate please?

AB

[1stGenBoy]

Here is what Milwaukee region did for 3 or 4 years. We had a Restricted Regional for 4 groups . SRF, Vees/440 at the time, FF/FC and IT/SS. If you had a Prod car put some DOT's on it and you could run ( 2 or 3 guys did this and had a ball) Got an A sedan car? No problem, ITGT works just fine.
The whole point was tons of track time and get the most subscibed groups in our area to come out. The track was Black Hawk farms 1.8 mile track
Schedule went like this if I remember correctly.

Sat AM: 20 min Q session
Sat Am-Pm 6-7 lap race to determine line up for next race.
Sat PM: 10-12 lap race with an inverted starting grid.( gotta have some fun!!)
Party Sat Pm
Sun AM: short warm up
Sun AM: Feature race 20-22 laps, (Grid set by Sat pm race)
Sun PM: 1 TO 1.5 HR ENDURO. Time for the enduros was dependant on the type of car.
This was one of the most fun race weekends I have ever done.
This worked great for a few years then interest waned and we went back to a traditional Regional and then to a double regional a few years later.

Bob Clark

[mlytle]

how about for big races like the marrs labor day double we make that a restricted regional..

ditch the fv/f500, srf and catch all open wheel groups. that would leave three open run groups to spread out the groups that are full...

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 30 2005, 12:23 PM
It's fair because, on a nationwide basis it would ensure that SCCA doesn't franctionalize. We're close to that now with some significant differences in class participation from division to division. The one thing that distinguishes our racing from NASA or EMRA or ICSCC or Midwest Council is our National Championship program. Allowing local participation on the basis of local preferences would quickly intensify the problem of divisional differences into an unmanagable state.

Any change that penalizes current competitors in pursuit of new participants is not my idea of a good thing for this club.

59279



Peter,

I have no idea what this has to do w/ the topic at hand. Who said anything about penalizing current competitors in pursuit of new participants???? Or, do you mean that marginal National classes should be able to retain their perks, even though there are plenty of other classes that are much more well subscribed? And I really have no idea how any of what's being discussed would 'fractionalize' the SCCA.

And it's easy to see why you're ok w/ sending drivers home. When exactly was the last time that a run group at a National was oversubscribed? I think it would be interesting to look at all of the Runoffs' entries this year, and see how many of them ran more than the 4 required races.

And if you're going to play the run group safety card, what exactly are the standards? Where's the cutoff for what's deemed to be to be too great a speed differential? I think I'll make a bowl of popcorn for this one.


Every national racer started out as a regional racer at one time.



DUH!

Comments by others are spot on. If you can exclude classes from National races, it's perfectly acceptable (and fair) to exclude classes from Regional races. Each IT class gets its own run group (and SM too). If you fill that up, you get to run the 'consolation race', based on qualifying. That would be a catch-all group for all the IT classes. And if you need more than one catch-all group, that's the way it is. If you have IT groups, that could be combined, based on the number of cars, you do it, and spead the extra track time over all the groups, and reduce the number of groups. That way, everybody gets more qualifying time, and longer races. You have an 1 open wheel and a 1 closed wheel race group for all the National cars. If you need an extra race group for the 'spillover' from one of the IT/SM classes, the lowest of the National groups gets bumped. If you've got a National class car, and don't want to run Nationals, that's fine. But, you need to realize that you only get to run at a Regional, IF you won't displace a Regional-only car.

[RP Performance]

Originally posted by mlytle@Aug 30 2005, 04:53 PM
how about for big races like the marrs labor day double we make that a restricted regional..

ditch the fv/f500, srf and catch all open wheel groups. that would leave three open run groups to spread out the groups that are full...

59312



It also still goes back to the license keepers also at the double. While it is nice to have entries what about the drivers that can't make it in because the group is full.

[mgyip]

Originally posted by RP Performance@Aug 30 2005, 12:09 PM
It also still goes back to the license keepers also at the double.

59314


Yup - I'd like to see the DC Region go to a single-sanction for the OG Racing (shameless plug) Labor Day Races - 2 races but run under a single-sanction which would render the weekend useless to the license keepers. The event format wouldn't change except that with a single-sanction, the weekend would only count as 1 race. The other could be for MARRS points only or something along those lines.

[Peter Olivola]

All it takes is one. The outright speed differential combined with the lap time differential between an FA and a FV combined with the low seating position and small visual cross section on even a flat course is a very big problem. Throw in some hills and things get "real busy real fast," to quote Jason Byers.


Originally posted by RP Performance@Aug 30 2005, 12:46 PM
Is it really that bad to combine the open wheel cars? If we get any FA's it is only one car. I run in a group of 50 cars with a large speed difference also but with less room on the track because of the number of cars.

[rjohnson999]

xxx

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 30 2005, 09:25 PM
All it takes is one. The outright speed differential combined with the lap time differential between an FA and a FV combined with the low seating position and small visual cross section on even a flat course is a very big problem. Throw in some hills and things get "real busy real fast," to quote Jason Byers.

59338


itc and ite cars have a huge speed differential (what is the closing rate between a porshe cup car and an srx7?), yet every year they run together for 12hrs, some of it in the DARK, without hitting each other at summit point. it isnt' really about the cars, it is about the drivers KNOWING what is on the track with them and DRIVING accordingly. racing is only as safe as the drivers.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by mlytle@Aug 31 2005, 01:34 AM
itc and ite cars have a huge speed differential (what is the closing rate between a porshe cup car and an srx7?), yet every year they run together for 12hrs, some of it in the DARK, without hitting each other at summit point. it isnt' really about the cars, it is about the drivers KNOWING what is on the track with them and DRIVING accordingly. racing is only as safe as the drivers.

59348


Don't confuse him w/ facts! And logic is pretty much wasted.

[Peter Olivola]

You penalize current competitors in the open wheel classes by asking them to make the decision to run as a single group or stay home. I think you're forgetting that FV and FC are two of the largest classes in National racing. There have been races run with all in a single run group and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when more stay home. There is a mechanism in place to drop classes from National status. It worked for GT4/GT5 and will work for other classes. I'm not going to argue the current threshold, so don't try to stick that one on me.

I offered the qualifying scenario as a possible alternative to Restricted Regionals. I didn't dump on Restricted Regionals. On the contrary, that would be the easiest way to accomplish what you seek if, as I noted, your region has the will to do it. If it doesn't, then you might want to ask yourself why and how you hope to accomplish the kind of structural change you seem to want to impose on the entire club.

It seems to me, you have a local problem. Solve it locally. That's the beauty of the SCCA structure.

There are no hard and fast rules about speed differential. They are a judgement call based on experience and vary from track to track, from Regional to National at the same track, and from region to region at the same track. I repeat my previous statement; if I were working an event that combined all open wheel cars and there was at least one FA and one FV or F500 in the group I would protest, as the GCR allows me. If I lost, I would appeal. Then we might get at least a temporary metric. Temporary, because unless the CRB and BoD incorporate the ruling into the next year's GCR, it lapses.

For whatever reason(s), the CRB/BoD, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen to keep this a judgement situation. Talk to your Director and Executive Steward if you want more information about the situation in your Division.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 30 2005, 05:04 PM
Peter,

I have no idea what this has to do w/ the topic at hand. Who said anything about penalizing current competitors in pursuit of new participants???? Or, do you mean that marginal National classes should be able to retain their perks, even though there are plenty of other classes that are much more well subscribed? And I really have no idea how any of what's being discussed would 'fractionalize' the SCCA.

And it's easy to see why you're ok w/ sending drivers home. When exactly was the last time that a run group at a National was oversubscribed? I think it would be interesting to look at all of the Runoffs' entries this year, and see how many of them ran more than the 4 required races.

And if you're going to play the run group safety card, what exactly are the standards? Where's the cutoff for what's deemed to be to be too great a speed differential? I think I'll make a bowl of popcorn for this one.
DUH!

[Peter Olivola]

Next race you go to, look up a couple of formula car drivers. If you can find some with IT experience, so much the better. Ask them the same question.


Originally posted by mlytle@Aug 31 2005, 01:34 AM
itc and ite cars have a huge speed differential (what is the closing rate between a porshe cup car and an srx7?), yet every year they run together for 12hrs, some of it in the DARK, without hitting each other at summit point. it isnt' really about the cars, it is about the drivers KNOWING what is on the track with them and DRIVING accordingly. racing is only as safe as the drivers.

59348

[Bill Miller]

I think you're forgetting that FV and FC are two of the largest classes in National racing.

You said it yourself Peter, NATIONAL racing.

As far as what cars should run w/ what other cars goes, there are places where subjective decisions belong, and places where they don't. Determining what is or is not a safe situation is not one of them. If FA's shouldn't run w/ FV's, because of safety issues, that should be codified, not left up to some individual's personal decision. Is 20 - 25 seconds a lap, on a 2 mile track, too great a differential?

[mgyip]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 30 2005, 09:39 PM
Next race you go to, look up a couple of formula car drivers. If you can find some with IT experience, so much the better. Ask them the same question.

59354


Since they're the group that is most likely affected by Restricted Regionals, it's unlikely that the responses will be positive or even remotely valid. It's like asking the pirate that's walking the plank if his treatment has been satisfactory.

The ultimate answer this headache is a Regional BoD that has the intestinal fortitude to say "If your class can't generate more than 10% of a full group (in the case of the DC Region, 5 cars) on average for the season, your class is going to be restricted". The results will either be that the class suddenly increases or it goes away - both are positive for the Club.

[Peter Olivola]

Apparently the CRB/BoD don't agree with you, Bill.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 31 2005, 04:16 PM
You said it yourself Peter, NATIONAL racing.

As far as what cars should run w/ what other cars goes, there are places where subjective decisions belong, and places where they don't. Determining what is or is not a safe situation is not one of them. If FA's shouldn't run w/ FV's, because of safety issues, that should be codified, not left up to some individual's personal decision. Is 20 - 25 seconds a lap, on a 2 mile track, too great a differential?

59407

[Peter Olivola]

You asked about why formula cars couldn't deal with the same kind of performance differentials that occur in enduros. My suggestion was to get the answer from those who currently drive open wheel cars. What's all the hostility about?


Originally posted by mgyip@Aug 31 2005, 04:28 PM
Since they're the group that is most likely affected by Restricted Regionals, it's unlikely that the responses will be positive or even remotely valid. It's like asking the pirate that's walking the plank if his treatment has been satisfactory.

The ultimate answer this headache is a Regional BoD that has the intestinal fortitude to say "If your class can't generate more than 10% of a full group (in the case of the DC Region, 5 cars) on average for the season, your class is going to be restricted". The results will either be that the class suddenly increases or it goes away - both are positive for the Club.

59410

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 31 2005, 11:16 PM
Apparently the CRB/BoD don't agree with you, Bill.

59453



And that means what? That people are never supposed to put forth new ideas? That people are never supposed to work to get things changed that they don't fell are right? That's your MO Peter, when you have no response, or have nothing to support your position, you come up w/ some meaningless rhetoric. You remind me a lot of Basil Adams.

[mgyip]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Aug 31 2005, 06:20 PM
You asked about why formula cars couldn't deal with the same kind of performance differentials that occur in enduros. My suggestion was to get the answer from those who currently drive open wheel cars. What's all the hostility about?

59454


I've heard their responses before and they were similar if not identical to the responses that were received from Prod and Showroom Stock drivers when these classes were proposed for combination. B/c they are the affected classes, the response are tainted by the desire to avoid change. No hostility, just don't think that you'll get honest and unbiased responses from a class that could be affected.

I'll go back to my previous response and say that the idea of restricted regionals is for the common good. If 10 cars get restricted so that 50 more can participate, the benefit of bringing 40 add'l members to the Club appears to outweigh the restriction of 10 unless my math is incorrect (or based on W's "new math").

[Peter Olivola]

I offered you several suggestions, including reinforcing the original topic of this post, i.e., Restricted Regionals. I also offered my opinion opposing running all formula cars in a single run group. I guess it's okay for you to have an opinion but not me. Neither of us is King of the World, Bill.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 1 2005, 03:08 AM
And that means what? That people are never supposed to put forth new ideas? That people are never supposed to work to get things changed that they don't fell are right? That's your MO Peter, when you have no response, or have nothing to support your position, you come up w/ some meaningless rhetoric. You remind me a lot of Basil Adams.

59474

[Peter Olivola]

Is that a piece of lumber I see in your eye?

I'll repeat what I've been saying. Restricted Regionals are a way to solve the problem on the local level. Why can't you convinve your region to use them?


Originally posted by mgyip@Sep 1 2005, 03:56 AM
I've heard their responses before and they were similar if not identical to the responses that were received from Prod and Showroom Stock drivers when these classes were proposed for combination. B/c they are the affected classes, the response are tainted by the desire to avoid change. No hostility, just don't think that you'll get honest and unbiased responses from a class that could be affected.

I'll go back to my previous response and say that the idea of restricted regionals is for the common good. If 10 cars get restricted so that 50 more can participate, the benefit of bringing 40 add'l members to the Club appears to outweigh the restriction of 10 unless my math is incorrect (or based on W's "new math").

59482

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Sep 1 2005, 11:59 AM
I offered you several suggestions, including reinforcing the original topic of this post, i.e., Restricted Regionals. I also offered my opinion opposing running all formula cars in a single run group. I guess it's okay for you to have an opinion but not me. Neither of us is King of the World, Bill.

59491



Peter,

Do you even read what you type? I seriously doubt it. You speak of 'fractionalizing'. Don't you think that having Regions go off and do things on their own would contribute more to 'fractionalizing' than having some kind of consistent policy for everyone? Time to get some more popcorn.

[7racing]

Originally posted by mgyip@Sep 1 2005, 03:56 AM
I'll go back to my previous response and say that the idea of restricted regionals is for the common good. If 10 cars get restricted so that 50 more can participate, the benefit of bringing 40 add'l members to the Club appears to outweigh the restriction of 10 unless my math is incorrect (or based on W's "new math").

59482


OK, first, I'm not really in favor of doing this type of thing. Just doesn't seem right, but I am reading and looking forward to whatever discussions can happen.

But this math has me questioning something. I'll give you the 10 cars getting restricted (though I think you will find it to be more), but where are the 40-50 coming from? Right now, we are talking about a group that is oversubscribed by a couple, and so far (at least in NER) no one has been sent home (that I know of). Have people not registered for that fear? How many are there that don't show up because they think they may be sent home?

I'm just not convinced that there is a 1:4 ratio (restricted class:additional SM/IT/regional-only) of drivers out there for this type of thing. Maybe 1:1 and possibly as high as 1:2, but I'm not convinced its more than that.

Jeremy

[mgyip]

Originally posted by 7racing@Sep 1 2005, 09:36 AM
OK, first, I'm not really in favor of doing this type of thing. Just doesn't seem right, but I am reading and looking forward to whatever discussions can happen.

59503


I'm not convinced that "it feels right" either b/c it's not a nice thing to tell anyone they can't play by (or is that with) themselves. However, if the result is more entrants overall, either by increasing participation in the low turnout groups or by allowing more entrants in a high turnout group, the outcome is positive.

The figures I used are somewhat theoretical b/c there's no means of tracking the entrants that either were denied entry or were turned away due to a full run group. However, the DC Region has low turnout in both small and large wing groups - as of today, combined, the groups total 49 entrants which is one fewer than the cutoff for a single race group. Given the figures that the SM/SSM folks have been tossing around, I'd figure that the "replacement" ratio would be 1.5:1 which is an increase in total competitors.

Convincing the region to run Restricted Races is another hurdle unto itself. With opposition at the higher levels of the Region, the mere prospect flys in the face of the "historical establishment". Is it time for the Region to change and grow? I'd say yes with the amount of headaches encountered when trying to accomodate all the different groups that are full while "protecting" 2 almost empty classes but getting the Committee and the BoD on the same page is a monumental task already... :bash_1_: :bash_1_: :bash_1_:

[Matt Rowe]

It would be interesting to talk to the registrar for the event and see how many they turned away. In fact, I think I'll do just that when I get down there, or at least once they have a chance to breathe. It still won't capture the potential entrants that MIGHT have been scared away by the threat of a cutoff but it still gives some idea. But Matt, don't tell you you are going to base numbers on what the SM/SSM guys are telling you. They have just as much a vested interest in the debate as the open wheel car drivers and if you won't trust input from one side, you can't trust the other.

Also, keep in mind the open wheel groups knows they will have a spot to race even if they register at the track Saturday morning so don't rule out those two groups growing. As it is if the groups were combined they would be on the border of sending people home. A couple of walk up entries means that even with the UNSAFE combination of FA (1:08) and FV (1:30) and everyone in between you might very well still have to turn people away.

There are no easy solutions, but what a lot of this debate has looked like is many people here are all to willing to sacrifice the safety and participation of anyone outside of their own class/group and shout down anyone that feels differently. Neither of those concepts should be what SCCA is about and at least for those I have met in person you aren't nearly as cruel and heartless as it comes across here. :o

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go rob a bank so I can pay for the gas bill for the trip down to Summit. :D

[Bill Miller]

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go rob a bank so I can pay for the gas bill for the trip down to Summit.

Matt,

I wonder just how many people will decide to pass because of the increased fuel costs? Tow costs have essentially doubled since the beginning of the season. I figure that it would cost me between $250 - $300 to tow down and back. That's compared to less than $100 last year. I can't even imagine what the tow bill to get to the ARRC is going to be, for some of the folks from the NE. Two years ago, a friend of mine spent $600+ to go to the June Sprints, from Ct. That same tow would be closer to $1500 today.

Going to be interesting to see what happens at the Runoffs. I think track fuel prices were set a month or two ago.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 1 2005, 01:43 PM
Matt,

I wonder just how many people will decide to pass because of the increased fuel costs? Tow costs have essentially doubled since the beginning of the season. I figure that it would cost me between $250 - $300 to tow down and back. That's compared to less than $100 last year. I can't even imagine what the tow bill to get to the ARRC is going to be, for some of the folks from the NE. Two years ago, a friend of mine spent $600+ to go to the June Sprints, from Ct. That same tow would be closer to $1500 today.

Going to be interesting to see what happens at the Runoffs. I think track fuel prices were set a month or two ago.

59512


Bill,

I actually have given serious thought to not going this weekend based more on a supply than a cost issue. It just doesn't seem right to be going through so much gas if there truly is a shortage plus there are rumors circulating that stations are running out or limiting the amount of fuel you can buy. Again most of these are rumors or isolated cases. But when I'm looking at several hundred miles it's enough to make me nervous about whether I'll be able to get back home or find myself stranded at a gas station. Still, I'm planning on being there. The real killer is I have a wedding to attend Friday night also which means a couple hundred mile detour also. Not cool.

Now the runoff fuel prices were set months ago, long before even the recent rise much less the specualtion/gouging/panic that is going on now. And they were supposed to be locked in. Now I wouldn't be surpised to see some increase on public grades attempted or caps set to prevent people from filling up non-race cars at reduced prices. But how much should the price of race gas be affected?

[gran racing]

Wow Matt. That's depressing! I figure it's just under 2,000 round trip for Road Atlanta, 15 mpg towing, x $3 per gallon. Then gas for the practice day, qualifying, and race. OMG. That sucks!

[Peter Olivola]

I seem to read my material closer than you do. I keep asking why you can't convince your region to run Restricted Regionals. Maybe I'm being too subtle.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 1 2005, 12:16 PM
Peter,

Do you even read what you type? I seriously doubt it. You speak of 'fractionalizing'. Don't you think that having Regions go off and do things on their own would contribute more to 'fractionalizing' than having some kind of consistent policy for everyone? Time to get some more popcorn.

59494

[mgyip]

Matt,

I don't accept the growth numbers that SM/SSM provides, at least not 100%. Just like every group that's affected, there's some sort of a fudge-factor in their calcuations. However SM/SSM is growing very rapidly compared to other classes - for example, ITC or to a lesser degree ITB which are slowly shrinking.

There certainly is no clean or simple answer. The intent is to not create unsafe race groups but rather to determine a way to accomodate the increased number of closed-cars. Perhaps the first step is to determine how to begin restricting a class. The DC Region has verbiage to create a class, perhaps this can be reverse-engineered to remove or restrict a class. While I understand that SCCA's intent is to provide a place to race, I am frustrated to see that we are dedicating two race groups for 15-20 cars on an average race weekend.

If robbing a bank doesn't help you with tow money, you could always do what I do - exotic dancing... :o

[Daryl DeArman]

As a FV racer who also raced IT and Prod cars I'll chime in regarding the safety issue and combining of classes from my perspective.

I started in karts, I am very comfortable in an open wheel car in close quarters.
I also spent time racing open wheel cars on clay ovals; I know what happens when open wheel guys don't respect eachothers' real estate. I spent 7 years racing IT and EP cars. I now find myself racing a FV with VARA.

I'd rather race in a field of GT5 (or GTL or whatever it is called now) or HProduction cars than with FC or FA. In fact, when we are too small (less than 15 entrants) to warrant our own run group and the FF field is too large for us to combine with them, we run with the small bore Prod guys with a split start. It works very well provided they don't give us such a big head start that I am lapping their back markers in the 2nd lap...

Combining FV with FA is akin to putting GT1 with ITC. Now, if you had one GT1 and 40 ITC cars it may not be a problem as long as the GT1 guy is nice and patient and a very good judge of the closing rates approaching braking zones and in corners....But as soon as you give that GT1 guy someone to race...

So, 1 FA or FC in a field of 40FV's probably not too big of a deal as long as the FA guy has a good head on his shoulders. But more than one of them is a recipe for trouble.

I don't know what the solution is...

Consolation races? Fine with me, I think it intensifies the competition and forces everyone to up their game. If that is not feasible, I'd rather see people "sent home" with their cars and entry fees in hand, than see them leave the track in a bag or Lowflyers' tow vehicle.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Peter Olivola@Sep 1 2005, 09:33 PM
I seem to read my material closer than you do. I keep asking why you can't convince your region to run Restricted Regionals. Maybe I'm being too subtle.

59541


Pretty simple Peter. As I've already stated (well, not in so many words), I don't think it's the right approach. To me, maintaining Regional-only status for classes that have their specs defined in the GCR (like IT) is not the way things should be. Going the restricted Regional route, only furthers the artificial destinction between Regional and National cars.

As an alternative plan, I do support the "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" concept. If you can exclude cars from Nationals, you should damn well be able to exclude cars from Regionals. IT pulls more than its share of the weight in the SCCA. The time to get rid of the "second-class citizen" attitude has long past. Elitist attitudes such as yours, have no place in this club.

[Peter Olivola]

As I said in my first post, I'm not interested in rehashing this, but it's nice to see you acknowledge your real purpose.


Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 2 2005, 12:12 PM
Pretty simple Peter. As I've already stated (well, not in so many words), I don't think it's the right approach. To me, maintaining Regional-only status for classes that have their specs defined in the GCR (like IT) is not the way things should be. Going the restricted Regional route, only furthers the artificial destinction between Regional and National cars.

As an alternative plan, I do support the "What's good for the goose, is good for the gander" concept. If you can exclude cars from Nationals, you should damn well be able to exclude cars from Regionals. IT pulls more than its share of the weight in the SCCA. The time to get rid of the "second-class citizen" attitude has long past. Elitist attitudes such as yours, have no place in this club.

59554

[Bill Miller]

Never been anything hidden about it Peter, unlike others. :angry:

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by mgyip@Sep 2 2005, 02:01 AM
If robbing a bank doesn't help you with tow money, you could always do what I do - exotic dancing... :o


Oh-my-god... So with that paint scheme, are you going to start wearing "daisy dukes" around the paddock?
BTW Matt, sorry about your car...

Just wanted to throw out a few thoughts after the MARRS double.

#1- SM was not full. In fact, only 36 cars...

#2- Will SSM disappear from the NE in 2006? You have your spec tire now, and it's a National class, so what's the point?

#3- If speed differential is no big deal, then drop ITS, or heck, even ITC into Big Bore. There are many ways to consolidate...

#4- You guys forgot the most obvious "open wheel" consolidation- Drop F500 and FV in with SRF... Problem is, in many places, there's too many of each to run as one group.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Remove any double-entry cars when making comparisons. Do they represent a huge number? Probably not, but let's get real numbers here...

Don't forget the typical local rules too, where if you bring a few or some car, they'll give you a place to run... So if FA isn't run due to "lack of participation", I can always show up with the Everclear crew and put out enough cars to "make" a class. Then where would they go?

[Bill Miller]

Hey Matt,

You said there were only 36 SM cars, but a run group that was closed prior to the event, due to over-subscription. Any way of getting info on what the actual vs. pre-registered participation level was, for each of the run groups? I'm wondering how many folks stayed home for whatever reason (not wanting to spend an extra $xxx dollars in tow gas, feeling that it wasn't the right thing to do, in light of Katrina, etc.). Just curious.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 7 2005, 07:41 AM
Hey Matt,

You said there were only 36 SM cars, but a run group that was closed prior to the event, due to over-subscription. Any way of getting info on what the actual vs. pre-registered participation level was, for each of the run groups? I'm wondering how many folks stayed home for whatever reason (not wanting to spend an extra $xxx dollars in tow gas, feeling that it wasn't the right thing to do, in light of Katrina, etc.). Just curious.

59791


Bill,

That run group was never closed and the count hadn't changed long before the gas prices started changing. The SM guys have there own race group at Summit and they fielded only 2 more cars than the SRF's. Not exactly my idea of a group that we should be making major concensions too. And with the changes (National status, spec tire) coming to SM next year I think any reshuffling is premature until we see how everything will shake out.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think we can all agree that this is a Reginal issue. That is why I posted this to understand what other Regions do.

Having said that, polls of SM/SSM guys show a few things:

1. SSM guys are not going to be jumping ship to run in SM just because it is now National.
2. SM guys aren't going to be doing fewer Regionals just because they have another 'venue'.
3. SM will have a Spec tire. Until we know that tire brand, the impact on SSM will be unknown. If it's anything other than a Toyo here in the Northeast, SSM will continue to flourish - and may even expand. SM shows no sign of slowing down.

ITS and ITA are absolutely huge up here. 25 cars per race. There will be issues and I just want to make sure the large classes don't get 'penalized' when some open wheel run groups can't even feild 10 cars in total amongst 9 classes...

I think there is sufficeint reason to approach the leaders here in NER to get the 'other side of the issue'.

AB

[ShelbyRacer]

Andy-

While I don't condone the combination of some groups (which is not your point I know), I do think you're onto something. In fact, I had a thought that might be interesting---

What about running a Restricted Regional on the same weekend that there's a National race in some proximity?

Now I realize that we have worker and official numbers that would be a concern, but I personally see no reason why there couldn't be enough to go around if done correctly. I also understand that scheduling with the tracks can be a problem, too. It's a lot of items to juggle, but this could be an interesting alternative to the Regional vs. Regional situation that can develop at times.

For instance, IIRC, there was a MARRS race and the National at BeaveRun on the same weekend. I do believe the schedule got changed, but that would be a great time to try the RR concept in NeDiv.

Or, what about a RR event in combo with a Race School?

Does NeDiv have any RR events right now?

[mgyip]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Sep 6 2005, 02:15 PM
Oh-my-god... So with that paint scheme, are you going to start wearing "daisy dukes" around the paddock?

59723


Don't tell, I already do...

I agree with Matt Rowe that we really need to wait thru the 2006 season to make any large-scale changes. I was as surprised as everyone else that SM only fielded 36 cars given all the talk earlier in the year. However that was before the SSM rules were changed (in mid-stream according to the SM/SSM faithful).

Furthermore, combining classes is a bit of a black art and if the combination of slow and fast wings doesn't work, then (to echo what I've said before), it's time to create verbiage to restrict a class from participation. While the restriction of just one class may not resolve the problem, it would certainly send a strong and clear message to the members that Regions aren't obligated to allow ALL classes to race just b/c they want to. Rather, the Regions need to determine whether they want to cater to all classes, resulting in some groups with very low turnout and other groups that are oversubscribed OR do they want to cater to the classes that have larger turnout, resulting in the restriction of the low turnout classses and greater overall participation.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What SSM rules have changed mid-year? The rules have been stable to the best of my knowledge...

NER does not currently do RR's...and I would prefer that they didn't...but we are litterally teetering on the edge of "consolation races" (which was written into the NER supps this year because of run-group oversubscription) and/or limiting entries.

I don't want through 2006. The proceedures, event logistics and overflow plans need to be in place BEFORE there is a problem. We have been VERY fortunate this year to have been allowed to shuffle run-groups and mix and match as best we can. If we get any bigger, it won't continue to work - and we should be ready.

I think my proposal will ask for 2 RR's in 2006. As an example, maybe the top 20 classes get auto invites, then the next 10 fill out the 1st event...the 2nd event is the top 20 and the last 10 classes...this gives everyone a chance to run a RR at least once in a year.

Bottom line for me:

We need to be ready before the proverbial dam breaks.

AB

[mgyip]

SSM rules didn't change mid-year but our planning meeting was early enough in the calendar year that the pre-season SSM rule changes hadn't been released.

You're spot on that we need a fully functional plan that's ready to roll BEFORE the levee breaks.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by mgyip@Sep 7 2005, 08:23 PM
SSM rules didn't change mid-year but our planning meeting was early enough in the calendar year that the pre-season SSM rule changes hadn't been released.


I wonder if the "change" that is being discussed is the proposed Roll Cage rule change that got shot down...? IIRC from the NeDiv MiniCon and RoundTable, no changes were approved, unless it was minor stuff that was changes in SM (the SCCA class, not the NeDiv class).

BTW- Interesting item- Check GCR 7.1.4- You can't restrict classes listed in the GCR in favor of those that are additional "local" classes (yes, I know they list the wrong section for Automobiles- it's now Section 17). Also, 7.1.3 discusses combining classes. If you throw FV and F500 in with Wings and Things, you've just gone against a written "recommendation", which means if it ever went to court, the Region *could* be in for increased liability.

Going from memory on this past weekend's numbers, you could've split up Small Bore and gained more room for IT cars. Put GP, HP, and GTL in with SRF, GT3, GTP, SPU, and EP into Big Bore (hey, they do it to EP at National races), and stick FP, SSB, and SSC in with one of the IT classes. This would've allowed the ITA/ITB group to split, which was one of the only full groups. Of course, this is just estimation and hindsight, and of course, Monday-morning-QB is always the easiest position to play... :smilie_pokal:

[mustanghammer]

I haven't seen anyone from MiDiv reply to this thread so I will.

In MidIv National races are run as Regional/National weekends twice a year at five different tracks (10 National races) The Regional is ran on Saturday and the National is ran on Sunday. Every Reg/Nat race I have been to for the last 7-8 years has had a Restricted Regional race on Sunday for IT and SM.

The restricted regional race group always includes all IT classes (S, A, B, C, 7 and E) and SM either mixed together on grid or with a split start between SM and IT. Once or twice this year we have given SM their own group (they qulaify with IT in the AM) if their numbers and the schedule warrants it. In most cases the IT/SM group is the largest for the weekend so we earn our spot.

We never have restricted regionals on Sunday for clars that could run in a National class. For example, I have never seen a restricted regional for Club Formula Ford for example. A class like this is recognized in the Saturday Regional race but on Sunday they run, if they enter, with the rest of the FF's.

There are some classes and cars that are excluded as a result like Legends, Baby Grands, ASR, Super Production, etc. That's life.

[ShelbyRacer]

Hmmm, I just had another thought. (yes, 2 in one week!)

Keep in mind I am not endorsing or suggesting any of the following, but merely posting it as a basis for discussion. Maybe someone else could see a way to make it work in the Real World ™.

...

Why couldn't a RR be held *concurrently* with a National Race? There are a few logistical issues:

1- Only National drivers could run the National classes, unless you duplicate the class in the Regional.

2- You couldn't mix the National race groups with the Regional only groups.

3- You'd need to pay an additional Sanction Fee (the base rate portion if there is one) and get two separate Insurance riders (which is no big deal).

4- National races have longer sessions so we can't run as many groups.

Some group juggling could be done to accomodate 2-3 RR groups.

Let's look at some numbers from the Pocono Dbl Nat-

Combine GP1- SRF and GP3- FV/F500 for a total of 40 cars

Combine GP4- all other SR and GP6- all other F for a total of 60 cars

As a side note- there were 10 FF that could also move to the SRF/FV/F500 group to even things out. The FF cars run about equivalent times to the F500's and the SRFs are in between the F500s and the FVs...

This is a 2.5 mile track so accomodating 50 cars should not be a big problem.

Assuming the SM will be its own group at this event next year, we could add an ITS/ITA group and an ITB/ITC group. This would bring in 80-100 more cars (possibly) thereby helping to finance the event.

There were 7 groups at this event. Consolidating the Wings&No-Wings&Things drops us to 5. Add SM next year for 6. Run two shorter RR sessions in place of the one missing National session.

Unfortunately I don't have time right now to look at any NHIS or LRP events, but someone else could...

Is it doable? Yes. Would it be a giant PITA? Probably. Would people b!tch? They always do. But hey, it's a thought. Take it for what it's worth.