December Fastrack...

[Greg Amy]

...Go.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-dec.pdf

[StephenB]

Wow 69 pages... They have been busy!

[Chip42]

fixed EP civic and ITA civic EX VTEC. good.

ST remains a cluster. "fixed" nothing in STL but the weight of the 12A and that was a joke. ST rules remain far from watertight and still have a fair amount of open ended questions (plus new ones for STU, keep reading)

STU got some strange line items - like V6 mustangs (cool) and supercharged, stock-cam 2AZ-FE Tc at 2300# (NA it would be 2640# base with STU cam) which seems - odd. Now we need to know if those motors at the listed altenrate weight can be used in a different car. because adding 100# for 0.4L and an SC to my planned 2.0L MR2 is an interesting concept. especially when I want the JDM 3rd gen version of the motor to be allowed to make it worthwhile (waited for the new rules before I started that work).

SM5 seems cool - good to have a unified ruleset.

good call on not over-reacting to radial slicks in slower GT and prod classes yet.

[Dano77]

12A permitted at 2600 lbs,no porting permitted. how is that fixed?

Just asking.

12A in STU ported with auto type 2 barrell carb. What size choke is a Holly 2300 500cfm 2bbl carb? Lots cheaper than a Weber type,and parts are everywhere,including Walmart

[Chip42]

"fixed" weight is 2535#. liek I said, a joke.

[monsterbronco]

woohoo

In 9.1.3.D.1.m, add at the end: “Cars originally equipped with hydraulically-actuated clutches may replace the clutch
hydraulic lines with steel lines or Teflon-lined metal braided hose.”

[Greg Amy]

SM5 seems cool - good to have a unified ruleset.
I musta missed it: what's SM5? Is that the MX5 Cup cars? If not, what's the ruleset?

[Dave Gomberg]

I musta missed it: what's SM5? Is that the MX5 Cup cars? If not, what's the ruleset?Yes, SM5 is Spec MX-5 (Cup cars). You didn't "miss it". Due to an editing error (mine), the rule set was omitted. As soon as the updated Recommended Rule Changes are posted (here: http://www.scca.com/contentpage.aspx?content=44), you will be able to read them.

Dave

[Greg Amy]

Thanks, Dave. I assume open tires (same rules as in STU)? Or are we gonna try to stuff them into Toyos?

Regardless, I'm glad the Club is not going to try to put the new chassis in Spec Miata; that would be a mess.

GA

[Dave Gomberg]

Thanks, Dave. I assume open tires (same rules as in STU)? Or are we gonna try to stuff them into Toyos?

Regardless, I'm glad the Club is not going to try to put the new chassis in Spec Miata; that would be a mess.

GA
Not quite open - any DOT P225/45ZR17.

Dave

[titanium]

Page 52 - No Action required GCR

#2911 (Chris Howard) Door Bar clarification for IT, SS and Touring
The existing rule is adequate as written. Cutting into the B-pillar for door bar installation is not permitted. There is no evidence that a change is necessary.

[Matt93SE]

.... 4 months of waiting to be told "we're still discussing it" :mad:

[LD71]

So help me out here, were there only 2 more classes added for 2011? Why not more, when you water down the competition, may as well throw the whole ocean at it..... :dead_horse:

STL is apparently Regional only---is SM5 also Regional only? :shrug:

LD71 :D

[Dave Gomberg]

So help me out here, were there only 2 more classes added for 2011? Why not more, when you water down the competition, may as well throw the whole ocean at it..... :dead_horse:

STL is apparently Regional only---is SM5 also Regional only? :shrug:

LD71 :D
Yes, SM5 (if approved by the BoD the first weekend of December) will be regional only. This is in line with the recent BoD policy that any new National classes will only get that status by satisfying the 2.5 rule in regional racing.

Dave

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, SM5 (if approved by the BoD the first weekend of December) will be regional only. This is in line with the recent BoD policy that any new National classes will only get that status by satisfying the 2.5 rule in regional racing.

Dave

That is going to be very interesting given there are so many more Regional events than Nationals...

Dave, can you post the Regional participation numbers from 2009 and/or 2010 here? Thanks!

[xr4racer]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/10-regional-participation/2010%20Regional%20Car%20Count%20OCTOBER.pdf

Andy, they are on the SCCA site under regional (through October)

matt

[StephenB]

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/10-regional-participation/2010%20Regional%20Car%20Count%20OCTOBER.pdf

Andy, they are on the SCCA site under regional (through October)

matt

Yahoo the northeast is still the biggest :) well until you divided it by % to population... just poking some fun against the southeast :)

I did notice that SM is the largest followed by SRF followed by ITA (SM crossover?) Then it drops significantly down to ITS.

Thanks for the link... let the new drama begin!
Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Dang, down 22 entries to NEDiv here in the SEDiv.

Those numbers are always interesting. Makes SCCA look like a 4-5 class club: SM (leader by far), with SRF, ITA, ITS and ITB a ways back but grouped together for second.

[Ron Earp]

Fail Report - the NE and SE are over half of the racing entries for 2010. Yet the SCCA headquarters is located in Topeka, a region with one of the lowest car counts of all.

[Knestis]

Damn. I can't believe there weren't ANY entries in ITM this year, nationwide. It should be such an attractive option!

K

[JeffYoung]

While it isn't my class that would be eliminated, those charts always make me wonder why we don't start reducing the number of classes, and consolidating classes to make things less confusing, etc.

2-3 formula car classes, 2-3 production, 2-3 GT, IT, SM and SRF...not sure we need much more. Oh well.....

[Knestis]

To be fair, this isn't really a viable picture of a "national" (lower-case n) Regional program. We know, for example, that "ITE" isn't the same among regions, let alone divisions.

Regions OUGHT to be able to define their own classes but we absolutely make the distinction between those (a la the Pacific coast Radial Sedan [RS] thing) and nationally recognized regional classes run to consistent rules.

K

[Dave Gomberg]

As noted earlier in this thread, the SM5 specs did not make it into the December Fastrack. You can find them here: http://cms.scca.com/documents/Club%20Forms/Recommended%20Rule%20Changes%20-%20Updated%20Through%20December%202010%20Fastrack. pdf starting on page 8. Comments are welcomed.

Dave

[spawpoet]

While it isn't my class that would be eliminated, those charts always make me wonder why we don't start reducing the number of classes, and consolidating classes to make things less confusing, etc.

2-3 formula car classes, 2-3 production, 2-3 GT, IT, SM and SRF...not sure we need much more. Oh well.....


Ohh that would make wayyyyy too much sense. Unfortunately the SCCA has too many racers that prefer to be a big fish in a small pond when it comes to their race class for the club to get far with consolidation. I don't personally see the appeal of it. I'd rather be competing for fifth place in a class with 20 cars, than get 2nd place racing against three other racers. And they have consolidated some in production and GT, but it just happens at a slower rate than classes are born.

[Greg Amy]

While it isn't my class that would be eliminated...
Actually, Jeff hit on the issue in the first dozen words. I'm not saying this is his attitude, but if you were to survey the SCCA membership and ask if there are too many classes and we need to consolidate, I'd wager the vast majority of them would say "yes".

And, if you were to correlate those answers to the classes that the respondent competed in, I'd wager there's a direct inverse correlation (larger classes would say "yes", smaller classes "no".)

Then if you were to ask everyone if they would be willing to sacrifice their class - regardless of size - in order to reduce the overall number of classes, I'd wager the vast majority would say "no".

And because we're a club, not a benevolent dictatorship, the situation grows.

Finally, if you think "this time it's different" I'll wager that were I to take the time to rifle through my SportsCar magazines from the early 80's (as far back as I have) you'd be surprised.

Welcome home.

GA

On edit: not intended as a personal poke but simply for illustrative purposes, but let's not forget Jeff that you were on the committee (correct?) that added yet another Improved Touring class not too long ago, to accommodate faster cars so that they didn't have to race with so much weight to fit into ITS. THAT is why we have more than "2-3 formula car classes, 2-3 production, 2-3 GT, IT, SM and SRF." Imagine your next ITAC concall if the BoD sent you a note stating "eliminate ITC and ITR, and combine all existing IT cars into S/A/B. Oh, and do your best to make them all reasonably competitive."

Just sayin'...

[JeffYoung]

Totally agree there is a whole lot of "me me me me" in our pretty much universal belief that someone ELSE's class should be eliminated consolidated.

Not that it makes it 100% right, but the classes I "serve" are in top 4/5 for participation, although I certainly get your point about creating a new IT class.

I guess my point is illustrated by ITR. ITR was needed -- it creates a new IT class for cars with more than 180ish stock hp, which at this point is pretty much anything that comes out of a factory in the last 10 years or so.

STU/L might fill a similar need by creating a new member desired level of prep.

But for classes that have seen significant participation drops in the last 10 years? Consolidation/elimination/move to vintage.........

The number of classes and prep levels we have right now is overwhelming.

[xr4racer]

I do not think it will SM5 will be a national class anytime soon. Guessing at the regional schedule next year at 250 races you would need 625 entries to be awarded national status. Hopefully with all of the work going on with STO, STU and STL, we can let T3 and T1 go away, I would imagine SSB is not too far behind as they barely stayed off probation last year. We will soon see if people want to race their SS,T and IT cars in a showroom stock type configuration or a more modified specification in ST

matt

[mossaidis]

Can someone post what the entry counts were for 2010 at the both the regional and national level classes?

[Greg Amy]

Dood, look at post #16 for Regional...and here's National:

http://www.scca.com/documents/Club_Events/2010%20National%20Participation_FINAL.pdf

[JeffYoung]

Holy crap regional racing kicks national racing's butt, entrants wise.

ITS SEDiv has MORE entries than SM or SRF national in the SEDiv.

Unbelievable.

[Greg Amy]

I've created an Excel spreadsheet of Regional entries, sorted by avg car counts...rename it to .xls

GA

[Knestis]

Holy crap regional racing kicks national racing's butt, entrants wise.

ITS SEDiv has MORE entries than SM or SRF national in the SEDiv.

Unbelievable.

Have you BEEN to a National event...? Snore.

K

[ner88]

We don't need another class, MX-5 why?
These are not Miatas, they are a different beast.
Put them in ITS or ITR and let them multiply first!:026:

[GKR_17]

We don't need another class, MX-5 why?
These are not Miatas, they are a different beast.
Put them in ITS or ITR and let them multiply first!:026:

Already in ITR for 2011.

[Greg Amy]

Already in ITR for 2011.
Already in STU for 2011.

And Jerry, if you don't want another class added to the Club roster, then I kindly suggest that you write the Comp Board and ask them to absorb the MX-5 Cup cars into Spec Miata as per the Pro Regs. Or, you can recommend that they cancel Spec Miata and replace it with MX-5 Cup.

Hey, just suggestin'...

;)

GA, who suggested about a brazillion years ago that creating a class only for Mazda Miatas was a pretty stupid idea, given they're already classed in Showroom Stock and Improved Touring, and all that was going to do was dilute the existing entries...hey, just sayin'...

[ner88]

Greg
On the SM site I suggested they move the NB(99-05) cars into MX-5 and give the SM class back to the original SMers. They took my post down!
And....they said they wanted my comments!:023:

[gran racing]

Holy crap regional racing kicks national racing's butt, entrants wise.

It's really interesting to hear about companies and how they choose to support Club Racing. I often hear "we want national drivers winning with our equipment" and ignore regional racers. I don't get it especially when regional racers represent a larger share of their market. Essentially I've been told I can finish 3rd in an SSC national race (out of 3 LOL!!!) and be better off than 1st in a 30+ ITB field.

Just thought how people still view national vs lowly regional fascinating.

[Knestis]

...I often hear "we want national drivers winning with our equipment" and ignore regional racers. ...

Really? Who? How often?

I have a suspicion that if one scratched at the surface of that, they'd find the Club Racing department and National class racers were at the root of a lot of that opinion. If SCCA wanted VW to pay contingency $$ down 3 places in Regionals like they do for Nationals, it would happen.

The distinction between the two is sustained by people who want it to exist, who benefit from it.

K

[Greg Amy]

The distinction between the two is sustained by people who want it to exist, who benefit from it.
Plus a busty Brazilllion...

[dickita15]

Really? Who? How often?

I have a suspicion that if one scratched at the surface of that, they'd find the Club Racing department and National class racers were at the root of a lot of that opinion. If SCCA wanted VW to pay contingency $$ down 3 places in Regionals like they do for Nationals, it would happen.

The distinction between the two is sustained by people who want it to exist, who benefit from it.

K

That is an interesting theory, one that I will have to look into.

[Knestis]

Should be interesting, Dick.

It's the social sciences researcher in me talking but remember that the same motivations that encourage policy actors to influence intentions in their direction will almost autonomously motivate them to bias the information they share.

You can be Regional racing's Jane Goodall among the Club Racing department gorillas but you have to keep their trust if they're going to let you pick fleas off of them. :)

K

[zchris]

This sounds like a chorus from the moaners, groaners and complainers club. My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining. Its like listening to little kids standing out in front of a ball field complaining they can't see the game because they don't want to spend the money on admission. Jesus !
Chris Howard

[gran racing]

Chris - what are you talking about??? LMAO Hey, if we wanted to do that elite (ha!) national racing, we would. Oh, I get it. You agree with the premise of regional racing being more influential for company sales. LOL This isn't about complaining any more than you wanting racing support.


I agree with some of that Kirk and believe SCCA certainly influences companies to focus on supporting national racers.

From what I've been told, the other factor is that some companies recognize that regional racing IS larger and can't afford to offer those types of awards to regional racers. Top 3 for national? There really aren't that many events. Doing this for regional racing would be much more expensive. The other factor is national has a national championship race that many companies latch onto. They want people winning national championships using their product then use that as a marketing tool in various periodicals and their site. Do these results convince regional racers to buy their products? Not sure.

So how does one convince companies to invest in the regional racing program and it's racers?

edit - didn't originally see the numbers in post 16.

[Greg Amy]

My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining.
I suspect, Chris, that there's not a large percentage of Regional-class racers that are enamored with the whole concept of National Racing. After all, you and I both know that we could cherry-pick a couple of guys out of the "regional" ranks that would tan the hide of just about any "national" racer straight-up...

No, I suspect it has more to do with the "stepchild" concept of Regional racing, how the Club views, treats - and to the topic at hand, rewards - Regional-only classes. Go take those two participation charts and run some quick numbers, see where the money is actually coming from (or think about the number of people in the paddock at a Regional versus National weekend). It ain't National weekends...

Personally, I'm of the mindset to make everything one group (call it "National", "Regional", or "Waste of Money", I don't care) and let the chips fall where they may. Everybody races together during the year and if ITS makes its numbers causing T3 (or whatever) to stay home in October, so be it. But that ain't what the National guys want, 'cause they KNOW that there would be some "legacy" classes staying home if categories such as IT were added to the program...and that's kinda what Kirk is trying to say.

I can tell you from personal experience that if the Runoffs were at Topeka instead of Road America, I'd have not wasted a PENNY of my money on National weekends and/or participating (and I probably would have volunteered instead to work those races). National racing is more expensive, it's boring, it's poorly-attended, and the competition is no better than a bad IT Regional weekend; in many ways Regional racing is SCADS better. Regardless of whatever scheme you come up with for "qualifying", National racing always going to be about nothing more than doing the minimum required to get an "invitation" to the Runoffs. Yawn.

But in the end, that's not really what the Club is concerned about... :shrug:

GA

[Tristan Smith]

So what exactly does this mean? I have a FIA seat on a stock seat "slider". Is an ITR 300zx a FIA homologated race car? Do I have to change something?

I have no seat back brace, and the seat is mounted on the side mounting points to tabs welded to the seat rails.


9.3.41. SEATS

The driver’s seat shall be a one-piece bucket-type seat and shall be securely mounted. The back of the

seat shall be firmly attached to the main roll hoop, or its cross bracing, so as to provide aft and lateral support. Seats
homologated to and mounted in accordance with FIA standard 8855-1999


or.FIA.Standard.8862-2009 or higher need not

have the seat back attached to the roll structure.


Seats with a back not attached to the main roll hoop or its cross bracing

may not be mounted to the stock runners unless they are the FIA homologated seats specified in an FIA homologated race
car.


The homologation labels must be visible. Seat supports shall be of the type listed on FIA technical list No.12 or No. 40

(lateral, bottom, etc). Passenger seat back – if a folding seat, it shall be securely bolted or strapped in place.
Item 3.

[dickita15]

I agree with some of that Kirk and believe SCCA certainly influences companies to focus on supporting national racers.


Now Dave I would be careful about how strong a statement I would make. There can be many factors. As pointed out the volume of payments for the much larger regional racing program may be an influence. Or course the market is bigger as well. there may be some subliminal factors as well. something to ponder.

[Greg Amy]

So what exactly does this mean?
Unfortunately, it means that without a seat back brace your stock sliders are now illegal. The costs/testing/evidence involved in producing FIA homologation for YOUR seat sliders mounted in YOUR car are unobtainable, and I think that was intentional by the CRB.

You can either replace the sliders with a fixed mount or add a seat back brace. Or you can spend a lot of money to rub their faces in it by pursuing FIA homologation... - GA

[Knestis]

This sounds like a chorus from the moaners, groaners and complainers club. My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining. Its like listening to little kids standing out in front of a ball field complaining they can't see the game because they don't want to spend the money on admission. Jesus !
Chris Howard

LOL - and *I* sound like a complainer...? :happy204:

Kirk - Who thinks those around Chris will appreciate him getting a good hit of tryptophan later

EDIT - to the substance of your issue, Chris, I came to my conclusions about the fallacies of the Regional-National-Pro "progression" (so, hierarchy or value?) 20+ years ago, based on - uh, whattyacallit?. Oh, yeah - "actual first-hand experience." I absolutely choose to NOT play the Nationals game for the reasons Greg describes, and more. However, by doing so I do *not* sacrifice my right to question Club policies, or to make observations about where they come from. Most "pro" racing uses money provided or generated by backmarkers to subsidize the winners, who are typically up front because they have more money to commit to being competitive in the first place. Contingency awards do the same thing, structured the way they are in SCCA Club racing. That more money flows to National entrants than Regional entrants is just another manifestation of the same phenomenon. The Club Racing office could ask Hoosier (or whoever) what they want to accomplish in terms of marketing outcomes (I've played that game, too), and design a program to meet their needs in any number of ways. I tend to believe that those commercial desires COULD be met - perhaps better met - with a structure that wasn't National-centric, except that there are folks who LIKE it that way working to KEEP it that way, who CAN do so. In human affairs something being "how it is," is *always* evidence that someone wants it to be so - and can actuate it. Stuff doesn't just happen.

[Knestis]

Unfortunately, it means that without a seat back brace your stock sliders are now illegal. The costs/testing/evidence involved in producing FIA homologation for YOUR seat sliders mounted in YOUR car are unobtainable, and I think that was intentional by the CRB.

You can either replace the sliders with a fixed mount or add a seat back brace. Or you can spend a lot of money to rub their faces in it by pursuing FIA homologation... - GA

...or presumably, you can use a homologated seat mounted to the standards of its FIA certification...?

K

[JeffYoung]

Complaining about what? I'm "complaining" that regional racing (where I race) has more entries, better participation and better competition than national.

I don't give two whits about national or the runoffs. I just find it amusing that the red headed stepchild of the club (as Greg aptly puts is) -- regional racing -- so dominates national when it comes to numbers.


This sounds like a chorus from the moaners, groaners and complainers club. My god you guys need to step up to the plate if national racing is what you want to do. Otherwise stop your wining. Its like listening to little kids standing out in front of a ball field complaining they can't see the game because they don't want to spend the money on admission. Jesus !
Chris Howard

[preparedcivic]

Sadly to this day it exists within the SCCA that each program within the club is a "feeder" system to the next perceived higher level.

How often have you heard it said about someone -moving up- from autocrossing to road racing, or from Regional racing to Nationals?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't get what Chris is saying at all. From my seat, I would like IT to be National. We have the cars, we have the drivers. Simple.

I am still not convinced you can have an 'event' up here are some our tracks. How are you going to fit all those cars on track? Simply can't be done. We NEED regional / national seperation.

Now having said that, we really don't need it. What we really need is a 'Runoff qualifier' event, where all are invited - using the same format the National has now. Let the guys who want to qualify, do so and the guys who want to run the regular regional format, can do so.

[Knestis]

In case anyone is thinking about different ways to skin this cat, here's Kirk's current solution:

1. Make every single class in the entire SCCA Club Racing program eligible for points; eliminate the National/Regional distinction and let regions run whatever classes they want.

2. Keep track of Regional points and Divisional points in every class.

3. Award points based on the number of competitors within class ahead of which each driver finished, with bonus point(s) for qualifying on the pole and winning. Only competitor in your class? You get a point for the pole and win, but the guy who finished 10th in the 29-car ITB grid at Summit this past summer gets almost 10x the points you do.

4. Each year, the (however many) largest classes get to go to the national championships, based on the previous year's attendance numbers.

5. Invitations to the Ruboffs go out based on Divisional points totals, with the total number of slots per division weighted by a formula based on the host track's per-mile capacity proportional to the number of RACERS - not entries - in a division. Division X has 40 unique drivers enter a class in a year, it gets half the berths offered in a division that has 80.

6. After some offer date, unfilled invitation slots are filled on a first-come, first-served basis

One net result of this would be the gradual - and NATURAL - obsolescence of extra classes, based on built-in disincentives to participate in poorly subscribed ones. As it stands currently, the National/Ruboff system actually ENCOURAGES someone who wants a medal to go where the competition is thin.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

How do you award Divisional and Regional points? Designated named events?

[zchris]

Ok Andy, Greg, Kirk and the 5 others that beat this "do away with National" drum. Most of you guys are happy being the big fish in the small pond(you like to run at tracks close to home). Nothing bores me more. So I run the brief national schedule because I like racing on tracks that are challenging and entertaining. The point that you like large fields is BS. Andy, when was the last time you actually raced toe to toe with more than one person. Thats what happens when you get to the pointy end of the field. Does it matter that the guys you lap have an ITR,S,A,B or whatever on the side of there car if you are not actually racing with them. They are just field fillers. Same thing happens at nationals. Just more classes on track in a race. If you feel it makes you penis bigger to beat 20 poorly prepared cars vs 5, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that its a race of 20 cars. Unless having to dodge them as lapped traffic counts to you. It personally just annoys me. The fact that you guys feel the mountain should move to you is BS also. If you want factory support and the bennies that go along with national racing, stop being winers and build a nationally recognized car. Or just sit in your little pond and keep wining. God Knows you guys are kings at it.

[JeffYoung]

Looks like the likker fairy visited someone for T-giving.

Big fish in small pond? The small pond I see is Nationals. Yes, regional ITS races get between 10 and 20 competitors, depending on the track. Travel? I tow from Barber to VIR to Daytona.

From my viewpoint, racing in regional IT (at least in ITS in the SEDiv) has more cars, more competition, and better prepared cars than the E Prod guys (which I suppose is the roughly equivalent national class).

Bring your halfprepared ITS car to the SEDiv, and you'll get your butt handed to you by half the S field, a good part of the A field and even some of the B cars.

Wow. What set you off?

PS -- Over the last 2 years or so, we have had GREAT 2 and 3 car battles up front in ITS at CMP and VIR with lead changes, and different winners. Has been a lot of fun, and the 3/4/5/6 place cars are usually close.

The myth that National is the big time sure seems just that to this regional driver, who watches the national races and VIR and CMP and wonders were all the cars and competition are?

[lateapex911]

Well, the concept is sound Kirk, and is a big picture view. I like it. A lot. (actually, versions have been discussed on ITAC con calls before, but, in the random open conversation the details weren't laid out...if you know what I mean ;) ).
Right or wrong, resistance to such a concept will of course come from existing stakeholders. I'm inclined to ignore such protests, as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
And the Runoffs has certainly lost it's former luster. Part of that is shifting social relevance, but I also feel its due to the weakness of the National program, and that most certainly includes classes and rulesets.
A major issue for the CRB would be that the plan has, at it's core, a requirement to delay planning attending the Runoffs that year. While that exists now, it's (sort of) in the drivers hands, as he knows his class will or won't be going. There will be concerns that such a plan will serve to discourage people from even trying in borderline classes, and will cause people to homogenize ....
Sounds like Darwin to me, and evolution gets you places.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok Andy, Greg, Kirk and the 5 others that beat this "do away with National" drum. Most of you guys are happy being the big fish in the small pond(you like to run at tracks close to home). Nothing bores me more. So I run the brief national schedule because I like racing on tracks that are challenging and entertaining. The point that you like large fields is BS. Andy, when was the last time you actually raced toe to toe with more than one person. Thats what happens when you get to the pointy end of the field. Does it matter that the guys you lap have an ITR,S,A,B or whatever on the side of there car if you are not actually racing with them. They are just field fillers. Same thing happens at nationals. Just more classes on track in a race. If you feel it makes you penis bigger to beat 20 poorly prepared cars vs 5, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that its a race of 20 cars. Unless having to dodge them as lapped traffic counts to you. It personally just annoys me. The fact that you guys feel the mountain should move to you is BS also. If you want factory support and the bennies that go along with national racing, stop being winers and build a nationally recognized car. Or just sit in your little pond and keep wining. God Knows you guys are kings at it.

Chris, WTF is your problem? All I am saying is lets allow ALL the cars in SCCA run at the 'qualifying' events and give them all a chance for a Runoff class. IT is hugely popular because of the ruleset. Not everyone likes to engineer a GT car or build a grenade Prod car. Why not give it a chance to see where it lands in participation?

And I am not really sure you want to compare the 'quality' of competition at Nationals vs Regionals. There are just a few car/driver combos that can win in ANY class - National or Regional. Nobody is saying IT is 'better' because it has larger fields, we are saying that BECAUSE it's big, it should be considered for a spot at the Runoffs. Is that a rediculous platform?

[lateapex911]

Ok Andy, Greg, Kirk and the 5 others that beat this "do away with National" drum. Most of you guys are happy being the big fish in the small pond(you like to run at tracks close to home). Nothing bores me more. So I run the brief national schedule because I like racing on tracks that are challenging and entertaining. The point that you like large fields is BS. Andy, when was the last time you actually raced toe to toe with more than one person. Thats what happens when you get to the pointy end of the field. Does it matter that the guys you lap have an ITR,S,A,B or whatever on the side of there car if you are not actually racing with them. They are just field fillers. Same thing happens at nationals. Just more classes on track in a race. If you feel it makes you penis bigger to beat 20 poorly prepared cars vs 5, so be it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that its a race of 20 cars. Unless having to dodge them as lapped traffic counts to you. It personally just annoys me. The fact that you guys feel the mountain should move to you is BS also. If you want factory support and the bennies that go along with national racing, stop being winers and build a nationally recognized car. Or just sit in your little pond and keep wining. God Knows you guys are kings at it.

Chris, I ignored the first post but this one, well, are you sure you want to stand on that???.

I was GOING to point out that actually NATIONAL racing is ENTRY level racing earlier in the thread when Rob was talking about the 'progression'. Why? Well, LOTS of reasons.

In general:


Thin fields: Lots of time to learn to drive without actually having to RACE any one. (Even if it's for,...gasp...9th of 20 as it could be in IT!)
Cheap racing: Less competitors means less money spent trying to climb the competitive ladder. (see Kirk's Popularity=money rule)



Easy pickings: Less people = more trophies.

One case (of many) in point: A friend bought a rather shaggy Prod car. A competitive model, in a not weak Prod class. (It was cheeeeep) First National ever, (At a large well subscribed National event) he qualifies fourth of 5. (One guy couldn't get his smokin' heap to make it around the track within even 20% and my guy was better than that. ) Now, his car is also classed in ITS, and he was 5 secs off ITS pace, so..
He ended up getting a trophy! Stayed on the track. Was running. That's all it took, because nobody behind him could do even that. And thats the way it went all season for him. Now, even in it's Prod trim, if he had been in the Regional ITS races, he would have been eaten ALIVE. He would have been scratching for 8th in 20 car fields.

Now are ALL National fields like that? No. Are all Regional fields strong? Of course not. It's a complex matrix of local customs, tracks and classes. Regional racing is strong in the east, but National is stronger in the west, from what I hear.

But your statement is, in my personal opinion, rather narrow minded.

(And this is coming from a guy who has raced (in just '09-10,) at New Hampshire, Lime Rock, Watkins Glen, both New Jersey tracks, Summit Point, VIR, and Road Atlanta. (Missed Mid Ohio due to a charity swim conflict). So the "regional guys all stay at one track" claim isn't entirely true either.

[Greg Amy]

I love alcohol...I think Chris does too...!

Happy Turkey Day dude!

[JoshS]

Now are ALL National fields like that? No. Are all Regional fields strong? Of course not. It's a complex matrix of local customs, tracks and classes. Regional racing is strong in the east, but National is stronger in the west, from what I hear.

Not the Pacific coast ... we're too far from the Runoffs to use that as any sort of attraction.

We routinely get 300+ entrants for each Regional weekend. We're lucky to get 150 for our ONLY national weekend ... the region can't pay the bills with National races.

In addition, to zchris who somehow concludes that Nationals races at better tracks ... what? I think in general they use the same tracks, only there are fewer national races. From here in the large San Francisco Bay Area, I can do 15 regional races a year at three very high-quality tracks within 3 hours of home (Laguna Seca, Infineon/Sears Point, and Thunderhill). If I want to race in my division for the Runoffs, I only get to race at one of those three tracks (Thunderhill), and only one weekend. The other tracks in my division are 12 and 15 hours away. It's no wonder that the national program is dead out here.

[lateapex911]

Not the Pacific coast ... we're too far from the Runoffs to use that as any sort of attraction.

We routinely get 300+ entrants for each Regional weekend. We're lucky to get 150 for our ONLY national weekend ... the region can't pay the bills with National races.

In addition, to zchris who somehow concludes that Nationals races at better tracks ... what? I think in general they use the same tracks, only there are fewer national races. From here in the large San Francisco Bay Area, I can do 15 regional races a year at three very high-quality tracks within 3 hours of home (Laguna Seca, Infineon/Sears Point, and Thunderhill). If I want to race in my division for the Runoffs, I only get to race at one of those three tracks (Thunderhill), and only one weekend. The other tracks in my division are 12 and 15 hours away. It's no wonder that the national program is dead out here.

yea, I mis-spoke when I wrote that. Good points Josh, I was thinking "texas" when I wrote it, but wanted to be conservative in my post. My observations of the East Coast match yours of the West. Regions struggle to break even hosting a National, and offering a unique format is being used more often.

[Knestis]

How do you award Divisional and Regional points? Designated named events?

Every SCCA club racing event would count.

With respect, Chris - you are missing the entire point. You probably can't even conceive of it but I'm talking about changes to a program to improve the program - not to benefit my personal interests. My scheme would do nothing to keep you at home. It would simply reward you most - assuming you win - for traveling to where the competition is greatest, rather than thinnest. It also wouldn't change how I approach MY racing. I'd still rather spend my hard-earned $$ on track time and competition rather than travel and thin grids.

(Note here that current circumstances dictate that I live in NY and race primarily in the mid-Atlantic area.)

On the "delay planning" question, Jake, I might not have been clear - if I understand the question. Participation numbers from each season would establish the Ruboffs program for the NEXT year.

Frankly, Chris, you are doing a great job of illustrating the selfish, National-centric, me-first kind of attitude that substantially limiting the overall success of the Club's amateur program. I understand it. I just think it's unfortunate.

K

[Tristan Smith]

Great. Thanks Greg. Guess I'll put the seat brace on that damn thing.

[Z3_GoCar]

Not the Pacific coast ... we're too far from the Runoffs to use that as any sort of attraction.

We routinely get 300+ entrants for each Regional weekend. We're lucky to get 150 for our ONLY national weekend ... the region can't pay the bills with National races.

In addition, to zchris who somehow concludes that Nationals races at better tracks ... what? I think in general they use the same tracks, only there are fewer national races. From here in the large San Francisco Bay Area, I can do 15 regional races a year at three very high-quality tracks within 3 hours of home (Laguna Seca, Infineon/Sears Point, and Thunderhill). If I want to race in my division for the Runoffs, I only get to race at one of those three tracks (Thunderhill), and only one weekend. The other tracks in my division are 12 and 15 hours away. It's no wonder that the national program is dead out here.

Based on my observation of the numbers while flagging at Nationals races, in SoPac Nationals seem less immune to economic influences. Part of that may be due to cross over from SanFran guys comming South instead of adding hours of tow time to race in Division. In the SS, T, small bore Production division, we had four alerts for rollovers.

[lateapex911]

On the "delay planning" question, Jake, I might not have been clear - if I understand the question. Participation numbers from each season would establish the Ruboffs program for the NEXT year.

Frankly, Chris, you are doing a great job of illustrating the selfish, National-centric, me-first kind of attitude that substantially limiting the overall success of the Club's amateur program. I understand it. I just think it's unfortunate.

K

Ahhhhh, winner!

[924Guy]

Kirk put it so eloquently. :023: I'd have just said, what a schmuk. :lol:

I'm putting the finishing touches on my National car this winter. I know the competition is gonna suck, at least until such point as I get to the Runoffs. I'll be going from a 10-20 car in-class field to all of 5 cars, with probably a spread of up to 10s difference from first to last. Gee, that sounds like fun.

All this in the quest to go a ton faster, and get into the Big Show. There, I hope to use my extensive experience actually racing against other drivers in traffic to give me an edge most don't have, thanks to lack of experience. Hey, it's about the only advantage I am likely to have, so I gotta lean on it...

Yeah, what a schmuk.

[zchris]

Well you guys have managed to twist most everything I have said to suit your needs. I'd say I care, but it comes from the Bomber class racers of the club and its what I would expect from this group. The only thing that worries me is that some of you may come and crash your way into national racing. I guess in that respect I am a selfish smuck. That or I enjoy coming home with as little crash damage as possible every week. A trip to Youtube to watch some IT highlights will show you what I mean. Swing away boys.
Chris

[Knestis]

Well you guys have managed to twist most everything I have said to suit your needs. I'd say I care, but it comes from the Bomber class racers of the club and its what I would expect from this group. The only thing that worries me is that some of you may come and crash your way into national racing. I guess in that respect I am a selfish smuck. That or I enjoy coming home with as little crash damage as possible every week. A trip to Youtube to watch some IT highlights will show you what I mean. Swing away boys.
Chris

Oh, yeah - that's awesome.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Anyone who thinks IT is the 'bomber class' or 'jalopy class' just simply hasn't been paying attention. For every video you could come up with, I could find just as many from other classes.

All I think people are saying is that it is a legitimate idea to do away with the 'non-regional' designation of IT and invite the top classes to the Runoffs. Heck - I have said from the beginning that ALL the classes should get to go, the top in particicpation get their own rungroup, the others share space.

But some people will hold with a white-knuckle grip to the old thought processes and perceptions of classes and prep levels and drivers. And they can as they watch their beloved classes wither away.

[Greg Amy]

C'mon, Chris, come off the high horse; I know you're better than that.

Or, maybe I'm wrong and you're not.

Whatever.

GA

[924Guy]

Well you guys have managed to twist most everything I have said to suit your needs. I'd say I care, but it comes from the Bomber class racers of the club and its what I would expect from this group. The only thing that worries me is that some of you may come and crash your way into national racing. I guess in that respect I am a selfish smuck. That or I enjoy coming home with as little crash damage as possible every week. A trip to Youtube to watch some IT highlights will show you what I mean. Swing away boys.
Chris

Hmm. Seems to me, if you actually were as good as you think you are, you wouldn't be worried about a bunch of hacks in jalopies getting anywhere near you on the racetrack. :blink:

[zchris]

Andy, you have a nice car and you drive the wheels off it. There are also lots of nice cars in IT. Bomber class merely means entry level like in circle track. We diverege in that I think IT should be the entry level platform for the club. You do not. I think it is important that there should be at least one easy to build, inexpensive location for the newb to start at. This club is difficult enough to navigate without having to spend 30k on a front row build. And unfortunately that is what IT has become. It is not just me either. The club created the ST classes just for those that want more than what IT as a regional only class has to offer. The argument that IT is better competition are another place where I disagree. You race in say a 20 car ITA car field. In that race you only go toe to toe with 1 or 2 other guys the entire race if at the pointy end of field. Everyone else is a field filler. Now that would only not be true if you qualified poorly for some reason. I race in FP and at limerock there are 6 FP cars. I still have 2 of the 5 that I go toe to toe with. I bet I have as much fun as any IT guy. The car counts have been down everywhere, especially in nationals. It just plain costs more to run at the pointy end of the field nationally. That sucks. But will turn around as the economy comes back. I also believe that IT and SM has problems with the definition of acceptable contact. Jake, I believe you are also signed up in the stewards program. It will be interesting to see where that takes us both. That Watkins Glen video I have always had a problem with. Maybe others consider that acceptable. I have a hard time with it. It will be good to see if we can both get clarification on that. I'm not trying to bust balls. Just another place where we diverge. It always surprized me as you are such a rules nerd. And yes I do not like crash damage, it only cost money that would be otherwise used for racing. I do not consider IT guys all hacks. Only about 15% of them are hacks. Thats probably true club wide reg/nat both. The "IT problem" I have heard compared to the movie Failure to Launch. You all want to stay at home because its what you know and are comfy there. I have now run ITB, SM,SSM GT2 and FP and have found fun racing and nice poeple in all of them. SM was just to expensive in the bodywork costs. From my poimt of view its the IT guys who want it to go national that are the self centered ones. It just depends where you stand.
Chris

[lateapex911]

Well you guys have managed to twist most everything I have said to suit your needs. I'd say I care, but it comes from the Bomber class racers of the club and its what I would expect from this group. The only thing that worries me is that some of you may come and crash your way into national racing. I guess in that respect I am a selfish smuck. That or I enjoy coming home with as little crash damage as possible every week. A trip to Youtube to watch some IT highlights will show you what I mean. Swing away boys.
Chris

Yea, we had to do a lot of twisting of words and phrases like that! Jeez, Chris, are you TRYING to look foolish? Stuff like that is priceless.

Of COURSE you come home with no damage....there's a lot less close racing for the most part at nearly all the National races I've attended.
As for 'entry level', I guess you don't care to read, or have a mind that accepts alternate ideas.

As far as I'm concerned, let the weak die. That might be ITC. Oh well. It might be H -Prod. Boo hoo. Let the strong survive. That's Spec Miatas. Oooo, Chris, that's a GREAT example of why you like National racing, no damage to the car...what class does THAT better than SM!? :blink:

This is too easy.....somebody stop me.

[Knestis]

... I guess in that respect I am a selfish smuck. That or I enjoy coming home with as little actual racing as possible every week. ...

Fixed to reflect the average 4.5 cars/race FP got in 2010 Nationals. Seriously. Think about that. At some critical minimum tipping point, it really stops being a race.

:happy204:

As for entry level, you haven't a clue about how this game works. I can build a $4000 FP car or a $4000 ITA car. I'll be a tail-ender regardless but there's TWO options for an "easy to build, inexpensive location for the newb to start at." But you think it's "unfortunate" that someone can't run up FRONT for entry level dough in IT...? It's racing, dude.

K

[Chip42]

I completely fail to see the requirement for a correlation between cost and prestige.

mid-pack (when enough cars show up for their to be a "pack") prod cars are cheaper to build than IT cars. all the required factory parts add up. anyone can throw away 3/4 of a car.

front running IT cars are close to the price of any front-running national sedan class.

it's all about the numbers. when you come in 3rd in a 20 car field - you probably worked for it, before and during the race. when you doe the same in a 6 car field, it's a lot less likely. grand-am sucks compared to ALMS, technologically. but they have numbers and tight rules. PIA? yes. but it makes for good racing when they have it sorted out. some of us will still want to build/drive/watch ALMS cars (I helped to build / run a FP civic that was SARRC champ in 2008 and am having a hard time resisting the urge to scratch the STU itch) but you can't deny the success of the GrandAm series - technology be damned. same thing as nat's vs IT.

I swear this sounds like the 80's when they mixed prod and IT run groups and the prod guys all cried because they have plastic fenders on their british stuff and those pinto drivers would break them. because they are bombers...

[Andy Bettencourt]

So maybe we can agree that in ANY field of SCCA racing (or NASA or whatever) only a few guys car really win unless they get taken out of have a failure. So be it. You might be surprised to know that maybe half of classes at the Runoffs had the top 3 on the same second (fast lap). FIELD FILLERS by definition. Even at the big dance.

How much further would an IT guy fron the NE have to travel other than NHMS, LRP, WGI, Pocono, Summit and Lightning/Thunder for you to to consider them 'launchable'? You can't fault IT guys for running the Series that are presented to them at the tracks they are held at.

And entry level? Really? Like Kirk said, you could build a $4K Prod car and a $4K IT car and find yourself in the same spot on the starting grid. The more popular a class, the more money gets spent by the top guys. Can't name a racing series where it isn't true - and if you come up with one, it's certainly the exception, not the rule.

It's time guys like you stop looking down on IT. Tons of talent, tons of great cars and a METRIC SH!T-TON of actual racers. Easily the most popular non-spec class in the land.

The only arguement I have heard to keep it bottled up is that it's the cash cow any change may hurt the class. I don't buy it but it's been said. The rest of the arguements about 'entry level' are all just smoke and mirrors.

And why am I 'self centered' because I want to take a car with the ruleset I love - to a real National Championship? I don't get it.

[924Guy]

Oh, this is gonna be fun...


Bomber class merely means entry level like in circle track.
...with all the disparaging sentiment associated with most references to circle-track.


This club is difficult enough to navigate without having to spend 30k on a front row build. And unfortunately that is what IT has become.Then your perspective is, well, lacking perspective. 30k may be necessary for some IT classes. Not all. There's also the question of buying, for $0.50 on the dollar. Oh, and don't forget that front-row means different things, depending on where you go. Front row IT cars in the NW are, I'm guessing, a lot cheaper, given smaller turnout.

Furthermore, as surely you should be able to appreciate with all your experience, buying a "front row car" by no means guarantees a front row seat... the driver's by far the more important part of that package, at least in the slower classes of club racing.


The club created the ST classes just for those that want more than what IT as a regional only class has to offer. Hmmm... I never got that impression, in all these years of watching ST reinvent itself. Seems more like they just picked up on current IT cars as a great way to pad their numbers till dedicated cars are built/bought. Nothing wrong with that, I've done it myself before (growing a series).


The argument that IT is better competition are another place where I disagree. You race in say a 20 car ITA car field. In that race you only go toe to toe with 1 or 2 other guys the entire race if at the pointy end of field. Everyone else is a field filler. Now that would only not be true if you qualified poorly for some reason.

I race in FP and at limerock there are 6 FP cars. I still have 2 of the 5 that I go toe to toe with. I bet I have as much fun as any IT guy. Funny... you disregard everyone behind you as "field filler" and not really any sort of competition. I once had a similar lament, as I was finishing up driving my ITB car, that there wasn't really any competition out there. My father-in-law, with decades of experience in professional and college-level sports, pointed out kindly that those behind me wouldn't agree with that assessment.

Short of a spec series, when does one actually get to go toe-to-toe with more than 2-3 other cars at a given time? That is as good as it really ever gets; if you're getting that in FP, you're lucky, and that's by no mean the norm. Even getting 5-6 cars out there in one Prod class seems to be an aberration, given a brief perusal of results sheets around town. IT may not be the only place to get that experience, but it's most consistently so, in the widest geographical area, among the SCCA classes.


The "IT problem" I have heard compared to the movie Failure to Launch. You all want to stay at home because its what you know and are comfy there. ...From my point of view its the IT guys who want it to go national that are the self centered ones. It just depends where you stand.
Chris?? I have trouble defining a response to this, because it seems contradictory; on the one hand, you mock us for supposedly wanting to stay big fish in a small pond... OTOH, you complain that we should not want to take our jalopies to the National arena?

That doesn't gibe with the regular, significant turnout of IT drivers at the IT-Fest and ARRC every year, all those who are looking for the big race turnout and fields to see how they measure up. I've BTDT, there's many here who have also.

It's not a matter of trying to "game" the system to ensure our individual cars have an advantage over everyone else in the class, and making sure that no new cars are allowed in class with the chance of "upsetting the existing balance" aka competitiveness out of the box. This is the selfishness we've come to despise in so many National drivers.

Rather, the push for National recognition is just that; the push for recognition of all the hard work and effort put in to create a Nationally-competitive racing program, represented by our cars, our teams, and our development. Maybe this is just a good example of how effective the club's development program is, in creating such successful examples (Ruck being the shining beacon for all of us, as of late). But having to practically throw everything in the trash and start over to change classes, learn new cars, etc? Does that really make sense?

For the record, I'm not one of those who's rabid about taking IT National. I'm more supportive of elimination the National/Regional distinction, though I do see that it may have some good reasons for existing (particularly relating to phasing out under-subscribed classes).

But I take issue with your characterization and blanket dismissal of IT drivers and cars. That's what we call prejudice, and it's ugly no matter if it's based on skin color, religion, region, or simply the car you drive.

Do we act like we have a chip on our shoulders? Yes, and posts like yours exemplify just why. It's hard to feel a welcome and valuable member of the club when you're relegated to the other side of the tracks...

[Greg Amy]

You guys are wasting your time. You're trying to argue against an age-old misguided bias in Club Racing.

This bias is basically that racing has "levels" of progression from "simplex to complex", from "unskilled to skilled", from "amateur to professional". As you progress up these levels the level of competition - and the costs - increase. As a racer, you are expected to start at the simplex, unskilled, amateur level, and as you build experience and "work the model" to gain benevolent sponsors to support you through your arts, you are expected to move up to that next level. At some point in your career - with hard work, increased skill levels, and the help of the Baby Jesus - you, too, can become a complex skilled professional.

And, of course, if one does not "progress" through that biased model it is de facto proof of your lack of complexity, possession of skills, and lack of professionalism. Further, anyone who actually chooses to "stop" at a level prior to either the ultimate completion of Ladder of Progress (tm: tGA) or does not ultimately fail to progress and leave the sport entirely is despicable and an abortion of the true intent and spirit of this art/sport. By doing this you are, in fact, insulting those around you by trying to be a "Big Man on a Small Campus" (BMoC; i.e., Big Fish in a Small Pond). Those that do this should be ashamed of themselves; any evidence that they are not ashamed of this is further proof of their smallness of character.

You guys may as well be arguing against a specific religious dogma, because that's exactly what this is.

Welcome home.

GA, who's looking forward to reading about Chris Howard's next steps up the Ladder Of Progression (tm: tGA) in 2011 - maybe a top-flight World Challenge build? - thus leaving opportunities in SCCA Production racing to those behind him that are less complex, less skilled, and less professional than he is...we sincerely hope it's not his goal to be a BMoC in something as "amateur" as SCCA Prod racing...

[ner88]

Is there anyone out there that doesn't believe that regional racing supports National racing?
A few years ago SCCA told Pro racing "get profitable or else".
Maybe it's time!

[dickita15]

Not sure I agree with this one Jerry. In many divisions/regions regional are more profitable, in many Nationals are. On a national corporate level I do not think either is true, however way more time is spent talking about the national program that it really deserves.

[zchris]

Greg, I don't think I'm some sort of hot shit driver. I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year I have to admit I no longer reccomend the SCCA as a destination for a newb. We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started. And of the few guys in recent memory that jumped over from time trials to IT racing, jumped back when they realized the level of acceptable body damage to the stewards. NASA is getting stronger and the SCCA is getting weaker for many reasons. Having that inexpensive entry point, that IT used to be, I believe is part of that. I am sure NASA thanks you. Oh, and I believe the club should be inclusive of those weaker classes. Even ITC. You on the otherhand believe that we should bulldoze under anyone that does not meet your criteria. We are worlds apart in our beliefs.
Chris

[924Guy]

I'm sorry; $3k cars aren't a good place to start? I recall hearing time and time again, "If you can't afford to race a Vee, you can't afford to race." B or Vee, those will get you into the party.

If your students are hell-bent on competing for wins right out of the gate - isn't it your responsibility as a mentor to disabuse them of that notion, in their own best interests, and set some achievable goals?? You know, to finish first you must first finish, and all that?

Or is it better to point them at classes with 2-3-car fields?


(from tGA) You guys are wasting your time. You're trying to argue against an age-old misguided bias in Club Racing.

Um, isn't the whole point to change that? After all, if you don't commit yourself to improving the situation, aren't you responsible for the status quo? IOW, you're either part of the solution, or part of the problem! Not to mention which, it's a long slow weekend with precious little racing going on, so we've got plenty of time to sit around and argue over coffee! ;) Besides, the kart tracks don't open till later... :eclipsee_steering:

[JeffYoung]

Chris, where do you race IT?

At least in SEDiv, you put a bumper on someone -- even with no damage -- and you get to talk to a steward.

I'm comfortable racing with all of the guys I race with, and have had only one real metal to metal contact that was my fault, and one other that was not -- in 6 years of racing.

Like Vaughn says, whether IT goes national has some debateable points, and some of what you say I can at least understand.

But I do completely disagree with you that (a) IT is some sort of no-talent crash fest (it's the opposite, at least where I race) and (b) IT is not good for the entry level driver.

I think IT is the BEST place to go for an entry level driver. You can buy a used, fairly competitive car for less than $10k in S/A/B, hell less than $5k in B/C.

I've raced NASA. Somewhere above I think Grafton Robertson said it best. NASA is a fun, but the lack of a rigid class structure (something we complaint about in IT) makes the competition level less.

Anyway, if we could have this discussio without slagging IT and name calling, it'd be more productive (and it is necessary I think).

Thanks.


Greg, I don't think I'm some sort of hot shit driver. I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year I have to admit I no longer reccomend the SCCA as a destination for a newb. We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started. And of the few guys in recent memory that jumped over from time trials to IT racing, jumped back when they realized the level of acceptable body damage to the stewards. NASA is getting stronger and the SCCA is getting weaker for many reasons. Having that inexpensive entry point, that IT used to be, I believe is part of that. I am sure NASA thanks you. Oh, and I believe the club should be inclusive of those weaker classes. Even ITC. You on the otherhand believe that we should bulldoze under anyone that does not meet your criteria. We are worlds apart in our beliefs.
Chris

[Andy Bettencourt]

This bias is basically that racing has "levels" of progression from "simplex to complex", from "unskilled to skilled", from "amateur to professional". As you progress up these levels the level of competition - and the costs - increase. As a racer, you are expected to start at the simplex, unskilled, amateur level, and as you build experience and "work the model" to gain benevolent sponsors to support you through your arts, you are expected to move up to that next level. At some point in your career - with hard work, increased skill levels, and the help of the Baby Jesus - you, too, can become a complex skilled professional.



Greg slipped this one in close to year end. Getting my vote for best of the year. Read it as truth.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg, I don't think I'm some sort of hot shit driver. I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year I have to admit I no longer reccomend the SCCA as a destination for a newb. We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started.

And this is where we are at odds. Just because you have to have a great car and be a solid drive in some areas has NOTHING TO DO with what it takes to get into SCCA with an entry level budget. I think it's absolutely foolish to think that in ANYTHING in life, you can come into something with entry level money, talent and knowledge - and think you are going to win.

Maybe where we fail is setting the expectations of noobs. No, you are not going to win ITA in the Northeast against the likes of Lawton, Dimmino or Hawethorne with your 'just bought' Civic. You need to learn, listen and spend. Simple.

NASA may be gaining in some areas, but it's because IT is so popular. If there wasn't a good pile of excellent competition in ITA, I wouldn't have had to spend what I spent or tested when I tested or studied what I studied. You play to the level of your competition - especially with disposable income.

I challenge you to name a NASA class that is a 'better' entry level than IT. The only reason you could come up with one is on the chance it's a 'not-yet-popular' class that nobody has decided they REALLY want to win yet.

Your definition of SCCA's failure to have an entry level class - isn't a failure at all - it's driven by it's SUCCESS. If you want more field fillers that cherry pick small classes so they can bring home an ashtry, so be it, but IT ain't it anymore.

Entry level to me is simple: Easy to undertand rules, lots of inexpensive used cars for sale, low minimum consumables, etc. IT has all of that. But paying your entry fee in a real 'jalopy' shouldn't get you a win in ANYTHING. If you think that can happen, the class just isn't that great.

[Knestis]

Greg, I don't think I'm some sort of hot shit driver. I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year I have to admit I no longer reccomend the SCCA as a destination for a newb. We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started. And of the few guys in recent memory that jumped over from time trials to IT racing, jumped back when they realized the level of acceptable body damage to the stewards. NASA is getting stronger and the SCCA is getting weaker for many reasons. Having that inexpensive entry point, that IT used to be, I believe is part of that. I am sure NASA thanks you. Oh, and I believe the club should be inclusive of those weaker classes. Even ITC. You on the otherhand believe that we should bulldoze under anyone that does not meet your criteria. We are worlds apart in our beliefs.
Chris

A great illustration of precisely what can be most wrong about club racing, Chris - a culture in which a new driver can own a tough looking driver suit and a nice tow rig, spend one weekend a month at some top-shelf track, and take home a flag to hang in the den having beaten nobody.

I've spent 25 years watching people "jump from TT to racing," and in my experience they tend to leave because they have unrealistic expectations in some important regard or another. Effective mentoring can help that but I'd caution you that telling someone they can be "competitive" in NASA for less $$ than in SCCA (and without equal risk of damage?) is doing them a huge disservice. It's frankly just not true.

The only cases I can recall where someone blamed body contact for quitting (like, three?), their lack of judgment or patience was a primary cause of the bent metal. And for those, it wasn't the actual contact that was the problem. It was that they had zero understanding that there would be $$ costs associated with their screw-ups, and hadn't budgeted for their own bad behavior.

K

[JeffYoung]

This is an interesting phenomenon, and I agree with it -- the idea that SCCA is a natural progression from autox to regional to national.

In my view, it's archaic and mostly gone. When I started IT racing in 2004, I'd done a few BMW track days but no autox. I picked IT because, well, I could race a TR8 and becuase I liked the ruleset. Simple. Easy to do. I bought my car for $7k as a street car and got it on track for another $5k. More than most, but not terrible with most of the cost of the car being initial purchase of a fairly rare automobile.

I quickly learned that IT fields were large, fast, and had a ton of talent. Way more than the National weekends I flagged at. Sure, one or two of the National gusy, like Greg Ira in his EP 240, were obviously very, very fast.

But so too was ITS -- the talent level there was astounding. James Clay and Seth Thomas. David Haskell and Sylvain Tremblay. John Williams and Chet Whittel. Basically, a bunch of guys who either went on to pro racing or could have.

While ITS has seen a participation drop (admittedly talent level, although there are still some really FAST guys out there), we still have a great core group that I'd put up against a "National" field at any time really. And ITA and B right now have a bunch of great cars and drivers.

What's interesting to me is that of the IT guys who DID go race prod, they went regional prod and did so not to "move up" but because they wanted to do more to their cars.

About the only "ladder guy" I know right now is Ruck in what, FP? And he won the Boreoffs in his first or second year there after years in IT.




Greg slipped this one in close to year end. Getting my vote for best of the year. Read it as truth.

[lateapex911]

Greg, I don't think I'm some sort of hot shit driver. I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year I have to admit I no longer reccomend the SCCA as a destination for a newb. [sic]
'For their sake, why not just send them to Dave Gran? He has a complete mentoring program that has a history of successfully placing people in racing. Setting appropriate expectations is on key element of what he does, and he does it without twisted standards.

We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started. .... Having that inexpensive entry point, that IT used to be, I believe is part of that. ChrisWow. Um, again, the answer is right under your nose, but you're too blind to see. Buy a Prod car for $5 or 6K. It doesn't have to be fast. Go to Regionals. Run around the track, hit nobody, and take home a trophy. Low cost, low contact, low risk, big returns...isn't that your nirvana of entry level racing?
Chris, maybe you haven't paid attention:
1-ANY class that is popular will breed increased prep levels, testing and competiveness. Read: expense.
2-I suggest your reports of contact might not be entirely accurate. I've not been hit in a couple years of racing. (over 25 races, plus practice, test, and qualifying sessions, and included passes/repasses for the lead, and multi class racing). The hits I DID have were intentional, and asked for front to rear. I had a student recently who, after tangling with a car in his school came in all hot and annoyed that the guy took out his rear quarter. I sat him down and told him if he had given the guy racing room, it never would have happened. He said "I never thought he'd try a pass there". Well, newbie, when you're that slow, yea, people are going to pass you, and you better not be slamming the door. Point being: Blame went to HIM. Maybe new guys who have issues are equally responsible? Its racing, not TT-ing. You need to be a racer when you're racing. Chose a class with no racing if you want it easy...
3: NASA has the PT category for run what you brung. It's complex and has a host of issues. It might be a great idea, and is certainly a great way to get TT-ers out without forcing them to make a car that meets a rigid class ruleset. But actual even up racing isn't really, it's strength. SCCA is about racing. First and foremost.
That said, there are PLENTY of areas within SCCA for entry level buys and racing experience.
You just need to align expectations with realities. It sounds like your grasp of reality isn't sufficient to do so.

[zchris]

Jake, the last guy I mentored went to 5 or 6 races and watched you guys. I don't tell poeple what class to run. I just play devils advocate and tell them the pitfalls of each. This guy has many years of road racing motorcycles. He could only assume the way the IT and SM crowd do damage to each other that you all must have great sponsorship. When I told no such luck, he thought the bulk of you need to reassess what your there for. He almost opted out, but his burning desire to be an adreniline junkie won. He, after an exhaustive look at all sides, got an AS/ITE Mustang as he wants to get reasonbly safe track time to learn the craft. Its not what I would have picked, but he got a good deal on a car. As he said, its a limited prep AS(never heard of it) and his investment is low. And sorry, anyone that drives IT is not a direction that I would send someone that does not know any better. You guys are to gung hoe on your crusade to conquer the world.
Chris
PS let me know how storming the castle goes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

He could only assume the way the IT and SM crowd do damage to each other that you all must have great sponsorship.

Lumping IT in with SM is a big mistake.


And sorry, anyone that drives IT is not a direction that I would send someone that does not know any better.

Huh?


You guys are to gung hoe on your crusade to conquer the world.

Chris
PS let me know how storming the castle goes.

You aren't getting it Chris. Nobody is up-in-arms about IT being regional. Actually, I think it's about 50-50 for-against going National. Fair arguements on both sides I guess. But I will say this, if your opinion of IT and its racers is what the majority of 'national' guys feel, you are destined to spin your wheels fighting for your mediocre numbers. I bet if IT went National, a good chunk of the current drivers would consider the class based on it's rules.

Anyway, I hope some of the CRB/BoD guys are reading this and take note at how some of the club thinks. It's attitudes like that that hold the SCCA back every day.

[JeffYoung]

Wow. I agree with Andy.

I'm fairly new to the club but pretty quickly "got" that there were serious issues with National racing, and their attitude and in particular their attitude towards IT. I also "got" that the competition levels in IT were on average significantly higher than in National classes, and that I really liked my "outlaw" regional class that was not subject to some of the vagaries of National control.

Last, I also "got" that IT and later SM basically pay the way for the Club Racing program.

I'd like to think I could grow a bit as a club member, and a person, and move beyond some of those prejudices, but when I see similar things coming from National it sure reduces the desire to do so.

[Knestis]

... I bet if IT went National, a good chunk of the current National classes would be three or more classes farther down the participation list, with their Ruboffs status in greater jeopardy.

Anyway, I hope some of the CRB/BoD guys are reading this and take note at how some of the club thinks. It's attitudes like that that hold the SCCA back every day.

As they say, "Fixed that for you, Andy." The bottom line is that a certain portion of the current crop of National drivers want nothing more than to protect their turf. Putting very popular classes into their game is not in their individual best interests - irrespective of what might be best for Club Racing growth and viability. I wish I had confidence that Club decision makers were thinking about the program ahead of their individual interests but I don't.

(EDIT - one way that this issue manifests itself is when someone - say, for example, a CRB member who runs a poorly subscribed National class - repeats the mantra over and over that, "Going National will increase the cost of IT." Which is patently crap, BTW.)

I leave the second bit unedited because it bears repeating.

K

[JeffYoung]

I'm still perplexed as to why someone comes on the IT site to slag IT drivers and expects.....to be agreed with?

[Greg Amy]

Guys, remember: religious dogma. You're wasting your time, ignore the troll.

Besides, Chris Howard is probably a bit put off - and likely more than a bit embarrassed - that his chosen class, FP, has as its National champion for the last two years an Improved Touring racer, with this year's FP Runoffs National Champion also being this year's ITB ARRC Champion and the last two years' ITA ARRC Champion.

Yeah, that's lightweight competition.

Oops.

[JoshS]

Actually Greg, I think you're making his point. In his world, IT racers should never be able to just go and win the Runoffs. IT would be cheap entry and serious racers would quickly "graduate" out of IT and learn their technique in some real class, rather than raise the bar in IT.

[Greg Amy]

Well, reduce the attractiveness, fun, and great competiton in IT and that's exactly what would happen.

I'd love to see the CRB request for that one.

[lateapex911]

But I will say this, if your opinion of IT and its racers is what the majority of 'national' guys feel, you are destined to spin your wheels fighting for your mediocre numbers. I bet if IT went National, a good chunk of the current drivers would consider the class based on it's rules.

Anyway, I hope some of the CRB/BoD guys are reading this and take note at how some of the club thinks. It's attitudes like that that hold the SCCA back every day.

Remember the old George Carlin joke? "Anyone who drives slower than me is a freaking moron, and anyone who drives faster is a freaking maniac!"?

I think it's like that with certain racers. Certain racers look down on any level they find to be beneath them. national guys scoff at regional guys, Pros scoff at amateurs, Racers scoff at Autocrossers, and so on. Maybe that's what's going on here...

[Knestis]

...and the best part of that angle is that Ruck will tell you that his FP car is essentially an IT car with some bits removed. That's got to sting. :)

K

[JLawton]

It seems to me I always hear two jokes about Prod cars:

1) No one wants to be the run group after them 'cause there's gonna be oil on the track.

2) In the run group with the Prod classes, everyone in the run group gets to take a victory lap.


In my time of running IT, there have been many pro weekends where we get to be a support race. Without fail, the consenses is the IT race is the best of the weekend....



:shrug:


.

[924Guy]

Guys, remember: religious dogma. You're wasting your time, ignore the troll.

Besides, Chris Howard is probably a bit put off - and likely more than a bit embarrassed - that his chosen class, FP, has as its National champion for the last two years an Improved Touring racer, with this year's FP Runoffs National Champion also being this year's ITB ARRC Champion and the last two years' ITA ARRC Champion.


That's precisely it - not to convince him to agree with us, but to shame him with his own material... :023:

[Russ Myers]

On this, I can only speak for myself. I have been a member of this club since 1976. I started in auto-x with a 1969 Mustang. My first dealing with rules were when I wound up in CP because I had ET mags on the car. I have raced in SCCA from SSC in a Ford Fiesta to CP/GT-2 in a 280Z. I have NEVER had deep pockets. I did go to the Runoffs in 1980, my only apperance, so far. I spent many years, post divorce, building an ITC Fiesta. It was never very competetive. When the SCCA invented Restricted level Prod cars, I moved my Fiesta to HP. I STILL want another shot at the Runoffs. Not having the money to really develop the Fezzy, but STILL WANTING TO RACE, I bought a Pinto to run ITB. I know I will get my ass kicked, but I will be getting it kicked without spendind a King's ransom. I WANT to race, I want to be on the track, I will do what needs to be done, within my budget, to accomplish this. If IT were to be a national class, I will be quite happy to try and qualify for the Runoffs. But still, driving around as hard as I can at the back of the pack, being FIELD FILLER as it were, is still a HELLUVA lot more fun than leaning on the fence, watching cars go by. And isn't FUN what its all about.

Russ.

[gran racing]

Hey Chris, you probably don’t remember it but several years ago you did some cage work on my then ITA Honda Prelude. Back then the car was crap. It had an extremely high millage engine, inexpensive non-adjustable suspension (used the OEM one for a little bit), and a muffler to make it sound cool. Oh, I ran on old, used SRF tires that I purchased for $25 each. I knew that I was going to get my butt handed to me but I was out there learning, having a ton of fun, and had people to race with.

Fast forward to now. The Prelude was re-classed into ITB and over the years I worked hard to improve upon my racecraft. AFTER spending quite a bit of effort on the driver, I built a new Prelude (slammed the Bondo Prelude into a wall at LRP necessitating a new car). This time I had a pro engine built, good suspension installed, and other go-fast parts added. I have since continued to develop the car and driver. Throughout this entire journey, I’ve always had plenty of ITB cars to race with and a carrot out there baiting me for more even as I got to the pointy end of the field. To me, this is what makes Improved Touring one of the best places categories.


I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year. We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started.

This simply couldn’t be further from the truth. While I’m a big fan of IT, there are other great categories where people can begin their addiction on an entry level budget.

Over the years I’ve spoken with a large number of people attempting to enter the sport. To give you some sort of perspective, we started a mentor program just a couple of months ago and have in excess of 120 students enrolled. One of the biggest obstacles people face is misinformation out there (even if well intended such as your case) and not knowing where they can obtain guidance. Maybe because you’re focus is on national events you’re simply not seeing or hearing of all the novice success stories? I'm not sure. My original intention was to write my resource (GoAheadTakeTheWheel.com (http://www.goaheadtakethewheel.com)) for novices but sure wish more experienced racers would at least read though it to get a different perspective. Et hm, Chris.

Read about Kai (http://www.goaheadtakethewheel.com/blog/grassroots-driving-your-racecar-to-the-track/) purchasing an SSC racecar for $5,000, doing regionals and driving the car to the track. He’s just another prime example of how SCCA has plenty of places for people race on modest budgets.

As far as crash damage goes in IT, I’m just not seeing it where I race (primarily LRP, the Glen, and Summit). Oh, and as far as not traveling further? It’s hard to justify the added expenses and time off when there’s such fantastic competition fairly local.

[jjjanos]

whine
What an absolute of horse crap combined with a healthy dose of over-importance.

The only difference between national and regional drivers are
1. The size of their wallets
2. The generally pleasant attitude of regional drivers as opposed to the cornhole attitude of a large segment of the national driver population.

I started flagging when I was 18 and now I'm 44 and I can tell you that every year, the worst driving, the worst attitudes and the biggest need to compensate for tiny wedding tackle happens at national races.

Jesus in a Yugo, you don't need to be good to have a national license -- you just need $$$. A person could be completely unlicensed on 1January2011 with ZERO racing experience and attend the freaking 2011 Runoffs by just picking the right class.

IT will never get factory support for one simple reason -- we race OLD cars. Manufacturers generally want to support their current models, not model that was discontinued or changed 20 years ago.

[jjjanos]

Greg, I don't think I'm some sort of hot shit driver. I do however listen to poeple all the time getting into racing. And as a mentor to 5+ poeple a year I have to admit I no longer reccomend the SCCA as a destination for a newb. We no longer have a place for an entry level budget guy to get started.

More horse poop.

In winter 2006 I bought a reliable, pointy-end ITC car with a boatload of spares for $3K. That I didn't run it at the pointy-end had nothing to do with the $$ in the car and everything to do with my driving.

In Winter 2008, I SOLD it for some amount I don't remember and bought ITB version of the car for under $4000. The only significant development money put into the car was a new exhaust and that was only because the old one got a hole in it. The car always has been a pointy-end car and I've moved from mid-pack ITB to having the front pack in my sights. None of that was CAR development -- it was all driver development and gaining confidence.[/quote]


And of the few guys in recent memory that jumped over from time trials to IT racing, jumped back when they realized the level of acceptable body damage to the stewards.

And a major reason for the body damage probably was a lack of race craft on the part of time trial driver who, unless he's actually gone wheel-to-wheel with someone for position will have very little clue where sticking your nose inside is acceptable and anticipated and where sticking your nose inside will get you chopped.

Again I repeat, the WORST driving I witnessed each year as a flagger ALWAYS happened at a national, not a regional.

[joeg]

Russ--Don't belittle the Pinto. It is definitely not a joke of a car.

[lateapex911]

...and the best part of that angle is that Ruck will tell you that his FP car is essentially an IT car with the washer bottle removed. That's got to sting. :)

K


It seems to me I always hear two jokes about British Prod cars:

1) No one wants to be the run group after them 'cause there's gonna be oil on the track.

2) In the run group with the Prod classes, everyone in the run group gets to take a victory lap.......if they didn't oil the track ;)


In my time of running IT, there have been many pro weekends where we get to be a support race. Without fail, the consenses is the IT race is the best of the weekend....



:shrug:


.

Oh, it's come to me dragging old trite Prod jokes out. Sad. hee hee. But what can we expect from me? I'm just a driver of a crappy old bucket of bolts banged up IT car....clearly jealous of the higher ups like the prod guys.

[lateapex911]

Some thoughts on the national vs regional thing. I hold a Nat lic. One weekend a friend rented a Spec Racer Ford to a customer at a Regional. I was the crew guy assigned to that car. Each session he came in and reported the car was fine, he just needed 'more time' in it. He was pretty much tail end charly. He ran every session, and finished the race. Finished in the top 2/3.
The very next weekend, I jumped in the same car. UNdrivable. I was 5 seconds a lap faster than the rental driver. I found the rear bearings loose, AND the RR toe link had a bad end, so it was getting rear toe change everywhere. Replaced that, went out for qualifying. Two seconds faster, but STILL undrivable, LOL. Strung the car, but couldn't get it to hold alignment. FRONT tie rod shot. Replace. I had qualified 30 of 34 or so, LOL. (Thank god the race went better, ..)
So, the renter beat almost a third of a Regional field, but I, going 6 plus seconds faster per lap, was nearly last in a National field.
That's the way it is, in certain classes at certain races. That's a best to worst case scenario, but classes like SM and SRF ARE tough nuts to crack Nationally.
On the other hand, my pal in his ITS/Prod car scores trophies in National events, but, would have had his ass handed to him in a Regional ITS race, even in prod specs!

In popular classes, National racing is top notch. But many/most classes aren't popular, and trophies are easy pickins'.

other differences include


Longer races (errr, time trials, in many cases) at Nationals.
Fewer nationals to choose from.
Greater flexibility in picking tracks and schedules in Regionals
More 'extracurricular' opportunities in Regional racing. (Like ProIT)
Regions have more flexibility with weekend formats with Regionals because they aren't chained by National 'standards'. So you get events like triples etc.

[924Guy]

Oh, it's come to me dragging old trite Prod jokes out. Sad. hee hee. But what can we expect from me? I'm just a driver of a crappy old bucket of bolts banged up IT car....clearly jealous of the higher ups like the prod guys.

Yeah... besides, as any Prod guy will tell you, reliability is seriously overrated. :D

[Racerlinn]

other differences include


Longer races (errr, time trials, in many cases) at Nationals.
Fewer nationals to choose from.
Greater flexibility in picking tracks and schedules in Regionals
More 'extracurricular' opportunities in Regional racing. (Like ProIT)
Regions have more flexibility with weekend formats with Regionals because they aren't chained by National 'standards'. So you get events like triples etc.


Major difference for me:
Regionals typically have at least 2, sometimes 3 races per weekend.
Nationals typically have 1 race per weekend.

No thanks, I need at least two RACES (whether Regional or National) to make it worth my time and fulfill my expectation of having fun RACING.
I don't need 45 minutes of practicing and qualifying on a Saturday....boring.

[DavidM]

Meh. If "national" racing is so much better than "regional" racing then there should be no problem with a plan like Kirk outlined since the "national" classes would be better than the "regional" classes, right? The national/regional distinction is completely artificial for GCR defined classes. Just have classes and races. Some regions may include classes in their weekends that other regions do not. These are truly regional classes. Keep race weekends the same if you want. I want double race weekends and divisional championships.

How many months till racing season starts again?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bet there has the be named 'Qualifying races' no? If not, you dilute the heck out of the points as you have WAY too many races that could pay points. So those races now are called 'Nationals'. The only real difference would be that ALL GCR classes would be on the schedule.

[lateapex911]

Bet there has the be named 'Qualifying races' no? If not, you dilute the heck out of the points as you have WAY too many races that could pay points. So those races now are called 'Nationals'. The only real difference would be that ALL GCR classes would be on the schedule.
And that to do so, race length would need to be adjusted. Which is fine. I'd MUCH rather have 2 20 min races than 1 45 (zzzzz)* minute race, and yes, I know the math doesn't equal....

I can think on much less than one hand the number of 45 minute 'sprint' races I've watched that I really thought were interesting.

[924Guy]

Jake - actually, the math works out pretty close when you add a few minutes for cleanup between sessions... ;)

I'm with Lynn - Doubles are the way to go. I don't know that I've ever gone to a "Single" Regional, except the ARRC. The only reason I'd go to a Single National would be a lack of a second Double to go to (to qualify for the Runoffs or otherwise).

Exactly how much practice does one need, if one's such a good driver?!? Just more opportunity to burn up 'spensive rubber...

PS: Andy does have a relevant point about needing a proper, sane qualifying process for the national championships. Then again, maybe if we got rid of the arbitrary distinction, it might help us develop a more rational qualifying process that would actually require most drivers to have to race for and earn a spot on the grid at the end of the year.

...I'm just saying'...

[jjjanos]

Bet there has the be named 'Qualifying races' no? If not, you dilute the heck out of the points as you have WAY too many races that could pay points. So those races now are called 'Nationals'. The only real difference would be that ALL GCR classes would be on the schedule.

Why pay points at all? SCCA has RACES. Once per year, we have a National Championship Event. The winner of that event is the class champion.

Who may enter the National Championship Event? Any driver who has started a minimum of 6 races during the year in the class in which he is entered.

If Divisions want championships, let the divs set their own qualifying events.

[lateapex911]

the problem with just having a free for all at the Ruboffs (KK) is that classes like SM (and maybe SRF) would be oversubscribed. How to chose who's in and who goes home?

[JoshS]

the problem with just having a free for all at the Ruboffs (KK) is that classes like SM (and maybe SRF) would be oversubscribed. How to chose who's in and who goes home?

The same way the tiny dirt tracks do it: heat races and a main race.

Except that the difference is that people don't travel far to those tiny tracks, maybe it really is best to figure out who gets in before people have to hit the road.

[jumbojimbo]

Who may enter the National Championship Event? Any driver who has started a minimum of 6 races during the year in the class in which he is entered.

Isn't that pretty much how it works out now? It seems like a lot of jerking around just to exclude a dozen or two people. And the people excluded are likely at least as skilled or more than many of the people who don't get excluded simply because they are in tiny classes.

[Knestis]

It is kind of necessary to try to get the entry list right before traveling...

That's why what I suggested is a little bit clunky, in terms of the math. It's something of a philosophical policy decision, who should get the opportunity, but as far as first principles go I'd argue for processes that try to get the most competitive entrants there. Something that takes into consideration how many cars are in a class, in a division, rather than a simple allocation distributed equally across the country.

K

[lateapex911]

yes counting from the bottom UP is the smart way. (or some equivalent system that doesn't award 'win' points that are the same regardless of the size of the field.

[Matt93SE]

yes counting from the bottom UP is the smart way. (or some equivalent system that doesn't award 'win' points that are the same regardless of the size of the field.

But then what if you're the only well-prepped car in class in your area? You then have to either drive all over the country (fine in theory, but what about us guys on a limited budget who can't afford $1000 in diesel every other weekend?), or you sit out at the end of the year cause nobody ran against you..

I kinda like the idea of heat races or something like that at runoffs.. that might make the 1300 mile drive worth it to run a couple more races against the best of the breed.
maybe do 2-3-4 qualifying sessions depending on field size and
only take the fastest 20-30 cars (not necessarily the top few from each heat) to the final race.

and if I don't stack up against the good guys, then I'm out of the runoffs a week earlier and I hit the road home. Everyone gets their chance to go to Runoffs and run with the big dogs, but only the fastest run the race.

[Greg Amy]

...some equivalent system that doesn't award 'win' points that are the same regardless of the size of the field.
In all of its history that I've been involved, the Runoffs has been exactly what its name implies: a centralized "runoff" between champions from all the various divisions in the country. It was designed, and should continue to be, an extension of the divisional programs.

I know I've typed this before, but "in the old days" only the top-3 in each division got an automatic bye to go to the National Championship race. If you happened to be in a soft division, lucky you, but you'd be about to get one HELL of a lesson when you arrived in Atlanta...

After those invitations were passed along, any spots left over would go to the 4th place finishers, starting with the largest divisions, then if any spots were left over we'd got through 5th, and so forth.

If you were to change this to where the Divisional Championships don't matter, then you're effectively changing the whole process, and of course the motivations on how/when/where to get there. Personally, I'd hate to see that happen.

Keep that in mind as you brainstorm possible options...

GA

[lateapex911]

So, how's that system working? I honestly haven't researched this lately, but I have the feeling that it aint like it used to be. I'm guessing that the fields are full in MAYbe two classes, and the spreads from first to last are pretty big in many classes. Ignoring the Kansas years (cuz everybody hated Kansas), I seem to recall that a number of classes had spreads of 10, 12, and even more seconds per lap in qualifying at MidOhio. (a 1:40 or so lap). And in some classes (some were teh same as the big time spread classes!) the field was a dozen or maybe 20 cars deep.


Now, that strikes me as well, embarrassing. Essentially, in some classes, nobody bothered to show up. yea, maybe the winner did a great job, but he was the only guy in the country that bothered....yet, we all know that there are classes that would put on a better race. Why not let them?

hey, I'm just casting a casual eye over things. But the era you're talking about is long ago, Greg, and things were different back then.

[Greg Amy]

So, how's that system working?...I'm guessing that the fields are full in MAYbe two classes, and the spreads from first to last are pretty big in many classes.
Can't answer your question as to how it's working, Jake, but let's assume you're correct, that the fields aren't getting filled and the spreads are high.

How is changing the qualifying system going to change that situation?

Your base assumption - or, certainly, my base inference - is that this qualifying system we have now, and/or ones we had in the past, is causing the fields to be light and the speed differentials wide. How can that be, Jake? Given that we have an all-inclusive qualifying system now, there is no (zero) qualifying system that can increase the number of entrants at the Runoffs. At best, any tighter qualifying system could maybe tighten up the differentials, but that's assuming that the fast guys in Omaha are as fast as the ones in NYC. But in the end making a tighter qualifying requirement can only reduce the number of entrants further.

Everybody that wants to go to the Runoffs now is going*, so you can't get any more. Are you assuming that an all-inclusive qualifying system is keeping faster cars/drivers away because there's too many slow cars out there and as a result they don't find the event attractive? Do you really think that if it's made more exclusive that faster drivers will suddenly find the national championship event more attractive and thus the entry numbers may increase? I'd find it hard to believe that any fast driver who thinks he/she may have a shot at the championship would forego it because there may be a lot of slow cars there (if that's the case then the 2010 STU National Champion must think he pretty much wasted his time and money... ;))

We can certainly debate issues regarding the general health of amateur club racing and/or somewhat-related issues of too many classes that are too-few subscribed but I really don't see how changing the qualification system for the Runoffs is going to effect that in any way, or vice versa.

GA

*It seems if there is a "problem" with the Runoffs qualification system, it's that in the very few classes that are over-subscribed (e.g., SM, SRF) that the cream may not rise to the top, that someone well-qualified in a well-subscribed division may not be able to make it into our show because of someone that may have done relatively well in a lesser-subscribed division. Well, that sucks for them, really. But I find it very hard for the Club to go through a lot of hoops to overhaul an entire system for those 2 or 3 classes, and in effect, a small handful of people. And, in the end, does that top-3 person in the smaller division deserve to get left home simply because he lives in Omaha instead of near San Francisco or New York City?

Using a "number of people you beat" standard certainly puts a level of relative performance out there, but that is only relative to local; for all we know the Divisional 3rd place guy in Omaha is faster than the Divisional Champion in New York City. There is no standard that we can put up there that will allow us to truly choose who is nationally-relatively fast until we put them all into one place; that's what the Runoffs is for.

[seckerich]

Look at the classes that are the largest at the runoffs and you will see the classes with the most stable rules package. Constant moving targets by past CRB adjustments have driven many drivers to park cars or go elsewhere. Not saying it is wrong or right, it just is what it is. Pissed off drivers do not spend money.

[gran racing]

Well, and spec classes are on top of the lists all around. SM, SRF.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg's points are right on IMHO. So are Steve's and Dave's observation. FV is just as good because they are all the smae underneath but you can get one to look good enough so you don't throw up everytime you see it.

Driver's seem to like stable rules and a PERCEPTION they can win if they try hard and have talent.

If you eliminate the Nat/Reg classing limitations it will just be a different way to gather the numbers, the ease or difficulty won't change.

[924Guy]

I'm sure Ruck could probably say more as he's actually been recently, but here's my observations as a guy trying to get ready and qualify (try again next year!):
1) It's quite easy to be assured of a slot in most classes, excepting maybe the top 5 or so. For many, it looks like it's simply a matter of planning to make your 4 finishes (the current requirement) and you'll have enough points as well. In some more subscribed classes, if you're not a front-runner (as I don't expect to be), you might need more races later in the season to ensure nabbing enough points, though (seen this in Vee, for one).
2) Please update yourselves on the latest quali requirements. They ARE new for 2011, and have changed noticeably since this year's requirements. There's probably a release on SCCA.org on this very subject.
3) The GLDiv/CENDIV split has made this situation worse, since we've effectively split a pool of drivers and therefore doubled the number of slots available. There's of course plusses and minuses to this, and it works better for me, but just pointing out that this does proliferate the number of invites.
4) While there's some desire to move in the direction of higher-quality fields (after this year being focused almost exclusively on field-filling), it's still just not that demanding to get in. Furthermore, don't expect that to ever become the #1 priority, 'cause this is Club Racing, not Pro. The Runoffs are still to provide a race for us, clubmembers, not an exciting entertainment product.
5) Don't forget, while the top two in Division may be committed to a trip to the Runoffs, not all of the top 5 or whatever necessarily will... so enough room has to be left to ensure a reasonably full field on the grid.
6) Should I, as a participant in a class with relatively lower participation numbers (DSR) be punished and forced to be one of the two best DSR drivers in my Division to get a chance at the big show? Now no, I shouldn't be able to put two 5th-place finishes and have a place at the show; then again, simply saying that the field accepted to the Runoffs has to be proportional to the size of the group tends to work only well for one size of group... you're trying to approximate a linear function with a fixed value, and it's only gonna be close to that curve in a rather small range - whether you set that to work for DSR, SM, or somewhere in between.

Furthermore, I'd argue that having an easier bid to get to the Runoffs helps balance the load, if that (Runoffs quali) is all you're focused on: if I need to be in the top 5 of my class, and am hell-bent on getting to the Runoffs, might it not make more sense to choose a class with only 8 other drivers in division, instead of one with nearly 30?!?

OK, so that's not exactly the only reason to pick a class, you'll have a pretty weak racing experience locally and one helluva surprise come Runoffs season... but it does help balance out the appeal of the big classes and potentially help the undersubscribed classes too, no? May not save something like GP, but...

[jjjanos]

the problem with just having a free for all at the Ruboffs (KK) is that classes like SM (and maybe SRF) would be oversubscribed. How to chose who's in and who goes home?

See there's this thing called qualifying. The cars in that class go out and the race officials record the lap times. The race officials then rank the drivers from fastest to slowest. The slowest drivers don't make the show.

Large classes can be split into two qualifying groups with the race having a unified grid.


The same way the tiny dirt tracks do it: heat races and a main race.

Except that the difference is that people don't travel far to those tiny tracks, maybe it really is best to figure out who gets in before people have to hit the road.

That means that if you are going to make the trip, you better make certain you have the speed.


Isn't that pretty much how it works out now? It seems like a lot of jerking around just to exclude a dozen or two people. And the people excluded are likely at least as skilled or more than many of the people who don't get excluded simply because they are in tiny classes.

I wanted someway of keeping people out who just received their licenses or you haven't hit the pavement yet that year. Any method of excluding someone who just received a license would be fine.



It is kind of necessary to try to get the entry list right before traveling...

Why? You think you have the speed, you go. If you don't, stay home.

In middle school and high school we would go to invitational meets and there would be qualifiers heats for the sprints and middle distance events.

[924Guy]

If it weren't necessary for the majority of the drivers to have to travel halfway across the country (if not further), and spend large amounts of money in the process, having to earn your spot "day-of" would make plenty of sense. Not such a big deal when you're only talking about in-state competition, like a track meet.

We don't have sponsors to pick up those bills for us. We are still amateurs.

The uncertainty and financial risk will only serve to reduce the number of competitors willing to make the trip.

This can be accomplished far more efficiently by using the season's results to determine eligibility. I think most here (and in SCCA in general) would agree that the season's results can be used this way to achieve an equivalent result; all the discussion is focused on the "best" way to do so. No need to throw it all out and do something completely different; the system isn't that broken.

[Matt93SE]

I wanted someway of keeping people out who just received their licenses or you haven't hit the pavement yet that year. Any method of excluding someone who just received a license would be fine.

That would be excluding a lot of good drivers, IMO. sure they may be new to SCCA, but that doesn't mean they're stupid or dangerous. could have been racing karts since 8yrs old or racing in NASA for 10 years, or something else to that effect. Look at Robert Stout for example.

Of course there could always be a written waiver for a particularly talented rookie or a veteran champ that's had no car to drive or been out of the country for work all year. (I've seen that happen locally.)

.... There's always an exception, isn't there? :)

[gran racing]

See there's this thing called qualifying. The cars in that class go out and the race officials record the lap times. The race officials then rank the drivers from fastest to slowest. The slowest drivers don't make the show.

I think doing this would be a horrible move especially in the club racing environment. Way to piss people off who as Vaughan said, took quite a bit of their own resources to make the trip. If you need to eliminate entries, do it before they start driving to the event.

[RacerBill]

I agree with Dave. What happens if your engine goes sick, or you have a mechanical issue, that puts you in the back of the field? Have you never seen a charge from the back of the pack to the front to take the win???? Rare, but it happens, and can be quite a thrilling race to watch.

[lateapex911]

See there's this thing called qualifying. The cars in that class go out and the race officials record the lap times. The race officials then rank the drivers from fastest to slowest. The slowest drivers don't make the show.............................

.......Why? You think you have the speed, you go. If you don't, stay home.

In middle school and high school we would go to invitational meets and there would be qualifiers heats for the sprints and middle distance events.

I know you're smarter than you let on sometimes.....

...see others comments about how club racing isn't exactly the same as high school track.
Heck, even in Masters Swimming, we have qualifying standards for the National Championship. You make those, you go, if you don't, you don't book a hotel and flight etc. Qualify AT the event? Silly boy, .....:blink:

[ddewhurst]

...and the best part of that angle is that Ruck will tell you that his FP car is essentially an IT car with some bits removed. That's got to sting.

K

Come on Kirk, what's the sting. These LP/Level 2 cars have been the thing since 1996. The only cars at the front end other than Sargis/Spitfire & Wessel/Datsun were LP/Level 2 cars. Or should I say IT cars with a few bits on slicks.:o Kevin is more than this small town boy from Ohio draging his toe in the sand. Great job Dude.:023:

Vaughan, is DSR your new game. First time at Road America I'll introduce you to Loshak who gets around there at 2 min 3 sec & some change.:blink:

I can't believe I read this entire thread. Same shit different year:dead_horse: The last poll IIRC 75% of IT didn't want anything to do with National. Andy, you picked the wrong class. You like the Miata, build an E or F production car.

[lateapex911]

Classic memory issues, LOL.
Not that there's been an official poll or anything. But nice to see there's been stats and conclusions drawn... :rolleyes:

[mossaidis]

^^ Dewhurst (Mickey tries to refrain from entering a pi$$ing contest but can't help himself). How would you feel if I logged onto Specmiata.com, prod.com or whatever and I generally pi$$ed on what you think is helping your community but appears to me to be a whine fest? Think about it.

This thread is a lot of things. If you feel it might wasted your time, we apologize oh great highness of a SM driver - how dare we, the IT community, freely comment on such a thing as complex as regional vs national structures or having IT go National or equality/clarity of rules/adjustments or trying to have a good time w/o feeling screwed! WHAAAA Your post will only help you become antagonist #2, right behind unfortunately Chris - congratulations. We have a right to question the club and its structure - and I hope we can do it in a constructive, transparent way.

Are we even? Yes, I feel better. :)

Yes I agree with you that Kirk has understated Ruck's P car. If you know Ruck well or even have had 1-2 conversations with the guy about car setups, you know Ruck would not show up at ARRC or Runoffs w/o a 9+/10ths car. Also, let's not place words in Ruck's mouth about why he ran Prod at Runoffs this year - let him say it for himself here if he has not done so already. He has clearly demonstrated that IT drivers can and will drive and win at the National level and that two things hold more from joining him - allowing IT to compete nationally or the extra $30K+ to buy/setup National car.

Can you reference the poll you mention? It would be interesting to see the results as well as the questions. You can clearly see that folks here don't feel National is worth the expense based on how National is structured now.

More later...

[jjjanos]

If it weren't necessary for the majority of the drivers to have to travel halfway across the country (if not further), and spend large amounts of money in the process, having to earn your spot "day-of" would make plenty of sense. Not such a big deal when you're only talking about in-state competition, like a track meet.

We don't have sponsors to pick up those bills for us. We are still amateurs.

The uncertainty and financial risk will only serve to reduce the number of competitors willing to make the trip.

Excellent! Problem solved. The guys who show up will make the show.

In all seriousness though -- the only people who have to worry about being too slow are the guys who, most likely, wouldn't make an a-priori cut anyway. If they want to risk it, who are we to deny them the chance?


This can be accomplished far more efficiently by using the season's results to determine eligibility. I think most here (and in SCCA in general) would agree that the season's results can be used this way to achieve an equivalent result; all the discussion is focused on the "best" way to do so. No need to throw it all out and do something completely different; the system isn't that broken.Well, I thought the point was to have a single racing program without Nat/Reg distinction. So, the only options are either every SCCA race earns points or designated events only earn points.

The latter is nothing more than continuation of the existing Nat/Reg distinction combined with an elimination of the time requirements on Nat racing so that Regional classes get to race. Meh. Might as well leave things alone.

The former will result in chaos. The DC GT1 hot snot will run DC events only and score max points. The NARRC guy will do the same. The NYSRRC guy will do the same. All will score the maximum points. Might as well just let the racing regions select who gets to go.


I think doing this would be a horrible move especially in the club racing environment. Way to piss people off who as Vaughan said, took quite a bit of their own resources to make the trip.

I don't see people getting pissed off. They knew the rules before they went. Fastest (25*length*1.1) get to start.


I know you're smarter than you let on sometimes.....

...see others comments about how club racing isn't exactly the same as high school track.
Heck, even in Masters Swimming, we have qualifying standards for the National Championship. You make those, you go, if you don't, you don't book a hotel and flight etc. Qualify AT the event? Silly boy, .....:blink:

And does EVERYONE who met those standards swim in the finals? If not, go pound sand because the system in Masters Swimming gives the same result as the one I propose... i.e. you either are fast enough to make the finals or you are not.

And yet, somehow, people who know they don't have a hope in hell of making the finals still attend. Imagine that//

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you picked the wrong class. You like the Miata, build an E or F production car.

It's not about the Miata, it's about the IT rules. Comp adjustments pulled out of someones arse are BS.

I am liking ITR more and more and I just don't see ANY reason why the SCCA wouldn't take one of it's most popular classes and allow them a shot at a NC.

But whatever. MY budget wouldn't allow a run at a NC for more than one season anyway.

[tom91ita]

.......trying to have a good time w/o feeling screwed! ....

and here i thought that feeling screwed was pretty much the definition of a good time....

[Marcus Miller]

and here i thought that feeling screwed was pretty much the definition of a good time....


No, getting screwed is pretty much the definition, not just feeling like it :026:

[gran racing]

I don't see people getting pissed off. They knew the rules before they went. Fastest (25*length*1.1) get to start.

Ask the racers who didn't qualify for whatever reasons.

Or lets say people take a look at this and know they're not one of the fastest guys out there. SOMEONE in racing has to be towards the back of the field regardless of how fast the group is. Now these people look at what it takes to do the Runoffs. It involves quite a bit of time off, long travel for many, and overall $$$$. Now if people know that they are going to be towards the back of the pack, maybe they don't come. Okay, fine. Doesn't really matter when we have huge Runoff fields to begin. :rolleyes: I guess I just don't like turning away hard working and good customers.


What is or should the Runoffs be for our Club? Yes, a part of it is to crown a national champion. The other aspect is about the show and using this as a promotional tool.

[Knestis]

At least having DD show up stimulates the economy by increasing demand for smilies. Consumption is up at IT.com - just hope it's not down elsewhere, offsetting apparent gains.

K

[tom91ita]

i'll admit that i have thought about going to the runoffs to lose.

take my ITB car, pull the ballast, install a lightweight flywheel and run HP.

could i qualify in my division? i think so (whatever qualify means....).

could i do well at the runoffs? no way. but it would be a different way of going to road america than just a regional. and i would meet some other scca folks.

besides, running HP in my ITB car means i can pick and choose nationals and regionals closer to me. something that will mean more again when fuel gets back ovr $4 per gallon.

[downingracing]

Run-Offs qualification:

Drivers must start (and finish) the required races per the GCR. Top 3 from each division get a FREE entry to the Run-Offs and a guaranteed starting position. If 30 of the qualified entries enter and show up, the remainder of the positions (40 if the track holds 70 cars/race) are up for grabs by anyone who started (and finished) the required races (but didn’t qualify). Those folks can pay (something like $500) for a chance to qualify for the show. If 50 folks make the trip, the top 40 would get in and the other 10 – better luck next year. Even if the 10 that don’t make it are faster than the guaranteed 30, too bad. Those 30 were the top in their division and earned the spot. And the 10 that don’t make it do not get a refund. They paid their money and took their chances…

This allows for a qualification process and a real reward for finishing tops in your division. It also allows folks in ‘larger’ divisions to try to qualify and if they fall short, they can make the trip and try to qualify anyway.

The 24/25 class thing for the Run-Offs is another issue. With no TV deal, maybe they take some of those small classes and combine them in one group. There would still be ‘extra’ spots available for the process above.

This is just my .02 cents… I really don't care, but something like this may work.

[924Guy]

I like the idea of a free entry, but don't think SCCA could afford to give so many a free trip! OTOH, if you say only the winner from each div gets a free entry... well, you gotta imagine that guy's going anyway, so you're just costing yourself revenue there, right? Without any improvement to either the show or the numbers?

I appreciate the idea of the qualifying changes, but really, guys - the whole idea of having to qualify after you get there isn't addressing a problem that currently exists. You're trying to fix something that's not broken. Instead, it seems like it'd only make quali an even more confused event, for the big 3-5 classes, and no significant change to the lower-turnout classes.

I stand firm by my statement that expecting competitors to put forward all that investment, without a virtually guaranteed spot on grid (excepting the current rule on pace, which doesn't even seem to be enforced ever anyway), is only going to reduce, not increase, numbers.

I've heard from guys who have gone, and who race like we do - open trailer, sharing a cheap hotel room etc, no fancy rigs or crap - and run just at the back, that this event easily will run $5k. You really want me to throw all that cash down on the CHANCE I might get cut? It was bad enough dropping $2k just to get to the ARRC; that's beyond insane.

We used to be talking about the merits or not of making IT a National class (or, alternatively, removing the National/Regional distinction).

Now this discussion has wandered way off into one small, easily addressed consequence of that, and we have how many drivers who don't run Nationals or try to go to the Runoffs weighing in with what they think Nationals qualifying ought to be? Sounds rather foolish - asking some of the least-experienced club members (in this regard) what would be best - doesn't it?

I don't mean to denigrate the experience or opinion of Regional racers - after all, I was one myself through this year (still trying to make the transition) - but come on, do you really think you know how to fix everything when you haven't even been through it once?!?

(I do of course recognize that there are plenty here who have been to the big show, or even played in that field. But that's not exactly the majority here.)

This all sounds rather disjointed from the reality of the Club and the way things work here...

[Knestis]

... We used to be talking about the merits or not of making IT a National class (or, alternatively, removing the National/Regional distinction).

Now this discussion has wandered way off into one small, easily addressed consequence of that, and we have how many drivers who don't run Nationals or try to go to the Runoffs weighing in with what they think Nationals qualifying ought to be? Sounds rather foolish - asking some of the least-experienced club members (in this regard) what would be best - doesn't it?

I don't mean to denigrate the experience or opinion of Regional racers - after all, I was one myself through this year (still trying to make the transition) - but come on, do you really think you know how to fix everything when you haven't even been through it once?!? ...

I contributed to the drift because the health of the Club Racing program needs to be addressed at a higher level than, "Do I want IT to 'go National?'" or "Do I like it the way it is?"

And some of us haven't just fallen off of the turnip truck, Vaughan. I had a "pro" license at one point and while that didn't make me particularly clever, I *do* think that the experiences that I've had around that piece of paper give me some perspective that might contribute to the conversation.

K

[jjjanos]

Ask the racers who didn't qualify for whatever reasons.

Or lets say people take a look at this and know they're not one of the fastest guys out there. SOMEONE in racing has to be towards the back of the field regardless of how fast the group is. Now these people look at what it takes to do the Runoffs. It involves quite a bit of time off, long travel for many, and overall $$$$. Now if people know that they are going to be towards the back of the pack, maybe they don't come. Okay, fine. Doesn't really matter when we have huge Runoff fields to begin. :rolleyes: I guess I just don't like turning away hard working and good customers.

Logic phale. You're arguing against the idea because it will cost entries and one of the reasons you give for this being a bad idea is because we don't have enough entries.

There are maybe 2 classes this proposal would impact negatively - SRF and SM.

We would lose entries if and only if the DFL guys who qualify because they live in a light weight division outnumber the guys who are faster and will attend.

Now throw in the guys from the ghost town classes and under subscribed classes who would go because they've always wanted to run the Runoffs.

I think the net change would be a gain.


What is or should the Runoffs be for our Club? Yes, a part of it is to crown a national champion. The other aspect is about the show and using this as a promotional tool.

Yep, because 12 S2000 is great promotion.

[jjjanos]

I stand firm by my statement that expecting competitors to put forward all that investment, without a virtually guaranteed spot on grid (excepting the current rule on pace, which doesn't even seem to be enforced ever anyway), is only going to reduce, not increase, numbers.

How many SRF and SM entries will it cost? 'Cause those are the only 2 classes where the constraint might bite.

[ddewhurst]

mossaidis, for a guy who didn't want to enter a Micky pissing contest you did well for yourself. If you were to attach a real name to your posts they would be of greater value, to me.

Me, ex Spec 7'er, ex ITA'er, current Spec Miata & crew for the last five years on a national level E prod Z car, Spec Miata & this past year F prod Miata.

I don't care one way or another as to who is or is not national level. YES, there was an IT going national poll on this site maybe 3-4 years ago. Come on Bill, get rid of the lady & fill in the blanks. :026: As the economy continues there will be more & more regions donig what has been tabbed Rationals. The bills must be paid, track owners could care less who pays, car clubs, NASA, SCCA or ???

Trust me there are plenty of national cars that do reasonably well that don't cost $30,000.00. & yes I'v known Kevin for a bunch of years. Ask Bill Wessel who finished F prod 3rd this year at the Runoffs or ask the guy that I have crewed for for the last 5 years what his F prod car cost. Crap, his Spec Miata cost only 3 k less than his F car & way under $30,000.00. The big thing is driving ability. Many people me included don't have the talent to win at the regional or national level.

IIRC during year 2007, 75% of SCCA event fees came from regional racers.

Ya like that K, only one hyper icon for Bill.

[Knestis]

I like "Rationals." I'm adopting it!
K

[downingracing]

I like "Rationals." I'm adopting it!
K

I don't like the idea due to one MAJOR issue: The Regional part is run as a Restricted Regional - so no novice permit drivers allowed. This is a big problem when trying to introduce new folks to the sport. Without Regionals (since we have the distinction), new drivers will not be able to actually get a comp license... And the entry forms I've seen for this type of event look 'crowded' from a 'damn there are a TON of classes in each group'. I know we (OVR) had to add a Restricted Regional to our National weekend to 'help' pay the bills. Once the Run-Offs left Mid-Ohio, our car counts for the National went WAY down. We offer a discounted single Restricted Regional price and it has been a success. We also have 2 (unrestricted) Regional races we host. All of our races are in the black.

I'm sure the Rational idea will work for some regions/divisions to keep the races from losing money. Raising the prices and/or controlling the number of races in a division could also help with that. If a Novice permit holder could run the event, I'd be all for it.

(All my personal opinion - nothing to do with any position held - just the concern of someone who has mentored several 'new' folks.)

[xr4racer]

Matt, Kirk, I have heard of the 2 test rationals ran at the end of last year, with national office blessing, 1 was a success and 1 was not. I do not know if High Plains or Miller was the success. Does anyone have anymore info on the 2 weekends and the problems they faced?
I do know that around here many Prod and GT racers are not thrilled with the idea of racing with IT cars. Gateway always ran regional cars and national cars at the same time at their national but only in national practice which was regional qualifying also. They still had seperate races. The rational is only different by running the national and regional at the same time. It will be even more confusing seeing same class cars not racing each other because 1 is racing the national and 1 is a regional competitor. I think they ran N's and R's on the cars too distinguish the race entered. This would be getting closer to the time when the races are no longer national and regional just club races.

matt

[Z3_GoCar]

Cal-club had to get an exemption last season for nationals run in one season, due to Phoenix cancelling their race. Now with PIR no longer holding club races of any form, rationals means Cal-Club can have six national races in three weekends.

[xr4racer]

I know people are planning on going to PIR the 2nd week of Jan for a double national

matt

[Z3_GoCar]

I know people are planning on going to PIR the 2nd week of Jan for a double national

matt

It's not on the Cal-Club calender, isn't Az still in So-Pac?

I found it on the SoPac web schedule, I wonder why it used to be listed on Cal-Club last year but isn't this year....

[Greg Amy]

There's a Rational* at NHMS this year, late April, I think?

GA

* First time I heard that term was this year from our comp director, Jerry Rigoli. I infer that Topeka's not thrilled with these combo weekends, but they are giving individual allowances. Jerry could offer more info on that.

[xr4racer]

I feel some at national are happy with the trial rationals last year and some do not like any new thinking out of the box. The rational term has been around since early last summer if not before.

matt

[Knestis]

So, in its current guise is a Rational a National with a restricted Regional group (or groups)? We used to do those in NWR a thousand years ago, with the IT/CP (conference production) group running as the biggest - and arguably best - group of the weekend.

K

[xr4racer]

A rational is a complete regional and national done at the same time on the track. You would have say a group of FA, FC, FF and FE national guys running with FA, FC, FF and FE regional cars at the same time. Another group might be all production national cars, all regional production cars and all IT cars, this is just an example. Look up last years Miller and High Plains rational supps and results for more info.

matt

[Knestis]

VERY interesting...

Some people will always complain about multiple classes in a group but that's a first principle of what we do. If we were really concerned about confusing folks, we wouldn't have so damned many classes in the first place, right?

K

[JIgou]

Matt, Kirk, I have heard of the 2 test rationals ran at the end of last year, with national office blessing, 1 was a success and 1 was not. I do not know if High Plains or Miller was the success. Does anyone have anymore info on the 2 weekends and the problems they faced?

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the High Plains event being the "successful" Rational and the Miller event being the "not-so-successful" event.

My basis: Proximity to Denver, and nothing else.

[lateapex911]

VERY interesting...

Some people will always complain about multiple classes in a group but that's a first principle of what we do. If we were really concerned about confusing folks, we wouldn't have so damned many classes in the first place, right?

K

Yes. Up the line I read somebody stated how the Prod racers hate racing with the IT guys. Well duh. I doubt they want to race with GT1 and GT2 guys, Spec Racer Fords, Spec Miatas, Formula Atlantics or any of the other classes! Simple truth is nobody wants to race with anybody who gets in their way if it isn't for the class position. (in most cases, there are exceptions, but those are usually guys in large classes who aren't up front, who just like racing somebody...ANYbody.)

So, I can certainly see how the National guys would object to the inclusion of more cars, especially when those national guys from poorly subscribed classes are often racing for 2nd. (which could also be second from last) ....and now they are having their trophy race messed up by the Regional interloper.

And I understand the "contact" complaint about fragile cars not racing well with sturdier cars, but the complaint shouldn't be limited to "Prod guys hate racing with IT cars", it should be "Guys in cars that are fragile like Prod, or Sports Racer cars hate racing with sturdier cars like Spec Miatas, IT cars, and SS and Touring cars". But, due to the numbers, complaints get thrown towards the larger classes like SM and IT. Of COURSE you're more likely to have issues with a category that fields 30 cars in your group like IT or SM over the ONE SSC car....

[DavidM]

A "Rational" still has the national/regional distinction and it seems even more ridiculous. Cars in the same class, on the track at the same time, but not racing each other? Having to put "N" and "R" on the cars? Yeah, I can see how that would be confusing.

SCCA needs to figure out how to have race weekends that maximize the use of the track. That is, get the most people out to the track. A good way of doing that would seem to be to eliminate this national/regional race weekend separation and somehow combine weekends. I don't necessarily think that means you have to run every class on the same weekend, but somehow organize things to get the most people out to the track on a weekend. I personally think double race weekends are the way to go since you get in more racing, but national weekends aren't run that way. I typically only tow multiple hours to double weekends. There would be some "cultural" boundaries to overcome. This national/regional weekend separation causes SCCA to spread it's cars too thin IMO and I think that is just going to get worse. Eventually something will have to be done and I personally don't think "Rationals" is the way to do it. Just have classes and race weekends. Makes things much simpler.

My $.005.

David

[ner88]

Yes, NER will be hosting a Rational at NHMS April30-May1.
For years we have hosted a National race at NHMS and have watched the numbers drop.
Those that do attend for the most part are regional racers with National licenses and compete because it's an event and really don't care if its a National or regional.
So, why run a national at all? Well we feel as a region we have an obligation to our National competitors.
Some have said our event is too early in the season, we are to far north (isolated from the rest of the world) or they just don't like the track! What ever the reason I don't think what ever we do we can draw a big National crowd.
So, we will try a RAtional.:shrug:
How it will all play out is unknown but what I will say is we will do everything we can to give everyone a fun event with as much track time for a great value.
At this point we are looking at our national run groups remaining the same with a few tweaks(yes, NAtional and regional drivers will be on the track at the same time).
We expect to add two regional only run goups giving as many racers as possible an opportunity to double or triple dip.
Stay tuned!:D

[Andy Bettencourt]

It doesn't have to be this difficult. A 'Rational' in my mind is a National with a restricted Regional as a run group. If you include IT cars as a National class, I bet the need for extra cars and revenue goes away.

If it's a points paying 'National', it is publisized as such with the required schedule - but with all GCR classes included.

Top 20 classes get their own run groups at RA, bottom 15 get combined groupings.

A 'Rational' with combined regional and national cars in the same run group won't work under the current climate. Why? Regional guys don't seen the value in the National weekend schedule. You have to seperate them somehow.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, NER will be hosting a Rational at NHMS April30-May1.
For years we have hosted a National race at NHMS and have watched the numbers drop.
Those that do attend for the most part are regional racers with National licenses and compete because it's an event and really don't care if its a National or regional.
So, why run a national at all? Well we feel as a region we have an obligation to our National competitors.
Some have said our event is too early in the season, we are to far north (isolated from the rest of the world) or they just don't like the track! What ever the reason I don't think what ever we do we can draw a big National crowd.
So, we will try a RAtional.:shrug:
How it will all play out is unknown but what I will say is we will do everything we can to give everyone a fun event with as much track time for a great value.
At this point we are looking at our national run groups remaining the same with a few tweaks(yes, NAtional and regional drivers will be on the track at the same time).
We expect to add two regional only run goups giving as many racers as possible an opportunity to double or triple dip.
Stay tuned!:D

I bet the event makes big bucks...because of the inclusion of the Regional-only racers. The flip side is obvious...while the RO guys subsidize the National, you thin out the available dollars to be spent at the true Regionals later in the year. For the Region, it may be robbing Peter to pay Paul. I hope not.

[ner88]

OR, look at it as we dropped an event but didn't lose any races! :023:

[Greg Amy]

At this point we are looking at our national run groups remaining the same with a few tweaks(yes, NAtional and regional drivers will be on the track at the same time).
That's kinda odd...are you saying that racers will have the declare whether they're running for Regional or National points, and the finishing order intra-class will have to be sorted out afterward...?

Or are you saying some Regional-Only classes may be mixed in the same group as National classes?

I'd suggest the best way to handle it that everyone who races in a National-eligible class is deemed running for National points, and then you have additional Regional-Only groups and/or classes mixed in there running for Regional points, roughly similar to the way Pro-IT was handled (let's face it, the only non-National classes out there are Improved Touring A/B/C/S/R and Super Touring Light...and the latter can enter the STU National race...<shrug>) - GA

[ner88]

As I understand it right now, if you run a national class you will have to declare if you are running for national or regional points and will be scored within your request.
I say tweak because classes like SPO, SPU or ITE may remain in the big bore run groups.
Now you can still run say SM for National points and run STL for regional points.(as long as they are not the same race!)

[JIgou]

Jerry, it isn't that cut-and-dried.

My understanding is that one driver in one car can run both regional AND national in the same race. I'll stay away from T&S for those weekends, thankyouverymuch.


Personally, I look at this as a baby step toward eliminating the Regional / National distinction.....which I do NOT look at as a bad thing.

[ner88]

As I undersatnd it, a driver can NOT run for both national and regional points in the same race. One entry per driver, per race (not event).

[xr4racer]

Jerry, you are absolutely right, you are either running as a regional car or a national car not both.

matt

[xr4racer]

Greg, yes regional and national races will be going on AT THE SAME TIME. Even if it is a national class like production, there will still be regional only licensed production cars racing at the same time for regional points. Just because you have a car that is eligible to run nationals does not mean you have a national license.

matt

[Greg Amy]

...there will still be regional only licensed production cars racing at the same time for regional points.
That part I really don't like, unless we have some kind of review of experience to differentiate between someone that has 3 races to their name, versus someone with 20 years' experience and never bothered with paying for a National license...

GA

[ner88]

For our race (NER) we will not allow drivers on Novice permits to compete in National classes.

[lateapex911]

That part I really don't like, unless we have some kind of review of experience to differentiate between someone that has 3 races to their name, versus someone with 20 years' experience and never bothered with paying for a National license...

GA

because the guys with the National credentials are always better than the guys without? Or, the 4 or 6 race guys are better than the 3 race guys?

Splitting hairs when you get down to it. ;)

(I'm just being a dick, but there IS a grain of truth to the fact that it sure isn't black and white. What was that video from the runoffs that year from the guy who warmed his tires at 20 MPH?....)

[Knestis]

Greg, yes regional and national races will be going on AT THE SAME TIME. Even if it is a national class like production, there will still be regional only licensed production cars racing at the same time for regional points. Just because you have a car that is eligible to run nationals does not mean you have a national license. Ta-da! We're half way to losing the Regional-National distinction, at least where points-keeping is concerned.

The only question becomes how do you represent the RACE finishing order for bragging rights, checkered flag, trophies, and contingencies. The SARRC/MARRS meet-up at VIR manages to keep this straight in their results - for example (http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/2010Results/AlFairer-SARRC-MARRS/SARRC-MARRS_2010_Saturday_Group_1_Race.pdf)

And why is it OK for a Nervice to potentially create havoc for Regional drivers and not National drivers? (Sorry for the smidge of hyperbole there.) There's that assumption that one group is somehow more skilled on the whole, than the other...

The more I think about the Rational option, the more I like it!

K

[ddewhurst]

I have a free seat in an American Le Mans Series car for three races this year. Anyone interested in a zero cost seat? Nuff said.............:D

[Matt93SE]

And why is it OK for a Nervice to potentially create havoc for Regional drivers and not National drivers? (Sorry for the smidge of hyperbole there.) There's that assumption that one group is somehow more skilled on the whole, than the other...


The other side of that coin is that the National drivers *should* be more skilled and more able to handle a situation with a n00b better than those poor regional schmucks with no 'real racing' experience. :rolleyes:

[tom91ita]

The other side of that coin is that the National drivers *should* be more skilled and more able to handle a situation with a n00b better than those poor regional schmucks with no 'real racing' experience. :rolleyes:

*should* but is not required.

when i went to a driver school for some refresher seat time, i went from signed off novice with 4 races to "National" license.

there is no requirement to have wins, top 5's, be no slower than x% off a winning time or anything. just run the required number of races per year.