Getting Rid of Regional/Majors Distinction?

[Butch Kummer]

I know some of you guys are saying getting rid of the distinction between Majors and Regionals will "save" SCCA Club Racing, but exactly how? i.e. - what benefit is there to SCCA (specifically you) to eliminate the distinction?

Also recognize that if you feel strongly about this, you need to tell your Area Director as well as posting here.

[Ron Earp]

That's a good question Butch and worthy of contemplation.

Why I'm contemplating, can someone explain to me the advantages the racer enjoys with the current National/Regional distinction? The advantages or benefits are probably obvious to some of you long-timers, but for a relative new comer (ten years, all regional) they are not at all apparent.

[Greg Amy]

Same history lesson I've preached many times in the past: We have Nationals classes that are eligible for the Runoffs. We allow regions to create any other classes that they feel fit their local needs.

Improved Touring was an idea that hit various regions in the early 80s and took off, and other regions picked it up. Because there were varying regs in varying regions, SCCA (Englewood CO at the time) agreed to publish a separate book* for IT with a nationally-consistent set of regs, all so that competitors could travel intra-region and not worry about compliance differences, but with the caveat that this was just a convenience and the class was never intended to be considered for participation in the Nationals program.

Time moved on, all nationally-compiled regs were combined in a single book, including IT, and everybody began to wonder why IT couldn't play at the Runoffs.

IT exists in the same plane as Super Production, ASR, SSM, SMT, ITE, ITEZ, ad nausea: regional-only classes. By virtue of historical evolution it just so happens it has a nationally-consistent ruleset (Butch tells me there's others in there, but nothing to the extent of IT).

GA

* The GCR used to be one book, and each category had its own physical book. You had to purchase each separately, only scrutineers got "the bible" with all in one binding...

[Ron Earp]

Good information to know.

But again, how is the national and regional distinction within the SCCA a benefit to the racer? Or, put another way, what are the advantages of the SCCA's system over NASA's flat system?

[Greg Amy]

- Fewer classes in the National/Majors racing program;
- Complete flexibility for local regions/division to create/edit/delete classes that meet their local needs.

The alternative is to restrict all SCCA classes to only those in the National/Majors racing program, and all class creations/edits/deletions would be handled by the big central eye in the sky...errrr, Topeka.

[gran racing]

I didn't even know there was still a distinction. I thought we now have categories that can run regional events, and only some of those can run in the majors. Easy enough to me.

[Greg Amy]

Let's put it this way: without the Regional/Majors distinction, there would be a ton of classes/categories that simply would not exist. Improved Touring for one, and others like SSM, SMT, ITE, ITEZ, Super Production, ASR, Club Ford, Club S2000, etc.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Tom Blaney]

Being an old time racer (started in early 70's) the "National Races" were something that the Regional drive aspired to, the ability to run well regionally and show you had the skill to compete (and maintain a car) got you the ability to get a National license. Back in the 70's -- 80's and perhaps the mid 90's running the Nationals implied that you were well skilled and willing to put out your best effort to complete for the top 3- 5 positions in you division to be "awarded" an invite to the Runoff. That was a well respected situation. However as the years went by, and the number of classes swelled and the number of drivers in a class shrunk, it was just a matter of showing up to an event and you got to go to the Runoff's, so the mystique was gone and the only real achievement became a title win.

However since all of that is diluted, even the Runoff's doesn't generate that much interest (sort of like the regional races, the only spectators are the entrants and their family & friends). So IMHO there is no benefit to the club and as far as the racers are concerned there is obviously no desire to aspire to a National license. Part of this is why IT is so popular, it is easy to get involved, doesn't require a lot of effort to enter, and ultimately since a lot of the races are poorly participated the non-hard core racers give up and go do something else.

So if we eliminate the National/Regional program, provide understandable rules for a realistic number of classes (not having 15 variations on a Miata), the drivers will want to work a tad harder on their cars because they entered a race where there were 25 cars in the class, the race weekend could take two days which means that you get much more track time then 20 minutes at a regional, the drivers improve their skills, and then want to build and maintain their cars. So it's a win win, the region gets more entrants, the drivers have more fun, and the world is a happier place.

[JeffYoung]

Not necessarily. They might still exist. They just wouldn't go to the Runoffs.

More and more, maybe it is getting older, I like simplicity. The idea of taking the top 10 or 14 or whatever classes in a particular year participation wise and having them go to the runoffs makes sense to me. The cream, and popular classes, rise to the top, like the English soccer leagues, with relegation.

We made a mistake five years ago not pushing for that I think, all of us, and instead got more classes (all of which have good ideas).

[JeffYoung]

Good post.


Being an old time racer (started in early 70's) the "National Races" were something that the Regional drive aspired to, the ability to run well regionally and show you had the skill to compete (and maintain a car) got you the ability to get a National license. Back in the 70's -- 80's and perhaps the mid 90's running the Nationals implied that you were well skilled and willing to put out your best effort to complete for the top 3- 5 positions in you division to be "awarded" an invite to the Runoff. That was a well respected situation. However as the years went by, and the number of classes swelled and the number of drivers in a class shrunk, it was just a matter of showing up to an event and you got to go to the Runoff's, so the mystique was gone and the only real achievement became a title win.

However since all of that is diluted, even the Runoff's doesn't generate that much interest (sort of like the regional races, the only spectators are the entrants and their family & friends). So IMHO there is no benefit to the club and as far as the racers are concerned there is obviously no desire to aspire to a National license. Part of this is why IT is so popular, it is easy to get involved, doesn't require a lot of effort to enter, and ultimately since a lot of the races are poorly participated the non-hard core racers give up and go do something else.

So if we eliminate the National/Regional program, provide understandable rules for a realistic number of classes (not having 15 variations on a Miata), the drivers will want to work a tad harder on their cars because they entered a race where there were 25 cars in the class, the race weekend could take two days which means that you get much more track time then 20 minutes at a regional, the drivers improve their skills, and then want to build and maintain their cars. So it's a win win, the region gets more entrants, the drivers have more fun, and the world is a happier place.

[Greg Amy]

Good post.

It's a nice post...but it's filled with wrong-wronginess. Tom, you need to come visit the track again.

- the "National Races" were something that the Regional drive aspired to...

Maybe you did, brother, but I didn't and a lot of others didn't. I raced IT because I liked IT. You've fallen prey to that old "national drivers are better" mindset (or maybe you're part of the old guard that created/perpetuated it?) None of us decided to race Improved Touring - or any regional-only class - with the "goal" of going to the Runoffs. Regional classes have never been "starter" classes, except for those that decided that was their path.

- the ability to run well regionally and show you had the skill to compete...

Um, no. The only "ability" you needed to get a National license was to finish three Regional races and $50. It had nothing to do with skills, ability, or ultimate goals. Hell, once you had a National, that and ~$100 got you an SCCA Pro license, and that and another $200 got me an IMSA Pro license; did that automatically increase my skills level?

- Back in the 70's -- 80's and perhaps the mid 90's running the Nationals implied that you were well skilled and willing to put out your best effort...

Um, no. Again, "projection". Old Guard s**t.

- it was just a matter of showing up to an event and you got to go to the Runoff's...the only real achievement became a title win.

I'll agree with part of that: with the exception of the top three classes (SM, FV, and SRF) today all you need is a pulse and a checkbook to qualify for the Runoffs. But even back then when it was much more difficult, you think most sat on their laurels and called that invitation a "win"? Hell no. Qualifying was the first step, and we all went there to compete for the title win. Just because it's easier to get in doesn't mean the achievement of competing and winning means less.

- even the Runoff's doesn't generate that much interest (sort of like the regional races, the only spectators are the entrants and their family & friends).

Dude, you seriously need to get to a recent Runoffs. I don't know about the 90s, but the last several years at Road America, and this year At Laguna Seca, had a s**t-ton of spectators. Place was packed.

- no desire to aspire to a National license.

Need to keep up, grampa. there's no longer Regional and National licenses, only a "competition license".

- you get much more track time then 20 minutes at a regional...

Again, come visit an NER event. You're really missing out if you think that's all they are. Seriously, come visit.

So...how would removing the Regional/National (classes) distinction affect this in any way?

GA

[seckerich]

Greg saved me a ton of typing. Tom had me seeing unicorns and rainbows for a minute.

You had a hardcore group of drivers that their entire year was dedicated to testing for the runoffs. Start and park was, and still is very common to get "starts" for the runoffs.

Then you had the other 95% of drivers that raced for the love of racing and championships, etc were just a bonus. Went to the track with their families and just enjoyed racing with friends. ECR and other series had all the same drivers and teams you see today in IMSA. IT was a big deal then.

SCCA racing will not return to that regardless of the number of classes. Same group will still be on track with slightly different letters on the car, but same number of drivers and same time needed on track as the current grouping. More track time is BS as you assume the groups you run now at Majors are full. At a double SARRC weekend a driver will get 100 minutes of track time in my schedule, 20 minutes is a talking point that is way overused. Get out more and see the world.

Here is the problem with class consolidation. Not saying it is bad or good, just the proven results over time.

Driver has a car he loves and has developed for years to get to the front. Has collected all the hard to find go-fast goodies. Class is consolidated or killed and now he has a whole new set of rules to learn. Now instead of a stock gearbox he needs a pimpy CR box, because it is allowed. Weight might go up to level him out in the new class so tire wear, brakes, etc get more expensive, or like ST now need to be upgraded (because it is allowed) to stay competitive. Other option is an SIR that now has to be tuned around and most likely will require a new cam, etc to be fast. No big deal you say as it looks like the other sedans in the class. Weight is lighter to speed him up so maybe he now has to go lexan and fiberglass body in the new class, just stroke a check, no big deal. Of course the other cars can run any motor by the manufacturer so most likely the one in the car is not "THE" motor to have so out it comes. Just toss that earlier collection I spoke of. God forbid they read the rules and put a Rotary in a Miata and kill the whole damn category. :happy204: How is that cluster working out with a definition of a sports car and now we want to further shove a ton of cars in fewer classes. Truth is he does none of this and just goes to vintage, another club, or quits. Now you lost him, his family, and every friend he can tell how the SCCA screwed him.

We had a chance before ST was created to take a restricted ruleset like IT and build a good foundation for a sustained category. Further we could have opened Production up with a spec wing, motor swaps (already allowed in the Bugeye, etc) and never needed ST at all.

Look at F1000 where all the slow formula cars were going to put a 1000cc motorcycle motor in and it would bring out all the old FA,FF, etc to race again. Then Stohr built a new car and class was DOA. Follow similar theory with all the classes that skipped regional to national requirement and you have a list of failures. Now classes that did it the right way and are at the top of participation in the Nation are supposed to just sit and watch? Right.

As I said I will watch the sparks fly as the genie is forced back into a bottle. Only good thing they did is institute the 3 year freeze we asked for to give the runoffs rotation a chance to show what classes were popular. BOD is not the one that should be coming up with a plan, the members should. Then and only then would it have a chance. Without buy in from us you have nothing but pissed of customers that have little faith in the broken promises of the past and definitely no faith in the few on the BOD that are really pushing this agenda.

[StephenB]

I know some of you guys are saying getting rid of the distinction between Majors and Regionals will "save" SCCA Club Racing, but exactly how? i.e. - what benefit is there to SCCA (specifically you) to eliminate the distinction?

.

The benefit to me...more people to race with.

I think we need to make SCCA simple. Make it so everyone gets it and can easily get involved. Have a ladder system in place for the cars themselves that allow competitors to go faster and do more with the car if they want to... like ss to it to prod to gt back in the day. Make simple divisional championships that include every single race in the division. Make every race in the country eligible towards the runoffs... gasp I know crazy idea! Make the points benefit those that beat more cars so the larger the field the more points... this will allow everyone to race each other whenever and let the cream rise to the top. Let regions create their own little championships within the divisional championships if they want a more local thing. That I think will make it simple to understand and drive competitors to race more.

Stephen

[gran racing]

It would be interesting to know just how many people seriously want to attend the Runoffs. With it being such a drawn out event, usually large towing costs, and all of the other expenses including vacation time... I realize there are some tracks like Laguna which have a bigger appeal.

[Ron Earp]

I suspect the runoffs participation would benefit from regional racers taking advantage of the runoffs coming into their area. With the runoffs coming to Daytona next year I'd head down there to race, that is, if my car was eligible I would.

[Butch Kummer]

That's a good question Butch and worthy of contemplation.

Why I'm contemplating, can someone explain to me the advantages the racer enjoys with the current National/Regional distinction? The advantages or benefits are probably obvious to some of you long-timers, but for a relative new comer (ten years, all regional) they are not at all apparent.

Posted my original question around noon on Friday, then headed out for happy hour before the first replies came in. Greg has offered his thoughts, but here are mine:

1. Granted there is certainly crossover in the middle, but IN GENERAL the level of preparation and intensity is greater at a Majors/National event than at a Regional event. I understand that spending more money on your equipment does not necessarily make you faster, but look at the support equipment that shows up for a Majors weekend compared to a Regional weekend. They may not drive any better, but many of the folks running Majors have serious equipment around them. Not everyone running a Regional weekend wants to (or can afford to) invest that much into their efforts.

2. If everyone is allowed to run every event, where does someone starting out in W2W go to get racing experience? Again IN GENERAL, there's more disparity at the Regional level and thus people IN GENERAL are more patient when dealing with traffic and/or newbies. Bottom line - some (many?) people don't want to put forth the effort necessary to run at the front at a Majors event, so having lower-key events (Regionals) gives them the opportunity to race where they want.

3. I know most of you don't care about publicity and think Topeka does a piss-poor job of covering things, but "promoting" over a hundred weekends of racing events is pretty much impossible. Last year there were 25 Majors events and every one is covered on the Majors website with pre-event and post-event articles, live timing, and in most cases live play-by-play audio for those that can't make it to the track. They also experimented with live video at a couple of events in 2014 (Mid-Ohio for sure) but I don't think that made it through the 2015 budget process. Of course the individual regions can do this on their own, but 95% of the regional events are not covered in any way. By way of example, before 1972, NASCAR Grand National (the highest level) ran over 70 races a year - that's part of why Richard Petty's record of 200 wins will never be broken - but when Winston got involved they realized there was no way they could make that many races "special" so they cut it back to 31 weekends. The creation of US Majors Tour in 2013 is SCCA's attempt to reduce the number of events to a manageable level, which allows better publicity for each of them.

And while StephenB thinks removing the distinction will give him more people to race with, I believe the opposite is true. Right now IT classes are not part of Majors weekends, so if you suddenly allow them are more IT drivers going to show up? People say we already have too many weekends, so adding 25 more events is going to increase participation at each event?

Finally, the distinction is part of the culture of SCCA ("the way we've always done things") and while I believe my past performance in multiple positions of leadership in the club shows I'm not adverse to change, there needs to be a valid reason TO change. Again, why would allowing everyone to run every race be better than what we have now?

[Tom Blaney]

It's a nice post...but it's filled with wrong-wronginess. Tom, you need to come visit the track again.

- the "National Races" were something that the Regional drive aspired to...

Maybe you did, brother, but I didn't and a lot of others didn't. I raced IT because I liked IT. You've fallen prey to that old "national drivers are better" mindset (or maybe you're part of the old guard that created/perpetuated it?) None of us decided to race Improved Touring - or any regional-only class - with the "goal" of going to the Runoffs. Regional classes have never been "starter" classes, except for those that decided that was their path.

- the ability to run well regionally and show you had the skill to compete...

Um, no. The only "ability" you needed to get a National license was to finish three Regional races and $50. It had nothing to do with skills, ability, or ultimate goals. Hell, once you had a National, that and ~$100 got you an SCCA Pro license, and that and another $200 got me an IMSA Pro license; did that automatically increase my skills level?

- Back in the 70's -- 80's and perhaps the mid 90's running the Nationals implied that you were well skilled and willing to put out your best effort...

Um, no. Again, "projection". Old Guard s**t.

- it was just a matter of showing up to an event and you got to go to the Runoff's...the only real achievement became a title win.

I'll agree with part of that: with the exception of the top three classes (SM, FV, and SRF) today all you need is a pulse and a checkbook to qualify for the Runoffs. But even back then when it was much more difficult, you think most sat on their laurels and called that invitation a "win"? Hell no. Qualifying was the first step, and we all went there to compete for the title win. Just because it's easier to get in doesn't mean the achievement of competing and winning means less.

- even the Runoff's doesn't generate that much interest (sort of like the regional races, the only spectators are the entrants and their family & friends).

Dude, you seriously need to get to a recent Runoffs. I don't know about the 90s, but the last several years at Road America, and this year At Laguna Seca, had a s**t-ton of spectators. Place was packed.

- no desire to aspire to a National license.

Need to keep up, grampa. there's no longer Regional and National licenses, only a "competition license".

- you get much more track time then 20 minutes at a regional...

Again, come visit an NER event. You're really missing out if you think that's all they are. Seriously, come visit.

So...how would removing the Regional/National (classes) distinction affect this in any way?

GA
Greg

Funny thing is that I still attend the races, in the spring I instruct at the drivers school in South Jersey, and get a feel for what the newbees are looking to get out of club racing. Additionally I attend a number of the NE regionals because I support the drivers who use my motors, gearbox builds, and suspension parts (all stuff that I make, not resell). So I know first hand what the series has become. A lot of the races are poorly subscribed, and I can't recall how many "Miata" races I watched that had noting but freight trains. I encourage my guys to push harder, experiment with lines and breaking points etc.

All of that knowledge came from getting my ass wiped when I started to race against "National" drivers, if you recall when we ran the Runoff's in Atlanta in SSA (where I believe I left you in the dust) the races were fierce, and the drivers were pulling moves that were not only impressive, but getting them places up the grid.

The point is that going to the track to just run laps and have a gay old time is fine if that is what you want to do, but when somebody really tries to push themselves, or focuses on trying to learn why he just got blown off by some old timer he will become a better faster driver. That is what made club racing exciting and spectators come to lots of events.

Sitting on the hill at Lime Rock, and watch 25 identical cars lap the track in 6 car trains only to wait for a last lap shot is not exciting to watch or seeing a race that has 10 cars in it and there are 5 car classes will not keep new drivers or spectators interest for a long time

[Greg Amy]

;) you're all right in my book, Tom! I just wish you'd come up here more often, we miss having you around.

If your point is that competitors running Nationals/Majors consider it "more serious bizness" you'll have no disagreement from me. But I've seen and experienced some, such as yourself and me at times, that spent just as much effort on a Regional program. I guess in the end it's all about an individual's goal, and if the Runoffs is their goal, then you have to do Majors. In mid-00s the ARRC was my goal, so I did Regionals.

But is it the chicken or the egg? Which causes what? I disagree that we do, or should, consider Regional racing to be a stepping-stone, or that Majors/National drivers are necessarily more experience or better drivers, though they tend to gravitate that way. Me, I went STL because I liked the ruleset, I wanted a good excuse to drive Road America, and I wanted a strong event to do it in (the Runoffs). But I'm thinking that after I check Daytona off my list in 2015 I may be looking at dialing back the traveling and doing more Regionals (dude, Palmer is going to kick ass, you need to come up here and drive it). We'll see where the Club goes for the Runoffs in 2017 onward.

There's strong competition in Regionals, and there's weak competition in the Majors. It's all about what your personal goals are...

GA

P.S., yeah if your SSA run was in '89 you tanned me pretty good; I think I finished 25th? I wasn't aware of where the strategic resistor had to be soldered in to keep the car from going into low-boost limp mode from high IATs. But I figured it out for '90 and finished 7th and 5th the two years after that...;) That CSX is for sale, if anyone's looking for a project car...

[StephenB]

Butch,

I didn't say to add race weekends to the schedule, just make them all eligible. Since I don't participate in any major weekends then short term I do think those none major weekends would gain some participation but still not in my class. Long term I am banking on the fat that if SCCA was easier to understand, more accessible and/or welcoming then we can grow our customer... I mean membership base. I am not saying this is the answer by any means but it's working for bmw club and NASA pretty well.

Also note that just because every race is the equivalent of a majors weekend doesn't mean every class is eligible for the runoffs. I agree that IT should stay as is and not head to the runoffs but if it did I wouldn't be upset or happy...

Lastly, I think your marketing point is pretty valid and I never thought of that. My only thought if the whole confusing major/divisional stuff went away is that we could still market a few races to help drive excitement and new membership, rather than pick random races we are trying to increase attendance at.

Good topic, I plan to stick with what I am doing as long as I am racing no matter how you all figure it out!

[Ron Earp]

I agree that IT should stay as is and not head to the runoffs but if it did I wouldn't be upset or happy...

My only thought if the whole confusing major/divisional stuff went away is that we could still market a few races to help drive excitement and new membership, rather than pick random races we are trying to increase attendance at.


You're contradicting yourself. The two underlined phrases are mutually exclusive.

[StephenB]

I am not trying to...

Get rid of the confusing majors ect so that every "race weekend" is the same. Make specific classes listed at the beginning if the year as runoffs eligible... ie post the runoffs schedule at the beginning of the season and let people pick a class to race in and commit all their money to. With that being said don't ever include IT in the "runoffs" race week. Still have divisional champions in IT and maybe bring back the ARRC as the place to play for a national IT championship.

Does that make me sense without contradicting myself?
Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Get rid of the confusing majors ect so that every "race weekend" is the same. Make specific classes listed at the beginning if the year as runoffs eligible... ie post the runoffs schedule at the beginning of the season and let people pick a class to race in and commit all their money to. With that being said don't ever include IT in the "runoffs" race week. Still have divisional champions in IT and maybe bring back the ARRC as the place to play for a national IT championship.

Does that make me sense without contradicting myself?
No. The point of Majors events is to present a unique, low-volume product with the goal to qualify for the Runoffs. Everything you just said above contradicts that.

Well, except if you removed all references to Improved Touring, at which point we could create a different kind of product, keep it more regional, put in local/regional classes, and call it...wait for it...

[seckerich]

I think it would be a bad thing to get rid of Majors, or Nationals as they were in the past. There are many drivers at Regionals that can run with most of the top drivers in our club. That said there are many that would find they are just a big fish in a small pond. If you do not like drivers with stickers every session, and want 200 TW tires you will not be happy running Majors. Ignoring the class consolidation attempt for the moment, we need a place for drivers to play at a higher level below a Pro series. Majors have started to cluster the drivers at fewer races and helped bring up the field size in some areas. The killing of the regional programs in those areas is the result of not allowing those regions to add a regional group to the schedule to stay financially viable.

What the club should do is allow a regional grouping at Majors, separate from the Majors entry like we do with enduro groups now. Even IMSA saw that as positive with the Pro IT series at their pro event. Would help finances and give all our members a chance to see how things are outside our inner circle. If you have a car that fits the Majors then just run that group.

[Butch Kummer]

The killing of the regional programs in those areas is the result of not allowing those regions to add a regional group to the schedule to stay financially viable.

What the club should do is allow a regional grouping at Majors, separate from the Majors entry like we do with enduro groups now. Even IMSA saw that as positive with the Pro IT series at their pro event. Would help finances and give all our members a chance to see how things are outside our inner circle. If you have a car that fits the Majors then just run that group.

Two years late the BoD recognized the folly of not allowing regional-only run groups at Majors events, but for 2015 they are now only allowed at "historically low subscription events". I'm not sure. but I think that means events that project less than 100 entries based on past performance. And I'm not in the inner loop any longer (and am trying not to care) so I'm not sure if that means regional-only classes can share the track with Majors classes or not (by BoD edict they could not in 2013).

And if every "race weekend" is the same (as StephenB suggests), where do the Enduros (yes Dr. K, I know 90 minutes with a mandatory pit stop is not considered an "enduro" in some circles :)) fit into the mix? Typically those races are shunned by slick-shod cars (GT, Prod, FSR) and are instead populated by their DOT-tired brethren and, at least in some areas, SRF.

[pfcs]

Put all regional classes on 200tw shoes and let them have some fun!

I know how ridiculous that sounds, but after some thought, it could be a winner.

Let those egomaniacs with inferiority complexes run "nationals" or whatever they will call them, and piss their money away resentfully, while we nitwits have a ball.

[seckerich]

Two years late the BoD recognized the folly of not allowing regional-only run groups at Majors events, but for 2015 they are now only allowed at "historically low subscription events". I'm not sure. but I think that means events that project less than 100 entries based on past performance. And I'm not in the inner loop any longer (and am trying not to care) so I'm not sure if that means regional-only classes can share the track with Majors classes or not (by BoD edict they could not in 2013).

And if every "race weekend" is the same (as StephenB suggests), where do the Enduros (yes Dr. K, I know 90 minutes with a mandatory pit stop is not considered an "enduro" in some circles :)) fit into the mix? Typically those races are shunned by slick-shod cars (GT, Prod, FSR) and are instead populated by their DOT-tired brethren and, at least in some areas, SRF.

I wish all the regions holding a Majors would just tell the BOD what they want. not the other way around. Would get fixed quick. We get lectured about the club needing to reach out by our new president all while excluding a good portion of the membership from racing on a Majors weekend.

[Greg Amy]

Butch can respond on the details, but regions don't hold the Majors; Majors events are a product of Topeka and are basically managed top-down from Topeka with the sanctioning region's assistance and volunteers. Reason being, they're looking to maintain a specific method and process for all Majors events.

Majors are a totally different product than Regionals, in many ways.

[Ralf]

The IT group gets to run at the Kansas Speedway Majors in 2015.

[seckerich]

Butch can respond on the details, but regions don't hold the Majors; Majors events are a product of Topeka and are basically managed top-down from Topeka with the sanctioning region's assistance and volunteers. Reason being, they're looking to maintain a specific method and process for all Majors events.

Majors are a totally different product than Regionals, in many ways.

For the most part Greg, the regions book the track and have a contract with national office to run the event. Regions still hold the dates at the tracks and have the leverage to get some things done.

[tom91ita]

The IT group gets to run at the Kansas Speedway Majors in 2015.

A couple years ago the IT group ran on a pro weekend at mid-ohi . Really wish I had made one of thos .

[Terry Hanushek]

Greg


Butch can respond on the details, but regions don't hold the Majors; Majors events are a product of Topeka and are basically managed top-down from Topeka with the sanctioning region's assistance and volunteers. Reason being, they're looking to maintain a specific method and process for all Majors events.

For Majors, the schedule / race groups are discussed between Club Racing and the organizing region, then included in event agreement. The Club Racing input is intended to provide consistency between the Majors events in the conference. The Supps are developed by the region within certain requirements for Majors. The region is entirely responsible for running the event.

Terry

[Greg Amy]

Roger. So...why are the regions being restricted from adding Regional classes? Doesn't sound like they are "entirely responsible for running the event."

Me, I don't care, as long as it doesn't add a significant speed variation to my group and doesn't cut into my track time. Or if it does, better damn well drop the entry fees significantly from ~$650.

GA

[OUBob]

Roger. So...why are the regions being restricted from adding Regional classes? Doesn't sound like they are "entirely responsible for running the event."

Me, I don't care, as long as it doesn't add a significant speed variation to my group and doesn't cut into my track time. Or if it does, better damn well drop the entry fees significantly from ~$650.

GA

Jeebus, majors are ~$650? Whaddya suppose an average weekend for a well set up HP car would cost including consumables?

[Greg Amy]

2015 Homestead is $595, Sebring $575. Watkins Glen last year was $625, and Summit and NJMP were high fives? I seem to recall a $650 hit, but maybe that was in 2013.

2014 Runoffs test day was $300 for two 30-minute sessions, and event entry was $950 for three 20(?)-minute qualifiers and the 40-minute race (we got a $50 post-event rebate due to higher-than-anticipated entries).

"Be careful what you ask for..."

[Butch Kummer]

Roger. So...why are the regions being restricted from adding Regional classes? Doesn't sound like they are "entirely responsible for running the event."

Me, I don't care, as long as it doesn't add a significant speed variation to my group and doesn't cut into my track time. Or if it does, better damn well drop the entry fees significantly from ~$650.

GA

As Terry said, in 2013 & 2014 the weekend schedule was a joint decision between the host region and the Director of Club Racing (me). Both parties had "veto power" over what was offered, but the BoD also established requirements for what could be included (which I was tasked with enforcing). In most cases we were able to work out an agreement with no loss of lives, and I expect 2015 will be similar (except I'm obviously no longer part of the process).

SFR did not host a Majors event in 2013 because they wanted to include their regional-only classes in the same run groups with Majors cars (thus increasing clutter) and that was not allowed per the "no more Rationals" guidelines I was given. I also caught crap for allowing Atlanta Region to run a Pro-IT qualifier and race as part of their 2013 Majors weekend even though it did not impact the track time offered to the Majors drivers. Selected BoD members (Kephart and Langlotz) also started giving me shit about allowing PDX sessions at a Majors weekend until I explained the nuances of county-mandated Quiet Time at Road Atlanta.

And the only Majors event with a $650 entry fee was CoTA in 2013. WGI was $625 in 2014 and all the others have been under $600. With a few exceptions (mainly the West Coast in 2014 because of renewed interest due to the Runoffs) three-day Majors are in the $550-$575 range while the two-day events have been $450-$495. As before, I expect those will remain similar in 2015.

[Flyinglizard]

OUBOB, I get 1000$ plus fuel and tires for 2 days.600 more for each day. So figure that many are spending about 3K per race as rentals or a little less as owners. maybe 2K .
I have 3HP cars , 2 of which are top 3 cars at most tracks.
The issue that I and my my well funded drivers have, is that the majors have qualifying on Fri. The majors appears to be aimed at retired rich guys and fly in A&D.
The real world guys with jobs just dont fit.
I have set up our runoffs qualifying around the regionals/Division with some room to run the later Majors.
The national drivers, (old guys mostly ) really believe that the regional drivers are less worthy. As they race in their divisions at Majors , they do see the same 5 drivers and know what to expect of each other , so the concept is not invalid.

[gran racing]

is that the majors have qualifying on Fri.

Vacation time. :) I love events where I don't need to take a day off, but nothing that I don't account for when planning a race schedule. Now the craziness schedule of the Runoffs? Nope.

[Ron Earp]

they do see the same 5 drivers and know what to expect of each other .

Is it that many?

Seriously though, what is the average participation of a majors class race with, and without, SM & SRF factored in?

[seckerich]

http://crbscca.com/staffAdmin/points/participationReports/participation.php

All you need.

[Butch Kummer]

http://crbscca.com/staffAdmin/points/participationReports/participation.php

All you need.

Two things to note: The last two events listed are Festivals, so there were 25 Majors weekends in 2014. Also there were four conferences, but all the "Eastern" numbers are obviously reported under the "Southeast" column. Other than that, crunch numbers to your heart's delight...

On Edit: I believe the numbers presented here come from the results files submitted by the regions, and in some cases those included no-shows. Out of curiosity I compared them to the number I kept based on what I invoiced each region, and they're reasonably close. From my numbers, excluding festivals, for comparison:

. 2013 - 3384 total entries over 19 events, or 178.08 entries/weekend
. 2014 - 4544 total entries over 25 events, or 181.76 entries/weekend

And in 2014 there was no Majors event at CoTA, which accounted for 468 of that year's entries.

[Ron Earp]

http://crbscca.com/staffAdmin/points/participationReports/participation.php

All you need.

And some knowledge, which I severely lack.

If I were going to evaluate say the SE/Eastern division, I need to know what tracks are counted in that area. My guess would be six: VIR, PBIR, Sebring, RA, Barber, and Summit?



. 2013 - 3384 total entries over 19 events, or 178.08 entries/weekend
. 2014 - 4544 total entries over 25 events, or 181.76 entries/weekend

So in a simplified sense for say 2013 we'd have 178 entries per weekend, and 27 classes (!!!), or 6.6 cars per class if they were evenly distributed. Of course we know the classes are not populated evenly since SRF and SM are 30% of the entries for 2014, thus likely about the same percentage for 2013.

[Butch Kummer]

I'll admit I lived on the Majors website for two years, but it has pretty much everything you want to know about the program. Specific to this question:

http://www.scca.com/events/news.cfm?eid=6551&cid=51604

Barber was a Festival and not and Eastern Conference event. Those seven were Sebring, PBIR, Road Atlanta, VIR, NJMP, Watkins Glen, and Summit Point.

[gran racing]

Where is the Majors website? Went to the SCCA site and can't figure it out. Or is that section of the SCCA website considered the Majors website?

THIS is one of SCCA's big issues (not saying the majors website specifically).

[Butch Kummer]

Specific to your edit, Ron, there were 28 classes in 2013 (CSR, DSR, and S2 were combined into P1 & P2 for 2014). So if you figure SM & SRF account for 30% of the entries the number per "other" class was actually about 4.45 per event.

[Butch Kummer]

Yes, the "Majors website" can be reached by clicking the "Majors" tab on SCCA.com.

[Greg Amy]

Where is the Majors website?


...the "Majors website" can be reached by clicking the "Majors" tab on SCCA.com.
:lol:

In case you're still cornfuzed...

http://www.scca.com/majors

[Butch Kummer]

And given your lack of familiarity with the program, I should also probably ask the guys that are ready to drop the distinction between the Majors and Regionals:

"Have you ever been to a Majors event?"

[gran racing]

That's where I went, but based on Butch's comments I was somewhat expecting a separate site linked from SCCA's.

[Knestis]

And given your lack of familiarity with the program, I should also probably ask the guys that are ready to drop the distinction between the Majors and Regionals:

"Have you ever been to a Majors event?"

<raises hand>

In my opinion the quality of events varies more region-to-region than it does majors-vs-regionals (or national-vs-regional before that).

Majors trophies were nicer than most regionals, but I was frankly a little annoyed by the number of national office staff that seemed to be just sitting around or socializing while the region ran the race. (Nothing personal, Butch.) The longer races were offset (for me anyway) but less competition. I didn't race for a position in four Majors (two doubles in the STU Jetta TDI) in 2013, but had a good race or two last year in STL. Fields were still thin, although less than the least-subscribed ITB regionals in recent years and much more than the best of those B brawls (e.g., pretty much anything at Summit). The paddocks at the Majors events I did were typically more packed but with fewer racers if that makes sense; more big rigs with less hanging out at the track. It was nice to have some consistency in the day's schedule major-to-major but some variability won't kill anyone and can be managed by standards to apply to ALL club events.

At the end of the day, if, say, we went to a model where all of the current GCR classes were available at all events, and points were accumulated for regional and divisional championships, and some combination of points from those results served as a qualifying process to the RubOffs, competition would allow the cream to rise to the top - in terms of driver/car entrants. Let only the best-subscribed classes from 2014 go to the 2015 big dance, and the same would happen for classes. The market would decide.

The distinctions are all manufactured and artificial. If they went away, some of the people at any given "Club Championship Race" would be all SRS BSNS and some would simply be glad to participate. It would take a little while for folks to shed their biases and preconceived notions - most of which are flawed - but with the kind of turnover we have, it wouldn't take long for the culture to change. To be clear, this whole issue has bamfoozled me since i went to my first SCCA race in 1979. Nothing has changed my opinion on that.

K

EDIT - if we think there's value in having a small number of "showcase" events, just do the above but with one double-points "festival" or "super" event in each region.

[StephenB]

OMG kirk gets it!!

Butch, with all due respect why did you strrt this thread? Let's flip sides...

To me it's obvious your emotionally attached to the majors program. Why? What is so great about it that all you insiders see? Sell it to those 25yr members like me that still don't get it. You were on the inside, spill the secrets!

Maybe it's a north east thing but the bigger fields and deeper competition have been in IT, FV, SRF and then recently in the last 10yrs you can add SM. Nothing but expense, travel, and a chance at the Runoffs were the only advantages to nationals aka majors.

Thanks, Stephen

[TomL]

"Nothing but expense, travel, and a chance at the Runoffs were the only advantages to nationals aka majors."

Stephen, there's a solution to your problem -- don't run majors. :) You in the NEDiv have a goodly selection of regional races to run, just like us here in the SE. We (and you) have more races than we can reasonably hope to attend already. I'm truly perplexed at what would be gained by making everything just "races". If your local track has a Majors, that might be one more race you can run cheap (no travel). But there's nothing stopping you from running them now. Even if you are in IT or some other regional-only class, there is almost always an ST or Prod class you can run in. I've done it before. I was hopelessly uncompetitive using an IT car in STU, but I got to race. But unless you have a really strong regional-level car, you're always going to be uncompetitive at a National/Majors anyway.

My impression is that a lot of the serious Majors racers like the new program. It concentrates the really serious racers at a few events with a very high level of competition (or at least the highest level that you can get if you run in a lightly subscribed class or in a weaker division). I think the people shooting for the Runoffs generally liked the change from running a dozen or so Nationals with usually weaker fields to running four weekends with bigger fields. If we make everything "races" and they all count for towards the Runoffs, I don't see that being well received by the Majors racers. Remember, in SEDiv, you're talking 71 regional races, plus this year 12 Majors races. At that point, qualifying for the Runoffs is essentially meaningless, unless SCCA just decides to forget about "qualifying" and just lets everyone who has run, say, four races go.

I think the serious Majors racers like things as they are. And before anyone takes offense that lots of regional racers are pretty serious, too, I agree. However, there is a difference between serious majors racers and serious regional racers. And it mostly relates to money. Regardless of how serious a regional racer you are, it's very unlikely that you're spending the amount of money that it takes to run an comparably competitive Majors effort. That is the main virtue I see to the Majors/Regional distinction. It allows the serious racers who aren't willing (or in many cases even able) to spend the money it takes to be competitive in the big pond of Majors. A lot of us realize we're always going to be small fish in that big pond. But we can still be big fish in the small pond of regionals. And you're proposing that we all get pushed into the big pond.

I still get the impression that the underlying reason that people keep proposing making everything "races", is that they want IT to be just like the National classes. Kirk's discussion above is effectively arguing for that - the top X number of classes would likely include most IT classes. But as tGA has said many times, it ain't gonna happen. And I seem to remember that the idea that the less attended classes didn't get to go to the Runoffs was proposed just a few years ago - and withdrawn due to the firestorm from the membership.

I agree with Butch that somebody needs to explain again what benefit we would get from eliminating the Majors/regional distinction. We've had one for a long time. This doesn't mean it's good, but it does't mean it's automatically bad, either. If we're going to make such a change, I'd like to see a good reason to do so. I haven't seen a good one yet, and I've mentioned some reasons why I think it wouldn't be such a good idea. Again, why do we want t do this?

[gran racing]

I was not a fan of the National / regional distinction, but think the Majors program works. I have not been to a majors event and honestly have little motivation to attend one. Butch and others who have been to them, are my perceptions here accurate? Stephen, this is why I think Majors work:

- It's a series much like ones you participate in, except spread much more around the country. This appeals to drivers who have the means to attend events further away. You'll see many of the same drivers at COTA, Mid Ohio, the Glen, Sebring, and all over the place. The Majors gives them a more national series.
- Employees are there from Topeka which should allow for more consistency due to events being held across the country and by different regions.
- More invasive tech (again, it should be).
- Prestige, or at least perceived. The talk of the big rigs and corresponding big $$$$, let the Majors attract those people.

At least that's my take.

[Butch Kummer]

Butch, with all due respect why did you strrt this thread?

Why did I start this thread? Because a bunch (or at least some) of you guys say you want change!

In various discussions on the Concorde Agreement (or whatever it's called today), current members have asked the BoD to explain why getting down to 14-16 classes will make racing better. That explanation has yet to be advanced as far as I've seen, and to me that's the biggest reason to NOT force class consolidation (let nature take it's course)

In a similar vein, some of you guys insist that inviting every class to every event will make your racing better. Why?

[Butch Kummer]

Said another way:

Back when I first attended the Runoffs at Road Atlanta in 1971, there were 22 classes that ran in 21 races (7 races Friday thru Sunday, A & B Prod ran together). There were 8 Prod classes (A-H), 4 Sedan classes (A-D), 4 Sports Racer classes (A-D), and 6 formula classes (A-C, F, V, SV). Even then a number of people complained that "SCCA has too many classes - the racing is too diluted and it's difficult for the public to understand!" yet all efforts to reduce the number of classes over the years has failed. The latest proposal is to have the CRB come up with a ten-year plan to reduce the Runoffs to 14-16 classes, and it's being met with the expected protest by those invested in the current class structure. I'm certainly not resistant to change, but I've yet to hear (from the BoD) a compelling argument WHY we need to reduce the number of classes.

Over that same period of time, there has been Regional and National (now Majors) racing. The idea is people get started and learn their craft at less intense weekends, then if they want they can move/transition/migrate (note I'm not using the word "advance") to a more intense level of competition. BTW, the Solo program works the same way - lots of local regional programs, then those that want to can travel to a limited number of National Tours and a winner-take-all National Championship event.

Even though it's worked well for over fifty years, more than one of you wants to eliminate that distinction in the Club Racing program. Why?

[zchris]

I think a lot of the IT guys want the contingency monies they are not eligible for. What I believe they do not realize is that would mostly go away as the companies making those payouts would not be able to afford the huge number of regional events that take place. And it would further dilute the lesser suscribed classes. Effectively killing off most Prod, GT and Formula car classes. Can you guys now see what would be the start of the clubs death spiral. Haven't you IT guys done this club enough damage by eliminating the cheap entry point known as IT with massive rules creep. Flame away.

[Knestis]

It's kind of a typical way of looking at questions like this, but I'd propose that Tom is asking questions about value from an individual point of view - what does Stephen have to gain from eliminating the distinction when he doesn't run Majors? I've long been in the minority on this but I do *not* think that we achieve the best collective racing program by assuming that we should simply give each individual what he/she wants at any point in time. I'd further argue that a lot of the ongoing crazy-making policies in the Club are the result of "being responsive" to (sometimes individual) members' interests rather than having the nards to make strategic decisions.

I don't personally care if we aren't stroking the egos of current Majors entrants, if we have a program that's based on sound theory with the potential to be more healthy in the long run - across the entire Club Racing package. If the qualifying points system rewards beating people rather than just showing up (a la what we did with the IT National Tour), drivers will naturally gravitate to better-attended races chasing those points. Regions will pick races that they want to showcase and work to get more drivers there. Every driver will look at his/her "national" and "divisional" points in the tally and some will, I guarantee it, attend more races to improve their rankings or possibly decide to chase a championship or qualify for the RubOffs. Change the qualification requirements from participation numbers (bah!) to an actual COMPETITION. Only the top XX (or %) of points-earners in each class from each division get invited. Go beat someone if you want to get to the big show, lame-o. We could count only the best X finishes in the qualifying points scheme. Whatever.

I equally don't care if we "push everyone into the big pond" and make mere regional racers run with the big dogs. It's called competition. Get some.

We've GOT to set free any policy decision that's (a) predicated on some assumption about what racers spend, or (b) intended to limit what they spend. That's ongoing bad policy and/or class warfare silliness.

The "let all classes run" orientation comes straight from a first principle that if a class is in the GCR, and if members have built cars to run in it, then it should be on equal ground opportunity-wise, with all of the other classes in the book. While a suitably empowered dictator could force consolidation, I don't for a minute think it's possible given our rules-making and administrative processes and culture. Letting them all start on an equal footing but encouraging competition for national championship status recognition would, as Butch describes, "let nature take its course." As things currently stand, there are no predators in the SCCA environment, so classes have no reason to evolve. Nature will just leave things as they are. I don't think that letting every class in will "make the racing better" in a year or two but if there IS some incentive to cherry-pick a well attended class to realize a personal goal of going to the Big Deal, it will make for a better program in the long term.

Finally, I take it as given that - if the intention is to RACE - fewer classes is a good thing, as long as the classes offered give some variation and choice among them. If a new racer is presented with three options for "racing something that looks like a street car" rather than seven, they are NOT going to just walk away.

K

[Knestis]

I think a lot of the IT guys want the contingency monies they are not eligible for. What I believe they do not realize is that would mostly go away as the companies making those payouts would not be able to afford the huge number of regional events that take place. And it would further dilute the lesser suscribed classes. Effectively killing off most Prod, GT and Formula car classes. Can you guys now see what would be the start of the clubs death spiral. Haven't you IT guys done this club enough damage by eliminating the cheap entry point known as IT with massive rules creep. Flame away.

No flaming. It's just a silly argument, in terms of both the cause-effect proposition (or leaps, I should say) for which there's exactly no evidence, and your projection of an intention on some folks that so far I as can recall, I've never heard voiced. To the latter point, I pretty consistently didn't get those whoopity-do contingency awards running Majors because of participation numbers low enough to prevent them from kicking in.

You also completely don't really understand the dynamic of the "cheap entry point" and "rules creep" in IT. Budgets went up ONLY because people were willing to spend more to be competitive. Rules creep had some TINY impact on that, and new allowances NEVER forced anyone to spend more money than they would have otherwise been likely to spend. A newb can absolutely still use IT as an "entry point" for a very, VERY modest amount of money. He can't WIN, maybe, but we have no obligation to give everyone a first place trophy.

I do like the fear mongering strategy of invoking the inevitable outcome of a change KILLING OFF entire categories, though. That's some good web argument hyperbole right there. :)

K

[Butch Kummer]

The "let all classes run" orientation comes straight from a first principle that if a class is in the GCR, and if members have built cars to run in it, then it should be on equal ground opportunity-wise, with all of the other classes in the book. While a suitably empowered dictator could force consolidation, I don't for a minute think it's possible given our rules-making and administrative processes and culture. Letting them all start on an equal footing but encouraging competition for national championship status recognition would, as Butch describes, "let nature take its course." As things currently stand, there are no predators in the SCCA environment, so classes have no reason to evolve. Nature will just leave things as they are. I don't think that letting every class in will "make the racing better" in a year or two but if there IS some incentive to cherry-pick a well attended class to realize a personal goal of going to the Big Deal, it will make for a better program in the long term.

K

K,

Your proposal is more than just to let everyone run every weekend, which is what I understood most of the previous posts were wanting. What I see you're saying is "Let everyone run every weekend AND only the top XX classes get to go to the Runoffs."

While I agree that is very much letting nature takes it's course (and at least one definition of "competition"), you and I both know it will never happen.

[mossaidis]

While I agree that is very much letting nature takes it's course (and at least one definition of "competition"), you and I both know it will never happen.

...(crickets)...

[TomL]

Kirk, I'll plead guilty to looking at this from a personal perspective. I agree that SCCA needs to think strategically, but part of thinking strategically is providing racing programs that are attractive to members - which is the agglomeration of a bunch of personal perspectives. If you don't "stroke the egos" of the Majors racers who like the program, and tell them just run "races", maybe they will. Or maybe they'll just leave. Market forces might generate an informal replacement of high demand races, but I have my doubts. If the Majors racers like the program, why take it away from them? Again, who actually benefits by doing so? I see it as a negative for the Majors racers, and don't see what good it would do the current regional racers. What is that "sound theory with the potential to be more healthy in the long run"?

I don't see why we need to push everyone into the big pond. Almost all amateur sporting organizations have multiple levels of competition. The NCAA doesn't tell North Dakota State or Wisconsin-Whitewater to play the Alabamas of the world. They have their own championships for the lower level teams to fight for. Why should SCCA be any different?
Not everyone has the skill, commitment and ,yes, money to compete at the National/Majors level. Your "It's called competition. Get some." comment is far more condescending to regional racers than anything I've seen from the PTB in SCCA.

And if you think that lots of racers will be running for a long time with SCCA if they are put in a position where they have essentially no chance of being competitive, I think you are wrong. The closest example I can think of is what occurred in drag racing several decades ago. As I remember it, stock class drag racing was seriously ill because many classes had one or two racers who had developed their killer cars that no one else could match without the expenditure of a lot of time, effort and money. Many racers just gave up trying. That was the genesis of bracket racing. A few road racing organizations have tried it, but I doubt that's really the way we want to go.

I agree that you can't limit what racers are willing to spend, but I think it's silly to say that the club shouldn't factor racer's spending into designing their programs. As I've said many times before on this subject, you can't limit what racers can spend, but you can certainly limit how much benefit they get from that spending. The two most popular classes in SCCA are SM and SRF, and they are also probably the classes where the speed differential from fastest to slowest car in class is the least. The two are related. Anything that can be done to lessen the benefit of spending money will make racing more appealing. And so is reducing the amount of money you need to spend to run and run competitively. The biggest obstacle that SCCA has to expanding the pool of racers is that: a) it costs so much to run at all, and b) it costs a whole lot more to run competitively. Providing a "small pond" helps address b).

I'm with you that class consolidation would be beneficial, although I also agree that inertia and history will make it difficult. But I really don't see why there couldn't be a goodly number of classes combined that have the same type or cars (or even the same cars, i.e., Miatas) and run similar lap times. For example, FC, FE and FM all run similar lap times and with some judicious weight adjustments could easily run competitively with each other. Same for EP, STU and maybe GT3, or for STL, GTL and FP. I know everyone wants to run their current car unchanged, but if the only change that is required is to add 50-100 pounds to the faster class, I don't think that should be an insurmountable obstacle. As long as the class rules are otherwise unchanged, what's the problem? However, if the PTB want to start changing the class rules to make them the same for the combined classes, I don't see that ever flying.

[disquek]

As a majors participant, I thought I'd offer my perspective.

Some back ground. I ran NESCCA regional SM for many years going back well before SM went "national". I switched to "National" GTL in 2008 because I got tired of the contact in SM and also wanted the opportunity to engineer and stay legal.

Why do I run Majors?

I like the idea of a touring series. I don't want to race the same track every weekend, or really more than once a season. I enjoy the travel and I keep my travel costs minimal (open trailer, sleep in the pickup truck).

I also like the run group I run in. The cars are all fairly similar and for the most part we have a like minded group that travels with the series that gives you the chance to know who you can trust wheel-2-wheel.

The contingencies are a big help. And as it's been mentioned before, I think that selling vendors on a larger schedule would be impossible.

Realistically, the two sides (regional vs majors) run different classes with some overlap (SM and SRF). The other classes, although they can race in the other series, generally don't. IMHO, this is the primary difference between the two side. Which classes are heavily subscribed.

If you were to merge them (and doing so would certainly result in fewer overall entries), you'd have seriously mixed up run groups with little opportunity to race with folks in your own class.

"Integrating" or "Merging" regional and national is impossible. All races become regional at that point.

Honestly, I don't understand why folks want to eliminate one side of the racing coin. How would you feel if I wanted to eliminate your side?

I think my side is great fun. So do hundreds of other guys racing with me.

Why do you feel compelled to screw that up for us? Do you hope to see some gain from that?

-Kyle

[StephenB]

. What I see you're saying is "Let everyone run every weekend AND only the top XX classes get to go to the Runoffs."

While I agree that is very much letting nature takes it's course (and at least one definition of "competition"), you and I both know it will never happen.

This is what I thought would be a good idea. I feel it would increase participation in the national eligible classes during regional weekends which would help my entry fees :-)

I have said it before and although not all that passionate either way I don't think IT should be considered for the runoffs. Let it stay what it is. I still see it staying what it is even if it ran on the same weekends as everyone else.

I have never heard of anyone wanting the contingency from the majors program. Never in the 25 years I have been a member did I think that or hear that as an argument to go national.

I also want to be clear I am not insistent, and couldn't really care. I have multiple posts here trying to make you understand my idea, aka, suggestion. Take it or leave it, just an idea that hasn't been tried before, except in NASA. I am happy with the group and schedule I get with the NERRC series.

Kyle, great post. I think your on to something if the majority of majors drivers want it the way it is. I haven't understood why most people doing majors don't just go to SCCA WC, I would think a TCA car probably has a smaller budget than most of the majors classes.

Stephen

[Knestis]

It strikes me, Kyle, that many of your arguments assume that nothing about what a current Majors or Regional event looks like (as you see them) would change if the distinction went away, while others presume that there will be some huge result which will be bad. To the specifics...

** Like to travel to other tracks? Nothing about a consolidated program would prevent that.

** Nice homogenous run groups? We get messy groups when we try to jam lots of cars into a few groups (e.g., to get a one-day regional in the books), so only go to the races that offer more open schedules and groupings that are attractive to you. Again, nothing about all events having the same status prevents you from doing that, or regions from offering races like that.

** Manufacturers get involved in contingency programs to reach customers. It might indeed be that some decide to slice their existing pie into smaller bits, making any given event award smaller. However, it's equally possible that they might be excited about reaching a LOT more SCCA racers across the nation. There's no way to know at this point and frankly, it's a minor issue compared to equitable offerings to all Club members, so I personally don't think it carries a lot of weight. (I'm also generally dubious of contingencies from a more philosophical point of view, since they tend to reward the folks who spend more money than their competitors. Some quite literally rob from the poor to give to the rich, like the distribution of spec tire revenues from the entire field to the winners.)

** Any complaint about entrants not running "the other series" goes away when there's no distinction between the two. I haven't seen any argument here about why that's a problem beyond the fact that "it is one." When everyone runs a consolidated program, competition overall increases.

** Re: "all races become regional," I'd argue that in practice, "all races become Majors," in the sense that they are part of a bigger deal. To be clear though, this kind of consolidated scheme would allow a person to accrue points for regional and divisional championships, too. Anyone who's opposed to something like this because it makes it harder to win a regional championship - against more competition - needs to tell me that to my face so I can laugh at them. This isn't supposed to be a feel-good HPDE program. It's "racing."

** Not trying to do something because its not politically feasible is not the same thing as not doing it because it's "impossible." It's entirely possible to merge our current regional and Majors programs. As Butch points out, it probably won't happen because too many people put their personal short-term interests ahead of having a cohesive program that might - should - outlive their involvement. We keep giving people exactly what they want and a HUGE percentage of them still only participate for a couple of years. Or we give people with longevity but narrow interests too much pull, and end up with tiny legacy classes or other issues <coughplungecutcough>.

** Re: "certainly result in fewer entries," I have NO idea what evidence or theory-of-action serves as rationale for that. Help?

** Finally, it's interesting to me how you view the idea of a consolidation as "eliminating your side." Wouldn't it be "eliminating THEIR side," too? I have no side, in that I've essentially split my time between Majors, regionals, and other stuff (a la Lemons) for the past few years. Over the past 30+ years, I've had SCCA regional, national, pro, rally, and NASA licenses and all the while wondered why we insist on Balkanizing our racing into dozens of tiny chunks. Is it in fact because everyone wants a trophy? That would be sad.

As to why...? I would hope to gain a successful, vital roadracing program that can survive EXTERNAL competition. SCCA continues to be its own worst enemy, squabbling amongst ourselves over petty palace intrigue while the barbarians are at the gate. I don't recall now who I heard it from first (Scott Giles? Bowie G?) but it's true that "SCCA eats its young."

K

[Knestis]

Not everyone has the skill, commitment and ,yes, money to compete at the National/Majors level. Your "It's called competition. Get some." comment is far more condescending to regional racers than anything I've seen from the PTB in SCCA. ...

How is it condescending to "regional racers?" It's supposed to be condescending to anyone who chooses to avoid competition. :)

Atlantic coast Regional ITB races used to be WAAAAAAY more competitive than a majority current Majors class races are now. The guys who won my two-car STU races in 2003 didn't in my eyes have much to crow about. And I'd say the same to those who cherry pick poorly subscribed SARRC races to win a "championship" against racers they never see on the track, let alone beat.

As to why consolidation? Look at SCCA's closest competition for a great example.

K

[mossaidis]

What Kirk said... seriously.

This is the defining section which makes me sick:


** Not trying to do something because its not politically feasible is not the same thing as not doing it because it's "impossible." It's entirely possible to merge our current regional and Majors programs. As Butch points out, it probably won't happen because too many people put their personal short-term interests ahead of having a cohesive program that might - should - outlive their involvement. We keep giving people exactly what they want and a HUGE percentage of them still only participate for a couple of years. Or we give people with longevity but narrow interests too much pull, and end up with tiny legacy classes or other issues <coughplungecutcough>.

[jumbojimbo]

The IT group gets to run at the Kansas Speedway Majors in 2015.

Let me guess: as a separate group with 5-6 classes. IE: sure, you can run your go carts during our lunch hour if you pay the bills for us when we can't support ourselves.

edit: now that i've read more, let me rant about contingencies a bit. I don't like them because they are a benefit only to the royalty and a tax on the rest of us. That money comes from sales, why should my $200 tire pay you for winning races in another series?

And that's kind of my issue with all of the distinction. My impression is that regional racing pays the bills and national racing doesn't. Regional sanction fees pay more bills than national sanction fees, regional purchases pay for national contingencies, etc. Regional racers pay the bill and national racers get the benefits.

[Ralf]

Let me guess: as a separate group with 5-6 classes. IE:"rational". IE: sure, you can run your go carts during our lunch hour if you pay the bills for us when we can't support ourselves.

It's a step in the right direction. We had 3 cancelled events due to low entries in MiDiv this year. We want to race. So what if we'll be the last run group of the day.

[StephenB]

Have you looked at entry fees for a majors weekend? I don't think us"regional" guys are getting screwed at all. In fact I have decided that I don't want to get rid of majors for that same reason!

Yup I flip flopped :-)

[Knestis]

On what theoretical basis do you presume that entry fees would necessarily increase if we just had "club races," Stephen? I just don't think it follows logically that it would be the case.

K

[StephenB]

Because... SCCA ;)

[jumbojimbo]

I've seen mention of track time, the implication is that national...er...majors give more track time. True, they give longer races, but not necessarily more track time.

One advantage of the current split is that for regional races we have flexibility in the weekend schedule. We're not stuck with the majors format. We can run a 15min qualify, 10 lap race, 12 lap race both days if we think that will draw more cars than the traditional Qual-Race, Qual-Race. We can run a 1 hour race. We can run a handicap race. We aren't required to run one painfully long race a day.

One issue is that the only reason many people run majors is to qualify for the runoffs. If you allowed people to run the runoffs by simply finishing one major race, a lot of people would run just that one race. So in order to force people to run enough races to make the majors viable, you have to create an artificial barrier to the runoffs.

Which means that you can't just do away with the distinction or you've lost your ability to force people to run races they don't want to run in the first place. Because if every race weekend had the same value in qualification for the runoffs, people would run the bare minimum. That's the cancer of national racing and the runoffs. The marginalization of the actual race weekends into something you're required to do in order to qualify.

For me, that's the part where the tail wags the dog. My group of friends and I run MORE races than most "national" drivers because we enjoy the racing. Each race weekend is what matters, it's not just something we check off so we can run the runoffs. I don't want to skip a weekend because I'll miss that weekend's experience.

But, it seems from my perspective that every decision made is made with the runoffs in mind. Does this hurt regional racing? Who cares, it helps the runoffs. To me, the idea that we can build our club racing system from the top down is wrong. The idea that if we have a prestigious national championship that takes effort and commitment to win will trickle down and draw people into regional racing is wrong. The idea that having SportsCar focus on drivers who can spend $100k a year on their "program" and who see club racing as a stepping stone in their "career" will draw people to regional racing is wrong. What will draw people to regional racing is affordable classes with stable rulesets and good schedules that don't have 12 week gaps in them.

The reason NASA, Lemons and Chump grew so fast was that they concentrated at the base of the pyramid, not the top. They drew away the people we've been ignoring, the people who want to get started at a reasonable cost. Meanwhile SCCA has concentrated on the 18 year old kid whose daddy can afford a $75k car and a $250k annual budget. Of course, then those other groups reached a saturation point, lost focus and started to concentrate on the top 5%, just like SCCA does, and look were it got them...

[dickita15]

Jim, I was right with you until the last couple of paragraphs, national racing is a small part of what we do as a club and yes it gets more press. but the change from Nationals to Majors over the last few years came with a corresponding increased freedom for regions to design event that suit the local competitors. we also have a new focus on the more entry level ways to have fun with cars in SCCA. the Time Trial rules book was redone to make it easier to put on events. The Club Racing Experience make it possible to get people on track with a very low hassle factor. in 2015 you will see a some new stuff from the Experiential Department that you should approve of.

just because we have a Majors program and a Runoffs do not think that is all SCCA cares about no more that have a Solo Nationals make local Solo any less important.

[240zdave]

Jim, I was right with you until the last couple of paragraphs, national racing is a small part of what we do as a club and yes it gets more press. but the change from Nationals to Majors over the last few years came with a corresponding increased freedom for regions to design event that suit the local competitors. we also have a new focus on the more entry level ways to have fun with cars in SCCA. the Time Trial rules book was redone to make it easier to put on events. The Club Racing Experience make it possible to get people on track with a very low hassle factor. in 2015 you will see a some new stuff from the Experiential Department that you should approve of.

just because we have a Majors program and a Runoffs do not think that is all SCCA cares about no more that have a Solo Nationals make local Solo any less important.

What you say may be true, but when I open SportsCar, my club magazine, and see nothing but articles about Majors, SCCA Pro Racing, and absolutely nothing about regional racing, it really does appear that my club cares nothing about Improved Touring or regional events. I used to keep my SportsCar mags, but now, after a brief check for anything I might use (articles comparing new helmets, advertisements for new products), it goes in the trash.

[gran racing]

They drew away the people we've been ignoring, the people who want to get started at a reasonable cost.

As someone whose worked with the national office on this very subject, I wouldn't say ignoring. For several years, the National office and some regions have been quite supportive of the resource I wrote on this very subject - helping people get started at reasonable costs.

Could they do a better job with the challenge? Yes, and the HPDE / Club Racing Experience is key for Club Racing.

It's also a matter of regions doing more as they operate more like a franchise (at least from what I've seen) and bear responsibility for their own marketing and educating efforts.

[dickita15]

What you say may be true, but when I open SportsCar, my club magazine, and see nothing but articles about Majors, SCCA Pro Racing, and absolutely nothing about regional racing, it really does appear that my club cares nothing about Improved Touring or regional events. I used to keep my SportsCar mags, but now, after a brief check for anything I might use (articles comparing new helmets, advertisements for new products), it goes in the trash.

I agree. I want to pull my hair out every year when the June Sprints is on the cover. please if you want more coverage of interesting innovative local events write a polite email to Sports Car and cc the club president. I am not suggesting just saying more regional coverage so I can see my name in print, there is no way to do that, too many events. but I would like to read about things happening in other part of the country so I could learn to put on better events.

[jumbojimbo]

But the issue is not that I want to see more local coverage. The issue is making people understand that the current focus on national/pro level racing/solo/etc is undermining the ability to get new people involved because it gives the wrong impression about what is required to be involved. It gives the impression that you must be rich or want to make racing a career.

What has happened with the Majors is that we have doubled down on the mistaken idea that gravy flows downhill. That if we show the pinnacle of the sport and show that we are dominate in that aspect, it will flow downward and attract newbies. That newbies will want to associate with the best. But that isn't what happens. The focus on expensive classes and big time programs gives newbies the impression that they can't buy a $3k car, spend $7k a year and have a great time. Read sportscar and it's clear that in order to get involved in racing you need a $35k car and another $20k a year to run your minimum 4 events. And that gets you the "cheapest" car a B-Spec. If you want to run in a "real" class, the price goes up both in money and time.

That's the fight, changing the mistaken impression that in order to thrive we have to be the pinnacle of the sport. A couple of random articles about regional racers who overspend to go to ARRC isn't going to do it. What we need is to consistently show that the vast majority of racers compete on a shoestring budget and have fun doing it.

It's the same problem with solo. It's always national national national. When a new person picks up SportsCar they don't see any of our activities as something they can do. They see it as something that someone with more talent, more money, more connections, etc does.

I know, national will say that's the job of the regions, to push the local budget friendly venues. But that's a problem. You can't focus on the pinnacle on a national level at the expense of entry level programs. You certainly can't continue to cater to the top 5% on virtually all decisions. And you can't continue to only focus on "winners" and "excellence".

That's problem #3, the focus on "winners". It's always about the guy who comes in with talent and money and dedication and wins wins wins. If I see on more article about some young kid who burns the midnight oil and thrashes the competition with his "alien" talent... The reality is that the majority of competitors aren't winners, they can't be. They don't have the talent, resources, dedication or need to be winners. They don't need to be winners to enjoy the sport. But you wouldn't know that from reading SportsCar. Everybody has to be a winner to be successful and enjoy themselves. That's why we have so many fricking classes, nobody is happy finishing 23rd, everybody has to be a winner. You can blame today's "me" culture, but we've refined the idea and we document it very well in SportsCar.

Edit: I know I'm kind of harping on SportsCar as the issue. But the base issue of thinking that "national" programs and that the runoffs is the goose that lays the golden eggs is the issue. Everything from classing to schedules comes down to national/runoffs first, regionals get the scraps. And that's the tail that wags the dog. In the long run the way to be successful is to rebuild the programs from the bottom up. Don't send me questionaire's about the runoffs. Ask me one single time about what needs to be done to encourage me to run regional races.

[gran racing]

You have a lot of excellent points there Jim.

Would you be willing to write and article about your regional experiences?

[seckerich]

But the issue is not that I want to see more local coverage. The issue is making people understand that the current focus on national/pro level racing/solo/etc is undermining the ability to get new people involved because it gives the wrong impression about what is required to be involved. It gives the impression that you must be rich or want to make racing a career.

What has happened with the Majors is that we have doubled down on the mistaken idea that gravy flows downhill. That if we show the pinnacle of the sport and show that we are dominate in that aspect, it will flow downward and attract newbies. That newbies will want to associate with the best. But that isn't what happens. The focus on expensive classes and big time programs gives newbies the impression that they can't buy a $3k car, spend $7k a year and have a great time. Read sportscar and it's clear that in order to get involved in racing you need a $35k car and another $20k a year to run your minimum 4 events. And that gets you the "cheapest" car a B-Spec. If you want to run in a "real" class, the price goes up both in money and time.

That's the fight, changing the mistaken impression that in order to thrive we have to be the pinnacle of the sport. A couple of random articles about regional racers who overspend to go to ARRC isn't going to do it. What we need is to consistently show that the vast majority of racers compete on a shoestring budget and have fun doing it.

It's the same problem with solo. It's always national national national. When a new person picks up SportsCar they don't see any of our activities as something they can do. They see it as something that someone with more talent, more money, more connections, etc does.

I know, national will say that's the job of the regions, to push the local budget friendly venues. But that's a problem. You can't focus on the pinnacle on a national level at the expense of entry level programs. You certainly can't continue to cater to the top 5% on virtually all decisions. And you can't continue to only focus on "winners" and "excellence".

That's problem #3, the focus on "winners". It's always about the guy who comes in with talent and money and dedication and wins wins wins. If I see on more article about some young kid who burns the midnight oil and thrashes the competition with his "alien" talent... The reality is that the majority of competitors aren't winners, they can't be. They don't have the talent, resources, dedication or need to be winners. They don't need to be winners to enjoy the sport. But you wouldn't know that from reading SportsCar. Everybody has to be a winner to be successful and enjoy themselves. That's why we have so many fricking classes, nobody is happy finishing 23rd, everybody has to be a winner. You can blame today's "me" culture, but we've refined the idea and we document it very well in SportsCar.

Edit: I know I'm kind of harping on SportsCar as the issue. But the base issue of thinking that "national" programs and that the runoffs is the goose that lays the golden eggs is the issue. Everything from classing to schedules comes down to national/runoffs first, regionals get the scraps. And that's the tail that wags the dog. In the long run the way to be successful is to rebuild the programs from the bottom up. Don't send me questionaire's about the runoffs. Ask me one single time about what needs to be done to encourage me to run regional races.

Just moved to the top of my list for "getting it', great post!!

[jumbojimbo]

You have a lot of excellent points there Jim.

Would you be willing to write and article about your regional experiences?

Ha ha. "Don't complain or you get nominated for the job!" I might be able to write something. I can draw from the general ITC group on a variety of subjects too, like "don't stick us with SM or we won't come to your race, we're not joking around, we mean it."

I hope my rant doesn't sound too angry. It's just a fundamental difference in focus. Just don't get me started on the subject of including pictures of underage girls in tank tops...

[Knestis]

I've seen mention of track time, the implication is that national...er...majors give more track time. True, they give longer races, but not necessarily more track time.

One advantage of the current split is that for regional races we have flexibility in the weekend schedule. We're not stuck with the majors format. We can run a 15min qualify, 10 lap race, 12 lap race both days if we think that will draw more cars than the traditional Qual-Race, Qual-Race. We can run a 1 hour race. We can run a handicap race. We aren't required to run one painfully long race a day.

One issue is that the only reason many people run majors is to qualify for the runoffs. If you allowed people to run the runoffs by simply finishing one major race, a lot of people would run just that one race. So in order to force people to run enough races to make the majors viable, you have to create an artificial barrier to the runoffs.

Which means that you can't just do away with the distinction or you've lost your ability to force people to run races they don't want to run in the first place. Because if every race weekend had the same value in qualification for the runoffs, people would run the bare minimum. That's the cancer of national racing and the runoffs. The marginalization of the actual race weekends into something you're required to do in order to qualify.

For me, that's the part where the tail wags the dog. My group of friends and I run MORE races than most "national" drivers because we enjoy the racing. Each race weekend is what matters, it's not just something we check off so we can run the runoffs. I don't want to skip a weekend because I'll miss that weekend's experience.

But, it seems from my perspective that every decision made is made with the runoffs in mind. Does this hurt regional racing? Who cares, it helps the runoffs. To me, the idea that we can build our club racing system from the top down is wrong. The idea that if we have a prestigious national championship that takes effort and commitment to win will trickle down and draw people into regional racing is wrong. The idea that having SportsCar focus on drivers who can spend $100k a year on their "program" and who see club racing as a stepping stone in their "career" will draw people to regional racing is wrong. What will draw people to regional racing is affordable classes with stable rulesets and good schedules that don't have 12 week gaps in them.

The reason NASA, Lemons and Chump grew so fast was that they concentrated at the base of the pyramid, not the top. They drew away the people we've been ignoring, the people who want to get started at a reasonable cost. Meanwhile SCCA has concentrated on the 18 year old kid whose daddy can afford a $75k car and a $250k annual budget. Of course, then those other groups reached a saturation point, lost focus and started to concentrate on the top 5%, just like SCCA does, and look were it got them...

Sorry - I'm going to continue to press. Why address the possibility of doing away with the distinction between Majors and regionals by assuming that the resulting club racing program has to look like just one or the other currently does?

** In a consolidated plan, there's no reason to assume that flexibility in scheduling couldn't continue. I've proposed a points system (for championships and qualifying for the Ruboffs) that awards more for beating more entries. Entrants would go where the competition is rather than running away from it, if they really want points. Regions would vie for entries by making their events as attractive as possible and flexibility would be a crucial part of that. Hell, cost could become a competitive advantage for entries, exerting downward pressure on entry fee prices across the board.

** Allowing people into the big game by attendance - let alone by attending one race - is just silly, as is using that as an argument for not considering a change, frankly. Do away with it. Offer seats at the big kid table starting at the top of the points tally from all races, working down through the rankings until the Ruboffs grids are full.

** NOTHING in this proposal would keep you or anyone else from running as many races as you want, from staying in-region, or from traveling.

** The fact that the current answer "forces" (or is perceived as forcing) people to run races they don't want to is evidence that something is broken. We should instead create incentives by rewarding actual competition.

** Again, set free the assumption that we need separate programs, as is required for any worries about trade-offs between a healthy Majors program and a healthy regional program. We need one, cohesive, HEALTHY program. Having class rules consistency plus local flexibility across events would go a long way that direction. NOTHING in this idea, at least as I've suggested it, would prevent regions and regional-only racers from getting what they want. Unless it's the opportunity to not race against more people.

K

[Ron Earp]

You can't focus on the pinnacle on a national level at the expense of entry level programs. You certainly can't continue to cater to the top 5% on virtually all decisions. And you can't continue to only focus on "winners" and "excellence".

But the base issue of thinking that "national" programs and that the runoffs is the goose that lays the golden eggs is the issue. Everything from classing to schedules comes down to national/runoffs first, regionals get the scraps.

Good post. I and some fellow racers are becoming dissatisfied with the SCCA for these points and others. We all participate in a racing club, but for the most part if you're not participating in one of the majors classes you're barely recognized as a racer in the club. Very simply, the organization caters to a minority of the racers while the majority is written off as regional participants and therefore outside the scope of inclusion for the minority activities.

Nice proposal outline Kirk.

Haven't read much of SportsCar in years. Scan Pobst article, look for new toys, place in round file beside john.

[Tom Donnelly]

What you say may be true, but when I open SportsCar, my club magazine, and see nothing but articles about Majors, SCCA Pro Racing, and absolutely nothing about regional racing, it really does appear that my club cares nothing about Improved Touring or regional events. I used to keep my SportsCar mags, but now, after a brief check for anything I might use (articles comparing new helmets, advertisements for new products), it goes in the trash.

That's funny, I do the same thing for the same reason.

[zchris]

I have a little different perspective on why SCCA does not draw many new racers. As a builder I talk to 40+ newbs a year and the usual reason why not the SCCA is contact. They hear about the crashfest that both IT and SM is. Thats what they tell me, not the other way around. And want nothing to do with it. The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better. Just add weight.
Chris

[downingracing]

I have a little different perspective on why SCCA does not draw many new racers. As a builder I talk to 40+ newbs a year and the usual reason why not the SCCA is contact. They hear about the crashfest that both IT and SM is. Thats what they tell me, not the other way around. And want nothing to do with it. The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better. Just add weight.
Chris

I hope you are setting them straight as to the 'crashfest' comments... There will be contact in racing when the battling involves many cars (often in the same class), large fields and tight competition. Rubbin is NOT racing, but it can and does happen from time to time. (the reality of wheel to wheel racing). Can't argue with wanting to build something to a personal taste. As long as they understand that racing like that means the person who actually reads the rules and has $$ wins almost every time. The benefit of structured rules (with history) actually works (for most cars).

My little group of racing friends has grown by 5-6 in the past 2ish years and only lost one in the past several years. Plenty of new racers around me. Just personal experience - but things are not as bad as some make it out to be... :)

[lateapex911]

I have a little different perspective on why SCCA does not draw many new racers. As a builder I talk to 40+ newbs a year and the usual reason why not the SCCA is contact. They hear about the crashfest that both IT and SM is. Thats what they tell me, not the other way around. And want nothing to do with it. The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better. Just add weight.
Chris
Chris, where are these newbs coming from?? How are they getting their info? (I'm not saying their perspective is wrong, it is probably pretty correct if they are coming from, say, the PCA HPDE program.)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: SCCA is about people racing cars.* But many newbs are about cars being raced. There is a real divide there. personally, I want to race. For me, the car is the tool**. But others treat the car like their girlfriend and putting it at risk in competition is, to them, nuts.
Going into racing, lots of guys don't realize that divide, and they need a little education. Racing hard for wins isn't for everybody.

* Well, the classes are organized to facilitate even playing field racing. But thats not to say that there's not many ways to use the clubs offerings, and mid packers can dial things back to the level that suits them. But that flexibility doesn't exist in some other clubs - `you can't take a loosey goosey classification system and get real racing satisfaction from it.
** Now, after a period, I developed an affection for that tool, it delivered lap records and wins and championships to me. But, if pounding it over the curb at turn 5 in Atlanta would gain me the time needed to get on the leaders bumper at the ARRCs, fuck the car, hope it makes it to the end, it's going to get pounded. Thats its job.

[gran racing]

The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better.

This is Chris from CT, right? Think so but am not positive. Assuming so, the desire to go to NASA in the N.E. is an interesting one. It sounds as if they like having a "race car", probably one they can drive to the track, drive on road courses, hang out with friends, and have the feeling that they are "racing". In reality, it's basically a HPDE (NASA N.E. has focused on on their HPDE program versus racing which makes dollars sense.)

I've spoken with my fair share of people looking at entering the sport and I can't disagree with their perspective. Many look at the sport and while I and others are more than willing to provide them guidance, it's still a big commitment. While several of us have driven our cars to the track, it kind of sucks. So now it becomes a matter of buying a race car. But which one? How do I know if it's decent? And there are so many classes. The cars? Most are so old. Those RX7s? Really? A '87 Honda Prelude? HA! (What I raced and damn, it was old.) Gulp! Then I need to buy a trailer. Oh, and a tow vehicle which are not cheap. Where do I put all of this stuff? I need more tools to work on it too, right? My wife is going to kill me!

Or I can use my daily driver and go out on the track and tell all of my buddies about my "racing" AND still have fun. Racing is often talked about being like a drug, but until people get that first taste they won' become addicted. It's overwhelming and people really have to want it. If SCCA starts having HPDE, Club Experience, whatever they want to market it as during race weekends, it brings clients to the dealers.

[jjjanos]

Why is Regional Racing the stepchild that eats with the dogs?
1. Because Topeka doesn’t make $ on Regionals. It makes money on the Runoffs and the qualifying races it does.
2. Because until about 30-40 years ago, Regionals were the ugly stepchild. You did your schools to get a Regional license. You did Regionals to get your National license. You did Nationals because, Roger’s going to see me and give me a ride in his Can-Am car! Topeka still thinks the Runoffs could be a big deal. They’re wrong.
3. We needed nationals to award tow $. I believe the tow fund is gone or so drastically reduced that nobody cares. Could be wrong on that.

There is no reason why we couldn’t have RACES. You FINISH 4/6/8/10 races during the year, you qualify for the Runoffs. We can even specify that you need to do it at 3 different tracks.

Get to the Runoffs and enforce a 115% rule. Oversubscribed classes get a last-chance race. Done.

yeah, I know. We’ve never had last-chance races and people won’t show up if they know they are in an oversubscribed class. We’ve NEVER tried that and it NEVER will work.