Combining regions....

Someone mentioned on another link the idea of combining regions...

I think that might be a good idea... It may take less "head" volunteers to run the same number of events.

How many regions are their that cover the same tracks here in the Northeast? Is it possible to do some centralizing for the benefit of all??? I think it would be very very hard to change but looking into it might not be a bad idea. Other issues would arise with meetings as it would be very hard to find a centralized place where everyone could realisticly meet. I know that even how it is now it is hard to get groups together based on distances (time) required to travel. But I have always been confused why their are so many regions such as the Finger Lakes Region and New York Region.

We can not forget in our input to this about other areas in SCCA such as rallycross, autocross, TSD rallys, etc.

Lastly who would we give this idea to?

Raymond Blethen

PS: please no personal bashing in this thread!!! Just positive and negative idea generation to an overall idea.

Raymond

Quote:

---

Someone mentioned on another link the idea of combining regions...

I think that might be a good idea... It may take less "head" volunteers to run the same number of events.

---

That is a very good idea. The Tri Region Race Group (Northeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and South Jersey regions) has been doing just that at Pocono since the early 70's. We have combined our resources to put on events that the individual regions could do on their own. Once the organization got started, the combination has worked very well.

With a shrinking worker base and increasing costs, I believe we will see more combinations of this nature. Five regions in the proximity of Rausch Creek have formed Anthracite Racing Associates to conduct races there, if and when the track is completed.

Terry

raymond, what brings up such a radical thought?


thanx Brian M


[This message has been edited by bgracing (edited February 09, 2004).]

A very interesting thought!

Why *is* it that there are so many regions? How is it that SCCA finds itself divided into so many geographical regions? Why not do things more in a divisional level (in terms of geography) rather than little split groups?

A little background and history lesson would be in order, I think.

Here is what I was told:

In the days of the previous club managers, there was a move from the national office to divide up some of the larger regions.

In particular, the folks running national wanted NER split up three ways, and DC cut in half, Cal club and SFR split up.

Why? The folks on the throne felt that some of the larger regions had too much power and they could not be controled by the national office, so it was a power ploy to keep control.

End of hearsay.

As far as combining to cut down the number of "heads", well, that effectivily happens already. Some people have been the chief of a given speciality for as many as 3 or 4 different regions, and worker swapping and help happens all the time.

No one region can really put on race all by themselves. Workers float from event to event, and in many cases, don't really care what region is "running" an event, they only want to see some racing. Joe might be the chief with Bob helping at one event, with their roles switched at the next.

Another view for having less "head" volunteers is that that might just be a BAD idea. Doing the work of being a chief for a larger number of events takes way too much time, and you start to get serious "chief" burn out. Being the chief registrar, the chief of F&C, the chief of T&S, or the chief of Tech can be a huge amount of work just for one event. Some people don't do a great job at those, but those that do a good job put in a huge amount of work. I don't want to think about the work of being race chair (and I have done that a number of times.)

I'll throw out an idea, but like Raymond, please don't get personal slamming me. I wonder why the number of little track clubs seem to be able to pull a bunch of drivers for weekday events. Better marketing? For profit motivation?

Has anybody thought about hiring a racing event planning and marketing firm to promote the events, organize the volunteers, buy kickass trophies, do great post race writeups etc...

No doubt the fees would go up, but the quality of the events should also. Or at least be less stressful on the guys and gals who have to organize a race/series. The thing is - it makes the races a "for profit" enterprise for whoever wins the bid to provide the service. Does this run afoul of the history of SCCA? I've been around for three years and it was only in '03 that I started paying attention to what region "put on the show". I never cared and actually have had nothing but great experiences and I've raced four of the NE tracks. that's a testimonial to the great job that is being done already.

So in this day of pricey consultant service organizations - this a lame idea or a good one or even a new idea?

Cheers,

------------------
BenSpeed
#33 ITS RX7
BigSpeed Racing
NNJR

Quote:

---

Originally posted by benspeed:
I'll throw out an idea, but like Raymond, please don't get personal slamming me. I wonder why the number of little track clubs seem to be able to pull a bunch of drivers for weekday events. Better marketing? For profit motivation?

Cheers,

---

I've only dabbled in the wings of event organization, but I'll take some guesses here.

First, I assume that by "little track clubs" you are refering to clubs like the local BMWCCA chapter, the local Porsche Club of America chapter, the Track Days organization, and so on..is that correct?

If so, some of the reasons might be that the guys who attend those events aren't racers per se'. Rather they're guys who spend the day lapping, often in their street car, or their "weekend" car. Their prep level is much less, and many only do a handful of events per year. Also, the events are largely one day afairs, and the attendance is usually lower (120 or so at LRP with PCA if memory serves me) than a typical regional with close to 200 drivers.

As far as running an event like this, I think the commitment level is lower. Less workers are used across the board. Timing laps is forbidden in some clubs, so there is no T & S! Flagging is staffed at fewer stations and with fewer people, grid doesn't exist as we know it, and so on. As these events are usually "education" events and, if the PCA events I've run are any example, the driving is MUCH more tightly controlled. A major expense, insurance, is likely a whole different story.

So, the costs and the complication are much less, the track rental is lower as well. For the organizations that run them, the events should be quite profitable.

SCCA, as you know, offers a different package, one that is significantly more difficult to produce. Actual racing, complete with lots of contact, local yellows as opposed to full course yellows, a huge range of classes, not just BMWs lapping, a stout insurance plan, the organization to get those cars classed and the rulebook written, and so on.

Notice that when clubs such as the Porsche Club of America does put on a race, it follows many of the organizational patterns that the SCCA uses, and is done over a weekend as well. The SCCA is concerned with these clubs using the GCR as their rules framework, and is worried about the theft of intellectual property. (Here's where some chime in to say "let 'em have it!)

In many ways, marque clubs seem to have an advantage, one that NASA has tapped into. Many drivers prefer running in their own 'family', Porsche against Porsche, or as NASA does it, Honda against Honda. Right from the outset, it seems SCCAs job is tougher.

I wonder what the general consensus is regarding your ideas about increased fees for increased event quality. I think most drivers would initialy want more track time, but some would think twice when the subject of tire wear was brought up!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Brian-

radical idea came from one of those bashing threads http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

I guess in actuality I have always wondered why there were basically 2 regions in New York alone when it isn't that big a place!!! Then I got thinking and wondered why there were so many regions in a little area (northeast) I love the NARRC series, and generally we concentrate on that. I don't see why 1 region couldn't cover that area + watkins Glenn.

Rkramden-

I like your responce, my thought isn't to make less race chairs or T&S chairs etc. Maybe have 1 for each track. That way their is even more local leadership. I think combining schedules and series would boost overall consistant competition among all classes. I personally like to race against the same group of people (for example their is a following of NARRC drivers/teams). Another example where this could help is the Glenn double late in the season... that from what I hear is one of the best northeast races but we never go because it is not part of the NARRC series, and it is close to the Lime Rock Runoffs. we would probably be more inclined to compete if their were valuable points to be gained.

I do realize most compedetors probably don't care about the points series, thus this might not effect them, however a good portion of the members do care and can afford to go to more races if they were part of a single series. I still would also like to see local race track series that could be maintained by a chief team for a local track.

I guess my idea would be 1 Northeast region and local race track (chief) teams putting on the events. I guess that this idea would essentially be less decentralized in organization as you would have a team for each track, but would be more centralized when it came to dealing with member issues.

This idea also would need a lot of tunning to deal with Autocross, Rallycross, and Rallies.

Again I think things are fine how they are just trying to think of ideas to make life a little easier and thus maybe a little better. I know NER runs great... thank you "chiefs"

Raymond Blethen

Sounds like this idea may help all of us. I have never worked an event so please don't take what I say as Gospel.

A bigger group of knowledgeable Race officials may help ease the load that is on the officials each race.

Plus we can all try hard to have a schedule that doesn't conflict with races close to our, result should be bigger numbers, more money.

How can I help?

email [email protected] toll free # 1-800-442-2000x212


------------------
Love "the commander"
Mike Cefalo
BE SAFE GO FAST HAVE FUN

RK

Quote:

---

Here is what I was told:

In the days of the previous club managers, there was a move from the national office to divide up some of the larger regions.

In particular, the folks running national wanted NER split up three ways, and DC cut in half, Cal club and SFR split up.

Why? The folks on the throne felt that some of the larger regions had too much power and they could not be controled by the national office, so it was a power ploy to keep control.

End of hearsay.

---

I've been around the block a couple of times and never heard rumors like this. Not to say that is hasn't been considered but I've never seen any mention of it.

Terry

just as a historical curiosity.
well it is history now but about six years ago there was an effort to break up the biggest regions. it was the year of the san diego national convention, I was ner re that year and the re's meeting at the convention was pretty heated. the spokesman for the bod in this debate was the southeast director, I can't recall his name K.P. something. NER got very good support from the rest of the northeast in that argument. it may also have been the only time in history that NER and San Fransisco wre on the same side of an argument. I find it interesting that this effort only lasted one year. it dawnwd on the bod that the "cost to serve" was much higher for smaller regions, meaning the national office incures a cost to do business with each region regardless of size. it does not cost that much more for the national office to do business with ner as misery bay but with ner the get 4000 dues check vs 98.

Raymond to your original question, IMHO the reason that it is the way it is 60 years of history, it is not a function of central planning. if you asked someone running a region what the best size is there answer would be pretty close to what they know. if you grow up in a particular system you assume that it is the way it should be done.

I have thought about possible consolidation and it has plusses and minuses. obviously there would be economys involved with consolidation but there is something to be said for competition between regions improving the breed. in your example of watkins glen both regions cooperate in staffing events but the compete with each other to run the best events.

discuss

dick

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dickita15:
just as a historical curiosity.
well it is history now but about six years ago there was an effort to break up the biggest regions. it was the year of the san diego national convention, I was ner re that year and the re's meeting at the convention was pretty heated. the spokesman for the bod in this debate was the southeast director, I can't recall his name K.P. something. NER got very good support from the rest of the northeast in that argument. it may also have been the only time in history that NER and San Fransisco wre on the same side of an argument. I find it interesting that this effort only lasted one year. it dawnwd on the bod that the "cost to serve" was much higher for smaller regions, meaning the national office incures a cost to do business with each region regardless of size. it does not cost that much more for the national office to do business with ner as misery bay but with ner the get 4000 dues check vs 98.

dick

---

Thanks for the first hand insight. Interestingly enough, I didn't hear it from you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

I guess in actuality I have always wondered why there were basically 2 regions in New York alone when it isn't that big a place!!!
Raymond Blethen

---

If you go to http://www.scca.org/getstarted/nediv.html you will see that there are seven regions in New York, not two.

RKramden writes:
you will see that there are seven regions in New York, not two.
----
Only seven? Break up FLR! Why shouldn't each of the Finger Lakes have its own region?

; )

/Steve U
05 ITS

Ray

To the point of your original question, I think this happens in various areas already.

We have Tri-Region, forming an alliance to run some races, while maintaining their independence for other programs and Anthracite doing the same. If this is what the regions like, then great. I'm sure that if two or three regions saw a real advantage into merging, then they would.

I see some good, as Dick pointed out, to having both Glen region and Finger Lakes running at the Glen, each trying to do better than the other. I think the same type of competition good for events at Lime Rock as well. That does not mean that, for example, NER cannot help NNJR. The exact opposite is true today. Good ideas flow from one region to the others making all the events better.

Having one chief of a super-region running all the events at a single track might stifle innovation that happens now with three or four people trying to be better than the other chiefs, in friendly competition.

I think that NHIS is a great example of a "single chief" track, with some of the chiefs running their little fiefdoms. While some specialties (Registration and Tech come to mind) have multiple people be the chief at events, some of the other areas could be doing better. One thing I noticed is that, in this case, both Tech and Registration don't seem to have the worker recuitment issues that other areas do.

Well from a small specialty,ES. I feel that the fifedoms are sometimes the way the tracks want it. We also need an increase in all of the specialties, I think it would put a real damper of coverage is we had just one region to cover from the tip of Maine to Watkins Glen. As Ray put it we have to consider the other series that people run, SOLO2, Rally (Pro/Club/Road), RallyCross. When are we going to see some drivers at the Maine Forest Rally, or even a SOLO2 event, to work or play?
I would welcome anyone that has a SFI3.2a/5 suit to come and be the safety team driver for a day or two...

------------------
Bambi's Friend and friend to all...
Runner of lights and sirens, if they be flashin git outta my way! Cause I got no brakes like a F VEE

A lot of ineresting points raised here. From almost as many years' perspective as Dick's, the major challenge to putting on a good, safe, fun event is the number or available bodies for all functions. The 3 regions in the NARRC series draw upon the same pool and as far as road racing goes, have pretty much informally but effectively done what Ray proposed as far as road racing is concerned. However, for me, there are more NARRC races than I have time to attend, so I like the presence of the NERRC series as well.

Looking at it another way, however, SOME poeple in the other specialities (Solo for sure and perhaps rally) would also like their own series without having to travel all over New England. There have been rumblngs of setting up a second region within the 6 New England states - particularly in Maine, for the purpose of running a more "local" Solo 2 program with its own championship series. This is very much how regions originally were born.

------------------
Phil Gott

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SCCAThumper:
I would welcome anyone that has a SFI3.2a/5 suit to come and be the safety team driver for a day or two...

---

Interesting...whats a safety team driver??



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil Gott:
A lot of ineresting points raised here. From almost as many years' perspective as Dick's, the major challenge to putting on a good, safe, fun event is the number or available bodies for all functions. The 3 regions in the NARRC series draw upon the same pool and as far as road racing goes, have pretty much informally but effectively done what Ray proposed as far as road racing is concerned. However, for me, there are more NARRC races than I have time to attend, so I like the presence of the NERRC series as well.

Looking at it another way, however, SOME poeple in the other specialities (Solo for sure and perhaps rally) would also like their own series without having to travel all over New England. There have been rumblngs of setting up a second region within the 6 New England states - particularly in Maine, for the purpose of running a more "local" Solo 2 program with its own championship series. This is very much how regions originally were born.

---

This has already happened in NER.

There is a second "shadow" club, NESCC, that runs events at Devens, and is a chapter of the region. I've been told that the events they run are lower key than NER events.


Being a chapter, they get access to SCCA insurance and have to accept some of the SCCA rules for running an event, a double edged sword.