Restricted Regional Discussion

[mgyip]

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

[snapback]59454[/snapback]

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

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

[snapback]59474[/snapback]

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

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

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

[snapback]59482[/snapback]

[Bill Miller]

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

[snapback]59491[/snapback]

Peter,

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

[7racing]

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

[snapback]59482[/snapback]

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

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

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

Jeremy

[mgyip]

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

[snapback]59503[/snapback]

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

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

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

[Matt Rowe]

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

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

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

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

[Bill Miller]

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

Matt,

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

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

[Matt Rowe]

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

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

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

[snapback]59512[/snapback]

Bill,

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

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

[gran racing]

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

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

[snapback]59494[/snapback]

[mgyip]

Matt,

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

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

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

[Daryl DeArman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Miller]

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

[snapback]59541[/snapback]

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

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

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

[snapback]59554[/snapback]

[Bill Miller]

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

[ShelbyRacer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Miller]

Hey Matt,

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

[Matt Rowe]

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

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

[snapback]59791[/snapback]

Bill,

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

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

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

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

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

AB