Restricted Regional Discussion

[gran racing]

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

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

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

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

[mgyip]

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

[snapback]59246[/snapback]

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

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

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

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

[racer14itc]

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

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

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

MC

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will play a little devils advocate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AB

[1stGenBoy]

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

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

Bob Clark

[mlytle]

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

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

[Bill Miller]

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

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

[snapback]59279[/snapback]

Peter,

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

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

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

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

DUH!

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

[RP Performance]

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

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

[snapback]59312[/snapback]

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

[mgyip]

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

[snapback]59314[/snapback]

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

[rjohnson999]

xxx

[mlytle]

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

[snapback]59338[/snapback]

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

[Bill Miller]

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

[snapback]59348[/snapback]

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

[snapback]59348[/snapback]

[Bill Miller]

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

You said it yourself Peter, NATIONAL racing.

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

[mgyip]

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

[snapback]59354[/snapback]

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

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

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

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

[snapback]59407[/snapback]

[Peter Olivola]

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

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

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

[snapback]59410[/snapback]

[Bill Miller]

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

[snapback]59453[/snapback]

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.