Strategic Planning and "The Problem with IT"

[Andy Bettencourt]

don't forget Runoffs/Rewards Weight for who ever wins.

[/b]

Not in IT. The rules don't allow for it...thank god.

[tnord]

Andy as someone who was involved with the add'l weight on the 1.6 after the runoffs, what in SM allows this to happen but prevents it in IT?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy as someone who was involved with the add'l weight on the 1.6 after the runoffs, what in SM allows this to happen but prevents it in IT? [/b]

The rules. Weight changes in IT are established unless there is some sort of class equity issue. No tweaking to get everyone on the head of a pin.

[tnord]

how are the weights any less established in SM?

[Andy Bettencourt]

how are the weights any less established in SM? [/b]

Read the ITCS Trav. It's specifically called out.

[Z3_GoCar]

...
It's not just IT guys, Jake. The overwhelming input I see from National racers is that they'd like to see the Runoffs move to someplace further east towards the center of gravity of the membership. I like to use this graphic to illustrate the point. This map shows population density by county. The darker the color the denser the population. Topeka may be near the geographic center, but clearly just lengthens nearly everyone's tow.



And yes, there are larger issues at play than just some rule sets, but that's a good place to start. To me it is axiomatic that a healthy Runoffs emerges from a robust National racing program. In turn a healthy National program has to have a healthy Regional program or it cannot last. And finally, adding in the currently Regional-only classes is the long term fix that I believe the Club needs to assure a healthy Regional to National to Runoffs paradigm.

Stan
[/b]

I think you're dealing with a chicken-egg situation concerning national class racing and moving the run-off East. Do more national class racers live East of the Mississippi because the run-off's, with the exception of the last few years, have always been there? Or would moving the run-offs further West encourage even more participation from West-coast members? What I do know is that there's more Cal-club members going to Toepeka this year than last; probably more then ever attended than when it was at Road Atlanta. I like the split traveling run-off idea. Imagine the a run-off at Laguna-Seca, Infineon, or Miller. Miller's full course would make an awesome run-off track, too bad it's not East of the Mississippi though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think you're dealing with a chicken-egg situation concerning national class racing and moving the run-off East. Do more national class racers live East of the Mississippi because the run-off's, with the exception of the last few years, have always been there? Or would moving the run-offs further West encourage even more participation from West-coast members? What I do know is that there's more Cal-club members going to Toepeka this year than last; probably more then ever attended than when it was at Road Atlanta. I like the split traveling run-off idea. Imagine the a run-off at Laguna-Seca, Infineon, or Miller. Miller's full course would make an awesome run-off track, too bad it's not East of the Mississippi though. [/b]

James,

That map is not representative of drivers who attend the runoffs, but of pure population density. Would more Left-Coasters attend if it was at Laguna? Sure - but at what cost to the vast majority of members?

It's a tough call. Indy baby!

[Z3_GoCar]

That's why the rotation. All GCR defined classes would have a place, to run; split between a Formula RO, Production/GT racing slick RO, and Stock/Touring radial tire RO. Three years East, Mid-West, and West. With fewer classes to run each event, dates are easier to book for just a long three day weekend. I know the BOD won't go for it. It's further fragmetation, as if there's not enough of the production vs formula as it is. Still, more room for more classes, 6/9 years your run-off is within 1000 miles, more track variety, and higher RO participation nationally. There's some really good reasons to consider it, there's also some down sides to consider. There's no better recruiting tool than an accessible national championship.

[gran racing]

Even me, an SCCA guy, if faced with the prospect of setting my TIVO for a British Touring Car race or an SCCA Runoffs race, would probably choose the BTCC on the odds that the racing would be better.[/b]

Probably? You're so full of it. Then this year being at Heartland Park - a track I find boring to watch racing to begin with...

[shwah]

Well, it is nice to see that in general we think that IT is pretty healthy.

As to the 'new' topic that has developed - National Club Racing.
I love the idea of a rotating, or multi-event National Championship. Lots of tracks come to mind right away - both RAs, Mid-O, VIR, Laguna. I think the geography is against us on creating a 3 race championship points series (3 weeks apart in different areas) to decide the champ, but man that would be cool if we could pull it off - the front runners will find a way to get to each event, you could split the classes and run fewer groups at each location to cut down on time required to make the show each time out, more local mid packers will make the event.... But yeah that would not work.

I don't buy that National will kill IT, but do agree that it would do more benefit for National Club Racing than for IT.

The class proliferation is stupid. I don't care how well people think FE or FB look in the first year, we should not be creating classes without a plan to consolidate/eliminate old ones (although at least FB was created based on member input, rather than an extention of Enterprises).

'Race' classes
FF, FC, S2 are running antique power plants that are not reasonable to prep and maintain.
FB addresses much of this, as does the current DSR, with motors designed to be light, high revving, reliable and powerful for thier weight - without being outrageously stressed.
FV, SRF are competitive, but again are running a power plant from another era.
FA, CSR, SE, FM
Why can we not make:
Fast and slow wing cars = FA, FB
Spec wing cars = FE
Fast and slow bodied cars = CSR, DSR
Spec bodied cars = SRF w/Zetec power plants (see FC alternative power plant), hell these could be bone stock and last forever...
OK - 6 classes with lots of choices for people that want 'real' race cars.

'Production' classes
Who in the membership was asking for Prepared, or ST?
Why do we have SS and T classes
Why is there no alighment between SS/T>IT>P>GT?
Narrow this down to 3 prep levels. SS or T (pick one) > IT > P or GT (pick one)
The nearly stock crowd needs to reel in the RR shocks.
The IT ruleset acomplishes what was attempted with LP Prod.
The full prep Prod cars are as developed as GT cars, why do we need both.
5 classes at each prep level gives us 15 total. Add in SM (when this dies create another 'spec' class - I think it is good to have one spec type production car class), and we have 16.

Look at that 22 classes, and a designed progression for mass produced cars from lowest to highest prep level.

Next project - reel in the million classes in AutoX and create some alignment w/Club Racing.

[lateapex911]

I think you're dealing with a chicken-egg situation concerning national class racing and moving the run-off East. Do more national class racers live East of the Mississippi because the run-off's, ...........[/b]

I doubt that people are moving east because of National racing, but, I do think that the national racing crowd has been nurtured more in the east due to the long standing Road Atlanta, then Mid Ohio Runoffs location.

Or would moving the run-offs further West encourage even more participation from West-coast members? What I do know is that there's more Cal-club members going to Toepeka this year than last; probably more then ever attended than when it was at Road Atlanta
[/b]

As Andy points out though, the net/ net might not be positive, if comparatively less East coasters go. The Rockies make the miles count as double, as well.

I like the split traveling run-off idea. Imagine the a run-off at Laguna-Seca, Infineon, or Miller. Miller's full course would make an awesome run-off track, too bad it's not East of the Mississippi though. [/b]

That brings up an interesting and difficult to estimate factor. Desirability. IF I were a Runoffs candidate, (A guy in a class that went, I qualified, and I had the money and time) would I drag myslef out to Topeka? Maybe. That track looks crappy, and there's no "Pull" getting me there other than the event itself. Road America? You betcha. Mid Ohio? In a second. Road Atlanta? I tow nearly the same distance to do the ARRCs now, so sure! Miller? Doubtful, even if I were in California. That place looks boring. Flat and featureless. One corner after another sterile corner. Barber? yes sir. And VIR too. Laguna? I'd try to wrangle some kind of deal.You get the idea...

In my mind, these factors would make the Runoffs much more successful:

• Classes of cars that want to race. That means well subscribed classes.
• A desireable desination. (Desireable to the racer, not the National staff)
• Less time. It's too darn long for me now. Taking 10 days off in a row? Are you f-ing kidding me? Who can do that? (Retired and really rich people)
• If the time factor is controlled, then so too is the money factor, to a degree, all else being equal.

-

[shwah]

OH and let's leave the HPT bashing to the prod site please.

I went to MidO and HPT runoffs and watched great racing at both venues. People just don't like change, but do like to whine. I thought overall the racing was fun to watch last year. EP was phenomenal, but there will always be races that are less than exciting when you are watching 25 of them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

I am with you on most stuff but want to make a point: Maybe the point of DP/DP/ST is to attract NEW members. If you look at the rulesets, they are designed to give a spot to some really cool cars that are already built as well as allow some pretty common hybrids that proliferate NASA.

As far as your 'one in, one out' theory on classing, how is the club supposed to grow? Is it not possible to KEEP who you have AND ATTRACT new blood?

I temper my comments by stating that I do believe we should raise the minimum participation numbers back to a respectable number for a Runoffs spot. Reward the participants but give everyone a place to play.

And while *I* would like IT to go National, and I do think it would be great for the SCCA, I do realize it may not be great for IT on the whole.

[AntonioGG]

Interesting thread. For those of you with strong regional divisions, just so you know, there are divisions like MIDIV and SOWDIV that are much stronger in national than regional races. 200 vs. 100 entries. That was true even before SM went national.

To Andy, regarding SM participation decline, around here, the numbers are slightly down. I can tell you many hardcore SM racers that were around since the beginning have stopped racing, or race maybe a couple of times a year now. We had a very successful cross-sanctioning-body regional racing series that went away after SM went national. Things are most definitely not the same. National guys only do nationals, and they save their car and their money for the Runoffs so they won't do regionals unless they have a spare car or need to tune on their Runoffs car.

To those in SFR and up in the Northeast where you get 300-400 regional entries at great tracks. Stop complaining about where the Runoffs are (if you are, I believe most of you don't really care). You don't know what you have until you come race a regional with us at MSRH or TMS. If I lived in SFR, I wouldn't give a rats behind if you moved the Runoffs to Miller MP, when I can have great racing, lots of entries, relaxed atmosphere at a regional at Laguna, Thunderhill, and Sears Point...and I can make a "long" tow to a track in the PNW for fun. Same for you guys in the northeast with your great tracks and great # of entries. Actually the guys in the SEDIV don't have it bad either with great regional series and great tracks (at least one of them). CENDIV had it good until the split I think...b/c they have great tracks and had great entries, but that looks to have changed. For the most part, it's us in the plains and south plains that are screwed, right Travis?

I think the Runoffs are for people with big egos (racing egos...we all have one after all), or people looking for a pro-ride, or people whose classes are all but dead, and the Runoffs are the only time the really get to race. I say eliminate them altogether (as a championship, you can still have the race there if you want), have a few big races around the country just for fun (ARRC, Spec/IT Fest, etc.)...it is what we're in this for after all right? Imagine if you free all those racers from a 2 week commitment, all the extra money they'll have, and they'll actually have to decide what class to race in (if they really want to race), or just do HPDEs if they don't have to take into consideration making it to the Runoffs.

[Stan]

as someone who has very closely watched SM for the last 4-5yrs, i think you're way off. ever since SM went national, we've seen participation fall off by about 30% in this division. overall participation numbers may be steady or slightly falling, but look at the #'s for the first to the second year of nationals, i don't think it's good. i tried to find it on SCCA.com, but it appears the link has been taken down. i do know the runoffs entries are about 30% lower this year. [/b]

Yes, SM National entries are off 30% in MWDiv this year, down from 250 in '06 to 174, but your experience is not typical. Overall National SM entries are down less than 15%. As Andy notes, there has been some churning in the National SM ranks as guys figure out where their racing program really belongs. That's perfectly normal IMO, and I expect it to take another year or two to settle down. OTOH, Runoffs entries are down 8.6% from last year, not 30% (713 in '06 vs. 652 this year). Even with the expected drop-outs we won't come anywhere close to a 30% decline.

even the rules adjustments that in and of themselves were positive moves (cam clarification, clutch rule) have ended up hurting the class because they've all been against the bread and butter 1.6 car and put it at an overall disadvantage. the cost to be competitive has tripled for the car itself, and around 7x for consumables like tires. [/b]

How does tightening up the damper, cam and clutch rules put the 1.6 cars at a disadvantage? We didn't apply them to just those cars. Are you saying that we should give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to those cars?

Yes, it costs more to compete for a Runoffs win than it does to be a purely local Regional guy. No surprise there.

the regional classes like SSM have maintained the 'spirit' of the initial SM class better than the national ruleset, and i think is very much like the current IT crowd, thus their strong numbers. still very competitive, but national SM is whole nother prep level above, which i don't think even most of the big names on the national IT scene quite understand. [/b]

There are very large differences of opinion about SSM vs SM, Travis, and I'll take you statement of your opinion as just that. I do agree that competitive National racing is more expensive than hanging mid-pack in one's local Regionals, and that's part of the reason we're seeing some churning of the National SM ranks. It will play out as everyone figures out where they belong.

just like going national i don't think was healthy for SM, i don't think it would be for IT either. but, taking every class in the GCR and taking the top 25 to the big show would be healthy for the club overall, and that i would support. [/b]

I see a dichotomy here, Travis. How do we let all classes compete for a spot at the Runoffs without letting them all run Nationals?

we would LOVE it if we could get 150 entrants for every national event, and even 100 for every regional. as it is now, we probably stand at an average of 130 per national, and 75 per regional event (which lose lots of money, subsidized by the nationals).[/b]

I can't help you there, except to cheer you up the news that Colorado Region would love to average 75 entrants at a race...ANY race!

Stan

[Andy Bettencourt]

How does tightening up the damper, cam and clutch rules put the 1.6 cars at a disadvantage? We didn't apply them to just those cars. Are you saying that we should give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to those cars?

[/b]

No effect on the shocks, but the 'cheater' cams were only in the 1.6's and the $1200 lightweight clutch was also only available for the 1.6. Not to say the others wouldn't have evolved but on-track performance was being measured and recorded with those 'advantages', then they were taken away.

Small stuff, yes but perception was hurt. Just wish the 99 had never entered the mix. Trying to equalize 4 different cars in a Spec class is tough.

The beauty of it all? IT doesn't have these issues.

[tnord]

Yes, SM National entries are off 30% in MWDiv this year, down from 250 in '06 to 174, but your experience is not typical. Overall National SM entries are down less than 15%. As Andy notes, there has been some churning in the National SM ranks as guys figure out where their racing program really belongs. That's perfectly normal IMO, and I expect it to take another year or two to settle down. OTOH, Runoffs entries are down 8.6% from last year, not 30% (713 in '06 vs. 652 this year). Even with the expected drop-outs we won't come anywhere close to a 30% decline.
[/b]

i meant runoffs entries are down 30% for SM, not overall. i anticipate total cars taking the green will be about 625, or 100 less than last year.

How does tightening up the damper, cam and clutch rules put the 1.6 cars at a disadvantage? We didn't apply them to just those cars. Are you saying that we should give a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to those cars?

Yes, it costs more to compete for a Runoffs win than it does to be a purely local Regional guy. No surprise there.
[/b]

because the cam and clutch clarifications all functionally went against the 1.6 only, as it was the only car that had 'developed' cams and clutches available at the time. so during the 2006 season it lost 1-1.5hp for the cam, it lost it's lightweight clutch, it had 25lbs added to it after the runoffs as a reward for winning, i believe the 1.8 had 25lbs taken off, and the 99 had 50lbs removed. guess what happened? SURPRISE! everyone built 1.8s and 99s. just take a look over at sm.com classifieds and look at how many 1.6s are for sale.

not only does it cost more to compete for the runoffs relative to a local regional guy, it costs more in SM to compete for the runoffs than it does to win the NE/SE divisional title and the ARRC.

i'm leaving the rest of the 'philosophy of the class' IT/SM stuff alone for now. the philosophy of both classes was pretty close upon inception, but the reality of SM has deviated from that in great part due to it's national status. translation - you can't have a popular, low cost, and be a national class all at the same time. pick two.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i believe the 1.8 had 25lbs taken off, and the 99 had 50lbs removed. guess what happened? SURPRISE! everyone built 1.8s and 99s. just take a look over at sm.com classifieds and look at how many 1.6s are for sale.

[/b]

No weight was taken off the 94-97 cars.

BRING IT BACK TO IT.

[Stan]

I'm heading over to Sears Point, so I gotta make this quick...

Tightening the rules was to pull back the 1.6 guys and to preclude the same rules interpretation creep from spreading to the two later gens. Tightening the specs and the weight adjustments were the result of talks between the SMAC and the CRB all summer long, and specifically were NOT rewards weight for Runoffs performance. If in retrospect the SMAC wants to revisit the issue, I encourage them to do so.

This is a dynamic situation, guys, and it will take a try or two to get it "right". Fortunately, we are talking balancing 3 cars in a class ... not 30.

Stay the course.

[Bill Miller]

Stan,

First off, thank you very much for that data, it sure does say a lot, especially the chart w/ the actual individual drive data. Could you do me a favor? Could you add the regional data for the National classes to that, and then slot in the Regional-only data? I find it very interesting that of all those National classes, you've only got 8 classes w/ more than 100 drivers, and only 4 w/ more than 115 drivers. It gets even more interesting when you look at the fact that of those 8 classes w/ > 100 drivers, 4 are formula classes, and the top two (by a HUGE margin) are spec classes. Discounting SM, EP is the only production-based class w/ over 100 drivers (GT1 is not a production-based class, they have their own unique rules, even among the rest of the GT category). I think it will be interesting to look at where the number of IT drivers for the 5 IT classes fall.

As far as the population density graph, I took that to be SCCA membership population density. What would be an even more interesting graph to look at would be population density based on National comp. license holders (and while you're at it, can you do one for Regional comp. license holders). The geographic concentration of National license holders should have a significant impact on where the Runoffs are held. Club or not, you market your product to your broadest customer base.

Travis,

You continue to show that you don't pay attention to anything that contradicts your view.