Strategic Planning and "The Problem with IT"

[Knestis]

...How do we let all classes compete for a spot at the Runoffs without letting them all run Nationals? [/b]

This presumes that the National/Regional distinction continues, which is a sacred cow to a lot of folks but setting that first principle free REALLY deserves some serious consideration.

If I were king, I'd actually KEEP the terms but make a National a "coefficient 5" event, and a Regional a "coefficient 3" event (or whatever combination) - creating points multipliers weighted toward the a few higher profile events in each division, with longer race formats. Make all races count for national championship points, have classes qualify for the RubOffs based on participation, and drivers within those classes by total points.

The same points would count for regional and divisional championships, with events eligible only within the geographic locale of the championship. If this looks a little like rallying did 20 years ago, it's not a coincidence.

The real kicker for me would be that the National Championship event wouldn't be the ONLY factor. It would be a super points race (say a coefficient 20) but would add to the year-end points total, which would define the Winner. It would be necessary to both do well at the finale AND have a competitive season, if one wanted to win a title. You couldn't back-door into the big show, then put your whole budget into that one race for the medal...

K

[Stan]

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.[/b]

I do not yet have complete Regional driver data, but in round numbers I would estimate that there are about 600 ITA drivers, 400 ITS drivers, 200 ITB drivers and 100 ITC drivers. There are some 1500-2000 SM drivers, and about a quarter of them entered at least one National race last year. If one presumes that a similar percentage of IT racers would enter Nationals if given the chance, you can plug in the numbers: 150 ITA, 100 ITB, 50 ITB and 25 ITC. Those are just wags, of course, but it seems clear to me that ITA and ITS would qualify for a Runoffs spot, if given the chance.

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.[/b]

I found that population density graph on the US Census website, and it shows the general population density of the county in question as of the 2000 census. Although SCCA membership generally follows the general population, there are enough differences that it's worth a separate map. I shared this map with the Staff and they are trying to develop a similar map based on members' zip codes. It'll be very interesting to see.

Stan

[Stan]

Bill, sorry I missed your question about the Regional drivers in National classes. Again, I don't have complete data, but from even my incomplete picture, it is clear that there is a lot of variability among classes. Generally speaking, National classes with large driver and entrant counts tend to also have substantial Regional presences, while classes down in the lowest half-dozen or so do not. In short, classes down near the bubble tended this year to self-organize to concentrate on doing as many Nationals as possible. I am personally a good example of that. Last year my son and I did 6 Regionals and 4 Nationals in my CSR. In contrast, this year we did 8 Nationals.

Knestis, yes, there are alternative ways to organizing our racing, and the one you suggest is worthy of consideration. Please do flesh it out and send it to the CRB at [email protected].

Stan

[Bill Miller]

Stan,

Thanks for being so forthcoming w/ that information. Even if you use the SM ratio for Total/National (which I don't think is actually a valid comparison, as the SM numbers would be considered an outlier for both Regional and National participation numbers), ITB would have had more drivers than T1 or GT3.

I think that having the total Regional + National numbers will give better insight into where things fall. And I don't think you can use SM as the gauge. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there turn out to be more total ITB drivers than there are total EP drivers (and EP had the most National drivers of any production-based class outside of SM).

Probably some of the best data yet as to how much making IT National would benefit the Club. And, you have to wonder how many Prod guys would run IT cars if they had a chance to go to the big dance. Things that make you go hmmm.....

[lateapex911]

Stan,

T And, you have to wonder how many Prod guys would run IT cars if they had a chance to go to the big dance. Things that make you go hmmm..... [/b]

Hee hee...that's kinda funny. Bet they all wear bags over their heads so as to be incognito, LOL.

[JeffYoung]

How about an alternative......

I frankly am scared to death of "national" SCCA politics (no offense Stan, especially since you seem to me to be part of the solution and not what some of us newer guys perceive as the problem) and what it might do to my outlaw regional class (ITS) that to me has the best amateur racing around. I want no part of runoffs, or qualifying for them or having Topeka try to monitor the competitiveness of my class.

But I would like a national championship.

So what do to do?

We've had an "unofficial" national championship for years, that while a great event, has been problematic because of location. Atlanta is a LONG ways from the western divisions. MOreover, there is no national organization for IT other than the ITAC, which is focused more on rules than administration of a national type championship.

So what if we created one? What if we took a regional rep from each region and put them on a say "Championship IT" committee, with the goal of establishing a "moving" national championship race. Say it took the top 3 or 4 cars from each regional IT championship series (the SARRC, MARRS, NARRC, NYRSSC, etc.) and worked to smooth out any irregularities and differences between the two. We then hold our own championship race at a rotating location -- Road Atlanta, Mid-Ohio, Laguna, THunderhill, etc.

Possible? A pipe dream? Thoughts?

[Bill Miller]

Hee hee...that's kinda funny. Bet they all wear bags over their heads so as to be incognito, LOL.
[/b]

Now there's a comment from an ITAC member that's sure to promote harmony among the IT and Prod communities.

[Stan]

You're welcome, Bill. As a numbers guy, I thrive on data (just ask any other CRB member... :P ) and feel like having the numbers out there for everyone to see and think about is the best way I know of to avoid people arguing from pure emotion. I guess that's why I'm such a strong supporter of the way the ITAC recommends car classification...the subjective element has been largely purged from the process. And that would continue if IT ever went National.

If there are any data I have that folks want to see, you are welcome to it. Information is power, baby!

And you are right that my estimate of the percentage of IT racers who would start entering Nationals could be wide of the mark. That's why I called it a wag ... a wild-ass guess.

OTOH, surely more would do that than currently cross over to DP to "experience" a National. So, whether ITB would beat out T3 is beside the point. The point is that all GCR classes would have the opportunity to enter Nationals and compete for a spot at the Runoffs on an equal basis, thereby strengthening the National program, assuring the strongest classes in the Club are at the National Championships, and providing an uninterrupted progression from Regional -> National -> Runoffs competition.

Jeff, thank you for the kind words. In my mind there is nothing wrong with classes which don't go to the Runoffs having their own off-site championship. And in fact, that status is codified in the Club's relationship with the ARRC. The only issue I might have with more of that sort of championship is that as more are added, the value of the major ones decline. Carry that far enough and the Runoffs could eventually become just one of many championships, with no particular cachet. The flip side of that comment is that right now we have GP going to the Runoffs where 25 or so guys (from a total of 37) will contest a National Championship, lording it over the 600 ITA guys who merely won the ARRC. I don't think that's healthy for the Runoffs or for the Club as a whole.

Stan

[Bill Miller]

Careful Stan, I've heard that the emperor doesn't like to be told he's standing there butt-naked!


Seriously, having data is a good thing. Would love to see the geographic distribution of licensed racers.

[Z3_GoCar]

How about an alternative......

I frankly am scared to death of "national" SCCA politics (no offense Stan, especially since you seem to me to be part of the solution and not what some of us newer guys perceive as the problem) and what it might do to my outlaw regional class (ITS) that to me has the best amateur racing around. I want no part of runoffs, or qualifying for them or having Topeka try to monitor the competitiveness of my class.

But I would like a national championship.

So what do to do?

We've had an "unofficial" national championship for years, that while a great event, has been problematic because of location. Atlanta is a LONG ways from the western divisions. MOreover, there is no national organization for IT other than the ITAC, which is focused more on rules than administration of a national type championship.

So what if we created one? What if we took a regional rep from each region and put them on a say "Championship IT" committee, with the goal of establishing a "moving" national championship race. Say it took the top 3 or 4 cars from each regional IT championship series (the SARRC, MARRS, NARRC, NYRSSC, etc.) and worked to smooth out any irregularities and differences between the two. We then hold our own championship race at a rotating location -- Road Atlanta, Mid-Ohio, Laguna, THunderhill, etc.

Possible? A pipe dream? Thoughts?
[/b]

Neat idea Jeff, just that we need a championship series West of the Rockies. How do the other groups do it? I was thinking that maybe certain regional events should be designated as having championship points then the placing in those events ranks those entered. Not everyone running may be entered, as it'll still be a regional and there may be those who just care about racing in only their region. Anyone from SFR, Nor-Pac, and RMDiv want to collaborate?

James

[JeffYoung]

James, what we have here in the east and Midwest are divionsal/regional championship series. These are a bit of a patch work and in some places (the NARRC and the NYRSSC I think) overlap. But the gist of it is that IT and the other regional classes crown a champion based on a series of points paying races for that regional class over the year.

I can tell you that the SARRC championship is hotly contested and considered in our region by many to be as much of a feather in the cap as the ARRC, because it is a series of races instead of one.

You can go here: www.sedivracing.org to take a look at the SARRC rules. I would think that a national championship race that invited contestants based on a top 4-5 place finish in a regional series (and that number might have to be weighted based on the number of participants, meaning more cars from the higher participation regions) would be a thing of beauty. I might actually pay to have my car shipped to say Thunderhill to run in a National Championship race - once.

Your thoughts?

[JoshS]

Neat idea Jeff, just that we need a championship series West of the Rockies. How do the other groups do it? I was thinking that maybe certain regional events should be designated as having championship points then the placing in those events ranks those entered. Not everyone running may be entered, as it'll still be a regional and there may be those who just care about racing in only their region. Anyone from SFR, Nor-Pac, and RMDiv want to collaborate?
[/b]

As someone who has competed for NorPac Divisional points for the last few years, I'd say that we would not want ONE west-of-the-Rockies series. That's just too much area to cover. Even for the allure of a National Championship, you're not going to see very many "regional" drivers travel to tracks more than 6 hours away if they already have a great regional series.

That means that AZ people might go to Southern CA and vice-versa, there might be some swaps between Southern CA and Northern CA people, but likely very little-to-no-crossover between those in the Pacific Northwest and anywhere else. Oregon Region and NW Region would likely have crossover though.

I wouldn't anticipate that very many people from CO/UT would head west, nor would anyone from the coastal states head east. Those are very tough tows, just like those between the PNW and Northern CA.

I know -- in my quest for a National Championship in SSC and T2, I did all of that travelling. What was I thinking?

So, my first reaction to reading your post was that we already have at least 2 regional IT Championships: San Francisco Region and CalClub. Arizona (and AZBorder) regions could combine for one, and maybe they already do. Oregon Region and NW Region each have independent ones now as well.

If that's too many, find a way to combine Oregon and NW Region into a PNW championship, find a way to combine SFR and CalClub, and find a way to combine AZ and AZBorder. For regional racing, no one from SFR is going to the PNW, no one from SFR is going to AZ, but there is already cross-pollenation between CalClub and AZ, and also between OR and NW.

[pgipson]

Neat idea Jeff, just that we need a championship series West of the Rockies. How do the other groups do it? I was thinking that maybe certain regional events should be designated as having championship points then the placing in those events ranks those entered. Not everyone running may be entered, as it'll still be a regional and there may be those who just care about racing in only their region. Anyone from SFR, Nor-Pac, and RMDiv want to collaborate?[/b]

We used to have the SPRRC -- the SoPac Road Racing Championships. had a decal for the car, a touring championship series, the whole thing except a season ending double points race like SARRC has (I started in NCR and crewed for a friend that won the SARRC GT3 title a couple of times). We could never get enough crossover between divisions to keep it alive. Now we have essentially lost SDR as a racing region, and LVR can't muster the necessary support for a racing program it leaves AZ and Cal Club. And there is just hardly any cross region racing anymore. It's a 8 or 9 hour tow from PHX to Cal Speedway, more to the desert tracks. I don't know what the answer is, but it sure doesn't seem like there is much interest.

And, there used to be the PCRRC -- the Pacific Coast Road racing Championship. A one shot semi-invite for all racers west of the Rockies. SFR put it on, at LS I beleive. Then I think it moved to T'hill one year and died.

[dsmith]

Back to IT, I don't know what the question is, but I'll add my take by telling my story. I currently race a 1983 911sc. Why? Because I want to. Not b/c it's fast, or a winning car, but b/c it's an interesting car to drive. Guess what, though? Lots of parts are becoming NLA, and CIS FI parts are getting outrageous. I'm saving for a conversion to carbs, so I can economically keep the car running in the future. When I do that in the next year or two, guess where I won't be racing? SCCA. I have a 10yr history with SCCA, have run programs and been on Region Boards. Nothing against SCCA, but there is nowhere to run a carbed 911sc that is otherwise built to IT rules (all glass, no window tabs, all lights, street legal even). So, I'll have to run NASA GTS Challenge, plus get a national championship race. I have several friends who don't race SCCA for the same reason. They race NASA.

So, my suggestion is to discuss what IT would look like in the future if a rule set such as GTS Challenge was used, or even NASA PT. That is, about 6 classes based on power to weight from dyno runs/scales, and we don't care what you add or remove from your car or where you source parts. Decide if you want to allow forced induction, AWD, electronic aids and such, limit to DOT tires and even keep the 13/13 rule as a token to not wreck each other. Simple, scalable run whatcha brung classing. Very much like G5 and G2 rally rules too (displacement and # of drive wheels-class prep is about half a page in the rule books and doesn't even specify makes or models).

So, instead of me trying to outspend the next guy to try to win ITR, I can choose to add weight to my car or change motors and run at the top of a slower class in GTS. Those who want to go all out, be my guest, those who don't can be competitive too.

I really don't see the future in these complicated, car specific rule sets for club racing; never liked them, never will. I say let the pro racers and manufacturers worry about that stuff.

-Do something like these rules, cut the Regional/National distinction and have 1 or 2 IT Runoffs races of the top class finishers in the country. Easy transition, nobody has to build new cars, and those otherwise not racing SCCA will become potential customers without having to change cars.

Every theory has its holes, but still, it really doesn't have to be this complicated to have fun racing at a grassroots level.
David

[lateapex911]

I hear you David, but NASAs system is not without issues as well.

The PT thing is interesting but very difficult to police. Even worse than IT. Much worse. Actually, it's a cheaters paradise.

And the dyno thing is very tough to do on a large scale. IT's costly, time consuming, and...again, a cheaters paradise.

I know EMRA has a similar setup, (sans the dyno) and they have good success with it, but I think the scale of the club has much to do with that. It's an interesting idea, and it's been discussed, but .......

You want to race your car. Others want to race a car. See the distinction? SCCA & IT will never be everything to everybody.

[JoshS]

You want to race your car. Others want to race a car. See the distinction? SCCA & IT will never be everything to everybody.
[/b]

I offer below a copy of one of my favorite posts of all time related to this topic. It comes from an autocrossers mailing list, the date was June 1994, over 13 years ago. This is a response to a post from someone who was frustrated that his car was classed uncompetitively, and he was frustrated that attempts to correct it appeared to be ignored by the powers that be.

So this particular thing was from autocrossing, but it's directly applicable.

The writer of this was Scott Fisher, who was an club racer and autocrosser with a pathological love for MGs.

Tim's penny drops:

~ I feel what drives SCCA events is not a love for cars, but a love
~ for winning.

For several years, I've talked about exactly this dichotomy, one that
I felt most strongly in the two years I spent chasing the road-racing
dream. I observed that two types of people were attracted to racing
(or autox or probably rallying as well). At the extreme ends of this
dichotomy, you have the following two vastly oversimplified profiles:

- People who like cars, usually a particular marque, and who are
attracted to racing/autocross/etc. as the ultimate expression of
that aspect of their vehicular mania

- People who like to compete, who are attracted to racing as a
way to drive not merely fast, but *faster than someone else*, and
who view the car as an expendable and fundamentally uninteresting
appliance for doing that.

You and I, Tim, get to raise our hands, jump up and down, and go
"Me! Me! Over here!" when they call the roll for the first group.

But by their basic nature, *competitive motorsports are oriented toward
the latter category.* That's what the "competitive" and "sports"
mean. On the other hand, marque clubs are oriented toward the former
category. So is Vintage Racing, for the most part.

The SCCA is not a marque club. It has the unenviable job of trying
to balance, as reasonably as possible, the conflicting desires of
people from all ends of this spectrum. If it's also hard on people
who don't happen to have the optimum vehicle for a particular
class, well, all you can really ask is that the rules be the same
for everyone.

I've heard a couple of people say, somewhat peevishly, that to be
really competitive, you have to buy the right car. Welcome to
racing. Ask Michael Andretti or Damon Hill how important the right
car is to winning. It's not important to the Porsche Supercup, or
the IROC series, or Spec Racer, or SS, but to everything else, the
simple fact of the matter is that some cars are just faster than
others, and if you haven't got one of the faster cars, there's
no amount of bitching about it that will take a tenth of a second
off your lap times. Either buy a faster car, or work on
your driving, or look for other ways to enjoy yourself on course --
there are other things that make autocrossing fun besides two-dollar
bowling trophies or stopwatches with "1st" on them.

~ There is just an apparent Solo II mentality which I do not subscribe
~ to.. the Solo II mentality I dont like is :
~
~ 1. you need the car (equipment) of the year
~ 2. you need the tires (equipment) of the year

This is why it's a Sport, and not a Game. This is why it's called
Competition, and not Participation. This is why it's called Winning,
and not Playing.

Lest anyone (especially Tim, who probably *still* has grease from my
hopelessly uncompetitive car under his fingernails) think I'm coming
down too hard on Tim -- I'm firmly entrenched in the cars-for-fun
camp. I've seen what it takes for me to win -- drive someone else's
Miata and bingo, trophy time. I don't currently have one for a lot
of reasons, some rational, some bordering on reason to call the wagon
full of men with nets. But it's *my* decision, not the SCCA's.

If you want to win, well, YES, you have to have the right car, and
the right equipment, as well as the right skill. One of the nicest
parts of autocrossing is that the skill is probably still the largest
component of success (if you measure success by trophy size), and you
can gain skill in any car, even something as hopelessly oversized and
clumsy as a Volvo or as antiquated and outclassed as an M.G. The
real trick, as David Blanchard pointed out the last time I raised this
point, is to balance the needs of the sport -- with the emphasis on
competing to win -- against the egos of newcomers who happen to have
bought the wrong car (in addition to being on the hard slope of the
learning curve, being newcomers).

I think we've all been brain-damaged by reading one time too many about
how Nuvolari won the '36 (or was it '37?) Nurburgring in a two-year-old
Alfa, simply by driving harder than the Mercedes and Auto Union teams.
We all want to be Nuvolari, when in reality we're lucky if we're Marco
Greco. (Wasn't it Chuck Slana who used to call himself "The Dale Coyne
of autocrossing?" :-)

~ What dismayed me was a gentlman I met starting out autocrossing his
~ Jag XJ6 returned the next year in a Geo Storm, another retired a
~ lovely 2800CSi for a Civic. Why? Obviously because of pressure to "win."

And who applied that pressure? Not the SCCA. Not the SEB. Not even
the people who bust their butts to put on the event for these two
drivers. They must have decided that the cars they bought were more
"fun" than the cars they sold. Who made that decision for them?

One of the hardest lessons in racing is that the only person you have
to blame is the one holding the steering wheel. Or maybe writing the
checks...

~ My value judgement is such that I have the opportunity to spend the last
~ weekend in July at a) the Canadian Volvo Club meet or B) the Finger Lakes
~ Grand Prix. I choose (a). I'm into Volvo's first, autocrossing second.

It's pretty clear where my heart lies as well -- we spent a couple of
weekends installing a new 1.8L motor in a 2100-pound two-seat open
sports car with 14 x 5.5" wheels and 185-60HR-14 tires on it. If I
wanted to win, that would describe a Miata (well, maybe 205-55s).
As it is, I'm going to be running in OSP against 1200-pound cars with
fully independent suspension and mid-mounted 150-bhp motors. I'm
into M.G.s first, autocrossing second.

~ Basically, I have aired what turned me off about SCCA Solo II racing as a
~ hobby.

Ah, that's it. SCCA Solo II isn't a hobby, it's a sport. It has a
clear goal -- completing a given course on a given day in less time
than anyone else. I happen to think that it's possible to pursue
autocross as a hobby within the structure of the SCCA's sport of Solo
II competition, but I also think that NCSCC does a better job in
the Bay Area of addressing the *hobby* autocrosser. We'll take in
a NCSCC event sometime soon. Anyone have a schedule?

~ I'm sorry is such anarchic thoughts irritate you. But Solo II is not
~ the only place to do performance driving, and the rule book is
~ at many times arbitrary.

I disagree. The rule book does a reasonable job in allowing modifications
to cars that aren't pathological. You and I, Tim, happen to like cars
that are pathological for autocrossing. I've won autocrosses, and I've
driven and worked on M.G.s, and I've decided which makes me happier.
I've also already worked myself *through* the stage of bitching at the
rulemakers because they didn't craft the sport for the sole purpose of
letting me win, or bitching at people who beat me because they make
whatever sacrifice is necessary (including the unthinkable one, to me,
of not driving an M.G.!) in order to be competitive. I'm now at the
stage where I'm having fun coming in fifth out of twelve in a car I
like and puffing up my own ego by pointing out that the top four all
have R-compound tires and Flavor Of The Month cars in the class,
therefore I must be a Better Driver for getting so close to their
times in an outclassed vehicle. That's not a bad way to average it
all out. And it's a lot more fun than eating the lining of my stomach
because the mean nasty Solo Board has classified the MGB opposite
cars like the Honda CRX, the Saturn, and now the Neon.

"My mother used to say, 'Elwood' -- she always called me Elwood --
'in this life you can be oh, so smart or oh, so pleasant.' Well, for
the better part of forty years I tried to be oh, so smart. I recommend
pleasant." -- from the movie Harvey.

--Scott "And I *know* overweight, clumsy, antiquated and outclassed" Fisher
[/b]

[dickita15]

WOW. thanks Josh for saving that.

[Knestis]

With some luck, IT in 20 years will look (conceptually) a lot like IT does today - except with newer cars. If we don't keep the barn doors closed, it will look more like the Production category did about the time LP became the change du jour. NASA PT in 20 years will be VERY different, if it goes the way history suggests it should.

The PT system works GREAT right now - when participation numbers are low and competitive pressures even lower - but as people get more serious, I guarantee you that the rules-makers will start doin' their thing, making new rules. Allowances will get more prescribed, more things will be PROscribed, and the rulebook will get thicker and thicker.

People will find magic combinations that work better than others, and others will lobby to rein them in through adjustments made to cars' initial classes, to points allowances, and eventually to the fundamentals of the system itself.

Eventually, it will get changed dramatically - probably to multiple spec classes like the ones that the new category is supposed to absorb - or it will collapse under its own weight.

Kirk (who's pissed that he didn't commit his prognostications about factional fighting in Iraq, backlash to the Blackwater mercs, and the unintended consequences of high-stakes student testing to print when he first made them)

[dsmith]

I was really speaking on GTS rules, not PT. PT rules give me a headache and are car specific, so I don't like it. I still like power/weight.

I still don't know what the question is. Until then, I'm out of ideas for answers. I guess I'm a worker bee on this one, but I don't know who the decision makers are, what, if any, problems they think there are with IT, and what they want from me to help solve the problems.

What I do know is that NASA makes it easy to race, SCCA makes it difficult. In TX, lots of new racers going to NASA, few to SCCA. Not a good trend for Sowdiv SCCA.

Cheers,
David

[RX3]

SCCA does not make it difficult. The region putting on the event and Steward make it difficult because all they know is (this is the way we have always done it.) They do not think out side of the box. There are many things that can be done to make the weekend fun and easy for people to get on the track.