Scca It Is Time For Change Now!

[Ron Earp]

Here's the problem with this idea. You are using your little world of the SCCA to compare to the entire country. If they used this mentality in the CENDIV many of the IT classes would be left by the wayside.

And that is ok. You guys would have lots of open wheel classes, some regions would not. I know that at a few races in the SE many hours are spent with two cars having a practice, qualifying, and race while a paddock of hundreds looks on. I know this is a NE thread but I imagine this gets repeated in other regions. Not sure how to solve it though.

I will ask a question that will either show my ignorance or relative newness, one or the other.

How come we can't mix open wheel cars with closed wheel cars that run similar times? Or dissimilar times depending upon your strategy of combining cars? I don't see that the open wheel cars would suffer any more or less in this situation.

[lateapex911]

How come we can't mix open wheel cars with closed wheel cars that run similar times? Or dissimilar times depending upon your strategy of combining cars? I don't see that the open wheel cars would suffer any more or less in this situation.

I'm not the guy who makes those calls, but my understanding of the situation is that
A- Closed wheel cars don't mix with open wheeled cars for safety reasons. Dissimilar weights, visibility concerns, lack of respect for open wheeled cars from a contact point of view, etc.
B- All open wheeled cars can not be in the same group because of the excessive speed differentials between say the Formula Atlantic car and the Formula Vee car.
C- "the way they race"... you know, the fast in the corners yet no hp, vs the turd in the corner yet fast on the straight issue which is magnified when you mix categories.

[TomL]

Jake, I understand the time constraint issue. I know there are some events where more track time (or at least open time for problems) would be nice. But I just don't see how getting rid of one run group (down here it would usually be the small formula cars) does much to solve the problem. If you drop one group, it frees up about an hour, with on-track time plus clean-ups. With 5-7 other groups, that means you can give around ten more minutes to each other group. Nice, but I can't see 30 people saying, "Wow, there's no way I would go with two 15 minute qualifying sessions, but now that they are 20 minutes, sign me up!" (Or, my single 20 minute session is now 30.) To me, at least, it makes absolutely no difference.

It also sounds like a lot of solutions are being proposed globally for a problem that is, if not unique, at least particularly difficult at Lime Rock. Short, fast track; rigid operating hours; big fields. We don't need to "cure" problems that don't exist as much elsewhere.

I agree that having an 8-car FV/F500/FF field is not a particularly efficient use of track time. And that if the overall formula car numbers are really small, they ought to be combined. It can and has been done. But also remember why the stewards are reluctant to do so. The speed differential between FA/C&DSR/FB, etc. and FV is about the same as the differential between ITA and GT1. If you've ever shared the track with one of those beasts, you understand why FV drivers (and the FA guys for that matter) and stewards really don't want to go there.

But I still don't think that growing the club is going to be enhanced by treating some of our members as second class citizens, and I think that's what a lot of these proposals do.

[lateapex911]

No real proposals from me Tom, just trying to illuminate some of the issues.

On the group thing, I think eliminating that group WOULD have big benefits. But not as you described, which was to give the remaining groups more time. But to add another group, like SF does, for double dippers. I think they call it ITX.

But, yea, eliminating that group is the tricky part, for the reasons I, and you mentioned. Not to mention the political cost.

But, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Just playing devils advocate here.

[JoshS]

But to add another group, like SF does, for double dippers. I think they call it ITX.

SFR didn't add a group for double-dippers, per-se. Rather, our group 1 has two classes in it that are attractive to a lot of cars: ITE (our rules just say tub chassis and DOT tires, otherwise anything goes) and ITX (SM, ITA, ITB, ITC, or anything that was ever an SS car, built to SS rules + IT suspension). The group also contains the SS, T and ST classes, along with a regional, small, spec RX-7 class.

We have quite a good number of purpose-built ITE cars (they are FAST), but then ITE is also a good place for P (w/DOT tires), ITS and ITR cars to double-dip, albeit uncompetitively. ITX is a good place for those other classes to double-dip. So now, Group 1 is usually our 3rd-largest group (behind group 7, SM, and group 5, IT, which itself has a lot of SM double-dippers in it). Schedules are always set up so that groups 1, 5, and 7 don't butt up against each other, making it easy to run in 2 or even all 3 of those groups.

Our formula car groups have good turnout. SRF has GREAT turnout (they get their own group). Our lightest turnout group is big-bore (GT*, EP, AS, and a couple of regional classes.)

[jjjanos]

If you drop one group, it frees up about an hour, with on-track time plus clean-ups. With 5-7 other groups, that means you can give around ten more minutes to each other group. Nice, but I can't see 30 people saying, "Wow, there's no way I would go with two 15 minute qualifying sessions, but now that they are 20 minutes, sign me up!" (Or, my single 20 minute session is now 30.) To me, at least, it makes absolutely no difference.

Ahhhh but if it allowed for the survivors to have a 10-lap race instead of a 15-minute qualifier, would it matter to you?

I agree that having an 8-car FV/F500/FF field is not a particularly efficient use of track time. And that if the overall formula car numbers are really small, they ought to be combined. It can and has been done. But also remember why the stewards are reluctant to do so. The speed differential between FA/C&DSR/FB, etc. and FV is about the same as the differential between ITA and GT1. If you've ever shared the track with one of those beasts, you understand why FV drivers (and the FA guys for that matter) and stewards really don't want to go there.

Yes and no. How many of the fast formula/SRs typically run a regional? How many of them are actually fast? How many of them will go 50% distance? It's one thing if the issue is 20 of the fast guys combined with 20 of the slow guys, but, for most regions its 2 maybe 3 fast cars and none of them will be in contact with each other racing for position. (Some regions may vary.)

Mixed classes is something the fenders have dealt with for years.
The March Atlanta Regional saw a 24 second gap between the fast OW and the Vees.
At the same event, there was an 18 second gap in the lap times in the big bore group.

At the last MARRS, the OW spread was about 21 seconds (fast to slow with vees in own group). The spread in the big bore group was 19 seconds. One is safe and the other isn't?

But I still don't think that growing the club is going to be enhanced by treating some of our members as second class citizens, and I think that's what a lot of these proposals do.

I disagree. If we do something to keep 100 drivers happy and lose 300 to aNAother SAnctioning body that can add the classes those drivers want, we're turning away members.

It's one thing to tell your 5 Vee drivers that they cannot play. It is another to tell those 5 drivers that they can play, but they have to do it here.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Each Region has their own issues driven by theor own circumstances. What you guys are talking about is 10,000 foot stuff that may or may not apply to everyone. I am certainly not an advocate of excluding people. Having the PTB do their best with the run groups is all we can ask for here.

This thread was born from attendance problems in the Northeast. I see nothing other than oversupply.

[TomL]

Each Region has their own issues driven by theor own circumstances. What you guys are talking about is 10,000 foot stuff that may or may not apply to everyone. I am certainly not an advocate of excluding people. Having the PTB do their best with the run groups is all we can ask for here.

This thread was born from attendance problems in the Northeast. I see nothing other than oversupply.

This is the real answer to the problems - the PTB need to think about the best interests of the club as a whole and not focus on their "What's best for my region?" perspective. I don't know how NEDiv does date selection, but down here, the REs and race directors have a couple big meetings a year (and lots of phone calls) where all this stuff gets hashed out. I hear they are "lively", but overall the results seem to be schedule with generally well-attended races. If that isn't the case up north, maybe you need new REs.

I refrained earlier from making a smart-aleck remark when I saw Bob Zecca's original post, but here goes. To summarize that post: We need to cut back on the number of races or something really bad is going to happen .... We'll have to cut back on the number of races. Sounds like a self-correcting problem to me.

But it would be better to fix the problems yourself rather than having the solution forced on you.

[lateapex911]

Tom, I think the issue I see is different. We need to, as a group of regions, cut back...or the smaller regions that operate with less in the bank for a rainy day (or year), will go under.

Of course, the smaller region that only runs one race a year doesn't want to give that up, and prefers the bigger regions to cut back.

I hope it works out so everybody gets everything they want, but as always, it will come down to time and money.

[jjjanos]

I don't know how NEDiv does date selection, but down here, the REs and race directors have a couple big meetings a year (and lots of phone calls) where all this stuff gets hashed out. I hear they are "lively", but overall the results seem to be schedule with generally well-attended races. If that isn't the case up north, maybe you need new REs.

NEDIV does this late - like November - and the only things over which NEDIV has de jure authority are the scheduling of Nationals and whether Pocono gets a Double National. Unless it has changed recently, there's little or no information sharing in advance. Cross-polination of a series is done in advance. As a region that has a (so far) successful racing program, I'm 100% opposed to granting NEDIV any authority to limit our ability to schedule regional races.

Tom, I think the issue I see is different. We need to, as a group of regions, cut back...or the smaller regions that operate with less in the bank for a rainy day (or year), will go under.

C'est la vie. As the flag said, "unite or die." The smaller racing regions that currently hold 3 events across 3 regions but can only support 2 will need to go the Tri-Region method and share 2 dates among themselves.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Of course, the smaller region that only runs one race a year doesn't want to give that up, and prefers the bigger regions to cut back.

Let's look into the dynamics of an LRP event. First, NER 'lets' a smaller region in the Division host it. Why? Because there has been enough demand in the past to have X amount of events and in reality, it is almost an neccessity to spread the WORK load around. Registration, tech, corners, etc, etc. Part of it is just being a good 'neighbor' I am sure but it IS born from a need, right?

Times are different now. Pull back events. Smaller 'non-racing' regions need to take a real look at if they want to litteraly 'risk it all' to host an event that at best may break even. If I were a Rally or a Solo competitor in one of those regions, I would be screeming to stop the madness. Wait until the market comes back and then see what can be done.

The economy is weak. Demand is lower then normal. Supply is too high. Costs are NOT declining.

Economics 101 people. Decrease supply so demand for remaining events goes up. We have some great Comp Chairs up here. They add value and each event has highlights. There are just tooo many of them.

Pull a LRP and a NHMS at minimum next year - and consider dropping the MD Pocono if it can't make money.

Shoot for 1 race per month. Maybe even have all the Regions agree to one NEW SERIES that we can all work together on...

Again, do we need a meeting at LRP over some beers for some tough talk? POINT OF FACT: We drives DO NOT know all the little issues that are in play. What makes sense to me may or may not be doable. Educate us all so we can be part of the solution.