December Fastrack...

[Matt93SE]

yes counting from the bottom UP is the smart way. (or some equivalent system that doesn't award 'win' points that are the same regardless of the size of the field.

But then what if you're the only well-prepped car in class in your area? You then have to either drive all over the country (fine in theory, but what about us guys on a limited budget who can't afford $1000 in diesel every other weekend?), or you sit out at the end of the year cause nobody ran against you..

I kinda like the idea of heat races or something like that at runoffs.. that might make the 1300 mile drive worth it to run a couple more races against the best of the breed.
maybe do 2-3-4 qualifying sessions depending on field size and
only take the fastest 20-30 cars (not necessarily the top few from each heat) to the final race.

and if I don't stack up against the good guys, then I'm out of the runoffs a week earlier and I hit the road home. Everyone gets their chance to go to Runoffs and run with the big dogs, but only the fastest run the race.

[Greg Amy]

...some equivalent system that doesn't award 'win' points that are the same regardless of the size of the field.

In all of its history that I've been involved, the Runoffs has been exactly what its name implies: a centralized "runoff" between champions from all the various divisions in the country. It was designed, and should continue to be, an extension of the divisional programs.

I know I've typed this before, but "in the old days" only the top-3 in each division got an automatic bye to go to the National Championship race. If you happened to be in a soft division, lucky you, but you'd be about to get one HELL of a lesson when you arrived in Atlanta...

After those invitations were passed along, any spots left over would go to the 4th place finishers, starting with the largest divisions, then if any spots were left over we'd got through 5th, and so forth.

If you were to change this to where the Divisional Championships don't matter, then you're effectively changing the whole process, and of course the motivations on how/when/where to get there. Personally, I'd hate to see that happen.

Keep that in mind as you brainstorm possible options...

GA

[lateapex911]

So, how's that system working? I honestly haven't researched this lately, but I have the feeling that it aint like it used to be. I'm guessing that the fields are full in MAYbe two classes, and the spreads from first to last are pretty big in many classes. Ignoring the Kansas years (cuz everybody hated Kansas), I seem to recall that a number of classes had spreads of 10, 12, and even more seconds per lap in qualifying at MidOhio. (a 1:40 or so lap). And in some classes (some were teh same as the big time spread classes!) the field was a dozen or maybe 20 cars deep.


Now, that strikes me as well, embarrassing. Essentially, in some classes, nobody bothered to show up. yea, maybe the winner did a great job, but he was the only guy in the country that bothered....yet, we all know that there are classes that would put on a better race. Why not let them?

hey, I'm just casting a casual eye over things. But the era you're talking about is long ago, Greg, and things were different back then.

[Greg Amy]

So, how's that system working?...I'm guessing that the fields are full in MAYbe two classes, and the spreads from first to last are pretty big in many classes.

Can't answer your question as to how it's working, Jake, but let's assume you're correct, that the fields aren't getting filled and the spreads are high.

How is changing the qualifying system going to change that situation?

Your base assumption - or, certainly, my base inference - is that this qualifying system we have now, and/or ones we had in the past, is causing the fields to be light and the speed differentials wide. How can that be, Jake? Given that we have an all-inclusive qualifying system now, there is no (zero) qualifying system that can increase the number of entrants at the Runoffs. At best, any tighter qualifying system could maybe tighten up the differentials, but that's assuming that the fast guys in Omaha are as fast as the ones in NYC. But in the end making a tighter qualifying requirement can only reduce the number of entrants further.

Everybody that wants to go to the Runoffs now is going*, so you can't get any more. Are you assuming that an all-inclusive qualifying system is keeping faster cars/drivers away because there's too many slow cars out there and as a result they don't find the event attractive? Do you really think that if it's made more exclusive that faster drivers will suddenly find the national championship event more attractive and thus the entry numbers may increase? I'd find it hard to believe that any fast driver who thinks he/she may have a shot at the championship would forego it because there may be a lot of slow cars there (if that's the case then the 2010 STU National Champion must think he pretty much wasted his time and money... )

We can certainly debate issues regarding the general health of amateur club racing and/or somewhat-related issues of too many classes that are too-few subscribed but I really don't see how changing the qualification system for the Runoffs is going to effect that in any way, or vice versa.

GA

*It seems if there is a "problem" with the Runoffs qualification system, it's that in the very few classes that are over-subscribed (e.g., SM, SRF) that the cream may not rise to the top, that someone well-qualified in a well-subscribed division may not be able to make it into our show because of someone that may have done relatively well in a lesser-subscribed division. Well, that sucks for them, really. But I find it very hard for the Club to go through a lot of hoops to overhaul an entire system for those 2 or 3 classes, and in effect, a small handful of people. And, in the end, does that top-3 person in the smaller division deserve to get left home simply because he lives in Omaha instead of near San Francisco or New York City?

Using a "number of people you beat" standard certainly puts a level of relative performance out there, but that is only relative to local; for all we know the Divisional 3rd place guy in Omaha is faster than the Divisional Champion in New York City. There is no standard that we can put up there that will allow us to truly choose who is nationally-relatively fast until we put them all into one place; that's what the Runoffs is for.

[seckerich]

Look at the classes that are the largest at the runoffs and you will see the classes with the most stable rules package. Constant moving targets by past CRB adjustments have driven many drivers to park cars or go elsewhere. Not saying it is wrong or right, it just is what it is. Pissed off drivers do not spend money.

[gran racing]

Well, and spec classes are on top of the lists all around. SM, SRF.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg's points are right on IMHO. So are Steve's and Dave's observation. FV is just as good because they are all the smae underneath but you can get one to look good enough so you don't throw up everytime you see it.

Driver's seem to like stable rules and a PERCEPTION they can win if they try hard and have talent.

If you eliminate the Nat/Reg classing limitations it will just be a different way to gather the numbers, the ease or difficulty won't change.

[924Guy]

I'm sure Ruck could probably say more as he's actually been recently, but here's my observations as a guy trying to get ready and qualify (try again next year!):
1) It's quite easy to be assured of a slot in most classes, excepting maybe the top 5 or so. For many, it looks like it's simply a matter of planning to make your 4 finishes (the current requirement) and you'll have enough points as well. In some more subscribed classes, if you're not a front-runner (as I don't expect to be), you might need more races later in the season to ensure nabbing enough points, though (seen this in Vee, for one).
2) Please update yourselves on the latest quali requirements. They ARE new for 2011, and have changed noticeably since this year's requirements. There's probably a release on SCCA.org on this very subject.
3) The GLDiv/CENDIV split has made this situation worse, since we've effectively split a pool of drivers and therefore doubled the number of slots available. There's of course plusses and minuses to this, and it works better for me, but just pointing out that this does proliferate the number of invites.
4) While there's some desire to move in the direction of higher-quality fields (after this year being focused almost exclusively on field-filling), it's still just not that demanding to get in. Furthermore, don't expect that to ever become the #1 priority, 'cause this is Club Racing, not Pro. The Runoffs are still to provide a race for us, clubmembers, not an exciting entertainment product.
5) Don't forget, while the top two in Division may be committed to a trip to the Runoffs, not all of the top 5 or whatever necessarily will... so enough room has to be left to ensure a reasonably full field on the grid.
6) Should I, as a participant in a class with relatively lower participation numbers (DSR) be punished and forced to be one of the two best DSR drivers in my Division to get a chance at the big show? Now no, I shouldn't be able to put two 5th-place finishes and have a place at the show; then again, simply saying that the field accepted to the Runoffs has to be proportional to the size of the group tends to work only well for one size of group... you're trying to approximate a linear function with a fixed value, and it's only gonna be close to that curve in a rather small range - whether you set that to work for DSR, SM, or somewhere in between.

Furthermore, I'd argue that having an easier bid to get to the Runoffs helps balance the load, if that (Runoffs quali) is all you're focused on: if I need to be in the top 5 of my class, and am hell-bent on getting to the Runoffs, might it not make more sense to choose a class with only 8 other drivers in division, instead of one with nearly 30?!?

OK, so that's not exactly the only reason to pick a class, you'll have a pretty weak racing experience locally and one helluva surprise come Runoffs season... but it does help balance out the appeal of the big classes and potentially help the undersubscribed classes too, no? May not save something like GP, but...

[jjjanos]

the problem with just having a free for all at the Ruboffs (KK) is that classes like SM (and maybe SRF) would be oversubscribed. How to chose who's in and who goes home?

See there's this thing called qualifying. The cars in that class go out and the race officials record the lap times. The race officials then rank the drivers from fastest to slowest. The slowest drivers don't make the show.

Large classes can be split into two qualifying groups with the race having a unified grid.

The same way the tiny dirt tracks do it: heat races and a main race.

Except that the difference is that people don't travel far to those tiny tracks, maybe it really is best to figure out who gets in before people have to hit the road.

That means that if you are going to make the trip, you better make certain you have the speed.

Isn't that pretty much how it works out now? It seems like a lot of jerking around just to exclude a dozen or two people. And the people excluded are likely at least as skilled or more than many of the people who don't get excluded simply because they are in tiny classes.

I wanted someway of keeping people out who just received their licenses or you haven't hit the pavement yet that year. Any method of excluding someone who just received a license would be fine.

It is kind of necessary to try to get the entry list right before traveling...

Why? You think you have the speed, you go. If you don't, stay home.

In middle school and high school we would go to invitational meets and there would be qualifiers heats for the sprints and middle distance events.

[924Guy]

If it weren't necessary for the majority of the drivers to have to travel halfway across the country (if not further), and spend large amounts of money in the process, having to earn your spot "day-of" would make plenty of sense. Not such a big deal when you're only talking about in-state competition, like a track meet.

We don't have sponsors to pick up those bills for us. We are still amateurs.

The uncertainty and financial risk will only serve to reduce the number of competitors willing to make the trip.

This can be accomplished far more efficiently by using the season's results to determine eligibility. I think most here (and in SCCA in general) would agree that the season's results can be used this way to achieve an equivalent result; all the discussion is focused on the "best" way to do so. No need to throw it all out and do something completely different; the system isn't that broken.

[Matt93SE]

I wanted someway of keeping people out who just received their licenses or you haven't hit the pavement yet that year. Any method of excluding someone who just received a license would be fine.

That would be excluding a lot of good drivers, IMO. sure they may be new to SCCA, but that doesn't mean they're stupid or dangerous. could have been racing karts since 8yrs old or racing in NASA for 10 years, or something else to that effect. Look at Robert Stout for example.

Of course there could always be a written waiver for a particularly talented rookie or a veteran champ that's had no car to drive or been out of the country for work all year. (I've seen that happen locally.)

.... There's always an exception, isn't there?

[gran racing]

See there's this thing called qualifying. The cars in that class go out and the race officials record the lap times. The race officials then rank the drivers from fastest to slowest. The slowest drivers don't make the show.

I think doing this would be a horrible move especially in the club racing environment. Way to piss people off who as Vaughan said, took quite a bit of their own resources to make the trip. If you need to eliminate entries, do it before they start driving to the event.

[RacerBill]

I agree with Dave. What happens if your engine goes sick, or you have a mechanical issue, that puts you in the back of the field? Have you never seen a charge from the back of the pack to the front to take the win???? Rare, but it happens, and can be quite a thrilling race to watch.

[lateapex911]

See there's this thing called qualifying. The cars in that class go out and the race officials record the lap times. The race officials then rank the drivers from fastest to slowest. The slowest drivers don't make the show.............................

.......Why? You think you have the speed, you go. If you don't, stay home.

In middle school and high school we would go to invitational meets and there would be qualifiers heats for the sprints and middle distance events.

I know you're smarter than you let on sometimes.....

...see others comments about how club racing isn't exactly the same as high school track.
Heck, even in Masters Swimming, we have qualifying standards for the National Championship. You make those, you go, if you don't, you don't book a hotel and flight etc. Qualify AT the event? Silly boy, .....

[ddewhurst]

...and the best part of that angle is that Ruck will tell you that his FP car is essentially an IT car with some bits removed. That's got to sting.

K

Come on Kirk, what's the sting. These LP/Level 2 cars have been the thing since 1996. The only cars at the front end other than Sargis/Spitfire & Wessel/Datsun were LP/Level 2 cars. Or should I say IT cars with a few bits on slicks. Kevin is more than this small town boy from Ohio draging his toe in the sand. Great job Dude.

Vaughan, is DSR your new game. First time at Road America I'll introduce you to Loshak who gets around there at 2 min 3 sec & some change.

I can't believe I read this entire thread. Same shit different year The last poll IIRC 75% of IT didn't want anything to do with National. Andy, you picked the wrong class. You like the Miata, build an E or F production car.

[lateapex911]

Classic memory issues, LOL.
Not that there's been an official poll or anything. But nice to see there's been stats and conclusions drawn...

[mossaidis]

^^ Dewhurst (Mickey tries to refrain from entering a pi$$ing contest but can't help himself). How would you feel if I logged onto Specmiata.com, prod.com or whatever and I generally pi$$ed on what you think is helping your community but appears to me to be a whine fest? Think about it.

This thread is a lot of things. If you feel it might wasted your time, we apologize oh great highness of a SM driver - how dare we, the IT community, freely comment on such a thing as complex as regional vs national structures or having IT go National or equality/clarity of rules/adjustments or trying to have a good time w/o feeling screwed! WHAAAA Your post will only help you become antagonist #2, right behind unfortunately Chris - congratulations. We have a right to question the club and its structure - and I hope we can do it in a constructive, transparent way.

Are we even? Yes, I feel better.

Yes I agree with you that Kirk has understated Ruck's P car. If you know Ruck well or even have had 1-2 conversations with the guy about car setups, you know Ruck would not show up at ARRC or Runoffs w/o a 9+/10ths car. Also, let's not place words in Ruck's mouth about why he ran Prod at Runoffs this year - let him say it for himself here if he has not done so already. He has clearly demonstrated that IT drivers can and will drive and win at the National level and that two things hold more from joining him - allowing IT to compete nationally or the extra $30K+ to buy/setup National car.

Can you reference the poll you mention? It would be interesting to see the results as well as the questions. You can clearly see that folks here don't feel National is worth the expense based on how National is structured now.

More later...

[jjjanos]

If it weren't necessary for the majority of the drivers to have to travel halfway across the country (if not further), and spend large amounts of money in the process, having to earn your spot "day-of" would make plenty of sense. Not such a big deal when you're only talking about in-state competition, like a track meet.

We don't have sponsors to pick up those bills for us. We are still amateurs.

The uncertainty and financial risk will only serve to reduce the number of competitors willing to make the trip.

Excellent! Problem solved. The guys who show up will make the show.

In all seriousness though -- the only people who have to worry about being too slow are the guys who, most likely, wouldn't make an a-priori cut anyway. If they want to risk it, who are we to deny them the chance?

This can be accomplished far more efficiently by using the season's results to determine eligibility. I think most here (and in SCCA in general) would agree that the season's results can be used this way to achieve an equivalent result; all the discussion is focused on the "best" way to do so. No need to throw it all out and do something completely different; the system isn't that broken.

Well, I thought the point was to have a single racing program without Nat/Reg distinction. So, the only options are either every SCCA race earns points or designated events only earn points.

The latter is nothing more than continuation of the existing Nat/Reg distinction combined with an elimination of the time requirements on Nat racing so that Regional classes get to race. Meh. Might as well leave things alone.

The former will result in chaos. The DC GT1 hot snot will run DC events only and score max points. The NARRC guy will do the same. The NYSRRC guy will do the same. All will score the maximum points. Might as well just let the racing regions select who gets to go.

I think doing this would be a horrible move especially in the club racing environment. Way to piss people off who as Vaughan said, took quite a bit of their own resources to make the trip.

I don't see people getting pissed off. They knew the rules before they went. Fastest (25*length*1.1) get to start.

I know you're smarter than you let on sometimes.....

...see others comments about how club racing isn't exactly the same as high school track.
Heck, even in Masters Swimming, we have qualifying standards for the National Championship. You make those, you go, if you don't, you don't book a hotel and flight etc. Qualify AT the event? Silly boy, .....

And does EVERYONE who met those standards swim in the finals? If not, go pound sand because the system in Masters Swimming gives the same result as the one I propose... i.e. you either are fast enough to make the finals or you are not.

And yet, somehow, people who know they don't have a hope in hell of making the finals still attend. Imagine that//

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, you picked the wrong class. You like the Miata, build an E or F production car.

It's not about the Miata, it's about the IT rules. Comp adjustments pulled out of someones arse are BS.

I am liking ITR more and more and I just don't see ANY reason why the SCCA wouldn't take one of it's most popular classes and allow them a shot at a NC.

But whatever. MY budget wouldn't allow a run at a NC for more than one season anyway.

[tom91ita]

.......trying to have a good time w/o feeling screwed! ....

and here i thought that feeling screwed was pretty much the definition of a good time....