December Fastrack...
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
gran racing
Super Moderator
Ask the racers who didn't qualify for whatever reasons.
Or lets say people take a look at this and know they're not one of the fastest guys out there. SOMEONE in racing has to be towards the back of the field regardless of how fast the group is. Now these people look at what it takes to do the Runoffs. It involves quite a bit of time off, long travel for many, and overall $$$$. Now if people know that they are going to be towards the back of the pack, maybe they don't come. Okay, fine. Doesn't really matter when we have huge Runoff fields to begin.
I guess I just don't like turning away hard working and good customers. What is or should the Runoffs be for our Club? Yes, a part of it is to crown a national champion. The other aspect is about the show and using this as a promotional tool.
i'll admit that i have thought about going to the runoffs to lose.
take my ITB car, pull the ballast, install a lightweight flywheel and run HP.
could i qualify in my division? i think so (whatever qualify means....).
could i do well at the runoffs? no way. but it would be a different way of going to road america than just a regional. and i would meet some other scca folks.
besides, running HP in my ITB car means i can pick and choose nationals and regionals closer to me. something that will mean more again when fuel gets back ovr $4 per gallon.
take my ITB car, pull the ballast, install a lightweight flywheel and run HP.
could i qualify in my division? i think so (whatever qualify means....).
could i do well at the runoffs? no way. but it would be a different way of going to road america than just a regional. and i would meet some other scca folks.
besides, running HP in my ITB car means i can pick and choose nationals and regionals closer to me. something that will mean more again when fuel gets back ovr $4 per gallon.
downingracing
New member
Run-Offs qualification:
Drivers must start (and finish) the required races per the GCR. Top 3 from each division get a FREE entry to the Run-Offs and a guaranteed starting position. If 30 of the qualified entries enter and show up, the remainder of the positions (40 if the track holds 70 cars/race) are up for grabs by anyone who started (and finished) the required races (but didn’t qualify). Those folks can pay (something like $500) for a chance to qualify for the show. If 50 folks make the trip, the top 40 would get in and the other 10 – better luck next year. Even if the 10 that don’t make it are faster than the guaranteed 30, too bad. Those 30 were the top in their division and earned the spot. And the 10 that don’t make it do not get a refund. They paid their money and took their chances…
This allows for a qualification process and a real reward for finishing tops in your division. It also allows folks in ‘larger’ divisions to try to qualify and if they fall short, they can make the trip and try to qualify anyway.
The 24/25 class thing for the Run-Offs is another issue. With no TV deal, maybe they take some of those small classes and combine them in one group. There would still be ‘extra’ spots available for the process above.
This is just my .02 cents… I really don't care, but something like this may work.
Drivers must start (and finish) the required races per the GCR. Top 3 from each division get a FREE entry to the Run-Offs and a guaranteed starting position. If 30 of the qualified entries enter and show up, the remainder of the positions (40 if the track holds 70 cars/race) are up for grabs by anyone who started (and finished) the required races (but didn’t qualify). Those folks can pay (something like $500) for a chance to qualify for the show. If 50 folks make the trip, the top 40 would get in and the other 10 – better luck next year. Even if the 10 that don’t make it are faster than the guaranteed 30, too bad. Those 30 were the top in their division and earned the spot. And the 10 that don’t make it do not get a refund. They paid their money and took their chances…
This allows for a qualification process and a real reward for finishing tops in your division. It also allows folks in ‘larger’ divisions to try to qualify and if they fall short, they can make the trip and try to qualify anyway.
The 24/25 class thing for the Run-Offs is another issue. With no TV deal, maybe they take some of those small classes and combine them in one group. There would still be ‘extra’ spots available for the process above.
This is just my .02 cents… I really don't care, but something like this may work.
I like the idea of a free entry, but don't think SCCA could afford to give so many a free trip! OTOH, if you say only the winner from each div gets a free entry... well, you gotta imagine that guy's going anyway, so you're just costing yourself revenue there, right? Without any improvement to either the show or the numbers?
I appreciate the idea of the qualifying changes, but really, guys - the whole idea of having to qualify after you get there isn't addressing a problem that currently exists. You're trying to fix something that's not broken. Instead, it seems like it'd only make quali an even more confused event, for the big 3-5 classes, and no significant change to the lower-turnout classes.
I stand firm by my statement that expecting competitors to put forward all that investment, without a virtually guaranteed spot on grid (excepting the current rule on pace, which doesn't even seem to be enforced ever anyway), is only going to reduce, not increase, numbers.
I've heard from guys who have gone, and who race like we do - open trailer, sharing a cheap hotel room etc, no fancy rigs or crap - and run just at the back, that this event easily will run $5k. You really want me to throw all that cash down on the CHANCE I might get cut? It was bad enough dropping $2k just to get to the ARRC; that's beyond insane.
We used to be talking about the merits or not of making IT a National class (or, alternatively, removing the National/Regional distinction).
Now this discussion has wandered way off into one small, easily addressed consequence of that, and we have how many drivers who don't run Nationals or try to go to the Runoffs weighing in with what they think Nationals qualifying ought to be? Sounds rather foolish - asking some of the least-experienced club members (in this regard) what would be best - doesn't it?
I don't mean to denigrate the experience or opinion of Regional racers - after all, I was one myself through this year (still trying to make the transition) - but come on, do you really think you know how to fix everything when you haven't even been through it once?!?
(I do of course recognize that there are plenty here who have been to the big show, or even played in that field. But that's not exactly the majority here.)
This all sounds rather disjointed from the reality of the Club and the way things work here...
I appreciate the idea of the qualifying changes, but really, guys - the whole idea of having to qualify after you get there isn't addressing a problem that currently exists. You're trying to fix something that's not broken. Instead, it seems like it'd only make quali an even more confused event, for the big 3-5 classes, and no significant change to the lower-turnout classes.
I stand firm by my statement that expecting competitors to put forward all that investment, without a virtually guaranteed spot on grid (excepting the current rule on pace, which doesn't even seem to be enforced ever anyway), is only going to reduce, not increase, numbers.
I've heard from guys who have gone, and who race like we do - open trailer, sharing a cheap hotel room etc, no fancy rigs or crap - and run just at the back, that this event easily will run $5k. You really want me to throw all that cash down on the CHANCE I might get cut? It was bad enough dropping $2k just to get to the ARRC; that's beyond insane.
We used to be talking about the merits or not of making IT a National class (or, alternatively, removing the National/Regional distinction).
Now this discussion has wandered way off into one small, easily addressed consequence of that, and we have how many drivers who don't run Nationals or try to go to the Runoffs weighing in with what they think Nationals qualifying ought to be? Sounds rather foolish - asking some of the least-experienced club members (in this regard) what would be best - doesn't it?
I don't mean to denigrate the experience or opinion of Regional racers - after all, I was one myself through this year (still trying to make the transition) - but come on, do you really think you know how to fix everything when you haven't even been through it once?!?
(I do of course recognize that there are plenty here who have been to the big show, or even played in that field. But that's not exactly the majority here.)
This all sounds rather disjointed from the reality of the Club and the way things work here...
I contributed to the drift because the health of the Club Racing program needs to be addressed at a higher level than, "Do I want IT to 'go National?'" or "Do I like it the way it is?"
And some of us haven't just fallen off of the turnip truck, Vaughan. I had a "pro" license at one point and while that didn't make me particularly clever, I *do* think that the experiences that I've had around that piece of paper give me some perspective that might contribute to the conversation.
K
Ask the racers who didn't qualify for whatever reasons.
Or lets say people take a look at this and know they're not one of the fastest guys out there. SOMEONE in racing has to be towards the back of the field regardless of how fast the group is. Now these people look at what it takes to do the Runoffs. It involves quite a bit of time off, long travel for many, and overall $$$$. Now if people know that they are going to be towards the back of the pack, maybe they don't come. Okay, fine. Doesn't really matter when we have huge Runoff fields to begin.
Logic phale. You're arguing against the idea because it will cost entries and one of the reasons you give for this being a bad idea is because we don't have enough entries.
There are maybe 2 classes this proposal would impact negatively - SRF and SM.
We would lose entries if and only if the DFL guys who qualify because they live in a light weight division outnumber the guys who are faster and will attend.
Now throw in the guys from the ghost town classes and under subscribed classes who would go because they've always wanted to run the Runoffs.
I think the net change would be a gain.
Yep, because 12 S2000 is great promotion.
How many SRF and SM entries will it cost? 'Cause those are the only 2 classes where the constraint might bite.
mossaidis, for a guy who didn't want to enter a Micky pissing contest you did well for yourself. If you were to attach a real name to your posts they would be of greater value, to me.
Me, ex Spec 7'er, ex ITA'er, current Spec Miata & crew for the last five years on a national level E prod Z car, Spec Miata & this past year F prod Miata.
I don't care one way or another as to who is or is not national level. YES, there was an IT going national poll on this site maybe 3-4 years ago. Come on Bill, get rid of the lady & fill in the blanks. :026: As the economy continues there will be more & more regions donig what has been tabbed Rationals. The bills must be paid, track owners could care less who pays, car clubs, NASA, SCCA or ???
Trust me there are plenty of national cars that do reasonably well that don't cost $30,000.00. & yes I'v known Kevin for a bunch of years. Ask Bill Wessel who finished F prod 3rd this year at the Runoffs or ask the guy that I have crewed for for the last 5 years what his F prod car cost. Crap, his Spec Miata cost only 3 k less than his F car & way under $30,000.00. The big thing is driving ability. Many people me included don't have the talent to win at the regional or national level.
IIRC during year 2007, 75% of SCCA event fees came from regional racers.
Ya like that K, only one hyper icon for Bill.
Me, ex Spec 7'er, ex ITA'er, current Spec Miata & crew for the last five years on a national level E prod Z car, Spec Miata & this past year F prod Miata.
I don't care one way or another as to who is or is not national level. YES, there was an IT going national poll on this site maybe 3-4 years ago. Come on Bill, get rid of the lady & fill in the blanks. :026: As the economy continues there will be more & more regions donig what has been tabbed Rationals. The bills must be paid, track owners could care less who pays, car clubs, NASA, SCCA or ???
Trust me there are plenty of national cars that do reasonably well that don't cost $30,000.00. & yes I'v known Kevin for a bunch of years. Ask Bill Wessel who finished F prod 3rd this year at the Runoffs or ask the guy that I have crewed for for the last 5 years what his F prod car cost. Crap, his Spec Miata cost only 3 k less than his F car & way under $30,000.00. The big thing is driving ability. Many people me included don't have the talent to win at the regional or national level.
IIRC during year 2007, 75% of SCCA event fees came from regional racers.
Ya like that K, only one hyper icon for Bill.
downingracing
New member
I don't like the idea due to one MAJOR issue: The Regional part is run as a Restricted Regional - so no novice permit drivers allowed. This is a big problem when trying to introduce new folks to the sport. Without Regionals (since we have the distinction), new drivers will not be able to actually get a comp license... And the entry forms I've seen for this type of event look 'crowded' from a 'damn there are a TON of classes in each group'. I know we (OVR) had to add a Restricted Regional to our National weekend to 'help' pay the bills. Once the Run-Offs left Mid-Ohio, our car counts for the National went WAY down. We offer a discounted single Restricted Regional price and it has been a success. We also have 2 (unrestricted) Regional races we host. All of our races are in the black.
I'm sure the Rational idea will work for some regions/divisions to keep the races from losing money. Raising the prices and/or controlling the number of races in a division could also help with that. If a Novice permit holder could run the event, I'd be all for it.
(All my personal opinion - nothing to do with any position held - just the concern of someone who has mentored several 'new' folks.)
X
xr4racer
Guest
Matt, Kirk, I have heard of the 2 test rationals ran at the end of last year, with national office blessing, 1 was a success and 1 was not. I do not know if High Plains or Miller was the success. Does anyone have anymore info on the 2 weekends and the problems they faced?
I do know that around here many Prod and GT racers are not thrilled with the idea of racing with IT cars. Gateway always ran regional cars and national cars at the same time at their national but only in national practice which was regional qualifying also. They still had seperate races. The rational is only different by running the national and regional at the same time. It will be even more confusing seeing same class cars not racing each other because 1 is racing the national and 1 is a regional competitor. I think they ran N's and R's on the cars too distinguish the race entered. This would be getting closer to the time when the races are no longer national and regional just club races.
matt
I do know that around here many Prod and GT racers are not thrilled with the idea of racing with IT cars. Gateway always ran regional cars and national cars at the same time at their national but only in national practice which was regional qualifying also. They still had seperate races. The rational is only different by running the national and regional at the same time. It will be even more confusing seeing same class cars not racing each other because 1 is racing the national and 1 is a regional competitor. I think they ran N's and R's on the cars too distinguish the race entered. This would be getting closer to the time when the races are no longer national and regional just club races.
matt
X
xr4racer
Guest
I know people are planning on going to PIR the 2nd week of Jan for a double national
matt
matt
Z3_GoCar
New member
It's not on the Cal-Club calender, isn't Az still in So-Pac?
I found it on the SoPac web schedule, I wonder why it used to be listed on Cal-Club last year but isn't this year....
There's a Rational* at NHMS this year, late April, I think?
GA
* First time I heard that term was this year from our comp director, Jerry Rigoli. I infer that Topeka's not thrilled with these combo weekends, but they are giving individual allowances. Jerry could offer more info on that.
GA
* First time I heard that term was this year from our comp director, Jerry Rigoli. I infer that Topeka's not thrilled with these combo weekends, but they are giving individual allowances. Jerry could offer more info on that.
X
xr4racer
Guest
I feel some at national are happy with the trial rationals last year and some do not like any new thinking out of the box. The rational term has been around since early last summer if not before.
matt
matt
Last edited by a moderator:
X
xr4racer
Guest
A rational is a complete regional and national done at the same time on the track. You would have say a group of FA, FC, FF and FE national guys running with FA, FC, FF and FE regional cars at the same time. Another group might be all production national cars, all regional production cars and all IT cars, this is just an example. Look up last years Miller and High Plains rational supps and results for more info.
matt
matt