Getting Rid of Regional/Majors Distinction?

[Ron Earp]

You can't focus on the pinnacle on a national level at the expense of entry level programs. You certainly can't continue to cater to the top 5% on virtually all decisions. And you can't continue to only focus on "winners" and "excellence".

But the base issue of thinking that "national" programs and that the runoffs is the goose that lays the golden eggs is the issue. Everything from classing to schedules comes down to national/runoffs first, regionals get the scraps.

Good post. I and some fellow racers are becoming dissatisfied with the SCCA for these points and others. We all participate in a racing club, but for the most part if you're not participating in one of the majors classes you're barely recognized as a racer in the club. Very simply, the organization caters to a minority of the racers while the majority is written off as regional participants and therefore outside the scope of inclusion for the minority activities.

Nice proposal outline Kirk.

Haven't read much of SportsCar in years. Scan Pobst article, look for new toys, place in round file beside john.

 

[Tom Donnelly]

What you say may be true, but when I open SportsCar, my club magazine, and see nothing but articles about Majors, SCCA Pro Racing, and absolutely nothing about regional racing, it really does appear that my club cares nothing about Improved Touring or regional events. I used to keep my SportsCar mags, but now, after a brief check for anything I might use (articles comparing new helmets, advertisements for new products), it goes in the trash.

That's funny, I do the same thing for the same reason.

 

[zchris]

I have a little different perspective on why SCCA does not draw many new racers. As a builder I talk to 40+ newbs a year and the usual reason why not the SCCA is contact. They hear about the crashfest that both IT and SM is. Thats what they tell me, not the other way around. And want nothing to do with it. The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better. Just add weight.
Chris

 

[downingracing]

I have a little different perspective on why SCCA does not draw many new racers. As a builder I talk to 40+ newbs a year and the usual reason why not the SCCA is contact. They hear about the crashfest that both IT and SM is. Thats what they tell me, not the other way around. And want nothing to do with it. The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better. Just add weight.
Chris

I hope you are setting them straight as to the 'crashfest' comments... There will be contact in racing when the battling involves many cars (often in the same class), large fields and tight competition. Rubbin is NOT racing, but it can and does happen from time to time. (the reality of wheel to wheel racing). Can't argue with wanting to build something to a personal taste. As long as they understand that racing like that means the person who actually reads the rules and has $$ wins almost every time. The benefit of structured rules (with history) actually works (for most cars).

My little group of racing friends has grown by 5-6 in the past 2ish years and only lost one in the past several years. Plenty of new racers around me. Just personal experience - but things are not as bad as some make it out to be...

 

[lateapex911]

I have a little different perspective on why SCCA does not draw many new racers. As a builder I talk to 40+ newbs a year and the usual reason why not the SCCA is contact. They hear about the crashfest that both IT and SM is. Thats what they tell me, not the other way around. And want nothing to do with it. The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better. Just add weight.
Chris

Chris, where are these newbs coming from?? How are they getting their info? (I'm not saying their perspective is wrong, it is probably pretty correct if they are coming from, say, the PCA HPDE program.)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: SCCA is about people racing cars.* But many newbs are about cars being raced. There is a real divide there. personally, I want to race. For me, the car is the tool**. But others treat the car like their girlfriend and putting it at risk in competition is, to them, nuts.
Going into racing, lots of guys don't realize that divide, and they need a little education. Racing hard for wins isn't for everybody.

* Well, the classes are organized to facilitate even playing field racing. But thats not to say that there's not many ways to use the clubs offerings, and mid packers can dial things back to the level that suits them. But that flexibility doesn't exist in some other clubs - `you can't take a loosey goosey classification system and get real racing satisfaction from it.
** Now, after a period, I developed an affection for that tool, it delivered lap records and wins and championships to me. But, if pounding it over the curb at turn 5 in Atlanta would gain me the time needed to get on the leaders bumper at the ARRCs, fuck the car, hope it makes it to the end, it's going to get pounded. Thats its job.

 

[gran racing]

The second biggest reason is the desire to build there car to there taste and NASA fits that better.

This is Chris from CT, right? Think so but am not positive. Assuming so, the desire to go to NASA in the N.E. is an interesting one. It sounds as if they like having a "race car", probably one they can drive to the track, drive on road courses, hang out with friends, and have the feeling that they are "racing". In reality, it's basically a HPDE (NASA N.E. has focused on on their HPDE program versus racing which makes dollars sense.)

I've spoken with my fair share of people looking at entering the sport and I can't disagree with their perspective. Many look at the sport and while I and others are more than willing to provide them guidance, it's still a big commitment. While several of us have driven our cars to the track, it kind of sucks. So now it becomes a matter of buying a race car. But which one? How do I know if it's decent? And there are so many classes. The cars? Most are so old. Those RX7s? Really? A '87 Honda Prelude? HA! (What I raced and damn, it was old.) Gulp! Then I need to buy a trailer. Oh, and a tow vehicle which are not cheap. Where do I put all of this stuff? I need more tools to work on it too, right? My wife is going to kill me!

Or I can use my daily driver and go out on the track and tell all of my buddies about my "racing" AND still have fun. Racing is often talked about being like a drug, but until people get that first taste they won' become addicted. It's overwhelming and people really have to want it. If SCCA starts having HPDE, Club Experience, whatever they want to market it as during race weekends, it brings clients to the dealers.

 

[jjjanos]

Why is Regional Racing the stepchild that eats with the dogs?
1. Because Topeka doesnÂ’t make $ on Regionals. It makes money on the Runoffs and the qualifying races it does.
2. Because until about 30-40 years ago, Regionals were the ugly stepchild. You did your schools to get a Regional license. You did Regionals to get your National license. You did Nationals because, RogerÂ’s going to see me and give me a ride in his Can-Am car! Topeka still thinks the Runoffs could be a big deal. TheyÂ’re wrong.
3. We needed nationals to award tow $. I believe the tow fund is gone or so drastically reduced that nobody cares. Could be wrong on that.

There is no reason why we couldnÂ’t have RACES. You FINISH 4/6/8/10 races during the year, you qualify for the Runoffs. We can even specify that you need to do it at 3 different tracks.

Get to the Runoffs and enforce a 115% rule. Oversubscribed classes get a last-chance race. Done.

yeah, I know. WeÂ’ve never had last-chance races and people wonÂ’t show up if they know they are in an oversubscribed class. WeÂ’ve NEVER tried that and it NEVER will work.