Exactly. I just sort of sorted it out. Now I am trying to help two buddies, one building, one about to race in SE, through this stuff.
Scca It Is Time For Change Now!
- Thread starter Robert Zecca
- Start date
Exactly. I just sort of sorted it out. Now I am trying to help two buddies, one building, one about to race in SE, through this stuff.
1. We have three kinds of club racing events, not the multiplicity you suggest. We have Nationals - more track time, no IT; Regionals - IT and home-grown classes; and restricted Regionals - enduros and IT-adders for a National. If someone is unable to understand that simple delineation, I doubt their fitness to live, let alone enter a club race.
2. The alphabet soup of series you list are choices drivers make and have nothing to do with the 3 kinds of club races. They were instituted at the request of drivers who needed a season-long ego boost to accompany their race ego boost ("I'm a series champion!") and/or by regions as a means to increase entries ("Our late October race at Gildersleeve never draws cars, but if it is part of a championship, people will enter!")
3. Race entry is far easier and more simple than in the past. To enter a race, all one (typically) has to do is go to the webpage of the hosting region and find the link. If someone is unable to navigate a webpage, I doubt their fitness to race. The software might not be identical, but the annoyance factor is minimal. If someone is unable to cope - either through attitude or intelligence - with retyping some information, I doubt their fitness to race due to a lack of intelligence and temper. In the pre-computer days, you got an entry MAILED to you that you had to complete by hand and return via USPS. If you weren't on the SEDIV mailing list and wanted to go from PA to SC for the Memorial Day event, you had to call or write the hosting region.
1. Turning away entries to raise entry counts seems a foolish strategy.
2. Many/most of our tracks lack either/all of a - the PR infrastructure to promote a large spectator draw; b - the sanitation facilities to handle anything above the walk-up crowd; c - the desire to impact their communities with yet another weekend of noise and traffic jams.
3. Virtually no region has the funds/staffing to promote their races to spectators. In the NE, National racing once drew large crowds and the reason for that was the driver of a Datsun (rest his soul).
So, in otherwords, burn the village to the ground to save it? If you take an old farm house down to its stone foundations and rebuild everything above the ground with modern materials... can you honestly claim to be living in an old farm house? In addition, how do you intend to ensure that the winner will be chased to the checker?
And there's the disconnect. Regional events are entry-events requiring less travel. Don't want to travel? Don't. Want to race in a championship? This one travels because the drivers want it to travel. Nobody says that Speed Racer has to compete in the championship. If Speed wants to race 5 weekends each year, he usually can do so without every leaving his home track.
The championships increase entries for two simple reasons - 1. We, the drivers, are stupid. We race for a championship position and that means competing in most/all of the events. 2. At least for MARRS, you know that when you travel to an away MARRS race, you will see many familar faces.
Nope - not enough drivers covers it. The additional classes ADD drivers to an otherwise low car count.
Perhaps, but it for MARRS, it was the drivers who wanted an expanded schedule for this year, including an added out-of-region event.
If NER is putting on successful races, why should it give up an event to funnel entries into a track/event that isn't successful.
Let's talk Pocono. A crappy place to race and a crappy place to volunteer. The only saving grace are the people who attend. I've never heard a driver or a vol say they like the place. The only way the venue survives as an SCCA venue is because of the championships and the double National. So, NER should give up a weekend pulling lots of cars to pull the fat out of the fire of the regions racing at Pocono?
Personally, I think that's faulty logic.
1. This weekend last I heard, the SMs lost "their" run group for a lack of entries.
2. Because we can't combine those cars with anyone else?
Let's cut to the chase... the thing that sucks time out of the day like Dracula at a blood bank are the open-wheel cars. Throw them to the wolves and the survivors get more track time AND get to go home earlier.
Around here, we've got 2 run groups whose combined total is less than run groups who stand alone. Try to combine them and, at least around here, the stewards wet their pants.
Want to cull the walking wounded? Easy enough to do using market forces. Charge each race group a fixed fee for the amount of track time it uses. Small groups pay more/car than big groups. Weak groups will whither.
Example: The 8 groups we have need to raise $40,000. That's $5,000 per run group. Put 50 cars on course, those guys pay $100 to enter. Put 10 cars on course, those guys pay $500 to enter.
I was going to chime in, but jjjanos hit nearly all the points that I was going to make. Only disagree with the last idea - and that is because it repeats the fallacy that several of the other posts make. There's been a lot of talk about "customer service" and getting more entries. Then the same people talk about eliminating this or that group or class - as long as it belongs to somebody else. How the hell does throwing out a bunch people who want to race with SCCA constitute "customer service" and how is that going to increase entries?
Let me give you a very graphic example. A bunch of SEDiv RX7 drivers got together when the CRX came in and made their cars hopelessly uncompetitive in ITA and pushed for the creation of IT7. Over the objections of some regional officials who objected to more classes or just didn't like it ("You only want it so you don't have to compete like everyone else," I was told, and "I suppose we've got to give every car its own class," another official smirked) it was finally approved. And guess what. The year before, there were 334 entries in ITA (including RX7s). After the change there were nearly 250 ITAs and 250 IT7s for a couple years. Then the forces of opposition returned and IT7 was eliminated. The following year 334 ITA entries appeared. So this mindless action cost SEdiv about 150 entries in one year before IT7 was reinstated. Fortunately, the SEDiv officials usually get it right, but this was a case of not thinking customer service. Eliminating somebody else's class is not the route to more entries and more money for the regions. To cure one problem jjjanos and others bring up, all it takes is officials willing to make the hard call and, per jjjanos example, combine the fast and slow formula cars when the fields are small. It can be done - and it has happened at at least one SEDIV race this year.
Finally, I see some discussion about how if we have just a few classes with big car counts we'll make club racing a spectator attraction again. Beyond the customer service problem (see above), the world has changed. Frankly, I don't see that ever happening again. Club racing was a spectator sport in the 50's and into the 70's primarily due to a lack of competition. You couldn't even get the Indy or Daytona 500s on TV, so for people who wanted to see racing, club racing was an available option. But now with multiple racing options available on TV every weekend, we're unlikely to ever see any but the hard-core sports car racing nuts - and there just aren't that many of us. We're no different than minor league baseball or, these days, short track stock car racing. It's hard to get people to pay for a minor league product when you can see the best for free.
And even in its heyday, club racing was rarely as big spectator sport most people like to think. Even in the early 70s when sizeable crowds were attending the Runoffs at Road Atlanta, the maximum paid attendance was (according to a former high SCCA official I discussed it with) never more than 4000. Maybe a few prime events (June Sprints, Runoffs at Mid-Ohio or Elkhart) can draw a crowd, but a run-of-the-mill regional or even National? Not likely. Every SCCA event at Road Atlanta is spectator and the Region even runs TV spots to advertise. But the number of paid spectators (non-crew) is so small that my understanding is that the tickets sold don't even cover the cost of spectator insurance. Maybe it's worth it for attracting some new blood, but it's never going to be a prime source of revenue.
Not to say things can't be improved. Yes, it would be better to have fewer classes with a lot more entries in each. But I think that most of the "cures" I've seen are worse than the disease.
Let me give you a very graphic example. A bunch of SEDiv RX7 drivers got together when the CRX came in and made their cars hopelessly uncompetitive in ITA and pushed for the creation of IT7. Over the objections of some regional officials who objected to more classes or just didn't like it ("You only want it so you don't have to compete like everyone else," I was told, and "I suppose we've got to give every car its own class," another official smirked) it was finally approved. And guess what. The year before, there were 334 entries in ITA (including RX7s). After the change there were nearly 250 ITAs and 250 IT7s for a couple years. Then the forces of opposition returned and IT7 was eliminated. The following year 334 ITA entries appeared. So this mindless action cost SEdiv about 150 entries in one year before IT7 was reinstated. Fortunately, the SEDiv officials usually get it right, but this was a case of not thinking customer service. Eliminating somebody else's class is not the route to more entries and more money for the regions. To cure one problem jjjanos and others bring up, all it takes is officials willing to make the hard call and, per jjjanos example, combine the fast and slow formula cars when the fields are small. It can be done - and it has happened at at least one SEDIV race this year.
Finally, I see some discussion about how if we have just a few classes with big car counts we'll make club racing a spectator attraction again. Beyond the customer service problem (see above), the world has changed. Frankly, I don't see that ever happening again. Club racing was a spectator sport in the 50's and into the 70's primarily due to a lack of competition. You couldn't even get the Indy or Daytona 500s on TV, so for people who wanted to see racing, club racing was an available option. But now with multiple racing options available on TV every weekend, we're unlikely to ever see any but the hard-core sports car racing nuts - and there just aren't that many of us. We're no different than minor league baseball or, these days, short track stock car racing. It's hard to get people to pay for a minor league product when you can see the best for free.
And even in its heyday, club racing was rarely as big spectator sport most people like to think. Even in the early 70s when sizeable crowds were attending the Runoffs at Road Atlanta, the maximum paid attendance was (according to a former high SCCA official I discussed it with) never more than 4000. Maybe a few prime events (June Sprints, Runoffs at Mid-Ohio or Elkhart) can draw a crowd, but a run-of-the-mill regional or even National? Not likely. Every SCCA event at Road Atlanta is spectator and the Region even runs TV spots to advertise. But the number of paid spectators (non-crew) is so small that my understanding is that the tickets sold don't even cover the cost of spectator insurance. Maybe it's worth it for attracting some new blood, but it's never going to be a prime source of revenue.
Not to say things can't be improved. Yes, it would be better to have fewer classes with a lot more entries in each. But I think that most of the "cures" I've seen are worse than the disease.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Tom, my thoughts about eliminating classes has much to do with one of the reasons people are "stingy" about coming to races: lack of track time. Give them multiple races, and they are much more likely to come. But....the difficulty in doing that is acute here in the NE. We have limited group sizes because our tracks are often short. And, some tracks throw even more salt in that wound by having very restrictive hours of operation. Scheduling groups becomes dicey, and cleanups can throw the schedule out the window. The number of groups is often limited to 8 due to the limited hours.
So, when a group of 3 or so classes only musters 6 or 8 cars for it's session, yet can not be combined with another group, it seems like we could be wasting a resource: track time. That group could be eliminated and turned into an ITX group, for example, for double dippers and car sharers to use. SFR does this to huge success.
Net result could be 8 lost entries, but 30 gained entries. Even if those entries were discounted 50%, the region would be better off. Not to mention it would be more likely to attract more entries to start with, as the double dipping idea has economic benefits for the car sharers.
On top of that, Lime Rock, for example, charges $53K to rent the track. Add the other expenses and a region needs over $70K in entries to break even. So having 15% of the available track time go nearly wasted really puts a hurt on things. Jeff Janoskas idea of charging by the group speaks to this issue, but has obvious issues with it's implementation.
IT7 was a late addition here in the NE, perhaps because of pride, who knows. I'd say that we have more IT7 cars coming out now than if we didn't have the class. But, if we needed a group to ourselves, I'd be the first to say "Eliminate us and put us in ITA." But we run with ITA now, and obviously fit fine. Due to the lap times, the Region has lots of options if the math makes the fit in ITA problematic. We can run with the Miatas, or ITB or ITC, or ITS, and it will be fine. So, THAT kind of extra class can be a win win.
And that's always up to the regions.
(And so is eliminating classes, I guess, and running a Restricted Regional. Of course, it wouldn't be popular, which is precisley the reason so few classes get eliminated Nationally.)
So, when a group of 3 or so classes only musters 6 or 8 cars for it's session, yet can not be combined with another group, it seems like we could be wasting a resource: track time. That group could be eliminated and turned into an ITX group, for example, for double dippers and car sharers to use. SFR does this to huge success.
Net result could be 8 lost entries, but 30 gained entries. Even if those entries were discounted 50%, the region would be better off. Not to mention it would be more likely to attract more entries to start with, as the double dipping idea has economic benefits for the car sharers.
On top of that, Lime Rock, for example, charges $53K to rent the track. Add the other expenses and a region needs over $70K in entries to break even. So having 15% of the available track time go nearly wasted really puts a hurt on things. Jeff Janoskas idea of charging by the group speaks to this issue, but has obvious issues with it's implementation.
IT7 was a late addition here in the NE, perhaps because of pride, who knows. I'd say that we have more IT7 cars coming out now than if we didn't have the class. But, if we needed a group to ourselves, I'd be the first to say "Eliminate us and put us in ITA." But we run with ITA now, and obviously fit fine. Due to the lap times, the Region has lots of options if the math makes the fit in ITA problematic. We can run with the Miatas, or ITB or ITC, or ITS, and it will be fine. So, THAT kind of extra class can be a win win.
And that's always up to the regions.
(And so is eliminating classes, I guess, and running a Restricted Regional. Of course, it wouldn't be popular, which is precisley the reason so few classes get eliminated Nationally.)
gran racing
Super Moderator
No, but if a NER event starts to hurt because of the new tracks in NJ (heck, we'll include Pocono for the heck of it), they should give up a weekend even if they've been running that event for many years prior.
So when I sign up for a race, I won't know how much my fee will be until after the first session?
You've also over simplified the "where to register" issue. The problem is locating that registration site. Most of the events I register are on one site, which also list Summit Point races. It appears one can register for those events on the site but no, there's a different site that a person would have to do some research to learn hopefully still in time. Not impossible but possibly more difficult and confusing than need be.
Jeremy Billiel
New member
Wow... Where to start....
Note this is MY opinion ONLY!
This discussion has been going on for a long time and is typically surrounded in politics and NOTHING to do with economics of racing. 2 years ago I was very vocal at the annual meeting and NARRC meeting about regions trying to create demand be using the NARRC races to attract customers. It is my opinion a race weekend needs to stand on its own to be successful.
This is where the politics come in. There are simply too many regions in the Northeast vollying for track time at the same tracks. At the end of the day IMO we simply do not need this many regions. Its cheaper for National to have less regions and the small regions are all on their death bed. They do not have the flexability to offer unique events, try new stuff, etc. This year the drivers are doing the talking. This is the wake up call. The drivers are going to the unique events offering track time, etc. The past gimmicks are no longer working.
So far the NER events have broken even. This can not be said about the others I believe. So why the differences? Some of it is the track rental differences and some of it is the events. Like it or not, Mothers Day weekend has always and will always be a badly attended race. If you took the Pro-IT and NARRC out of there how many people would attend? This is an example of an event that should be shut down IMO. Do we really need 3 LRP events? NOPE. The demand is not there given the LRP rental rates.
So what is going to happen this year? Survival of the fittest. IMO there are some small regions that are in serious trouble and they can not back out of the event. As it stands now NER is setting up to loose a lot of money as well. So if these events can not stand up why do we keep them? I know we (NER) are seriously debating LRP and Nationals.
At the end of the day, this problem is less about supply and demand and more about politics. Unfortunatley, I believe we may loose a region or two in the meantime as no one is willing to accept the realities of the situation.
If SCCA was run like a business these problems of supply/demand would not exist. It's really as simple as that. My final thought is many times there is a conflict in Road Racing. Many times the boards/regions are treating events as ways to support their regions members (after all it is a memberhsip driven club) BUT drivers are selfish bastards and only care about the end product. They do not care about who puts them on, etc... The SCCA needs to not think about this as a "club" but more like a "business"
Just my .02
Note this is MY opinion ONLY!
This discussion has been going on for a long time and is typically surrounded in politics and NOTHING to do with economics of racing. 2 years ago I was very vocal at the annual meeting and NARRC meeting about regions trying to create demand be using the NARRC races to attract customers. It is my opinion a race weekend needs to stand on its own to be successful.
This is where the politics come in. There are simply too many regions in the Northeast vollying for track time at the same tracks. At the end of the day IMO we simply do not need this many regions. Its cheaper for National to have less regions and the small regions are all on their death bed. They do not have the flexability to offer unique events, try new stuff, etc. This year the drivers are doing the talking. This is the wake up call. The drivers are going to the unique events offering track time, etc. The past gimmicks are no longer working.
So far the NER events have broken even. This can not be said about the others I believe. So why the differences? Some of it is the track rental differences and some of it is the events. Like it or not, Mothers Day weekend has always and will always be a badly attended race. If you took the Pro-IT and NARRC out of there how many people would attend? This is an example of an event that should be shut down IMO. Do we really need 3 LRP events? NOPE. The demand is not there given the LRP rental rates.
So what is going to happen this year? Survival of the fittest. IMO there are some small regions that are in serious trouble and they can not back out of the event. As it stands now NER is setting up to loose a lot of money as well. So if these events can not stand up why do we keep them? I know we (NER) are seriously debating LRP and Nationals.
At the end of the day, this problem is less about supply and demand and more about politics. Unfortunatley, I believe we may loose a region or two in the meantime as no one is willing to accept the realities of the situation.
If SCCA was run like a business these problems of supply/demand would not exist. It's really as simple as that. My final thought is many times there is a conflict in Road Racing. Many times the boards/regions are treating events as ways to support their regions members (after all it is a memberhsip driven club) BUT drivers are selfish bastards and only care about the end product. They do not care about who puts them on, etc... The SCCA needs to not think about this as a "club" but more like a "business"
Just my .02
T
Tom Blaney
Guest
Part of the entire racing experience is setting up the car correctly for the track your at, that is why there is a practice session, then qualifying and then the race.
Your willing to spend an extra amount of money to attend a Lime Rock event with "a practice day" added as a bonus, why not go to an event where you get to do more with the car, than at the current regional format, where you get a short practice/qualifying session, a very long period where you stare at the car, or sit in the lawn chair, while all 25 other classes get their one shot, then a short race 1/2 the distance of a national race hoping that somebody's car doesn't crash or blow up and cause a full coarse yellow for 1/3 of the race.
If you want race time than consider the fact that at a national format event, you get lots more track time to setup the car, qualify against the competion (to see what they are going to beat you with), and a race that is twice the distance of a regional format -- all in the same time frame as a regional race and all within the same driving distance. So it gives you the track time you want and you might actually have more than 2 competitive cars in the race.
Since your an IT guy, you should also look to the problem as an SCCA member not an individual focused on your own needs. The club needs to change badly and it needs the membership to work as a group to come up with a reasonable solution for all the drivers and most of the cars. Yes there needs to be a blood letting of cars and classes, finally accept that nobody really cares how many IT or Formula car classes there are, narrow it down to big and small, work out a formula that balances the races so that there are a reasonable amount of car marks that can run in the combined IT/Prod/T2 class, or Formula Large bore, Small bore, and GTLarge and GTSmall.
Let go of the I'm a IT guy or I think Open Wheel is real racing mentality and work to make the entire program work.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Tom,
Test days or HPDE days are a WAY better value for testing and car set-up data and tweaking than any practice session at a National. Track specific set-ups are documented and placed on teh car BEFORE the race, no? I do all that prior to coming to the track.
As far as qualifying? 20 minutes is plenty of time to get in your best lap. If you can't, you are doing it wrong.
All I am saying is that as a racer, I want to maximize RACE time. For me, nothing to do with the class I run in except that the changes I can make are minimal - but see my first point above - the way a National is structured is not optimal. Thereby making a National - Regional combo a bad idea for me.
This whole thing is so simple. Pull some events. We don't have the demand for 3 LRP's. We don't have the demand for 4 NHMS's. Pocono on MD weekend is a tough sell. These things are staring us right in the face.
Add Pro IT. People who like the series will run it. People who want mucho track time will run it. It adds potential value to that event. Think up other 'Pro' Series to do the same. Pro-FV or Pro-SRF...anything to add to the revenue line without hurting the value others have placed on the event.
And here is where it hurts like I said in my first post. The small regions who have no track that put their fiscal nuts on the line every time they host a race - STOP! Why? If it was just NER deciding how many races to have, it would come into focus REAL FREAKIN' quick what was a saturated market. Step on some toes. Work together for the betterment of SCCA.
How about a mid-year meeting at the LRP school? We need NER RRB reps there.
Test days or HPDE days are a WAY better value for testing and car set-up data and tweaking than any practice session at a National. Track specific set-ups are documented and placed on teh car BEFORE the race, no? I do all that prior to coming to the track.
As far as qualifying? 20 minutes is plenty of time to get in your best lap. If you can't, you are doing it wrong.
All I am saying is that as a racer, I want to maximize RACE time. For me, nothing to do with the class I run in except that the changes I can make are minimal - but see my first point above - the way a National is structured is not optimal. Thereby making a National - Regional combo a bad idea for me.
This whole thing is so simple. Pull some events. We don't have the demand for 3 LRP's. We don't have the demand for 4 NHMS's. Pocono on MD weekend is a tough sell. These things are staring us right in the face.
Add Pro IT. People who like the series will run it. People who want mucho track time will run it. It adds potential value to that event. Think up other 'Pro' Series to do the same. Pro-FV or Pro-SRF...anything to add to the revenue line without hurting the value others have placed on the event.
And here is where it hurts like I said in my first post. The small regions who have no track that put their fiscal nuts on the line every time they host a race - STOP! Why? If it was just NER deciding how many races to have, it would come into focus REAL FREAKIN' quick what was a saturated market. Step on some toes. Work together for the betterment of SCCA.
How about a mid-year meeting at the LRP school? We need NER RRB reps there.
Of course, but that's not what I thought you were suggesting.
Easy enough to solve. Entry fee is $x for this group. Rebates may be issued if the car count exceeds y.
As easy and simple as it could be? No. I should be able to go to scca.com and register for any scca event right there on their website.
Difficult and complicated to turn away entries? Not by a long shot. Anyone incapable of finding most online entry forms shouldn't be in a racecar. Anyone frustrated enough to boycott an event to protest the small effort needed to enter shouldn't be in a racecar - clearly a case of red mist.
I do not believe that any national organization allows single point entry for every event they sanction.
The issue isn't classes... the issue is # of run groups. I have no problem having a run group consisting of 50 classes as long as it puts 50 cars on course. I think most people wouldn't either, at least from a resource utilization stand-point.
MARRS drivers wanted more track time and more racing. We dropped two run groups this year and offer a 10-lap race on Sat and a 20-lap on Sun. The combinations are not optimal, but given the constraints we faced, were the best we could do in the face of steward opposition.
The Regions are listening but remember that they do need to hold onto the dates. Give up a date and you won't get it back. It's OK to lose the date if you think things won't get better in 2 years... otherwise, you suck it up for now and wait for better days. Kind of like dealing with pregnancy hormones in the SO.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Amen to that. Just contract it out to DBLRacing or the other big one that already has solved the problems, no need to re-invent the wheel as the SCCA is prone to do.....
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.
Ron Earp
Administrator
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.
Last edited:
lateapex911
Super Moderator
The difference is that the Formula cars *must* have their own group, for safety reasons. Where IT cars can slot into many groups. Regions have a large fixed cost they need to cover. And they need to fill groups to make that happen. Reserving a group for one car is obviously going to end in tears.
Regions need flexibility to adjust groupings, and they have it. Up to a point. But cars that must have their own group, yet only have counts of 6 or 8 for that group as a total really put a Region in a bind, as that group can be the difference of losing money or making money.
The issue in the NE is rather acute, and unique. If you take say, Danbury, CT as your "epicenter", you have Lime Rock (1 hour tow), NHMS (3 or so hour tow) Watkins Glen (3 or so hour tow) Pocono, (3 hour tow) and NJMP (4+ hour tow). And theoretically, Palmer (1,5hr tow) will be online in a year or two.
Lime Rock, NHMS and Palmer are all in New England, and are "owned" by NER. Yet, MoHud Region, New York Region, New England Region and Northern New Jersy Region ALL call Lime Rock home, as it's the closest track to those regions. I think Watkins Glen is shared by Finger Lakes Region and NY Region.
(i might have a couple details wrong here, Regional execs correct me please)
Now, NER could be a dick and tell the other regions to pound sand, but they don't. So it becomes problematic. NER hosts a bunch of races at NHMS, and has historically done well, and want's to "hold" it's dates at Lime Rock, for fear of losing them forever if they let them go. A good compromise has been to let the other regions run events there, but now, with yet another track to go to (NJMP), and dollars that are harder to come by, those regions are looking at bankrupcey if they hold events, due to the astronomical rental there.
It's funny to me also that as a racer, the events are pretty much the same, no matter who runs the event. Sure there are differences, but first or second year competitors would be hard pressed to notice them. Heck, I see the same faces (
) in grid from NHMS to NJMP!!If those Regions DID go away, I wonder if anyone not involved in their operation would even notice?
I know, I'll get icy stares for saying that, (or worse!) but to a degree, we all now it's the case. I think that it might be time to work towards combining some of the smaller regions proactively, before it gets ugly and everyone suffers.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
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.
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.
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
Super Moderator
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.
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
New member
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.)
Robert Zecca
New member
Keep it coming. I think we may be able to come up with a solution for next year. We need more input from more people and other forums.
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?
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?
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
Super Moderator
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 thread was born from attendance problems in the Northeast. I see nothing other than oversupply.