SCCA's answer to the HPDE participants

[preparedcivic]

Personal pet peeve alert.

Careful throwing around the term 'moving up' to PDX, HDPE from autocross or from either to road racing.

Case in point: I joined SCCA in college, wanting to -go racing-. That was not going to happen for a 21 year old kid in school whose only car was a '71 Duster. I did have the small change to buy a more suitable car, at least to autocross, from a family member. That ultimately became a means to end activity for 25 years where I was perfectly happy and satisfied with my choice of competition. At several stages along the way I certainly had the financial capability to switch to the Club Racing side of the club, but other life events took precedence; things like a home purchase, marriage, kids and all that sort of whatnot.

What finally pushed me over to racing was the SRS BSNS aspect of what competing at the upper levels of autocross had become, along with the overt personalies that I ended up tangling with in that activity in the leadership positions I held. I still autocross, just very selectively, and basically now spend the same dollars a season with my ITB car that I burned on a G Prepared Civic. I can also share the car with my 15-year old son at a race weekend, which cannot be done yet at an autocross due to him not even being eligible to hold a Learner's Permit, based on age requirements.

Frankly, I look upon these as lateral moves. There are different levels of committment in all three activities. Going from National level autocrosser to Regional road racer definitely dialed my intensity meter back several notches.

 

[Matt Rowe]

Wow, lots of good discussion and let me try to address some of the recurring themes.

First, let me be clear that the primary purpose of the TT program has always been to address a gap in SCCA's racing programs and provide a place for people to drive at speed on a track both with instruction and/or competing against the clock. It's true that it CAN be used as a progression for people looking to eventually go wheel to wheel but we have always stressed that it is a destination of it's own for many people and that is a great thing.

Now, as for hard data on the number of people that move from TT events into Club Racing as many of you know SCCA doesn't track driver statistics in that manner. Anecdotal evidence from within my own area is that over the past 5 years we average about 3 people a year that make the transition. This from a series of roughly 60 regulars. So while it won't "save" SCCA it is a positive gain into CR and the program is more than self sufficient so I would argue that it can be done and be worthwhile.

I do agree that pressuring the existing club racing organizers into holding new TT events is heaping more workload onto an already over taxed group. That was part of my reason for asking the people here that see this as a gap to help volunteer to exploit this tool.

There were also some comments about squeezing these groups into weekends where the event is already trying to find track time for 200-300 club racing drivers. I absolutely agree it's tough and may not be worthwhile. In that case some type of stand alone event with it's own set of organizers can fill that role in the region. But, there are areas that struggle to bring in 100 racers. They would not only seem to be the places that can more easily host a combined event but also the ones that would benefit the most from attracting new drivers.

Let me clear up one thing on the comment on passing in the last FastTrack. The TTAC is looking for member input on revising the passing rules based on requests by some TT drivers. I think the wording that made it into FastTrack would lead people into thinking the TTAC has made a decision, the reality is I think there is a lot of internal discussion that needs to occur and happily we have a LOT of member input to review.

Lastly, yes, Matt and I are hard to differentiate. For those that have hung out with us off track it may help to use the terms Good Matt (Rowe) and Bad Matt (Green).

 

[gran racing]

I suppose that I don't understand some of the philosophys of regions. Just like our overall goal shouldn't be to coerce Solo participants into road racing, why do we feel the need to do this to Time Trial or HPDE participants? Maybe I just don't understand what SCCA is supposed to be about. In my opinion, it's about being a club where we can enjoy participating in motorsports on all levels.

Regions whine about a lack of revenue generated through Club Racing events. Guess what, if done properly there's money to be made through HPDEs. Guess that's why we see so many more for-profit HPDE businesses than w2w. Heck, NASA NE is basically all about HPDEs.

From a road racer recruitment perspective, I do think that one objective we should have is to get people a taste or being out on a track. HPDEs are a natural fit. Obviously the continued hard headed "we can't possibly do it any way; don't you think others haven't already thought of that" BS attitudes are not working. Time to try some different approaches.

Good for you Matt and others who are willing to attempt to slowly turn this big ole ship around.

 

[TStiles]

Good discussion here , I guess I might as well throw out a few points from a guy who came into SCCA racing in 1987 after doing PCA HPDE's a few years and who instructs HPDE events.

It appears to me that we have quite a few guys come thru the HPDE's who want to go racing. Unfortunately , they tend to end up :
-a- ChumpCar / Lemons
-b- NASA
-c- SCCA

Very few end up in SCCA. When I ask them why they choose Chump / Lemons / NASA over SCCA the reasons I get are :
-a- Chump/Lemons is perceived as cost effective. I agree , it's cost effective until you try to win
-b- You can rent a ride in Chump/Lemons on the cheap
-c- Chump/Lemons is more about team / friends / experience than it is about the competition
-d- It's perceived that you get more track time in NASA . Down here it's 4 sessions per day in NASA and 2 per day in SCCA. They are comfortable with NASA short sessions vs. SCCA longer sessions
-e- It's perceived that it's a lot easier / user friendly to build a car for NASA with their open rules packages vs SCCA restrictive rules packages
-f- Let's face it , NASA events are younger. We are perceived as being old and the younger guys prefer to be in a younger group.
-g- Let's face it , if you don't have an SCCA guy to guide you thru the process , it's a very high barrier to entry in SCCA

What they don't say , but I think is in the back of their minds is that they perceive that's it's going to be tough to build and develop a car that is competitive with guys who have been developing their car & race skills for 10 - 20 years.

My take is that for the club to prosper , we need to change with the times. To me that means that our choices are :
-a- commitment to continue to develop as the premier amateur road racing provider , with fewer classes , better competition , better rulesets that drive great competition with good value , ect.
-b- Restructure the club weekend to look something like NASA
-c- Some mixture of a and b

Let's face it , the landscape has changed over the last 20 years

 

[lateapex911]

Dave, in our area (which is possibly unique), the successful HPDE events are for profit. They run on off days when the tracktime is cheap, use professional staffing that the tracks provide, and they make money.

As a club, we would merely have to insert a few key people into the roles that are now paid positions, and entice instructor corps.

But, the problem is the staff positions that are needed to be filled. Tough to find quality people on work days, and reimbursing them appropriately would anger the normal race staffs greatly.

Sometimes I think we should just hand out SCCA brochures at SCDA events, LOL. (Ian and Elivan do a pretty good job of that, actually!)

 

[Lauren]

Workers

Our problem in New England was the lack of volunteers to staff such and event. Given that our racing weekends are typically full, we experemented with running the PDX on a Monday (say memorial day), but it was very difficult to staff with the volunteers wanting to go home and already being at the track for 2+ days.

So the region decided the PDX was not worth the effort and not worth the burnout of our critical volunteers to make the bread-winner (RR) work.

Jeremy,

We do pretty good with volunteers down here in th DC region. We figured at the beginning that it was going to be a challenge to attract our regular MARRS Flaggers (let's face it, flagging a PDX can be like watching the grass grow) so we added a little incentive to the picture. What we offered was what we call W3G1F which stands for "work 3 get 1 free".
All volunteers get a free PDX day if they work any 3 days in an 18 month period. Our first year we had a few MARRS Flaggers show up because working a PDX does count as a day towards your license. What it also brought in were some rank beginners as Flaggers who were interested in getting the free track day. We trained them to be Flaggers and paired them with the regular Flaggers as often as we could. That has resulted in PDX/TT becoming one of the prime avenues for new MARRS Flaggers including several ROY Flaggers. We now have a volunteer core made up of approximately 25% regular Flaggers and 75% PDX/TT participants and we never really hurt for volunteers although I still sweat staffing because I'm neurotic. LOL! Our Chief Stewards who act as Control also keep it very light on the radios making it fun to watch the "grass grow"! It's worked for us so maybe the same setup would work for you?

Lauren Robison
Crappy ITA Driver
Worker Chief PDX/TT

 

[mgyip]

The biggest barrier to attracting a younger crowd (or any crowd for that matter) is the clique-ish attitude of the regulars. All too often, I see newbies getting shuffled to the side or treated like an interloper b/c they aren't one of the regulars. This is especially troubling since it seems many Regions are combining PDX with Club Racing.

We've toyed with the idea of a mentoring program in the DC Region although it's never taken off in a formal sense. That doesn't mean that we don't try to look after folks, it's just not at the Region level which is probably for the better. In my case, we "took in" our current RE at a Club Race b/c he was looking for paddock space - in retrospect, we probably should have treated him better had we known that he'd become the Grand Poo-bah

As for PDX events - SCCA is 10 years late to the Track Event game. That isn't necessarily bad but the biggest challenge is that PDX is the ONLY non-competition program that SCCA offers. With that comes the challenge that participants aren't competitors and can't be treated as such. The vast majority of PDX participants are the starry-eyed dreamers that we were when we started into motorsports - remember that time? It was when "racecar" meant a fun and exotic mistress instead of the money-grubbing old hag that now resides in the garage.

IMHO, the trick to PDX is promotion - the events are virtually identical to the events that NASA, BMW, Audi and a host of others hold during the calendar year. What makes SCCA's events different? Not much - better organization and hopefully more advantageous scheduling. The harsh reality is that Track Events are luck-of-the-draw. John Q Customer looks at his schedule and decides "I want to goto the track on the 3rd week in July". He looks at his schedule and SCCA has an event that weekend so they're the winner. If NASA had an event on the 3rd week of July, they'd be the winner.

For Regions where track rental is expensive, start talking to the small local clubs who would like to have their own track event on a weekend. Get 3-4 small clubs together under the PDX brand and you'll have yourself an event. Do this a few times/year and you'll be surprised how the word spreads. The trick is to do all your homework in advance so that the participants "never see you sweat". Club Racing has been doing this for years and I can count the number of times that things were "confused" on one hand - these were usually surrounded by an extraordinary emergency that was well outside the real of normalcy.

PDX and Time Trials workers really don't need to be Race Flaggers - in fact our experience is that they shouldn't be Race Flaggers. They'll be bored stiff watching cars "circulate" - instead, tap friends of participants and folks who aren't quite sure that a Track Event is in their future. You'd be amazed how excited a first-timer can get when they get to hear tire squeal from their favorite sports car whilst standing in a tub.

 

[pballance]

For what it is worth, from a race chair perspective. We have added a PDX during quiet time or as an additional group during a race weekend. We had minimal success even though we heavily promoted it within our region. Could we have done better, yes! Did we learn from it, yes. Will we try it again, more than likely.

From a TT perspective as a member of the hosting region, We have added a PDX group within the normal "rotation" of run groups and it has worked pretty well. We are planning on doing it again.

I was a driver when TT's were run as a pod with only 3 cars on track at a time, 3 laps and then in to the paddock and wait for 2 hours to run 3 more laps. It sucked, I hated it and started looking at other bodies to provide me with track time. Thankfully The Regions stepped up and worked to make needed changes with the division.

The current TT format, which I fully support and worked to get approved as an alternative way to run a TT event is GREAT. I openly supported the change to similar lap time run groups with limited passing; but I will do everything I can to prevent a change to OPEN passing as some members have proposed to the TTAC.
IMHO, a change to unrestricted passing is a foolhardy move and subjects the club, and me as a host region member, to unnecessary risk that we are unprepared to respond to. Just a couple of questions to think about: Do we have enough "trained" workers to handle unrestricted passing? Do we have the necessary EMS/FIRE?rescue tools to handle car to car contact that results in a serious crash? Just some things to think about.

I provided the above to clarify my thoughts on the PDX program of SCCA. First off, PDX is an SCCA term and HPDE is a term used by NASA and other organizations. If we are going to discuss things we need to discuss the same things, not try to talk about HPDE, Track days, Test days and Level 1 TT, or solo trials under a single term. They are each slightly different.

We are competing with any number of track time "businesses" that offer lots of track time at a lower cost than NASA or SCCA. Porsche, BMW, Chin, and many others are all in the business of providing driver training and non competitive track days and they also "compete" with SCCA and NASA for the available $$$ of those seeking an on track experience. Do we need to improve our marketing to potential PDX/TT drivers absolutely. Is it the responsibility of the National office to promote TT/PDX events in your region? No, but helping promote our event is certainly proper. Has anyone asked for that help? I don't know, I know we have not asked for direct assistance in promoting our events.

Recently we had more than 40 drivers in TT and we also had a single day PDX(during the TT weekend) that I think had 10 drivers. I wasn't there I was at the ARRC. So in our area, in spite of competing track time groups, we seem to be holding our own.

In my opinion, it is wrong assumption that TT is a stepping stone to racing. Many of the TT drivers I know have expressed their desire to continue TT but do not wish to jump to road racing. Many road racers are now realizing how much track time/test time that a TT event provides and are starting to use it to tweek their skills and cars for road racing. In the above mentioned, hastily thrown together, TT event, each driver had over 2 hours of track time available for them.

Do we need to do a better job of marketing what we(SCCA) offer YES. Do we sacrifice safety for the sake of getting more entries? Hell no! Do we need to go head to head with other bodies that offer track time, I don't think so. We offer much more than a low cost track experience, but we do it a reasonable cost, not a bare bones costs. Most young people only look at the bottom line...How much to get MY car on track? They don't look at the value until after they have to shell out big bucks to dig themselves out from a low cost track learning experience.

Paul

 

[Kahl23]

This is a very interesting thread.

Being a 26 year old currently building a car for ITR, I figure it might be worthwhile to give my perspective, along with what I have heard from other youngsters. My background is I started out drag racing back in high school, got bored going in a straight line, started karting, did some autocross events, saved up my money to do a Skip Barber three day and now here I am with a BMW in the garage with a half-painted rollcage.

I think everyone is right that the SCCA is facing an uphill battle with the younger racers. However, I think the issue is broader than just a discussion about whether new racers come from the HPDE ranks. Every racer starts off with the idea "I think I want to race." That thought leads to "How do I start racing?" While the SCCA does a decent job answering the second thought (thanks in no small part to Dave Gran), it doesn't do a good job nurturing the first thought. If I'm expected to learn a rule book, take driver's courses and spend thousands and thousands of dollars on a race car before I even hit the track w2w, I better be damn sure that this is what I want to do with my time and money. I think the appeal of HPDEs is that they allow drivers to feel out racing at their own pace, without having to dive in. They can see if they truly love the sport, have enough talent to make it worthwhile, etc. before they are committed. Whether the SCCA decides to embrace HPDEs or not, they definitely need to figure out better solutions to help potential drivers confirm that thought of "I think I want to race."

Beyond the HPDE discussion (and this might deserve it's own thread) the biggest complaint I hear from young racers about the SCCA, especially in IT, is the rules. Jeff Young has said this several times in various threads and is correct in his assumption that the rules are a deal breaker for many of the younger racers. When you come to a place like improvedtouring.com and see arguments over things like washer bottles and wiring, it's an immediate turnoff. Why should I be forbidden from pulling out unnecessary wiring or the washer bottle when all it costs the racer is time and effort and doesn't give them an unfair advantage? From my perspective, while keeping the cars as close to factory as possible is admirable and was the original mandate of this class, that ideal of a street car for the track really went out the window with the current safety rules. Instead, I perceive IT as a (relatively) low cost class of racing, with enough mods to keep the mechanic in me happily tinkering away. These are race cars and I don't care if they have washer bottles, toggle switches, etc. as long as having such things doesn't give one racer a competitive advantage over another. The amount of arguing that goes into items that other clubs toss without a second thought reflects poorly on the SCCA and IT.

I decided to do IT because I was told by many people that some of the best racers in the Northeast are in IT. If this wasn't the case and I felt comfortable that similar depth of talent could be found in NASA or BMWCCA, I would be building a car for one of those clubs. Over the past year, reading the forums, SportsCar, etc. I've developed a real passion for the SCCA, but if at the start of my decision making process the depth of talent wasn't there to keep me around, I would have gone elsewhere.

There you have it. Obviously these are my own opinions (though I have heard them echoed by other young racers) and I'm sure some of the things I've said (especially about the purpose of IT) will be met with understandable hostility from the old guard, but I hope you see that it comes from a desire to see the SCCA grow and stay relevant over time. If you decide that bringing a new generation of drivers to IT is a worthwhile goal, then that will require some serious discussions that delve at the heart of IT as a class.

 

[lateapex911]

A most reasonable and insightful post, Kahl, thanks.

I'd like to hear you expound on your last point.
If YOU were on the ITAC, what would you do with the ruleset to make it more, shall we say, 'user friendly".
I might be the 'old guard' in some people eyes, but when I was on the ITAC, some (on the ITAC) thought I was trouble, LOL. I guess I'm trying to say that i try to see both sides of issues? So feel free to say what you think!

 

[gran racing]

I wonder if there are any relatively simple steps that could be taken to help address the "I think I want to race" aspect? Getting regions to host HPDEs / PDXs is a longer term goal.

The WDCR and I'm sure others allows spectators to take their cars on the track for controlled parade laps during lunch hours. The cost is something like $20. Prior to racing, I would have absolutely loved to do this! (While it was controlled, the pace was brisk.) It doesn't take many people to run this - a pace car driver and maybe a couple of other people who could be racers at the event.

SCCA could potentially have a sign-up form where a person whose potentially interested in becoming involved could be paired up with a racer to attend an event as crew. I guess this would be somewhat similar to a mentor program but less involved from the Administrative side.

Think combining the two of these would be useful?

 

[mgyip]

The DC Region offers parade laps during some of their race weekends but it's offered at EVERY PDX and Time Trials event. The flaggers, oftentimes the friend of a participant, are thrilled with this opportunity to see the track from the driver's perspective. To Lauren's post, many of our flaggers are working the events so they can get a freebie - offering them a parade lap is akin to giving away a free rock of crack...

From a financial standpoint, hosting PDX events should be the short-term goal as it will provide the funding to hold other events. Think of Motorsports as a pyramid with Pro at the top with the highest cost of entry and conversely, the lowest number of participants. Follow that down the chain to Amateur racers (most of us here) and then to Driver's Education events (PDX for this discussion).

Trying to grow Club Racing without any foundation has been SCCA's Achilles Heel for decades - let's grow the most expensive part of our Club by telling people that in order to come play, they need to spend (ostensibly) $10K to build a car, purchase safety equipment and then risk it all at a driver's school with NO MANDATORY EXPERIENCE. No wonder people (young and old) are running to other Clubs in droves. Think of it like sky-diving - buy a plane, a parachute and hope that you figure it all out BEFORE you become a spot on the pavement.

SCCA rules as a whole are incredibly restrictive but much of that revolves around the focus of SCCA. Having attended the NASA Championships for my employer, I had a good opportunity to see some of the differences between the clubs. SCCA's cars are all about the driver while NASA's cars are all about the engineering - neither is better than the other and admittedly, there were some very impressively built cars at their event.

The hard sell to newbies is "Run what you brung. Don't waste money on mods until you know what to change". That's a hard sell because we live in the world of instant gratification where virtually every enthusiast car has been modded to some degree. It's so bad that one club's unwritten mantra is "You're not going fast around this track? You need a faster car."

This is where PDX comes into play - let'em get their feet wet in a environment where they can learn how to drive safely. What many of them quickly realize is "This is my baby - I love my baby and wouldn't want to hurt her". They come to two conclusions - either "beat on my baby b/c she loves it (no, we don't encourage S&M at our events) or "I need to buy a POS for track events".

 

[ajmr2]

Beyond the HPDE discussion (and this might deserve it's own thread) the biggest complaint I hear from young racers about the SCCA, especially in IT, is the rules.

This to me is the bottom line, assuming a driver gets to the "I wanna race" idea. Having been an SCCA member and CR racer for more than 20 years now (no comments from Matt, Matt or Matt), I have to say that recently I've seen a dizzying number of classes appear in the GCR. I know that the intention is to increase membership by expanding car classes, but really? As an example, and having witnessed it firsthand with my MR2 going from ITA to ITB in 2009, the "formula" for determining a car's weight in a class is almost funny but certainly frustrating and overly complex. I have no idea how the "NA" group does it, but my understanding is that they basically let you run what you brung and find a class for your car somewhere.
The goal in the SCCA should be to provide a place for drivers to safely have fun in their cars, and whether we are involved in CR, Solo, PDX or Rally, we should each point any person interested in any of our programs in the right direction. In the WDCR we're consciously trying to bridge the gaps and working more as a club than as separate groups under the SCCA banner and I think it's working.

 

[Matt93SE]

This to me is the bottom line, assuming a driver gets to the "I wanna race" idea. Having been an SCCA member and CR racer for more than 20 years now (no comments from Matt, Matt or Matt),

Old f***.. (What I really meant to say is that you bring a great deal of experience and perspective to the table. )

In the WDCR we're consciously trying to bridge the gaps and working more as a club than as separate groups under the SCCA banner and I think it's working.

I'd like to see that happen in other places too. In our region, TT, rallycross, and road rally are completely nonexistant. It's Solo vs. Club racing. some people mix, some don't.
NASA is pretty big here with good size fields, but really only the Spec Miata guys run both groups. for the most part, the rest of them have a car built for a single club and class, and that's it.

I'd definitely like to see SCCA members work better together in promoting the other aspects of the club, as I'll freely admit I don't see it here.

 

[seckerich]

Wow, lots of good discussion and let me try to address some of the recurring themes.


Let me clear up one thing on the comment on passing in the last FastTrack. The TTAC is looking for member input on revising the passing rules based on requests by some TT drivers. I think the wording that made it into FastTrack would lead people into thinking the TTAC has made a decision, the reality is I think there is a lot of internal discussion that needs to occur and happily we have a LOT of member input to review.

Lastly, yes, Matt and I are hard to differentiate. For those that have hung out with us off track it may help to use the terms Good Matt (Rowe) and Bad Matt (Green).

The simple fact that open passing with limited safety equipment and no roll cage is out for imput by the TTAC is the problem. That this is considered, and supported by the group as possible is a problem. Adoption of open passing will end cars with roll bars running, and lead to a mandatory H&N device like Road Race. Pushing the boundries for a few is dangerous at the least. This should have died in committee. But then all that will be left is level 2 and that will suit many agendas.

This is based on 20 years of competing, organizing, and teching level 3/4 events since it was Solo 1. Simply put I have some skin in the game and not very happy about the direction the TTAC is going today.

 

[Chip42]

Art - I'm a bit lost about your example. How is moving the MR2 or any car to a class where it has a greater chance to be competetive equivalent to introducing new classes and adding confusion?

I'll be the first to point out the culture and understanding steps that are necessary if one is to step into SCCA, and I've helped a bunch of people make that step in some small way or another. but the density of the rules and the lack of clarity in their writing (particularly in IT, unfortunately) coupled with the "perception" of being overly limited are hard to overcome. NASA's system is simpler, no doubt. but I think some more base-language statements DESCRIBING each class and more clearly written class/category rules would go a logn way to dropping the barrier.

I have no clue how to make the club better known or more attractive inthe first place, though. I do know that the huge number of classes means less opportunity to fit in TT or PDX on a race weekend. that and odd idiosyncracies liek the God hour in the south or sunday at lime rock I think hinders the success of such programs a stepping stones to club racing.

 

[farrout]

For the South East Division, TT Level 3 and Level 4 is simply a continuation of the SOLO I program that we have held since the 80’s. In the SOLO I program we had track events and Hill Climbs which folded in to a SOLO I Championship Series. Now we have been transitioned to Club Racing Time Trials. The Level 3 and Level 4 Championship program continues to be strong with 8-10 events per year.

The Flat Track (Level 3) events are run with cars grouped in pods of the same relative lap times. Numbers of cars in a pod is dependent on the length of the track. They run 15 minute sessions with passing on the straights with a point-by. Most TT events are full stand-alone weekends with drivers getting more than 2 hours of track time for their $250 entry fee. PDXs are frequently run in groups on the same weekend – same price, same track time. On a $/Minute basis, TT is much better than any of the Road Races, Test Days, or HPDEs being run by other entities.

We are finding that the TT drivers generally do not want to drive a long distance for a one day Track event with 3 sessions which is what you find when combined with a Road Race weekend. This is particularly true when there are other options for track time.

We have reviewed the TTAC proposal on open passing in Level 3. The almost unanimous response from our drivers to the TTAC has been to NOT allow open passing.


By way of progression, I ran HPDEs at Summit Point, Watkins Glen, VIR and Road Atlanta for 5 years in my daily driver, a 1993 RX7. Took me one HPDE to install a rollbar and harnesses since I saw some cars roll and I was capable of hitting 155 on some tracks. When I lunched an engine one weekend, it convinced me to get a trailer. Then it was a move to Alabama and the SOLO scene. A year of that and my Miata became a CSP Solo I car used for both SOLO and SOLO I. Couple years of that and it was time for Road Race School and a DSR. Now it is a balance of Time Trials and Regional Racing. The reason for this progression was mostly due to the friends that I met in SCCA. That camaraderie is the strength of the SCCA.

 

[mgyip]

I'd definitely like to see SCCA members work better together in promoting the other aspects of the club, as I'll freely admit I don't see it here.

This is exactly what needs to happen - promoting SCCA as a whole, not just a favorite program but the region as a whole.

What the DC Region has seen with PDX is that it pulls the entire Region together, tapping resources from each program. Both PDX and Time Trials are open to all cars and drivers. For Time Trials, SCCA's classifications are mind-boggling BUT they recognize both Club Racing AND Solo classes so literally everyone can participate.

 

[Lauren]

This is exactly what needs to happen - promoting SCCA as a whole, not just a favorite program but the region as a whole.

What the DC Region has seen with PDX is that it pulls the entire Region together, tapping resources from each program. Both PDX and Time Trials are open to all cars and drivers. For Time Trials, SCCA's classifications are mind-boggling BUT they recognize both Club Racing AND Solo classes so literally everyone can participate.

Thats what I like best about our WDCR PDX/TT events! It is a nexus for Solo racers, MARRS racers, volunteers, spouses of racers, you name it. It is THE one event where I know I will see friends from all the different forms of racing in one place and I love that. It's more of a party than anything else. I have to say, if I could only do one event I would choose one of our PDX days. Okay, that was my kumbya moment.... ;-)

 

[Kahl23]

I'd like to hear you expound on your last point.
If YOU were on the ITAC, what would you do with the ruleset to make it more, shall we say, 'user friendly".

I believe it requires a shift in thinking about what the purpose of IT is. According to the GCR, the purpose of Improved Touring is to provide the opportunity to race "low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition." This sentence should be what is used when evaluating proposed rule changes, not "does this rule take us further away from the original purpose of IT?"

For example, motor mounts. People wanted them changed because stock mounts aren't up to the stresses of racing and rip out once a year, cause misshifts, etc. Does this change go against the original intent of IT? Absolutely. But if you look at the rule change from the perspective of "is it low cost, does it make life easier for the majority of members and does it give a relatively equal advantage across cars" then it makes total sense.

I think that most (if not all) new racers coming into IT use this second line of logic when it comes to rules and therefore, when they see these incredibly acrimonious debates over suggested changes that, from their point of view are no-brainers, they get turned off and start looking for other clubs. They don't care about what the original purpose of the class was, they're just looking for a low cost, straightforward way to get on track.

Now, car classing is a much trickier part of the ruleset and frankly, I don't think there's ever going to be a clean, simple way to evaluate cars, adjust weights, etc. Someone is always going to feel like they're getting burned. The good news is that, from a newcomer's perspective, I don't think many people coming into the sport care about things like car weights. That only becomes important after you start winning and want to fight for the lead.

I wonder if there are any relatively simple steps that could be taken to help address the "I think I want to race" aspect? Getting regions to host HPDEs / PDXs is a longer term goal.

The WDCR and I'm sure others allows spectators to take their cars on the track for controlled parade laps during lunch hours. The cost is something like $20. Prior to racing, I would have absolutely loved to do this! (While it was controlled, the pace was brisk.) It doesn't take many people to run this - a pace car driver and maybe a couple of other people who could be racers at the event.

SCCA could potentially have a sign-up form where a person whose potentially interested in becoming involved could be paired up with a racer to attend an event as crew. I guess this would be somewhat similar to a mentor program but less involved from the Administrative side.
Think combining the two of these would be useful?

I absolutely agree with this. The key is to make sure there is a high awareness of the program. For example, on scca.org right now the "Go Racing" page talks about how difficult the process is. Not exactly the best way to attract new customers! Instead the Go Racing page should have a drop down of regions and when you select a region, it should list upcoming events where interested parties can get a ride-along. It should encourage people to come to a race and see what it's all about. The fact that in the first paragraph of the current SCCA "Go Racing" page it talks about how difficult it is to get started is symptomatic of how far the club needs to come in recruiting new drivers.