Revamped National Racing Program and Runoff???

[SOseth]

The National Office has assigned a task force to look into revamping the national racing program and the Runoffs. This was mentioned on page 5 of the last Fastrack.
“MOTION:
1. To form a task force composed of two members of the CRB, two members of the Staff, and three Board members, to gather information
meet and develop a plan for national racing and its championship. The task force shall submit its results by March 31.
2. At its May meeting, or earlier, the Board of Directors will select one plan, to be implemented effective with the next Fastrack publication.
a. Selection of any plan will require at least nine affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.
b. The Board of Directors will publish the plan, with a full explanation of the goals and reasons, and will commit to the
essence of the program for three years.”

Now is the time to come up with some constructive suggestions, not just let’s move the Runoffs to my local race track. This task force will look at issues such as track time, number of classes able to participate, worker issues etc. How should our Nationals be structured? Should there be more Nationals or less. Should they be all double Nationals? Should it be harder or easier to qualify for the Runoffs?

The production guys have already been talking about this and they have been floating around some interesting ideas.

Here is the path to the prod guys discussion.

http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic ... 7961ebbc39


Think about it.

SteveO

[maurus97]

HARDER HARDER HARDER to qualify for the runoffs.

[clubford00]

Its no harder Niki you just have to go FASTER FASTER FASTER !

[hardingfv32-1]

Any factual information available on the financial goals of the Runoffs?

Brian

[SOseth]

I think to point here is that Topeka recognizes that SCCA's national racing program is not as healthy as it could/should be. We all from time to time have had issues with the way the national program runs, especially with the Runoffs. It appears we now have people on the BOD who are listening, and willing to consider our opinions.

SteveO

[hardingfv32-1]

Steve

Looking for data to help formulate a plan:

Do the Runoffs need to be a revenue generator?

Do we need a National program? What is the breakdown between Nat and Reg entries/fees? The San Francisco Reg (10+ race per yr) has made the decision that the big money is in Regional racing.

Brian

[neilcox]

I would be all for each racetrack (not necessarily each region) have one Double National per year without any restricted regional attached. This would be that track's National Event for the year. The number of Regional Events would be determined by the Division. This might cause a hardship for RM, but I believe all other Divisions have sufficient racetracks for a complete season and our travel expense would be much more manageable.

Splitting the Runoffs into 2 groups to run on 2 consecutive weeks would be excellent if our workers could/would embrace it.
Mon testing
Tues testing
Wed qualifying
Thurs qualifying
Fri qualifying
Sat Racing
Sun Racing

and repeat the following week.

The location of the Runoffs is a tough one. As much as drivers and the legion of support personnel want to pick a favorite venue it is dictated by who wants us and the hope that the location is fair for as many as possible. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. I am not in love with HPT, but where else can or even wants us? Of course if we can split the groups that makes things like available paddock less of an issue. I would think that Barber would be a fantastic location.

One last thought about worker retention. Maybe we should adopt the UK designation of Marshalls instead of workers. After all they are really more to us than laborers.

[FV80]

Above all - I think the LOCATION of the Runoffs should be a place where people WANT to go - not where they HAVE to go to run the Championships...!
e.g. I live in GA - but if the Runoffs were held at Laguna Seca, I would work HARD to get there, even as far as it is ... 2nd Creek Raceway? .. not so much .
Steve

[qposner]

Above all - I think the LOCATION of the Runoffs should be a place where people WANT to go - not where they HAVE to go to run the Championships...!
e.g. I live in GA - but if the Runoffs were held at Laguna Seca, I would work HARD to get there, even as far as it is ... 2nd Creek Raceway? .. not so much .
Steve

Agreed (however, Im thinking Road America since Laguna is only 11 hours for me).

[Lynn]

Above all - I think the LOCATION of the Runoffs should be a place where people WANT to go - not where they HAVE to go to run the Championships...!
e.g. I live in GA - but if the Runoffs were held at Laguna Seca, I would work HARD to get there, even as far as it is ... 2nd Creek Raceway? .. not so much .
Steve

You won't have to worry about ever going to Second Creek. Or Pikes Peak International, or whatever the track at Mead, Co was called. They all closed two years ago.

[maurus97]

Neil Cox's Idea of splitting all the groups into two and making the runoff's a two week event is a good one. As it stands now, 10-15 min sessions are terrible.
Also, granted there are some great tracks out there but can you really have a more central location than Topeka? Granted the configuration wasn't that terrific at least in my opinion(nowhere great to pass) but that can be fixed, right? I speaking from a young person whos realativly new into racing. From my point of view, I am still learning things about driving/racing all the time and I can tell you first hand that longer sessions would have made my first runoffs experience worlds better. I was still learning the track to a point when the green flag fell. Whenever I'd mention to another driver that 10min session sucked they'd say "welcome to the Runoffs" like it was somethimng to just get used to. Well, it would be nice for me and everybody I'm guessing if it was something we didnt have to get used to.

Also, this is probably just a pipedream, but wouldn't having the runoffs at INDIONAPOLIS MOTOR SPEEDWAY be awsome? You wanna talk about maybe getting some good perticipation and some fan turnout. Just a thought.

[butchdeer]

I have two ideas of what the runoffs could be.

1. If it has to be one event under a similar format as the past It should be limited to as many classes as can be garunteed a regular 25 or 30 minuted practice/ qualifying session by themselves every day. theses classes ( Ibelieve it will be about 18) should be determined on the previous years participation. The board would have to be committed to stick to this plan and not give in to presure as it has in the past when they said they would limit it to 24 classes but changed there minds under presure from some competitors.

2. My second and most favored plan would be one that would limit the time commitment it takes to participate. In todays world not everyone can commit the 7012 days plus travel that most seious competitors now do.
Plan 2. Have three runoffs every year at diferent tracks. One in the east, one central, and one west coast. Each one would be a 4 day event with no testing allowed the previous three weeks at the tracks involved. Each event would host aprox.
eight(8) classes. Those classes that are hosted in the east on the first year would move to the central on the second year and the west on the third year. The same senario would take place for classes that start in the central year one or west year one. This would equalize travel and assure every competitor of being closer to home at least one out of every three years. I would also limit the time commitment. to 4 track days per event. With only eight classes you could get as much track time in four days as we now get in 7.
Butch Deer

[hardingfv32-1]

The Runoffs is the easier of the two issues to improve. How do you improve the National program in general? Does the National program have any relevance?

Brian

[maurus97]

I'll say it one more time because the more I think about it the better it sounds. INDIONAPOLIS MOTOR SPEEDWAY. If there was a way it would be great.
1. Central location.
2. Mecca of venues
3. Good spectator turnout?

[clubford00]

Ive only attended the runnoffs as a spectator, but something very high on the list i feel is the weather. When they were held in Oct at Road Atlanta the weather wasnt nearly as bad as it potentially is for Indy, Road America or even Topeka. im not necessarily saying go back there, but depending on the time of year, oct, sept. makes a big difference in location. Wouldnt you rather tavel a few more hours to be more likely to have a better chance at actually seeing the sun? just my 2c

[brian]

I would suggest two things. Make it more difficult to qualify, this would reduce the financial burden on regions that can't get decent turnouts and reduce Topeka staff's financial dependency and envolvement with the Runoffs and have the Hosting region run the race like the Atlanta region used to do. Topeka's reliance on the revenue and ridiculous demands on the tracks have caused the cost to just to run too high.

[Ed Womer]

Why do those of you who said it should be harder to qualify say this? With the cost to run a national at $2K per race to compete up front, and you have to run at least 4 races to qualify that is $8K in cost just to run the minumum races. With the daily increase of gas I hate to think what it will cost just for fuel to get to and from the races.

For those who think it should be harder to qualify for the runoffs why don't you come to the NE and see if you think it is easy. All you have to have is some bad luck or DNF's and you will be on the outside looking in.

I don't have the answer for the problems but making it harder to qualify I don't think is the correct answer.

Ed

[brian]

Don't forget there in most classes out there, all it takes is 3 finishes and 4 starts and you're qualified. As long as they count 6 races for points, why not increase the minimum required. If your in a competitive division and class, like you, chances are you're going to run 6 races anyway. According to the 2007 participation numbers NE division, the msot active since the cen div breakup, averaged 12 cars. Based on that average, if you ran 4 races, received any points, chances are you'd still go to the Runoffs. Tow money is a loosing proposition. It costs more to get into the top 3 than the tow fund pays. If more races were entered, the tow fund would increase as well. I know it sounds like a contradiction, but the quality of the nationals would improve if more races were required. Sharing weekends with regional schedules, and lousy groupings are the result of weak entries.

[Mad Dog Racing]

I don’t think FV is one of the classes most people have in mind when they say harder to qualify. But back when I first qualified for the Runoffs (and you could still buy a new air-cooled beetle) it was top 6 in the division, top 8 for FV, FF, and one or two others. Vees had 45-55 of the 64 or so eligible attend. Because the Runoffs attendance has dropped, Topeka now goes ten deep in every Runoffs class in every division, but down here, we probably don’t have more than three or four classes with ten drivers that even run four national races a year. That means almost every Sowdiv national license holder can be a Runoffs qualifier by running four races, except in FV, SRF and SM. In other divisions, different classes are more popular, but you still get the auto-qualify mode in most classes.

One of the qualifying ideas I have heard tossed out is top three or X% of the drivers completing four races, whichever is higher in each division. That would limit the eligible drivers to about 33-40 in each class, still way more than attending in most classes. When I looked briefly through the entry lists at HPT, the classes were on the whole self-limiting to top five cars. Everybody has kind of figured out that the existing qualification process is a joke. Top three gets the few really good drivers in almost every class and the X% bonus gives a few more a shot in the big classes. X% is 25% or maybe even 50% of the four national race qualifiers, probably less than six total in almost every case.

I’m a very big supporter of a four- or five-day Runoffs format, no testing, just three 30-minute qualifiers and the championship race. That means about 12 run groups max. That could mean splitting the Runoffs into two parts or, heaven forbid, running two or more classes that race together all year in one race. When your class has 12-15 cars show up at the Runoffs from 11 divisions, something is wrong that needs to be fixed. I know it’s not PC to say they don’t deserve the track time that a 40-car field needs so I won’t say that…. A Runoffs format that allows you to attend in a one-week window would do more to get entries up than “qualifying” more drivers. A Runoffs with 300 drivers would fit into many more tracks. Even Mid-Ohio and Road Atlanta had half the cars out in the mud. You just can’t fit 600 cars into many tracks.

Indy – the holy grail of motor sports. When you get right down to it, what they have right now is a moto track, remains to be seen if it is suitable for racing cars. The idea of a Runoffs-only track is good, there are always the guys who run three or four races a year on the Runoffs track who have an advantage, or that perception. Adding a chicane does not change the track they run on all the time, that’s a joke. Moving it every year has it’s drawbacks, no fan base or continuity. Maybe after about three years, the home track evaporates, but that’s when we bid again.

But then, I’m a guy that would race in a Wal-Mart parking lot if that’s where the Runoffs was and I was top-three in my division. So yes, I would go to Indy and race on a moto track. I think the biggest knock on HPT is that nobody can brag about racing there, not the track itself. Everybody wants to say they ran for the national championship at (take your pick – Watkins Glen, Mid-Ohio, Road America, Laguna Seca, or Indy.) The average Joe will have at least heard of it if the pros race there on TV, and that will never happen at HPT. We should probably contact Lowe’s Motor Speedway about holding the Runoffs. Absolutely a terrible place to road race, but 9 out of 10 people in the US have heard of it – and the weather would be OK. Same guy owns TMS in Ft Worth, more central, on TV, still not a road race track.

Then there is the weather thing. Can’t have the Runoffs in September because the club also has to support 1400 Solo folks who pay the same dues the club racers do. If they can move to August, the Runoffs could move to September, but we might lose the Labor Day weekend. I know the guys up north complain they only have sixteen weeks between May Day and Labor Day to race already.

I already sent in my Runoffs Feedback form to Topeka. My comments about it, nothing wrong with HPT, in fact it’s a better place to be at the track (didn’t say on the track-not going to open that can) than Mid-Ohio. What is broken is the Runoffs format and no amount of moving around to another track is going to fix that. Sorry I got so long-winded, but I’m starting to get tired of hearing about moving to Indy to fix the Runoffs, IMHO that isn’t what is wrong with the Runoffs.

Mike Rogers
Mad Dog Racing

[Lynn]

The new configuration at Indy was designed to be used by F1 as well as MotoGP in 2008. It has FIA approval for F1. The new design eliminates the use on any of the oval corners which was done to make Bridgestone and the constructors happy.

[brian]

Maybe we should eliminate national racing and have nothing but regional races. Let the top 50% of each of the top 20 or so classes go to the runoffs.

[neilcox]

If you are a Regional FV racer, what would it take for you to run Nationals? Why don't you now?

[FV80]

Maybe we should eliminate national racing and have nothing but regional races. ...

If you are a Regional FV racer, what would it take for you to run Nationals? Why don't you now?

Hmmmm... OK - let's consider those issues for a moment. What if we only had ONE level of "RACE". The only REAL problem with it that I see is that the REGIONS who now hold approx 10 races per year, would only have 3 or 4 (at most) to work with. On the other hand, those 3 or 4 should be considerably more well attended.
What if we (SCCA) only had ONE level of RACES - and 2 levels of COMPETITION? We could still have "Regional cars" and "National cars" - but do away with the Reg and/or Nat races - *ALL* (or almost all) races would be the same - "regional competitors" and "national competitors" would be eligible, would qualify/race on the track at the same time, etc - but everyone would 'declare their status' as Regional or National and be competing for points/trophies ONLY in that category. We could still have the Regional and National championships separately - but there would be only 1/2 - or even 1/3 of the number of RACES per division per year. MUCH easier load on the volunteers - easier schedule for everyone - more attendance at every event (maybe TOO much more?) - and the only downside would be that the regions MIGHT not make quite as much $$$, but would have much happier workers.

Instead of having 125 cars at an event, we would likely have more like 275 or so.... Could something like that work?? In SEDIV we have so many races it's not even funny! Too many Nationals -too many regionals. In part, because the regions are having as many races as they can possibly schedule just to make money .. because turnouts are so low on both sides (except, of course for IT). We could NOT add groups to separate the Reg/Nat people, but there are few National events these days that don't include some sort of regional 'support' group with them. Possibly, some few races could remain 'separate' - Like the June Sprints and we could DEVELOP similar races for the Regional cars - but only 2 or 3 per year.

Doable?? I guess we WOULD have a problem with all the "extra" regional classes that exist ... could that be addressed somehow??
Just musing ... (that's what this thread is all about isn't it? )
Steve

[Pat Hughey]

What if we (SCCA) only had ONE level of RACES - and 2 levels of COMPETITION? We could still have "Regional cars" and "National cars" - but do away with the Reg and/or Nat races - *ALL* (or almost all) races would be the same - "regional competitors" and "national competitors" would be eligible, would qualify/race on the track at the same time, etc - but everyone would 'declare their status' as Regional or National and be competing for points/trophies ONLY in that category.

That sounds like a good idea. I don't see a difference between the race on saturday and the race on sunday anyway except for the number of laps.

Pat

[John Deonarine]

Pat,

The combination of national and regional license holders in the same race would seem to me to demote both levels of drivers.

As a relatively new regional racer, I am concerned with getting as many laps as I can, learn more about racing, and car preparation. It is tough enough with experienced Vee guys and regional Formula Fords on the track with me now.

The suggestion to add national level Vee guys to the mix would make it more difficult for me to achieve my goals.

The national guys are national level because of their committment to the sport (i.e experience) and in my opinion, are interested in competing against the best with similar experience and equipment.

John