Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

What is the deference if you have to lap someone every 3-4 laps? Lapping traffic can be an advantage or disadvantage in a close race.

It makes the class look bad? Does anyone in the non-FV populations care?

Do you guys really want to pay extra to not have back-markers?

Brian
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by cendiv37 »

hardingfv32-1 wrote: Do you guys really want to pay extra to not have back-markers?
Brian
Not really, but I think I might prefer it to the current situation.

As I said earlier, the bigger problem is NOT at the Runoffs, but in normal national races with mixed classes. At the Runoffs if there is a car or two that is way off the pace, the whole field will have to deal with them once or maybe twice in the race. It will likely effect the race outcome for some and not others. Not so bad, but just silly. Why are people getting lapped in a race that's we like to call the "pinnacle" of club racing. Personally, I would be embarrassed to be lapped in a "national championship race", but that's a personal value judgment. I have chosen not to compete at the Runoffs a couple years where I'd qualified simply because I knew I wasn't "on my game" and didn't feel I belonged on the track with the "best of the best".

I am getting very tired of having completely incompetent drivers "racing" with cars not in their class in normal "national" races. I am seriously considering hanging it up with SCCA because the whole point of "national" racing (competition!) is being sacrificed to get entries. If I'm really just "driving around" rather than racing, maybe I should just go back to MUCH cheaper racing in Midwestern Council or revive my Lotus 7 and drive that in vintage events once in a while. I specifically chose to race FV in SCCA nationals to test myself and my driving ability. If I can't do that, what's the point? Like I said, it's a double edged sword, a hard call for SCCA to make. Do you discourage people from entering because they really aren't good enough (but don't know it) or do you discourage people from entering that are competent but are getting frustrated in their efforts to "compete"? When you are held up corner after corner, race after race by the same guys, it gets to you eventually. It certainly has gotten to me. The 120% rule is completely inadequate for dealing with this situation.

By addressing the issue for the Runoffs, SCCA is at least starting to recognize the problem, but it is deeper than just having a few slow cars in our national championship races.
Bruce
cendiv37
Speedsport
Posts: 170
Joined: October 20th, 2006, 7:45 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by Speedsport »

I have had numerous conversations over the past year with people inside SCCA regarding issues like the national racing program. All I can say at this point is SCCA is fully aware of the problems they are facing, and fully aware of the competition being offered by new organizations. They are developing a plan to bring the national racing program back to having some glory. I think the announcement regarding the runoffs qualification changes is their first step in the process. Be patient - they fully recognize issues such as diluted racing from so many classes, lack of competition, ect. Their goal is to make racing fun again, and part of that is bringing back competiton.
smsazzy
Posts: 703
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 5:56 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by smsazzy »

Name a racing series that doesn't have to lap other cars? Pro, or otherwise?

Nascar? Indy? F1?

Heck, ALMS has multiple classes on the track for 24 hours in a row and they make it work.

If you have to lap traffic at the Indy 500, or the Daytona 500, or the Monaco GP, then why are we so exclusive that you should not have to lap traffic?
Stephen Saslow
FV 09 NWR
cendiv37
Posts: 386
Joined: June 25th, 2006, 7:29 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by cendiv37 »

smsazzy wrote:Name a racing series that doesn't have to lap other cars? Pro, or otherwise?

Nascar? Indy? F1?

Heck, ALMS has multiple classes on the track for 24 hours in a row and they make it work.

If you have to lap traffic at the Indy 500, or the Daytona 500, or the Monaco GP, then why are we so exclusive that you should not have to lap traffic?
For one thing I believe their races are just a bit longer than 50 miles or so...

In NASCAR they do in fact enforce a minimum speed rule for safety reasons. If you can't make a minimum lap speed (usually after major repairs) you're off the track until you can.

Still, as I've said, my "on track" problem is less with the Runoffs than with regular nationals and mixed classes, but this year's Runoffs rules (accept all comers up to the track maximum) is silly and clearly dilutes the quality and importance of the event. Makes a lot of money for RA and SCCA National, but dilutes the event overall.

At my first Runoffs as crew (1978), I believe there were 21 total classes and 5 (or 6?) divisions who could send only their top 3 cars per class. In 1980 when I raced my Lotus there were 30+ national FP cars in CenDiv and only the top 3 qualified. I meant A LOT just to qualify... I didn't. 21 races in 3 days with less than 20 cars each and it was an incredible show. About that time, they bumped the qualifiers up to 6 per class in FV and FF which averaged way more cars per race than the other classes. It's just gotten bigger and bigger ever since. It's MUCH bigger now, but it is not better.

We don't need to go back that far, but we need to make it mean something again.

Just my opinion.
Bruce
cendiv37
hardingfv32-1
Posts: 1014
Joined: December 1st, 2006, 8:01 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by hardingfv32-1 »

"we need to make it mean something again" Make what mean something: The Runoffs, Qualifying for the Runoffs, or winning the Runoffs?

The fact is that in your opinion and that of most the racing community, the Runoffs has lost its importance. How many SCCA members are going to be impressed by making it more difficult to qualify for the Runoffs? Outside those participating in the Nat Club Racing program, how many will even know things have changed. Regardless of how many slow competitors are involved, you still have to beat all the top competitors to win. You still must be the best of the best.

The only way to make the Runoffs mean something again is for SCCA to spend BIG money promoting the Runoffs in the publics eye. Having the event on network television as an example. The importance of the Runoffs is a psychological thing. Narrowing down what it takes to change the racing community's perception of the Runoffs is not going to be easy or cheap to accomplish.

Financially is there a net benefit to be found by making "it mean something"? Is it worth the financial gamble?

Could it be that some of you are just ready for a new hobby? Nothing stays the same in life.

Brian
Last edited by hardingfv32-1 on September 9th, 2010, 1:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
smsazzy
Posts: 703
Joined: June 24th, 2006, 5:56 pm

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by smsazzy »

cendiv37 wrote: For one thing I believe their races are just a bit longer than 50 miles or so...

Just my opinion.
At the Daytona 500 this year, 12 of 43 drivers were at least 10 laps behind. Divide that out and that is at least one lap per 50 miles.

Imagine how many would have been lapped with no "lucky dog".

The Indy 500 had 12 people, out of 33, at least 10 laps behind.

Monaco had 12 of 24 drivers at least 5 laps down in a 78 lap race. That is once every 15 laps.

Last years runoofs had 15 drivers at least one lap behind.(out of 39)

That seems right in line with the other top events from pro series.
Stephen Saslow
FV 09 NWR
Rickydel
Posts: 199
Joined: July 5th, 2006, 11:09 am

Re: Proposed Runoffs Qualification Rules For 2011

Post by Rickydel »

WIthout expressing my opinion about how hard or how easy it should be to qualify for the runoffs, I just wanted to make an observation about this year's field after two of three qualifying sessions.

If the lead group should run the entire race averaging laps of 2:42 (four cars/drivers in the 42s or better)
and the last place qualifier averages 2:54 (qualifying time of 2:53.3)
THEN:
FIrst place will complete 13 laps in 35 minutes and 6 seconds.
Last place will complete 12 laps in 34 minutes and 48 seconds.

At the start of the race, if the last place car crosses the line less than 18 seconds after the first car crosses,
there will be no lapped cars at this year's runoffs.

I suppose that is one of the advantages of racing on a 4 mile track.
Post Reply