127 replies to this topic

[Ken Quartuccio]

I feel that the race should be open to anybody that wants to run it
A lot of people try to get points and can't or can't make all the races because of other things
And don't qualify

[DrDomm]

I feel that the race should be open to anybody that wants to run it
A lot of people try to get points and can't or can't make all the races because of other things
And don't qualify

Exactly. It is a CLUB, right?

My offer stands. I will come if allowed (but perhaps it's better to only have 20 cars on that 4 mile track). Ken, I know you want to go. I wasn't too far behind you at Lime Rock on my 12th heat cycle Hoosiers. I think I could get thru without being lapped.

Either way, I hope the field gets to at least 30. It would be a shame if it doesn't. What's NASA's Nationals up to now?

[Ken Quartuccio]

I have no problem being a back packer just to try it and see where I stand

[Caveman-kwebb99]

for me... money, time, and already committed to NASA nats. Also have had some bad luck so did not qualify, I could have gone to one more national and qualified, but I am not willing to drive to another national just to qualify. Lets face it ecomomy sucks, for everyone doing better monitary in life in 2012 I think there are probably 8 that are doing worse, or at least have worse economic sentiment.

I also think that the perception that NASA nats take less prep level, is just false... If you dont have a top prepped car, and high tallent level you cannot win at Mid Ohio. I have yet to see a low prep car or a back marker ever win a single race at Mid Ohio, even in the rain. Mid Ohio also makes for very good parity the 1.6 is as good or better of a car than a 99 any day.

[Cnj]

A good discussion. Couple of thoughts:

No Mike you can't have my car if I put a new engine in. Nice try. On the other hand theres always a price.... a good lunch when I am in KC next week is a start.

The point of my post above is that a key measurement of Runoffs success should be attendance of the best SM drivers, not simply car count. Car count alone, while useful financially, does not measure quality and is arguably often a vanity metric. If SCCA Runnoffs wants to serve as the pinnacle of SM amateur racing (does it?) then quality must be measured. If the best don't all attend (if indeed that is the case) we must ask why not. I dont suggest anywhere that we should be exclusionary and neither are the current entry rules which do a fine job of being very open - and should stay that way. To be clear, I am fine with large fields and think its good for the sport, just not that this is sole/primary strategic objective. The fact that I may choose to not come until I am well prepared is my choice. As I said, others may have different motivations.

I like and respect both Jim and Roger - but I don't really buy that its practical to prepare, attend and be a front runner at Runnoffs for a modest cost for most people. I am not suggesting one can't come and compete/have fun with people at the back/mid pack at modest cost. I think both Jim and Roger have unusual circumstances. Jim owns a really great race shop which provides cost advantages (hopefully...), paid a heavy price over several years to learn the ropes and gets to run a new car each year (with track support) without the costs most of us would incur. You've paid significantly to get where you are Jim and deserve your success. Andrew came to the race with an unreasonable amount of talent (sigh), an unbelievably committed family and enormous skill in Roger regarding data aquisition and car set up/maintenance. I salivate over that level of commitment and resources (cost is not always $) and Andrew also deserves his success. Nothing bad about this at all, just circumstances that many dont share. There is nothing equal in this sport except the rule book and the tracks we run on. Im completely OK with that.

cnj

[James York]

For me:

2008: Went to Topeka; learning experience had fun and realized I needed to be way better.
2009: Road America; was better, hung out with Drago some (he kept using my set up pad), had a good time
2010: Road America; much better prepared with new engine and driving well. Pissed off at so many wrecks/FCY and only 5 or 6 green flags for the $$$ I spent
2011: Sat out; still pissed off about year 2010;
2012: Sitting out; Driving like crap on the Hoosiers; not a wise thing for me to spend the $$$ and time to not meet my expectations, my kids are expensive Reset for 2013.

[James York]

A good discussion. Couple of thoughts:

No Mike you can't have my car if I put a new engine in. Nice try. On the other hand theres always a price.... a good lunch when I am in KC next week is a start.

I have a replacement engine sitting on a crate for you. Special rate.

[Cnj]

I feel that the race should be open to anybody that wants to run it
A lot of people try to get points and can't or can't make all the races because of other things
And don't qualify

Ken,

I respect your opinion on this. Let me offer a counter position.

The rules for entry (see other thread) are very open. http://mazdaracers.c...-qualification/
Basically you need to have done 4 national races and finished in the top half of all races (actually lower than this as is shown in the thread) or 8 races total regardless of finishing position. If a driver can't make 2 weekends in a whole year and finish in the 50 percentile - then I wonder about thier commitment to racing for that year - and potentially their ability to drive. On a practical/safety note, having no restrictions at all would allow a total beginner or very slow driver to race. Mixing fast/experienced drivers with slow/inexperienced drivers in a national championship is a recipe for dangerous accidents for and deep frustration for all. The front runners will come by the slow guys in a pack at high speed and any mistake may badly hurt several people or totally screw up a front runners race (ask Blake Clements about the slow back marker who blocked him in final laps of 08). This is not like a normal race.

Just my opinion.

cnj

[Cnj]

I have a replacement engine sitting on a crate for you. Special rate.

When a close competitor keeps on trying to sell you his old engine/head/etc for "cheap" you know its time to run

cnj

[Ken Quartuccio]

I agree with you
Never thought of it that way

[Jim Boemler]

I understand your desire to have the best attend, cnj, but keep in mind that it takes car count (regardless of talent) to be able to afford to put on the event at all. Car count really is a critical criterion, even if not the only one. As far as both car count AND quality of attendees, I wonder how much the choice of location has whittled down the participation from the western states over the years? Does anybody care if the west shows up anymore?

[Rob Burgoon]

I understand your desire to have the best attend, cnj, but keep in mind that it takes car count (regardless of talent) to be able to afford to put on the event at all. Car count really is a critical criterion, even if not the only one. As far as both car count AND quality of attendees, I wonder how much the choice of location has whittled down the participation from the western states over the years? Does anybody care if the west shows up anymore?

I'm not sure it's possible to have both coasts happy. Have it in the middle and lose both coasts? Probably best to plop it somewhere where the most racers can tow there in 12 hours and have testing, qual, and race over 2 days. h#ll, a single day might even be better and bring people from further. Tell me that isn't possible.

[Jim Boemler]

I still favor the old way of alternating sites. Testing, qual and race in two days is a regional schedule, not practical for a large event like the Runoffs. Remember you're not talking about just SM -- this is the big show, and you don't get to combine nearly as many classes.

[38bfast]

For me it is the track. Only 14 turns in 4 miles just does not cut it for me. We all know how to go straight. Way too much going straight at RA. Now if it was back at Mid-O I would be all over it. Then again my home track is only 1.4 miles with 14 turns.

At the beginning of the year I had the runoffs on my schedule, It got crossed off to do the NASA Nats. Next year I will not go out to Utah. Yet another track that does not do anything for me.

VIR would be a great place to have the Runoffs.

[suck fumes]

I feel that the race should be open to anybody that wants to run it
A lot of people try to get points and can't or can't make all the races because of other things
And don't qualify

Yaaaahhh ask everyone who ran in 2010 including myself how that worked out hahaha! There were so many wrecks involving slower cars that we only had 7 green flag laps!!!! After driving across the country!!! Waste of time. It needs to still be a front runners only race.

[suck fumes]

I understand they need car counts but the damage bill all of us aquire at the end of the race makes it not worth it!!! They should just lower the points minimum for people to be invited. Maybe top 15 per region instead of top ten? Allowing anyone creates a problem and causes a lot of tempers to flare.

[suck fumes]

I also would guess that NASA has a higher turnout this yr due to them moving to Utah next yr and people don't want to wait till they move back.

[Dan Cooper_155]

I don't see how any once except the top X% can get an invite. The last place team doesn't make the playoffs.

It's a national championship.

This may already be the case, i don't know. But i think the number of invites per region should be directly related to the average car counts through the season events.

[Jim Drago]

DQ? Loss of test day and practice privileges?

Seems like the revenue from the run-offs opportunity could offset the loss of revenue/participation from other events? Run-offs participants allowed as instructors or workers?

Just tossing it out there...

One issue is with current Runoffs model, The track pays the SCCA to put on the event. The track makes it's money from test days, parking, hospitality , pit bike passes etc. The main office is looking to 14 and beyond now. This may change to a traditional rental and SCCA put on the race like a normal National, it may stay the same.

[Jim Drago]

This

Club racing should be about inclusivity, not exclusivity. I've done several national events, with class sizes capped at 40 to class sizes open at about 75 or so. The one I'm most pleased with was 19th out of 73 and I had a blast. Being competitive is relative. Most of the money made in the class to the club is from the middle and back, both national and regional. The issue of slower cars is a straw man. The problems over the last couple of year that I've seen on tape have been from front runners. In club the Runoffs are a big deal but in pro racing as long as you make the field on time and have a proper license you can race. Club racing should at least be that way.

I understand that there might need to be some punch system to support the regions. Trying to artificially create exclusivity will hurt the SCCA in the pocket book. I think some of the reluctance to go is as CNJ says. The class has had a count spiral in the last few years due to more competition and top level prep, the economy, etc. That happens in every popular class, regardless of the vehicle or race type. Running that level of car and commitment is out of reach for most of the class. And others that might go are either reluctant or not able to qualify. I think something like 8 punches total (four weekends) and being fast enough so you aren't a moving chicane should be the minimum. If you show up and aren't fast enough, you go home. That happens at short track event or drags, pro and amateur every weekend and at the big dog events.

If I were running a business and had 40 people that wanted something in that peice range, I'd do my best to accommodate them. It's grassroots club racing and some folks have lost sight of that.

That was my proposal exactly, That is what we had in 2010, the biggest Runoffs field EVER by the way!! I prefer four races and your in and if need be, use the1XX % rule, even at 105% that is about 8 seconds