127 replies to this topic

[Rob Burgoon]

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.

I didn't say the whole event needs to be done in 1 or 2 days, just our class Runoffs goes all week, each class is only on site for a day or two. This also solves the problem of needing a venue with a big paddock.

Sorry if you guys have seen these ideas from me already, but I really think it's a recipe for a much bigger and higher quality turnout.

[Rob Burgoon]

If you had a massive turnout, you could add a "B main" to keep the riff raff out of the main event.

[Cnj]

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?

Jim,

Yes clearly car count impacts economic ability to put the show on and financial wisdom suggests maximum car participation. I suppose it's this inherremt economic bias that I hope won't sway decisions away from maintaining racing quality as first priority - a bias which (paradoxically) I believe would attract higher car count in the long run anyway.

As far as location goes that's easy, yawl jest need ta come on down hea ta Texas and race on our nice new track.


Cnj

[Speedycrw]

While I would love to attend the runoffs, the track really makes the decision for me. I really like to run Road America, however I do not have the horsepower to be compeititve there (an added dose of talent would help as well). The track demands that the car have max horsepower to be competitive, I dropped a new pro motor in the car, went through some serious dyno tuning, and still don't have the power needed to run at the very front. However, other tracks would allow me the possibility of being competitive in my current trim, passing higher hp cars would be very difficult, but not impossible, and there would be the possibility of holding that pass as well, at RA that won't happen.

There is also the issue of NASA and SCCA being back to back. Both events require large amounts of time, if you run both events, you will have to take two consecutive weeks off of work, not to mention budget issues(and I am unfortunately sure my budget is pretty large in comparsion to many out there). For now, NASA and MidOhio win out. In an ideal world, SCCA puts the runoffs at VIR, MidOhio, Road Atlanta, etc., when NASA heads out west. Maybe we can get both groups to work together to alternate coasts????

I like the slightly stiffer qualifying requirements of SCCA, it is after all a National Championship, and you should have enough committment to run the necessary races to get to the dance. I really doubt that is hurting the numbers this year. I really think a change in venue could help with the numbers....

[Jim Drago]

A good discussion. Couple of thoughts:


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.

To your point, short of Ken Sutherland EVERY driver in the top ten in National points is coming and registered, actually twelve of the top fifteen. So that alone is pretty impressive if we want the best of the best etc.

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.

That is also a fair statement and way too true on that Cadell kid, one of the most talented to come through SM IMO.

[dstevens]

My biggest expense is tires, accommodations and time away from work, definitely NOT car preparation

The guy that used to run Paul Tracy's karting team (and was also 'Dinger's tuner on that team) is now working in stock car world in Mooresville. He coined a phrase, at least in karting that was most of the cost was in "The Three Ts". Time, tires, travel. That's how it's been for me, as well.

[Jim Drago]

Next year is the 50th running of the Runoffs.. One of the thing that I think is a concern is the Runoffs,.at least IMO is not a clearly defined event. Is it the best of the best only? The best of the best and some others that run enough races? Maybe the 50th should be a VERY inclusive event, try and make it more of a party atmosphere with many friends and club members who all share a common interest and have a big race at the end and parties all week or weekend? ( that I s why I do this stuff, sure i like racing, but enjoy the friends I have made etc far more than the racing part.

For the record... ALL the accidents and contact of any consequence in 2010 was from people at the front or at worst from drivers that would have qualified under ANY system that has EVER been used in the SCCA. Perhaps a result of too many cars, but more than likely a result of too much testosterone and adrenaline flowing at the same time

[Cnj]

Next year is the 50th running of the Runoffs.. One of the thing that I think is a concern is the Runoffs,.at least IMO is not a clearly defined event. Is it the best of the best only? The best of the best and some others that run enough races? Maybe the 50th should be a VERY inclusive event, try and make it more of a party atmosphere with many friends and club members who all share a common interest and have a big race at the end and parties all week or weekend?

Jim - i'm comfortable with nuance here. I'm not binary on the issue (ie. only allow the best or allow all). My point in posts above, which you answered well, is that we need to attract the best - and apparently have done so (12 of the top 15 in the points). We should celebrate this loudly and encourage other top drivers to measure themselves against the best. What is a top driver? Each can make their decision and enter accordingly. This is not an egalitarian sport, but we can be reasonably generous on entry and current Runnoffs entry rules reflect this IMO. As far as fun is concerned, what could be more fun than hanging out with you?

cnj

[pat slattery]

We will be back running SCCA next year, We will never run NASA again even though the championship is in our back yard.

Keith, I think a 99 car will walk away with the NASA championship, i hope the 1,6 does, but skeptical about how the current 1.6 talent will stand up to Alex and Andrews well prepped cars and with great driving talent also

pat

[Ron Alan]

You may have 12 of the top 15 drivers(points) who do Nationals but not 12 of 15 of the best SM drivers. The West coast has been effectively excluded for years. We just had a Rational at Sonoma(Infineon/Sear Point) and had to close registration at 73 cars. To the best of my knowledge not 1 of these drivers will be at the Runoffs. Don't get me wrong...if the Runoffs came to Laguna Seca for the next 4 years I can't see many if any East coast guys attending.

I look forward to our "unofficial" Sonoma Sprints for next year

[Jim Boemler]

ALL: I moved a message from Frank (FTodaro) at his request, but the forum software put the message in date-time order, which many will miss. Please see Post #17 (on page 1 of this thread) for Frank's comments.

[MPR22]

Pretty simple for me.

Long trip.
Too expensive.
Cars not competitive right now.

As for the too expensive part: I have raced many weekends this year running two series, replaced the engine twice, car needs total R & R. Also I get paid by the hour, so taking a week or more off to go racing hits me twice in the pocket book. Not interested in going for the experience, I'm interested in competing for top 10 or better. That takes a better car, more money and more practice. Maybe next year.

[FTodaro]

Thank Jim. I did not have anything new to add from what has been said. I would like to add to the comments about moving the event every few years to a new track. First, that will help to get new people to attend the run offs, and in the process to get more people into the fold and more likely to return.

It would also change the dominance of just high HP cars. It would also, change the advantage that some of the drivers have who go every year and really know the track.

It would also increase the fun factor of going to new track. There are so many cool tracks being left out of the mix.

With Jim D, comments that the track pays SCCA To come makes that less likly.

[DrDomm]

Jim D, glad you suggest the 4 National requirement. I'm there Ken Q is one shy, and he deserves to come more than me.

Anyway, this discussion is part of the problem with SCCA and some of its members. Complain there isn't enough participation, and then prevent people from coming. If you want people to run Nationals in SM, you must allow them all to come to the Runoffs. If you don't (telling them they aren't good enough), they stop doing Nationals. Why else run Nationals? In SM, there is good competition at many Regionals, you get more track time, and usually don't have to travel as much. Personally, I'm missing 3 Nationals this year because I was working (on-call). The 8 National (or even Regional) requirement is tough for many. The other requirements for getting into the Runoffs are very difficult considering the competitiveness of the class. In other classes, you show up at 4 Nationals (2 in Div, 2 out), run half the laps, and you're in the Runoffs.

Road America is the perfect place to open the invitations. Four miles, and laptimes over 2:40. Over 13 laps, you'd have to be more than 12 sec off the pace to get lapped (barring any off course excursions/visits to pit lane). That's roughly 107%. From the Supps..."all cars shall qualify within 115 percent of the average of the fastest three qualifying times for their respective class." That's about 24sec. off the pace per lap in an SM. Granted, that's a bit much considering the way the leaders draft.........

Again, having "only the best" 20-25 cars/drivers at the SCCA's premier event in it's "Low Cost" (that's right out of the GCR) class isn't good for the SCCA's image. Allowing more competitors (that can meet a minimum lap time requirement...107%? 105%) might actually entice some of those competitive guys on the fence to come.

Craig, you brought up "measure of quality". That's what the race is for. It's not about registration. From Jim D's preliminary list, I think much of the pinnacle will be there...I wish there were more NEDiv guys (Nick's and Marc's teams), but oh well. I agree that it would be ideal if more of the "guys who are good" and veterans of the class were showing up. But if they aren't, then let some of the mid-packers who want to come fill the field. It's done in pro racing, but apparently club racing is above this?

And maybe we should stop listening to those who have decided to support another sanctioning body about who gets into the SCCA Runoffs. Sometimes committment is overshadowed by availability and resources.

[Jim Drago]

While HP and Car prep are certainly big factors.. It is a National championship. HP and car prep will ALWAYS be paramount at a National Championship, regardless of the track You may think X track or Y track will minimize this and that. In a spec class, the car matters far more than in a non spec class.

Since our cars have been at or around the top since it has been at RA, I would like to point out that these same cars are winning at the tracks "you think " will minimize the advantage. Hallett is probably the best example. You still need a monkey pushing the pedals and working the levers, you can't dismiss that fact. Tire knowledge, set up knowledge and experience are far bigger factors than HP IMO. Road America is probably about 10x more technical than most ever think possible by looking at it. The mistakes there are magnified by the straights, many incorrectly attribute mistakes to HP and car prep. I am sure that there are some who really are at a disadvantage etc, but in most cases, I don't think that is accurate. If you want to be competitive at the Runoffs,( wherever it is.) make it your home track. work on set up, work on car prep and work on driving. That is the best "advantage" you can get.

That being said, it is time for a change of venue. But hate to see people talking themselves out of coming, if you can't compete at Road America, don't kid yourself into thinking you could compete somewhere else either.

Jim

[Jim Drago]

Domm
If you run four Nationals, you should also be qualified in SM as well. Unless you never score points. You need only four Nationals and to be in the top half of all the Sm national participating drivers. It used to be point scoring, but by changing to participating, it lowers the min point total. I think you have to have some type of min participation to attend the Runoffs. Anyone interested in attending should have no issue doing four nationals and probably be a good idea anyway to get the seat time before the event.

[DrDomm]

Domm
If you run four Nationals, you should also be qualified in SM as well. Unless you never score points. You need only four Nationals and to be in the top half of all the Sm national participating drivers. It used to be point scoring, but by changing to participating, it lowers the min point total. I think you have to have some type of min participation to attend the Runoffs. Anyone interested in attending should have no issue doing four nationals and probably be a good idea anyway to get the seat time before the event.

I agree with all that. I have zero points.

But, I'm pretty sure I could be within say 105%. I had no intentions of considering the Runoffs this year, but I find it pathetic that there might be less than 30 cars. Currently 13 registered. Only one from the Northeast.

[MPR22]

Agree with Drago 100%. At the top level of spec racing car prep is as important or not more important than driver skill. As an example, Matt Reynolds car was 4-5 HP off of the top SW division cars for four weekends this season. His results were less than spectacular. Blake Clements car has been off all year. His results have been unacceptable. Two of the most talented drivers in the country can't win and struggle to podium when their cars are not tip top. The SE and the SW divisions are gladiator academy's for SM, the weaker cars and drivers don't win, ever. Other divisions have great drivers and great cars but the depth of both is shallow in comparrison and therefore the stars don't have to align for one or two drivers to dominate. To be competive at the Runoffs a combination of all the hard work, drivers skill and prep are required. . As Drago will attest you even need a little luck to win.

Should the Runoffs entries be exclusive, probably not. The entries are exclusive by virtue of the car prep and driver skill needed to compete at the top. That and the time commitment is a bit obnoxious. NASA has a more attractive national championship format and I believe it shows in the number of entries.

[Charlie James]

RA for too long, 99 the car to have there, prior head tech issues, prior short races(yellow flag debacle), anyone remember turn 2 lap 1 Topeka in 06?, Nasa championships at a popular car neutral track, overall prep war, soft economy for many,.......
Some of these are perceptions, some happen every year at any track, but the cumulative effect of these and then any personal issues/situations have taken a toll.

[Mike Collins]

Some know, not all... I attend the SCCA national convention EVERY year. Mostly it is a waste of time because the club hides behind excuses of how hard it is to make change. The Runoffs model is broke and they know it. The problem is not one of them want to leave a legacy of being the person that CHANGED it.

I worked VERY hard this year to get the rules changed on how to qualify, it was a minor change but it made it sort of more accessible to SM and SRF. The old rule worked for every other class except SM and SRF and it took days of showing some of these folks simple math that I learned in the 5th grade how to make it fair.

To qualify for the runoffs, you should meet some minimum participation standard not worry about earning point. It you want points you go to some crappy event that nobody goes to to get "easy points". Who wants to to that? I go to the BIG event with lots of drivers and finish 5th instead of winning at some half-assed event.

The runoffs takes WAY too much time!!!! I've been 4 times as a driver and once in tech. The event cost $10k-$12k if you test at all and eat anything other than pb&j and go out and a have few beers and enjoy spending time with other drivers. That does not count the car. Different folks have different programs, Drago and I own shops.... ask one of our customers what they spend.

When the SCCA comes the realization that the financial model they use now to host the Runoffs is broke it will be about three years to late and it will take at least another two years to fix...What year in this cycle do you think we are in now?????