183 replies to this topic

[CruzanTom]

I never said I wasn't bitching about expenses - I clarified that I was bitching about how much * more * expensive MARRS became this year.

My safety concerns are way beyond my own wreck and I am hardly alone in this region on this one! And it's not just safety is the expense of contact and the lost racing.

Well, your arguments are flawed. You biatch about MARRS but you are not running for a MARRS championship. As Mike Collins pointed out, the MARRS schedule this year is the same as last year. No one is making you travel this year.

But if you think NASA Mid Atlantic is better for travel, then consider that NASA has half of its races at VIR, the track you mentioned in your blog as being too expensive to travel. Under either NASA or SCCA schedules, you can race half their races at Summit and chose which races to travel.

If you want constructive feedback, then my suggestion is to just race BOTH SCCA and NASA races at Summit and be happy.

Don't travel. Don't biatch to others because you chose not to travel. Don't biatch because others want to travel and experience other tracks that you cannot afford. Don't biatch because someone on this forum happens to disagree with your point of view. If you think your point of view is correct, then get involved in your local SCCA or NASA group and help change things. Bitching here won't get it done.

[LarryKing]

"limiting tires like we do in sailing"

Boats don't have tires. Jeeeeez

[Mike Collins]

Just to clarify...MARRS is ruuning more events this year than any other, with more travel than ever. However, we have the same number of home races and did not drop any of the traveling races...we only added.

[jeopardyracing]

Just to clarify...MARRS is ruuning more events this year than any other, with more travel than ever. However, we have the same number of home races and did not drop any of the traveling races...we only added.

Thanks for your posts Mike, and I totally get that part. If a local guy like me wanted to race the same number of local races, he still could. Totally true and understood. The point of my post is that someone who really wanted to compete for a championship faces much higher costs given recent changes to the series. And even thought it's been clearly pointed out in this thread that mid pack guys couldn't win the championship anyway, we are all competitive and may choose to enter a series and try to do the best we can, meager talent and budgets not withstanding. Who knows, maybe we get a bang out of trying to place in the top 10 or something like that. Although we are non events for an actual championship, we'd like to try to set personal championship goals. And if many championship rounds are out of our reach, we may look for a series with a schedule more in the VIR / Summit / NJMP sphere of things. In other words, nearer to the DC region. It's true that all of these involve travel from the DC area, but less than the farther away rounds of MARRS this year and that means more costs and more time we don't have.

That means that the MARRS series will attract a different group of competitors than those who are of more limited means. And means those of us of more limited means will increasingly participate in other series like NASA. Now what happens is that the whole character of the series changes - the culture, the set of people attending, etc.

My point wasn't 'SCCA sucks and NASA rules' my point was: if I can enter a championship series where I can make most of the rounds, I'd enter that one. And that is fine with me and perhaps fine with the MARRS series - but I thought it would be constructive to air the fact that such may be a consequence of those changes and to ask the question: is this what the MARRS series wants? Since there already are national / pro series, should the MARRS series move in that direction and further away from grassroots, local racing?

Mike, we all appreciate the hard work you guys in the region do and if I didn't care about the SCCA I wouldn't have bothered to write the post or talk late into the evenings with SCCA folks discussing the issue. I would have just switched clubs silently. So we all really do appreciate what the SCCA volunteers do. But that being said, these are very real concerns for many of us that I thought warranted a debate.

[LarryKing]

What local championship series does NASA have?

[jeopardyracing]

What local championship series does NASA have?

Mid Atlantic regional championship, awards by class.

[N Bruni]

One thing to point out is that while yes the MARRS series is traveling more this year it has not ventured much further than VIR. Looking at how many miles away each away race is they are actually just about the same as VIR with the exception of Charlotte Motor Speedway. Even then the series has given us a choice to not travel to all these races by allowing us to drop four races in the calculation of the final points standings for the season.

VIR=260
Nelson=270
Watkins=289
Jersey=210
Charlotte=360

I believe one factor that the series takes into account when choosing where to hold an away race is that the participants must be able to hop in their truck at the end of the work day Thursday and arrive at the track later that evening.

[dstevens]

1) Ouch. 2) and fine. Then it's a level playing field and I get beat fair and square and I know why.

The sail purchase limits worked very well and I think they are worth a try here. Feel free to disagree, but please stop short of saying I 'don't get it.' You seem to forget that some of us come from other sports and even if we're newbies to car racing, it isn't our first rodeo in life and we're not idiots just because we're not running up front yet. To say that others will always outspend / etc is defeatist - why have any rules at all at that point? We have to start somewhere and this is one idea.

I see your point and I'm not going to demonize you for it. I just don't agree or that hasn't been the case for me in just over 12 years of racing.

Racing isn't fair, it's never been a level playing field and won't be. Too many variables and you can never stop the other guy from spending more money.

Tire limits, which are more common in circle track, have a downside as well. To really control the supply it turns into a single supplier source. Either the track or a contractor chosen by the manufacturer for the track/region. Been involved in that first hand and while it seems that it's a good way to go, once you do it a couple of things happen. First, you drive out the "cottage industry" or wider support from other dealers. You8r local vendor or shop sponsor probably won't be able to provide you with tire service. While we didn't get tire contingencies, we got cold, hard cash in the form of points money and per race purse. The guys that were fast were still fast. A way around the tire rule is to go to other regions/sanctions for testing using the other races. Or buy tires from a dealer and rent tracks to test. It's good on paper but at the hobby level I haven't seen an advantage. My experience is that it's a cost escalator and I've seen it decimate more than one class locally. Same with crate/sealed engine rules in classes that don't have complete spec packages.

You use F1 as a model but most of the other pro series have been using the same model far longer than F1. It works that way because the tire bill in touring pro level is an order of magnitude greater than hobby racing. First, the tires are leased, per event, meaning you don't own them or take them with you. The sanction and the supplier control the supply end to end. Last I looked earlier this year NASCAR touring series tires were $1650 per set, leased. Indycar tires were right under $2000/set, leased. Each of those series operates as a standalone entity. That's not necessarily the case with hobby level racing where one or two regions might get a fair amount of cross over. You would need to allocate tires per event, not per season to keep some teams from hoarding tires. A common rule is four tires at your first race of the season, two per race that you finish at the next event. Some are more stringent in that you can only use tires purchased for that event but that's usually only for the larger/more prestigious events and not the run of the mill local and regional events. Those sanctions do not allow for flat spotted tires. Flatten a tire or two in a set and you are usually SOL. Any replacement comes from the allocation.

I'm not trying to hammer you but "low cost" is a relative term in racing. When one jumps into what is arguably the most competitive class in hobby/club sports car racing the competition is intense. That drive the cost model. Not just for SM, but for every class with that amount of competition. One has to be comfortable in knowing both their skill limits and financial limits and schedule accordingly. To run at the front in this class on a national SCCA level is going to cost ten's of thousands of dollars in equipment, track time, and travel.

[Mike Collins]

So from my house....

VIR - 277 miles
NJMP - 152 miles
Watkins Glen - 260 miles
Nelson Ledges - 303 miles
Charlotte - 405 miles
Summit - 60 miles

Nelson and the Glen are the same distance as VIR????? I don't get it. I'm not trying to take an opposing view.

[jeopardyracing]

One thing to point out is that while yes the MARRS series is traveling more this year it has not ventured much further than VIR. Looking at how many miles away each away race is they are actually just about the same as VIR with the exception of Charlotte Motor Speedway. Even then the series has given us a choice to not travel to all these races by allowing us to drop four races in the calculation of the final points standings for the season.

VIR=260
Nelson=270
Watkins=289
Jersey=210
Charlotte=360

I believe one factor that the series takes into account when choosing where to hold an away race is that the participants must be able to hop in their truck at the end of the work day Thursday and arrive at the track later that evening.

But Nick lots of these were doubles, so even though there were drops it would be hard to compete seriously in the series my missing them and of course there were more traveling races to begin with. I think it is sort of beyond dispute that competing for MARRS this year was significantly more expensive than in prior years, especially for SM competitors with the change to Hoosiers. That change is going to continue pushing out the low budget programs and moving the MARRS series toward a higher and higher buck series. That was my point.

[Mike Collins]

Nick.... You thought the same thing I did. I think your mileage is from Summit which makes it even closer....

[dstevens]

You never answered any of my question on how you were going to distribute tires. (How many tires, how do you manage test days, and different people running a different number of races; let's hear it).

There are more tracks/sanctions running controlled tire rules on any given weekend in the season than there are SM races in any given month. Karting, local circle track and off road racers have been doing this for several years. The pros even longer. I was first exposed to it about 10 years ago. They do it, have done it but there are at least as many disadvantages than there are advantages.

[N Bruni]

While I can understand how you came to form your opinion, I can't say that I agree with it.

I would have to disagree and say that the cost to compete in the MARRS series this year is no more expensive than in previous years. With the way the drops are set up, you can travel to two away races just as it has been in previous years and not suffer any points penalty from it.

As for the tires I have bought exactly the same number of new sets of Hoosiers this season as I did in Toyos last season and still have been competitive in the top 10. So that is not adding any additional cost to the series. Actually from what I have witnessed all the front of the pack drivers are still buying new sets at the same rate as they did the Toyos last season.

I run on a low budget program and do not feel that the MARRS series, is in no way trying force me out by supposedly moving to a higher and higher buck series.

[jeopardyracing]

I see your point and I'm not going to demonize you for it. I just don't agree or that hasn't been the case for me in just over 12 years of racing.

Racing isn't fair, it's never been a level playing field and won't be. Too many variables and you can never stop the other guy from spending more money.

Tire limits, which are more common in circle track, have a downside as well. To really control the supply it turns into a single supplier source. Either the track or a contractor chosen by the manufacturer for the track/region. Been involved in that first hand and while it seems that it's a good way to go, once you do it a couple of things happen. First, you drive out the "cottage industry" or wider support from other dealers. You8r local vendor or shop sponsor probably won't be able to provide you with tire service. While we didn't get tire contingencies, we got cold, hard cash in the form of points money and per race purse. The guys that were fast were still fast. A way around the tire rule is to go to other regions/sanctions for testing using the other races. Or buy tires from a dealer and rent tracks to test. It's good on paper but at the hobby level I haven't seen an advantage. My experience is that it's a cost escalator and I've seen it decimate more than one class locally. Same with crate/sealed engine rules in classes that don't have complete spec packages.

You use F1 as a model but most of the other pro series have been using the same model far longer than F1. It works that way because the tire bill in touring pro level is an order of magnitude greater than hobby racing. First, the tires are leased, per event, meaning you don't own them or take them with you. The sanction and the supplier control the supply end to end. Last I looked earlier this year NASCAR touring series tires were $1650 per set, leased. Indycar tires were right under $2000/set, leased. Each of those series operates as a standalone entity. That's not necessarily the case with hobby level racing where one or two regions might get a fair amount of cross over. You would need to allocate tires per event, not per season to keep some teams from hoarding tires. A common rule is four tires at your first race of the season, two per race that you finish at the next event. Some are more stringent in that you can only use tires purchased for that event but that's usually only for the larger/more prestigious events and not the run of the mill local and regional events. Those sanctions do not allow for flat spotted tires. Flatten a tire or two in a set and you are usually SOL. Any replacement comes from the allocation.

I'm not trying to hammer you but "low cost" is a relative term in racing. When one jumps into what is arguably the most competitive class in hobby/club sports car racing the competition is intense. That drive the cost model. Not just for SM, but for every class with that amount of competition. One has to be comfortable in knowing both their skill limits and financial limits and schedule accordingly. To run at the front in this class on a national SCCA level is going to cost ten's of thousands of dollars in equipment, track time, and travel.

Thanks for the reply. I had a very simple idea in mind for tire limits. You enter a series like MARRS and you have a limited number of tires per season that you can COMPETE with. So the idea is that each competitor gets an allocation per season. As s/he replaces tires, she gets them marked at the tech shed - similar to how we seal SSMs today, only they can be marked at any tech. The tech folks tally how many tires have been marked for you, and when you run out you run out. The tire allocation factors in needs for things like flat spots, punctures, etc. The grid folks then check to be sure each car going out to qualifying or race has valid marks. Obviously we'd need to come up with marks that are permanent - maybe some way to score the sidewall with the seal. In sailing we affixed a button to each sail physically. I've been made a laughing stock for this sailing parallel but I raise this idea completely as a new idea from something I've seen elsewhere to address the exact same problem. I'm trying to suggest creative solutions apart from "go back to RA-1s" which is what I and many competitors really want.

No limit on tires outside of the series, in practice, etc. The idea isn't to limit total number of tires bought per year - we could never enforce that. The idea is to prevent the need to "sticker up" to get a tire that is < 8 heat cycles, so the only time the tire marks are enforced are in qualifying and racing for the series only. Make sense?

Just a creative idea to solve the arms race brought on the the Hoosiers.

[dstevens]

Jepoardy calls THAT harsh? That was downright cordial.

Hardly cordial. Some of the folks are beating this guy like a Sunday morning hard on...

While I don't agree with his premise, I'm not going to personally attack him because of his views.

[dstevens]

"limiting tires like we do in sailing"

Boats don't have tires. Jeeeeez

Mooser, you've obviously never been to a waterless boat figure eight. I guess technically the boats don't have tires.

It puts the tango in Whiskey Tango...

[Glenn]

EDIT.....

[MPR22]

But Nick lots of these were doubles, so even though there were drops it would be hard to compete seriously in the series my missing them and of course there were more traveling races to begin with. I think it is sort of beyond dispute that competing for MARRS this year was significantly more expensive than in prior years, especially for SM competitors with the change to Hoosiers. That change is going to continue pushing out the low budget programs and moving the MARRS series toward a higher and higher buck series. That was my point.

I appreciate you wanting to race for a title for as little money as possible. I appreciate you not wanting to travel on Thursdays and Mondays for a race weekend. I appreciate that you think Hoosiers are more expensive than Toyos (not true by the way).

Racing for a points championship at any level is going to cost more money than randomly showing up to local regional races when and if they fit your schedule. If the MARRS series has become too expensive because you feel you need to travel more to be competitive, then utilize your right to walk away. This may not be what you want but, it may be your best option given your arguments. I,like you, don't enjoy being told "tough that is just how it is" or my favorite "SCCA won't change don't waste your time writing letters" I will tell you the same thing I tell anyone who has ever worked for me, Don't present me with a problem unless you are willing to give me 3 well thought out solutions to your probelm and be willing to implement the solutions. Posting a blog explaining why you are leaving the SCCA and then explaning; that it is too expensive to run for a regional championship is not the best method of getting what you want. As others have pointed out SM is not grassroots racing. IT or Chumpcar is much more grassroots racing. Those may be a better options for you than NASA. NASA Texas does not have any drops, every race on the calendar counts for points. A DNF alone almost precludes a front runner from winning a championship.

SM is a great class and small local series like MSRH's Spec Miata Challenge can be inexpensive and fun. I don't think it is reasonable to chase a series title at any level in SCCA or NASA and not expect to travel or spend more money than the average participant on tires.

Have fun and race as much as you can afford. I am sorry that chasing a series championship can be costly, it would be a blast to be able to run a set of Star Specs for 5 race weekends at two local tracks (90 miles or less). We don't have that option here and I doubt any place else in the country does either. Chumpcar gives the option of running the Star Specs and a miata, again maybe that is the answer. We have a blast every few months, we even win occasionally.

[dstevens]

Obviously we'd need to come up with marks that are permanent - maybe some way to score the sidewall with the seal. In sailing we affixed a button to each sail physically. I've been made a laughing stock for this sailing parallel but I raise this idea completely as a new idea from something I've seen elsewhere to address the exact same problem. I'm trying to suggest creative solutions apart from "go back to RA-1s" which is what I and many competitors really want.

I don't see you as a laughing stock. You are throwing out an idea but it's been tried before and is currently used in many series. Branding is a better way to mark the tires. Too easy to cheat up non permanent marks. If you sold enough tires, you could have the sidewalls printed. Your idea isn't new. Let's look at the Super Stock class at LVMS Bullring, a division 2 NASCAR Whelan All American Series class. Roughly on par with club SM in cost and talent though it doesn't do touring points races. To get around the single sourced LVMS tire rule the racers test at off weekends at Havasu with the same compound tires, and before they closed, Irwindale and Orange Show. All of them 2 to 5 hours tow distance. At Havasu tire control rules aren't as strict and Orange Show didn't have any, only a compound choice. Irwindale had as strict a tire rule as the Bullring, including possible impound until the next race. As a result, the deep pockets guys had to buy at least three sets of tires to test at that level. During open tire rules they would have bought that many tires and tested more at the Bullring. But now there is the added time and expense of traveling. That's one way around a single source tire rule.

Super Karts USA has the Supernationals every year, the largest professional international kart race in the US. The pro class, KZ2 attracts factory teams worldwide and operates under CIK homologation. (CIK is the karting arm of the FIA) They make you buy all tires from them, no limit for practice and only two sets available for the race, quals, 3 heats and an LCQ (like a B main with transfers for the classes with more than an entry cap of 40). They have a unique compound for the series and cost is round $200/set. If you are a delaer, team or importer (which most at that level are or have access to that pricing), you cost is more like $140/set. Let's say you do 10 sets for the week. About 2 grand from Tom and the gang when your team could buy a like compound tire from MZ for $120-$140 depending on quantity. That's not saving anyone any money. Your 8 race tires can't be replaced unless they are defective. You can also provide one set of rains, compound speced, supplier open. But if it rains, you don't get a refund on your race tires.

Both of these are current examples of limited tire rules and the effect they have on cost. For the racers that are well funded, they can always find some way around the rules.

[jeopardyracing]

I appreciate you wanting to race for a title for as little money as possible. I appreciate you not wanting to travel on Thursdays and Mondays for a race weekend. I appreciate that you think Hoosiers are more expensive than Toyos (not true by the way).

Racing for a points championship at any level is going to cost more money than randomly showing up to local regional races when and if they fit your schedule. If the MARRS series has become too expensive because you feel you need to travel more to be competitive, then utilize your right to walk away. This may not be what you want but, it may be your best option given your arguments. I,like you, don't enjoy being told "tough that is just how it is" or my favorite "SCCA won't change don't waste your time writing letters" I will tell you the same thing I tell anyone who has ever worked for me, Don't present me with a problem unless you are willing to give me 3 well thought out solutions to your probelm and be willing to implement the solutions. Posting a blog explaining why you are leaving the SCCA and then explaning; that it is too expensive to run for a regional championship is not the best method of getting what you want. As others have pointed out SM is not grassroots racing. IT or Chumpcar is much more grassroots racing. Those may be a better options for you than NASA. NASA Texas does not have any drops, every race on the calendar counts for points. A DNF alone almost precludes a front runner from winning a championship.

SM is a great class and small local series like MSRH's Spec Miata Challenge can be inexpensive and fun. I don't think it is reasonable to chase a series title at any level in SCCA or NASA and not expect to travel or spend more money than the average participant on tires.

Have fun and race as much as you can afford. I am sorry that chasing a series championship can be costly, it would be a blast to be able to run a set of Star Specs for 5 race weekends at two local tracks (90 miles or less). We don't have that option here and I doubt any place else in the country does either. Chumpcar gives the option of running the Star Specs and a miata, again maybe that is the answer. We have a blast every few months, we even win occasionally.

Many of the posters here didn't actually read the full blog post. The entire intent of the post was SAYING what I was doing and explaining WHY: increasing my focus toward NASA and away from SCCA. So I already SAID what I was doing. In the blog I then go on to STATE that IF losing guys like me to a competitor like NASA WAS a concern to the SCCA, here were the causes. And the IF was intended to be perfectly open to the idea that the MARRS series may NOT want to target guys like me as their intended audience, which would be fine too. God knows plenty of posters here are inviting me not to let the door hit me in the rear. LOUD AND CLEAR.

As far as suggesting solutions, by obvious implication the inverse of the causes described in the blog would be prescriptions for attracting low buck guys like me back full time: Limit the number of 'out of region' events in MARRS each year (alternative suggested by a poster here: have a 'local' sub championship), either go back to RA-1s or implement a tire purchase limit to control tire purchase costs, overhaul the driver training / licensing procedures to reduce on-track incidents (which drive up costs and intimidate newbies), and rigorously enforce the sanctions for contact on track (also to reduce on track contact).

No disrespect, but please read the whole blog and the comments here before posting.