How do you see the new BoD plan of 24 national classes....

[RonInSD]

I wanted to break this away from the GP thread and just talk about the 24 national class limit mystery plan. Part of me has a feeling that this plan is already done and mostly set in stone but the CRB is asking for responses. They plan on talking about it on the national convention (Schedule shows - "New Club Racing Program" on Friday March 2nd and then 2 hours of club racing town hall meetings on Saturday March 3rd). The only way I can see racers effecting this is to be vocal to the CRB, Ad Hocs, and at the convention.

Currently in the 2012 GCR there are 8 Formula, 4 GT, 3 ST, 3 Prod, 1 AS, 3 SS (SSB, SSC, B-Spec), SM, 4 Sports Racers (CSR, DSR, S2, SRF), and 3 Touring for 30 classes.

For 2011 these are the class that fell below the "old" 2.5 rule: GTL - 2.3, S2 - 2.3, SSB - 2.2, CSR - 2.2, GT2 - 2.1, T3 - 1.9, SSC - 1.9

Just throwing ideas at the wall to start a discussion:

6 Formula
3 GT
3 Prod
3 Super Touring
3 Touring
2 Sports Racer
1 SRF - Spec Class
1 AS - Spec Class
1 SM - Spec Class
1 B-Spec - Spec Class

I would also like to see a 3 to 5 year freeze clause in the new plan so this does not change during the next BoD elections and also a plan for if a class is not at a given level at the end of the freeze what will happen to it. This needs to be a firm freeze with no option of change at the wimp of BoD. It has been the past BoD that created this problem and now they are making the racers and CRB deal with it.

One thing I worry about is what the plan is for regional classes if they will be rolled into the national classes groupings. I say this since the new focus appears to be for "rational" type races only.

Again this is just to get discussion started as a whole 24 class limit and to get people's feelings.

 

[Larry Frankenstein]

Good question(s) Ron.

I didn't realize there were so many spec classes.

Mine are;
- Is there a "plan" in writing where I/we can read it?
- If I were to go to the Nat'l Convention (close to me this year), whom would I talk to and what would I ask for?

Thank you,
L

 

[JasonIsley99]

We kicked some consolidation ideas around the other day... Some seem easy, but surely none will be popular.

CSR+DSR
FE+FM
STO+T1
T3 finally put out of its misery after way to long on death row - which is really a shame, it had the potential to be a really cool and diverse class like T2, but just never caught on.

I would start with that. :mrgreen:

 

[disquek]

I have a simple question.

Why?

What will consolidation/elimination benefit? The run groups will be the same. Some people will change the letters on their car. Some people will leave and never come back. I fail to see how that's an improvement.

The runoffs is a different problem. You can oly have so many races in a finite period. So combine the races for some classes.

Inconvieniencing a few racers at one race seems like a much better solution.

Kyle

 

[RonInSD]

Good question(s) Ron.

I didn't realize there were so many spec classes.

Mine are;
- Is there a "plan" in writing where I/we can read it?
- If I were to go to the Nat'l Convention (close to me this year), whom would I talk to and what would I ask for?

Thank you,
L

Larry,
I called AS spec just because it is a little more limited but I feel it is getting closer to Prod and STO rules.

I have not been able to find anything in public writing as of yet.
I am also thinking of going down to the convention this year. From what I have seen about the schedules is that most of the meetings are geared towards RE and stewards. I know that some of the meetings are a forum question and answer sessions but I feel they may be more of a story telling seasons.

We kicked some consolidation ideas around the other day... Some seem easy, but surely none will be popular.

CSR+DSR
FE+FM
STO+T1
T3 finally put out of its misery after way to long on death row - which is really a shame, it had the potential to be a really cool and diverse class like T2, but just never caught on.

I would start with that. :mrgreen:

I was thinking of the CSR+DSR also since their times are so close and their chassis are getting so close also.

I was also thinking STO+T1 and then AS too. The other one is why not move all the Touring classes into Super Touring groups.

One of the other things that popped into my mind was GT and Prod but with 5 groups. This will upset two stable classes and would be harder to balance prep 2 tubs vs tube chassis. It would also cost the Prod guys the most but will answer the request by some prod guys for brake upgrades.

If you add the GCR regional classes into the mix to get down to 24 would just make things even harder.

 

[Larry Frankenstein]

Larry,

I have not been able to find anything in public writing as of yet.
I am also thinking of going down to the convention this year. From what I have seen about the schedules is that most of the meetings are geared towards RE and stewards. I know that some of the meetings are a forum question and answer sessions but I feel they may be more of a story telling seasons.

If enough Production guys go maybe the question and answer sessions could be more like the old "60 Minutes" Mike Wallace "interviews".

We kicked some consolidation ideas around the other day... Some seem easy, but surely none will be popular.

CSR+DSR
FE+FM
STO+T1
T3 finally put out of its misery after way to long on death row - which is really a shame, it had the potential to be a really cool and diverse class like T2, but just never caught on.

I was thinking of the CSR+DSR also since their times are so close and their chassis are getting so close also.

I was also thinking STO+T1 and then AS too. The other one is why not move all the Touring classes into Super Touring groups.

One of the other things that popped into my mind was GT and Prod but with 5 groups. This will upset two stable classes and would be harder to balance prep 2 tubs vs tube chassis. It would also cost the Prod guys the most but will answer the request by some prod guys for brake upgrades.

Re: CSR+DSR would we really want to do to them what was done to G?

 

[Larry Frankenstein]

What Al posted in the Gprod discussion seems to be germane here.

. . . to the effect that last year's Runoffs qualifying rules were excluding significant #s of serious SM and SRF competitors (and virtually no one else) by virtue of the fact that you could finish (to paraphrase) in the top half of the field at a bunch of Nationals in those classes and get nary a point.

The CRB agreed to look into that and - I suspect - that's where this year's rule came from.

IMO, what we as Prod racers should be doing is arguing against two things:

1. The overall idea that SCCA "has too many classes" (as I've said before, what I think this usually means is "too many classes other than mine")

Many (maybe too many) drivers are bunched up in spec classes and now they are unhappy they can’t be in the Runoffs which is because there are too many there. An outcome (one of many IMHO) SCCA probably never considered.

I see less of an issue with this in SM because they can move up to Production, although it seems like the powers that be may not like that.

I was also thinking STO+T1 and then AS too. The other one is why not move all the Touring classes into Super Touring groups.

I’ve been away from SCCA for a while so could someone tell me the basic differences between Prod and the T and ST classes? Can either of them merge to Production easily/realistically?

 

[RonInSD]

I’ve been away from SCCA for a while so could someone tell me the basic differences between Prod and the T and ST classes? Can either of them merge to Production easily/realistically?

T and ST have an years limit on the cars so most prod cars would be out. Prod is a full slick instead of DOT tires like T and ST. For ST the rules are currently not by car spec line for the most part and they are a little more vague on what you can do to the car. I envision that over time car spec lines will be added to ST as one car dominates a class and needs specific adjustments based on comments from the other racers. Based on past history it will be a BMW or a Mazda that will cause that type of change...LOL

 

[jdh]

STO has spec lines. Where would a 7 liter Camaro fit in prod?

 

[Matt Blehm]

I’ve been away from SCCA for a while so could someone tell me the basic differences between Prod and the T and ST classes? Can either of them merge to Production easily/realistically?

T and ST have an years limit on the cars so most prod cars would be out. Prod is a full slick instead of DOT tires like T and ST. For ST the rules are currently not by car spec line for the most part and they are a little more vague on what you can do to the car. I envision that over time car spec lines will be added to ST as one car dominates a class and needs specific adjustments based on comments from the other racers. Based on past history it will be a BMW or a Mazda that will cause that type of change...LOL

Basically, ST is built around former world challenge prep levels. DOT-R tires, fairly open suspension using stock suspension design (i.e. coilovers, slightly relocated mounts, stock spindles), some aero (wings and splitters), better brakes, Engine build levels similar to Prod. 12:5.1 compression, 0.5" lift maximum. Turbo cars allowed with inlet restrictors/weight. NA engines have a weight/displacement limit. Engine swaps within the makes using US-sold engines are fine. i.e. 2.0L Acura engine in a Honda civic at 2200lbs. 3.0L Nissan engine in an Infiniti G20 at 3300lb (although that would be stupid to do.) Alternate trans OK- including sequentials up to 6 spds in STO and STU.

There are a TON of options to build a fast car in ST, but it will be expensive to run up front.

Honestly, it's not a place *most* Touring cars want to go. IT guys can double-enter in STU and STL and run national events, but they will be outrun by any reasonably-prepped ST car.

 

[JasonIsley99]

First session at Sebring and FE/FM are one tenth apart... Keep it up boys, makes it easy to put you together. :lol: :twisted:

 

[mg_john]

Here is a tongue-in-cheek response to the same question from Apexspeed forum:

Spec Miata
Super Spec Miata
Slightly Spec Miata
Stupendous Miata
Special Miata
Formula Miata
Formula Miata Enterprise
Formula Spec Miata
Miata Sports Racer
GT-Miata
GT-Miata Lite
Miata Production
Unlimited Miata
Limited Miata
Extreme Miata
Showroom Stock Miata

 

[RonInSD]

Basically, ST is built around former world challenge prep levels. DOT-R tires, fairly open suspension using stock suspension design (i.e. coilovers, slightly relocated mounts, stock spindles), some aero (wings and splitters), better brakes, Engine build levels similar to Prod. 12:5.1 compression, 0.5" lift maximum. Turbo cars allowed with inlet restrictors/weight. NA engines have a weight/displacement limit. Engine swaps within the makes using US-sold engines are fine. i.e. 2.0L Acura engine in a Honda civic at 2200lbs. 3.0L Nissan engine in an Infiniti G20 at 3300lb (although that would be stupid to do.) Alternate trans OK- including sequentials up to 6 spds in STO and STU.

There are a TON of options to build a fast car in ST, but it will be expensive to run up front.

Honestly, it's not a place *most* Touring cars want to go. IT guys can double-enter in STU and STL and run national events, but they will be outrun by any reasonably-prepped ST car.

Matt,

Thanks for expanding on ST rules. I generalized a little too much in my explanation.

Matt, I think you touched on something that may be the BoD is over looking. Yes, Touring, AS and even IT could technically could be combined with ST but would those drivers even want to race with ST because they could be going from a front running car to a back marker unless they spent the money to prep their cars to full ST rules. The same applies for Prod and GT. Yes, technically Prod and GT groups could be combined but would drivers still want to race in the new grouping. It would take a lot of money on everyone part to make the changes to the cars. GT would most likely need lead, and prod would need brakes, suspension, motor changes, and a lot more fiberglass/carbon fiber. Personally I really don't see slick tire classes and DOT tire classes being combined for the most part. Yes some Prep 2 Prod cars could be converted to ST rules easier then GT rules. A lot of Prod cars could not run in ST because of the age restriction.

This goes back to what Kyle stated, why does the BoD feel we need to reduce the number of classes. Personally I also think that at some levels we have to many classes because there may only be 1 or 2 cars in a class level at give race. This may just be a MidDiv thing since we are the smaller division but since some classes are not meeting the 2.5 rule it does appear to be a national issue.

 

[Matt Blehm]

SW Div is in much the same boat, although we have a pretty huge SRF and SM following here. Each of these classes get their own run group, while IT, Prod, GT, ST, SS, T all together make up two more run groups and usually never have more than 3 or 4 in each individual class. For the biggest national races from last season, we had roughly ~4HP, ~6FP, ~9EP, ~9STU, 3GTL, ~3SSC.

To combine any of these classes and have parity, you're going to have to drop some serious coin either to make your car faster, or to strip off fast parts and replace with stock stuff-- spending money to go slower! How many Prod guys want to rebuild their engines with less cam and compression, add weight, find a stock dashboard to put back in, replace half their suspension with stock stuff, then take slicks off and run DOT-Rs? (I'd really prefer they allow ST to run slicks myself....) That's definitely going to get some cars parked.

It's the same for Touring to go to ST, although a well driven front-running T car should be able to be fairly easy to get to ST specs. They already have a good suspension and "reasonable" brakes (the T cars that really needed brakes were given them, and the 350/370Zs, EVOs, STis, and the like already all had Brembos from the factory.). So take out some weight, bolt on a wing, and run. When you're ready, build an engine.

the build differences between GT, Prod, and ST cars are quite vast though. I could sorta see Prod and GT being combined, but a L1 Prod car vs. a tube GT car? ouch... nobody will be happy with the results there.

I'm not sure why they need fewer classes myself either. Sure it makes Runoffs a hassle to run 30 classes through, but with some scheduling changes, that's a problem of the past. Yes some classes may need to be combined (EP/FP/GTL, SSB/T3, CSR/DSR, T2/STU, T1/STO/AS are some "out-of-thin-air" suggestions..), but these guys are almost always combined with these same run groups at a regular race anyway.. Yeah it's Runoffs, but if you want to race and keep your class, you're going to have to work with others and you just might be stuck on track with a slower group.

Yes, fewer classes SOUNDS like an easy way to make Runoffs happen easier.. But who are you going to cut, and why? No matter what classes you choose to combine or cut, there will always be unhappy people. GT4/GT5, HP/GP are some of the first that come to mind.

 

[racerbob4]

.
"This goes back to what Kyle stated, why does the BoD feel we need to reduce the number of classes. Personally I also think that at some levels we have to many classes because there may only be 1 or 2 cars in a class level at give race. This may just be a MidDiv thing since we are the smaller division but since some classes are not meeting the 2.5 rule it does appear to be a national issue.[/quote]


If the CRB and the BOD wants to reduce the number of classes why do they keep adding more classes? Do these people drink when they meet because there doesn't seem to be much consistancy in their decisions. T3 has been kicked around for two years and yet we were able to get 16 cars to the runoffs which was more than or as many as 13 other classes I think. We will not turn our car into a ST car as long as there are other places to race.

 

[R. J. Sorensen]

Why do they want fewer classes in road racing , and yet allow over 50 ? classes in Solo (a bigger participation club activity)?

"Run-Offs" driven thinking!

(as opposed to "T' ball mentality: everyone gets a trophy)

They keep wanting "old car/classes" to go away. With membership at 42,XXX, I'd say it's working.

RJS

 

[Al Seim]

I have a simple question.

Why?

What will consolidation/elimination benefit? The run groups will be the same. Some people will change the letters on their car. Some people will leave and never come back. I fail to see how that's an improvement.

The runoffs is a different problem. You can only have so many races in a finite period. So combine the races for some classes.

Inconveniencing a few racers at one race seems like a much better solution.

Kyle

Exactly!!! Was SCCA somehow improved when GP got the axe? No, the run groups are the same, some people changed the letters on the side of their car and some people left and never came back.

Well put, Kyle.

Al Seim

 

[James Wiley]

There are, what, 100+ SCCA Club races all over the country during the season with thousands of participants, and one single race at the end of the season with 500 participants is driving overall Club philosophy? I'm happy the Runoffs exist for those who want to go that far and spend that much, but the very idea that a new policy should cause unnecessary trouble and expense for one single member, or worse, lose that member, over creating a slightly better experience for a minority of the Club is absolutely ridiculous. National needs to wake up and realize that their precious "showcase" event barely registers in the consciousness of the majority of us, and start focusing on the health of the Club as a whole.

James Wiley
#72 HP Midget
Atlanta Region

 

[mengelke]

It's all about the scdedule for the Run-Offs. 24 classes is easier to manage over the 3 days of racing.

 

[bfloyd]

Mike E. are you being sarcastic or is that the genuine driving force.

Bryan Floyd