SCCAForums.com

I have written a letter to the SEB asking them to lower the minimum participation requirement for the Prepared and Modified classes. If you also think the requirement should be lowered, write the SEB (seb@scca.com) and tell them! I also feel strongly that the SEB should ask for member comment on changing the participation requirement.

GP is currently "on the bubble" (as is DM).  SM2 barely made it this year with 19 drivers after falling short in 2006.  FP had 19 drivers (2 more cars but 3 fewer drivers than in '06), so if only 1 car with 3 drivers is unable to attend Nationals in 2008, then FP will fall below the minimum requirement.  I feel strongly that the current minimum of 17 drivers is unfair to the Categories that require cars to be built.  Prepared cars are purpose built for the class and generally have no other use than in Solo.  I also asked that no changes to GP be required if the club is considering changing the participation requirement.

I urge the SEB to request member comment on the minimum participation requirement. When the number of drivers was raised to 17 several years ago, it was done without member input. The SEB asks for comment on most rule changes, even fairly minor ones, but no member comment was requested on a rule change that could eliminate an entire class! This issue was raised at both town hall meetings last year, so it is definitely on the minds of the members. The reasons that Prepared and Modified should have a different participation standard have been stated many times and I won't repeat them. One of the reasons given for eliminating classes is that the cars are always eligible in other classes. But eliminating classes does drive competitors away. As an example, after BP was eliminated as a national class only three drivers returned to compete in the 2007 Nationals in any car. Prepared and Modified drivers are the backbone of the sport. There are 52 drivers who have been to Nationals for over 25 years and 40 of them compete in Prepared or Modified!

 The convention is in a few weeks and I'd like to get this on their agenda, so write today!

 I'm speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the PAC

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

stevemhudson:

I urge the SEB to request member comment on the minimum participation requirement. When the number of drivers was raised to 17 several years ago, it was done without member input. The SEB asks for comment on most rule changes, even fairly minor ones, but no member comment was requested on a rule change that could eliminate an entire class!

Baloney, Steve. 

8/2004 Fastrack

See Item #2 under "Solo".

Rules season was followed, proposal was properly sent out, feedback was received, item then voted on and sent to the BOD.  As it turns out, the number of folks against the proposal via feedback was small.  Makes sense when you consider that the number of folks in undersubscribed classes is also small.

--Andy

 

Howdy, 

Andy Hollis:

stevemhudson:

I urge the SEB to request member comment on the minimum participation requirement. When the number of drivers was raised to 17 several years ago, it was done without member input. The SEB asks for comment on most rule changes, even fairly minor ones, but no member comment was requested on a rule change that could eliminate an entire class!

Baloney, Steve. 

8/2004 Fastrack

See Item #2 under "Solo".

Rules season was followed, proposal was properly sent out, feedback was received, item then voted on and sent to the BOD.  As it turns out, the number of folks against the proposal via feedback was small.  Makes sense when you consider that the number of folks in undersubscribed classes is also small.

--Andy

Personally, I think we should just have everyone write in and vote for the class they like best.  Then we'll reduce the number of classes to one.  Since we'll have picked it by choosing what a majority of the membership wanted, we'll also be in line with our core values, at least as some folks chose to interpret them.

Mark

(wait.  Two classes.  We'll need a ladies class so that we can give out national championships to people who wouldn't trophy in the open class.  Can't forget that one!)

Howdy,

And, now that my bitterness is out of the way...

Steve I support changing the minimum requirements to better reflect the realities of what it takes to prep a car and what's at risk if the SEB yanks out the rug for the various different categories/classes.

I've written letters to that effect too.  So far, nothing out for member comment.

Hopefully yours is better received.

Mark

marka:

(wait.  Two classes.  We'll need a ladies class so that we can give out national championships to people who wouldn't trophy in the open class.  Can't forget that one!)

That's quite the blanket statement regarding ladies class competitors...:-/

---

Beth McClure-Strelnieks
SM2 11, 20B '93 Rx7 R1, Black
DS 11 '08 BMW 135i
05 AMG SLK 350

Mr. Hollis is correct.  I was told by someone whom I considered a reliable source that it did not go out for member comment and I did not check that myself.

I'm still in favor of lowering the minimum participation requirement for Prepared and Modified.  One option for doing that would be to base participation on the number of cars rather than the number of drivers.  It's more difficult to find suitable drivers for a P and M car than it is for a stock car.  A person 6-2 and 250# is going to have a hard time fitting into a P/M car set up for a 5-10 160# driver.

A Mod had 6 cars last year, so maybe the minimum participation requirement should be 5 cars or 10 drivers.

Again, write the SEB and tell them your opinion, seb@scca.com.

 
 

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

I don't understand why instead of eliminating classes, which gives them very little chance of revival in the future, we don't set a minimum number to "make" a class and use the "non-championship events" Bumping Order?

I think that using the Bumping Order would end a lot of the grousing regarding ladies classes and classes with weak participation.

I'm also in agreement with Steve that P and M classes should be held to a different standard than S-SP-ST classes due to the barriers of entry to the class. I feel that the timing of the rules shakeup and the two-year requirement may be hurting some classes like D-Mod (which finally has a somewhat stable ruleset) and D-Prepared (which is finally allowed to use post 1980 technology). I'd agree to either greatly lower the participation number, or slightly lower the participation number AND lengthen the time requirement for P and M classes.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

stevemhudson:

Again, write the SEB and tell them your opinion, seb@scca.com.

 

Yes, please write letters no matter which "side" of this subject you are on. Feedback in quantity=good! :)

DaveW

Not Official

I'll add some counter-point to the "P & M cars take longer to build so they should get a break on participation" argument.  Understanding this counterpoint will help you better craft your letters since it is what you will be working against.

While it may be true that building a P/M car does take considerably more time and resource than some other categories, once the class has been in existence for several years, that time lag goes out of the picture.  Instead, what you are really working with is retention versus recruitment rates.  Its about how many new folks are coming into the class versus the number exiting.  The "car-building" lag really only effects the results-lag from recruitment drive efforts.  IOW, if the class decides to promote itself in any particular year, results of said effort might take two years.

In particular, Steve's original mention of FP has nothing at all to do with "time to build a car".  Its merely the fact that the number of folks joining the class <=  the number of folks exiting the class.

--Andy 

Andy Hollis:

I'll add some counter-point to the "P & M cars take longer to build so they should get a break on participation" argument.  Understanding this counterpoint will help you better craft your letters since it is what you will be working against.

While it may be true that building a P/M car does take considerably more time and resource than some other categories, once the class has been in existence for several years, that time lag goes out of the picture.  Instead, what you are really working with is retention versus recruitment rates.  Its about how many new folks are coming into the class versus the number exiting.  The "car-building" lag really only effects the results-lag from recruitment drive efforts.  IOW, if the class decides to promote itself in any particular year, results of said effort might take two years.

In particular, Steve's original mention of FP has nothing at all to do with "time to build a car".  Its merely the fact that the number of folks joining the class <=  the number of folks exiting the class.

--Andy 

 

Time lag is always in the picture.  If a class is on the bubble, a competitor may choose not to start a build because they are worried about the status of the class.  Why start a car that takes years to complete if you are worried about the future of the class.  This isn't stock where I can lease a car today, have tires shipped and be ready to compete next weekend.

 There were more cars at nationals last year in FP, but fewer drivers, because there was no FP ladies class.  The class is healthy, folks are building cars, there just weren't any ladies that chose to compete in FP in 2007.  So they get close to the minimum. 

The minimum participation number was raised a few years ago and this has caused a hardship for competitors in Prepared and Modified.  Should this arbitrary number remain in place or should the rule be adjusted to help the Prepared and Modified categories? 
 

 
 

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

Originally the minimum participation number was 0, raised to 12, then 17. I'm not sure of the timing but these limitations came about the same time as many new classes were started, the ST and SM classes, which have been successful. That is a good thing. I don't remember any sentences in the rule book that ever said there should be no more than XX classes, so I see no logic to explain why the 12-car limit was initially imposed Unlike our road racing friends, there is no real time-based need (i.e. fitting the classes into a pre-set time frame) to be fulfilled, thus solo can have as many classes as needed. Rocky's letter covers it all, except to remind the SEB and BoD they do have the ability and responsibility to repair flaws in the rules, such as the class limitation rule. --Pat Kelly long time member

I don't think it is a big deal to have more classes at Nats from a event management perspective. You will just have more classes run at one time if #'s are low in some of the classes.

SS runs by itself...A bunch P and M classes get bunched together in one run group.

What is the difference? 

A little more work for posting people/grid/announcers etc.

Do we want 200 classes? Probably not THAT many since posting results would take 10 easy-ups to cover all the results boards. But this thread isn't about adding classes but deleting ones that exist now due to minimum participation #'s. Or maybe it is about adding new classes and shoving "old" ones out in order to "make room".

Do we want so many classes that you can easily pick one that ensures you race yourself? Probably not...

I think some people want SOLO to go in directions that would increase overall #'s but you can do that without killing what exists now.(see first line of this post).

FM (longtime member who doesn't understand why people run P and M classes but I don't want to rain on their parade either).

 

 

 

Andy Hollis:

...While it may be true that building a P/M car does take considerably more time and resource than some other categories, once the class has been in existence for several years, that time lag goes out of the picture...

--Andy 

But every time the rules change, the time lag starts again. And the number of folks that wait to see how the new rules affect the class just end up waiting even longer. DP looks like it's gaining traction due to the new rule set and removal of the GP cars, but it's taken years for folks to decide it was a class worth building a car for. Even though DM and EM have stable rulesets, they -SEEM- unstable and become unactractive to a potential fabricator.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

So instead of spending your energy asking to change a number, why don't you go out and campaign for people to come play in your sand box.  Having a fully prepared car is not a requirement.  If people are excited about a class, they will make sacrifices for running it short term.

Marcus

---

Marcus
ESP 89
FS 89 for this year
www.margravemotorsports.com

ESP89:

So instead of spending your energy asking to change a number, why don't you go out and campaign for people to come play in your sand box.  Having a fully prepared car is not a requirement.  If people are excited about a class, they will make sacrifices for running it short term.

Marcus

 I do both.  Some people prefer to come to Nationals more fully prepared than others, and that is their choice.  And you know that there is no such thing as a "fully prepared" car.
 

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

modernbeat:

But every time the rules change, the time lag starts again. And the number of folks that wait to see how the new rules affect the class just end up waiting even longer. DP looks like it's gaining traction due to the new rule set and removal of the GP cars, but it's taken years for folks to decide it was a class worth building a car for. Even though DM and EM have stable rulesets, they -SEEM- unstable and become unactractive to a potential fabricator.

So who's to blame for those rules changes?  DM/EM participants have asked for the changes. Same with DP/GP.  Same with adding FI to all of P.  All of that stuff was instigated by the appropriate ACs which are made up of participants in those categories, the put out for member feedback with resultant positives coming back from class participants.

So the class receives changes they asked for and now they get to use that as an excuse as to why they can't make #'s?  Hmmm...

--Andy 

Howdy,

I think the main thing that chaps people off about the minimum participation rules is as much that the rule doesn't really say what we know happens as anything else.

Is 17 a little high for P or DM/EM?  Personally, I think so.  Others disagree.

But I think most everyone would agree that 17 is probably too low for stock classes and some of the other "easier to build" classes.  History shows this... There have been plenty of examples of the SEB proposing class changes to the membership to fix some of these lessor mod classes well before they've really come close to the 17 participant minimum.

What I'd like to see is some type of sliding scale regarding minimum participation levels.  I _do_ believe there should be some minimum participation standards to compete for a national championship, unlike some.  Something like this would be good (to me):

#1, any class (and I'd love to include ladies classes separately, but that's a separate battle as well) that fails to meet its required minimum participation level the first time will be put in 'probation' status.

#2, in following years, any class currently in probation will not award a national championship unless the minimum participation levels are exceeded.  Exceeding minimum participation levels will cause the class to immediately (that year) be eligible for a national championship and will 'reset the clock'.

#3, any class that remains in probationary status for five years will be eliminated except for AM.  AM will only be eliminated if its in probationary status for five years _and_ the winning AM time isn't in the top 25 raw times on average over the five years, excluding events where AM runs in the rain.

#4, participation levels.  All Stock: 25 participants.  All ST, All SP, FM, CM, F125: 18 participants.  All SM, All P, BM, DM, EM: 11 partipants.  AM: 4 participants.  If you want to treat ladies classes seperately, drop the above levels by 25% across the board and assign those minimums to the corresponding ladies classes.

Any new class will follow the above except that it starts in probationary status and to get out of probationary status it must exceed 150% of the minimum participation level two years in a row.

If anyone other than me thinks this is a good plan, I'll write it into the SEB.  They already have a bunch of letters from me about minimum participation stuff in general. 

Also.. As to why I support lower participation levels in the "more modified" classes in general... Part of it is that the cars do have a longer ramp up time and also have a higher "risk of huge loss" factor if the rules change to make the car undesierable in solo.  A stock class car rendered uncompetitive by a rule change can be sold to a large market for a good percentage of its value.  A Prepared car is at best worth 50 cents on the dollar for the parts that would be attractive to other motorsports. 

But beyond that... A Prepared or Modified car _requires_ a dedicated tow vehicle and tow equipement, along with storage ability for all that plus the car itself.  It cannot be run on the street in any reasonable manner.  And I'm not talking about "boy, that's a rough ride".  I'm talking about "your ass is in jail". 

A Prepared or Modified car also requires a lot of home fabrication skill to build or a crap-ton of money to buy that skill from very specialized sources.  Yes, certainly on an SP car you have one-off parts like custom bushings or some minor fabrication, but its nothing like the wholesale chassis/suspension engineering and fabrication that is usually required on a P/M car.  (Btw, this is why I've put CM, FM, and F125 in the "SP & ST" bucket above... Not nearly the same level of fabrication required as the P, BM, DM, EM cars.

Each of those two factors by themselves results in a pretty serious reduction in the potential pool of competitors.  With both factors together its frankly amazing to me that we have as many entrants in these classes as we do.  I think we, as the solo community, are richer with these types of cars and competitors at our events and as such shoul set more realistic minimums that reflect the more limited pool of competitors those classes would appeal too.  Let's encourage people to come out to events rather than threatening the ones that are already there!

Mark

marka:

Each of those two factors by themselves results in a pretty serious reduction in the potential pool of competitors.  With both factors together its frankly amazing to me that we have as many entrants in these classes as we do.  I think we, as the solo community, are richer with these types of cars and competitors at our events and as such shoul set more realistic minimums that reflect the more limited pool of competitors those classes would appeal too.  Let's encourage people to come out to events rather than threatening the ones that are already there!

Mark

And this is the heart of the matter.  Your post does a nice job of of detailing the major contributors to "why" the situation is as it is.  The question, though, is how much of our resource do we cater to smaller and smaller classes?  And furthermore, at what point does a National Championship lose its significance?  And don't the people in those classes actually want someone to run against once in awhile?  Isn't it kinda silly to run around all year with no one in your class regionally, and many times at Tours?

The class participation guidelines don't say "your class goes away".  They suggest when *something* should be done, like consolidation.  And if the latter can be done in an equitable way, everyone wins.  Participants get actual people to run against for a change.  This *is* a competition, right?  Or is it a social club?

--Andy

PS: I'll add one to your list of why P has fewer participants.  It reflects old-school thinking on how people naturally progress their cars these days, outside of SCCA rules.  Before R-compounds, to go significantly faster you *had* to go to slicks. And for that, you built a "real race car".  There was nothing in between.  Now, many factory cars are already very close to "real race cars" in equipment and resultant performance.  Add R-compounds and you are running very quickly indeed.  And for some lowered powered cars, add forced induction or a motor swap, and you are running as fast as Prepared.  These are the things people do for the street.  P is a dinosaur in this regard, as it does not reflect popular culture.  And, as you say, its a much longer development road to get there.  Today's generations are into immediate gratification.  Building a P car is anything but, unfortunately.  Some embrace that, while most will choose otherwise.

FWIW, here's what I sent to the SEB

 

Dear SEB,

---

Jeff in Colorado
1998 Omni-Fab Cheetah SR-1
66 BM