SCCAForums.com

Howdy,

Remember way back when, when Marcus said "Hey, why not work on marketing your category, instead of whining about the minimum class size"?

Well, I think he fails to realize just how bid a disincentive the minimum participation hammer is.

But HE WAS RIGHT ON THE NEED TO MARKET!

Chuck's (I assume it was Chuck?) awards aren't something I'd want to be an official SCCA award, but they're _perfect_ awards to hand out at your category's party.  I'd also add some "fun ones" like "least prepared vehicle", "best limited funds vehicle", "longest distance" etc.

What's that you say?  What category party?  Its the one that the Mod and Prepared folks need to make sure we have!

CP gets a bunch of folks coming to nationals because of the social aspect of nationals along with the competition and chance to have an autocross vacation.  Do the folks in the last half of the field have any illusions of winning?  Probably not.  Perhaps not even trophying.  But they darn sure expect to have fun and hanging out with a bunch of other like minded idiots is a great way to do it.

Someone or better yet a group of someones needs to sit down _today_ and decide to make something like this happen.  The competitors will support it.  More folks are likely to come if its there.  It just needs a few people to lead it who understand that Topeka is an insane blend of competition, being part of the biggest autocross event in the world, and hanging out with buddies you might not have met yet.

You do that, and fix the current minimum participation insanity to reassure people they aren't jumping onto the Titanic, and we won't be having these conversations in five years.  We need both.  Marketing alone gets shot in the foot by the minimum participation hammer and changing the minimum participation rules all by themselves won't do much good without someone banging the "come out and have some fun with us!" drum.

Mark

dglong:

Modernbeat, This is Del Long. Do I know you? Do you know me? I can NOT speak for anyone else in D/E Mod, I'm NOT nitpicking the Rule Book apart...

We've met in the real world, and on the Yahoo groups. I post as modbeat2 there. I'm Jason McDaniel. Spoke to you at Nats regarding the Ferrari engine for my LLA7 that I bought from Gene Young. I'm racing the car in B-Mod as an in-excess D-Mod this year.

FWIW, I don't think what you are doing is unsportsman like. Competitors SHOULD go to the end of the rules. BUT, I think that when you, or the rest of us in D-E Mod spot a loophole, we should have the MAC/SEB fix it. Not advocate exploiting it. I'm guilty of it too. I've pushed the STS2 rules, and have been attempting to stretch the P rules so I can more easily take advantage of the allowances.

The latest round of "GT bodywork" talk on the Yahoo group is absolutely frightening. I think it's completely against the spirit of the class. You guys were afraid of bike motors, yet you advocate aerodynamic GT bodywork? I think that those discussions, and fear that a competitor's car MUST be fully prepared to a level that's not obvious based on a combination of overly-clever rulebook reading, scare off some folks. The DM Elan that was profiled in Sports Car is what I think most folks think of a D-E Mod car. Not the mashup of sports racer and GT car.

Mark,

• With regards to awards for other types of excellence shown at Nationals.
• I see those as being serious enough so that most people would  want one 
• They don't have to cost SCCA Corporate anything in time or money, but the awards would not be trivial in nature and perhaps be judged and handed out by the various advisory committees as framed certificates.-
• Beer party spoof awards have their place and would be great also

• Encouraging better attendance to keep classes from being combined or eliminated-assume for the moment that it is a given and no amount of whining will change it-this could be true
• No trophies or awards of any kind for low numbers might seem kind of heavy handed
• Does anyone doubt that a lot of people who didn't bother twisting their friend's arms to go before would do so then?
• Here is an alternative: Bumping as suggested by someone else earlier-but without the fodder problem 
• Classes that fall below x cars get bumped-but only to higher classes that have a PAX that is within a limited range away
• This way, the higher classes don't realize as much of a  fodder benefit to their own survival-they have to work at their attendance too
• If nothing else, they may work to get more attendance back in the bumped class to stop the annoyance of the bumped class taking some of their trophies
• Done this way, no class EVER gets eliminated. It always has a chance to revup and become a standalone class again
• Better???

Mark, that post a couple hours ago brings about a "Ok, you're HIRED!". 

Seriously though, I agree. I'm still putting together my first car. This whole mess has me considering more than the build. Whether to build still surfaces whenever the current thoughts fade.

Loren 

The rule for minimum participation is written very loose on purpose.  Any sign of life can postpone changes.   From my personal opinion, getting out and trying to improve the class numbers by making it more fun or suggesting rule changes to get more people are both actions that should be rewarded with leniency toward the minimum participation.  Look at DP this year, numerous people went out and advertised how much fun the class and the cars were and they look to be on the rise now.  The corollary is just whining about something does not make it better.  I don’t think anybody on the SEB or AC’s wants to drop a class.  It is a sign of failure but you have to have the intestinal fortitude to admit failure and move on.  I would love to see 100 classes with 25 participants in Kansas.  It would be a hell of a show and great fun.  100 classes with 12 competitors per class would not be much of a show but still fun.

And BTW, you don't have to be on a committee to pump up your class.  Having fun at local events and telling people about the insanity at Topeka is a great start.

Marcus

ESP89:

The corollary is just whining about something does not make it better. 

Haven't read any whining about this issue on this board or scca.com.  What I have read is some pretty reasonable and useful input.

ESP89:

I don’t think anybody on the SEB or AC’s wants to drop a class.  It is a sign of failure but you have to have the intestinal fortitude to admit failure and move on.  

It's easy for someone on the SEB to "admit failure and move on".  It's alot tougher when it's the owners of cars who are serious about going to Nationals and they suddenly have their class eliminated by their friends on the SEB.  If you think about it, it's downright outragious for a grassroots autocrosser with little background or authority who sits on an appointed board to declare that 16 entrants is not a legitimate class and therefore you are losing your class.

I did not call this whining.  There are some good ideas here. 

One person does not make any SEB decision.  And nobody is excluded from Nationals based on what kind of car they have.  Their competitveness may not be what they like but that is the case of over half the competitors in any given class.  So just to make this clear, BP can run at Nationals in XP or EM if they like. Nobody has been disenfranchised to my knowledge.  Every rule change to some extent adjusts competitveness.  For some it is good and for others it is bad.  Every competitor lives with this in any competition.  Be it F1 or shuffle board. 

Admitting failure is not something any competitor likes to do.

We obviuosly disagree on what is a healthy sport and how to grow it.

Marcus

ESP89:

We obviuosly disagree on what is a healthy sport and how to grow it.

Carrying this further, it seems like the only fundamental difference is people's perspective on this: At what point is a class "dead", from a National Championship basis (which is the only thing impacted by this since regions can do whatever they want)?  The rules say 17.  Some say 12 is more like it.  Some say 24.  

Clearly there is *some* number at which point *everyone* can agree the class is dead.  0 is one such number, obviously.  1, 2, 3 would also seem to be agreeable.  Where you finally draw the line seems to be the big point of contention.  Nothing more, nothing less.

--Andy

Howdy,

DMSentra:

Mark, that post a couple hours ago brings about a "Ok, you're HIRED!". 

Seriously though, I agree. I'm still putting together my first car. This whole mess has me considering more than the build. Whether to build still surfaces whenever the current thoughts fade.

:-)  I figured someone would say that...

I'll say that I'd be a bad choice overall.  I tend to bounce around among many classes & such.  Plus, I'm one of those "life changing event" folks... Our son is going to be 1 year old here in a few days and I don't see me being anything beyond a casual national competitor any time soon.

I know, I know, we've all got excuses... :-)

Mark

Andy Hollis:

Clearly there is *some* number at which point *everyone* can agree the class is dead.  0 is one such number, obviously.  1, 2, 3 would also seem to be agreeable.  Where you finally draw the line seems to be the big point of contention.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 I think zero (0) is a pretty big indicator of a lack of interest. If you get three guys driving all the way to Topeka to contend for a national championship, where's the harm? They're the ones who have to live with the stigma of having only three drivers. LOTS of women win championships, by the way, with only one in the class, and somehow, the world keeps spinning.

These three drivers still pay the same entry fee. They still work just like everyone else. If they weren't in bla bla class, they'd be in another one. Or maybe they wouldn't even go at all. Or is that the aim? Is this really all about keeping numbers down?

This arbitrary number of 17, or anything, interferes with the natural ebb and flow of economics, interest and trends. That is, classes have enough problems of their own without the SCCA adding this unnatural one. This number needs to just go away, and then and only then will you seel see a class in its truest, most natural state. And only then will people be able to address the real problems, which are, really, creating what is the most fair. You can't even begin to address that with the looming threat of a class becoming obsolete, because then you have people going to nationals out of fear, or not going at all. So it doesn't help; it only acts as a threat interferes. And that makes little business sense to me. Am I totally off base wondering about that?

 -Katie Kelly

IMO, not off base at all. I completely agree. 

KatieKelly:

Andy Hollis:

Clearly there is *some* number at which point *everyone* can agree the class is dead.  0 is one such number, obviously.  1, 2, 3 would also seem to be agreeable.  Where you finally draw the line seems to be the big point of contention.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 I think zero (0) is a pretty big indicator of a lack of interest. If you get three guys driving all the way to Topeka to contend for a national championship, where's the harm? They're the ones who have to live with the stigma of having only three drivers. LOTS of women win championships, by the way, with only one in the class, and somehow, the world keeps spinning.

These three drivers still pay the same entry fee. They still work just like everyone else. If they weren't in bla bla class, they'd be in another one. Or maybe they wouldn't even go at all. Or is that the aim? Is this really all about keeping numbers down?

This arbitrary number of 17, or anything, interferes with the natural ebb and flow of economics, interest and trends. That is, classes have enough problems of their own without the SCCA adding this unnatural one. This number needs to just go away, and then and only then will you seel see a class in its truest, most natural state. And only then will people be able to address the real problems, which are, really, creating what is the most fair. You can't even begin to address that with the looming threat of a class becoming obsolete, because then you have people going to nationals out of fear, or not going at all. So it doesn't help; it only acts as a threat. And that makes little business sense to me. Am I totally off base wondering about that?

 -Katie Kelly

So how about if you just say below some number no more rule changes?  I know nobody thinks resources matter, but they do and are limited.  Trying to find a solution to a dying class takes time.  That was my basic point above.  At some point you have to let it go and spend your limited time on something  that might have a chance of succeeding. 

In any business, you don't want to give up on ideas but at some point you need to manage your resources.  I know both Randy and Katie are familiar with this. We are only just discussing at what point is it hopeless?  0 is a dead horse and at that point you have wasted resoureces if you were working on it.  The higher the number the more motivated competitors will be to make sure their class has good competition and fun.

The ladies class discussion is totally out of this in my opinion.  As a family sport, we live with the ladies classes to support families.  At the National Championship there are arguments to not have Ladies Classes.  At local events, I think it depends on the region. 

Enjoy!

Marcus

Andy Hollis:

ESP89:

We obviuosly disagree on what is a healthy sport and how to grow it.

Carrying this further, it seems like the only fundamental difference is people's perspective on this: At what point is a class "dead", from a National Championship basis (which is the only thing impacted by this since regions can do whatever they want)?  The rules say 17.  Some say 12 is more like it.  Some say 24.  

Clearly there is *some* number at which point *everyone* can agree the class is dead.  0 is one such number, obviously.  1, 2, 3 would also seem to be agreeable.  Where you finally draw the line seems to be the big point of contention.  Nothing more, nothing less.

As I wrote earlier, 12 was a random limit.  17 is random.  Anything would be random.  There was no reason to change from 12.  All the hoopla started then. 

I think that part of the reason that this is such a hot issue is that there are two basic schools of thought.

<caution - oversimplification to make a point follows> 

One camp wants a jacket that "means something", ie, they beat out a significant number of people to get it (further complicating things is the fact that the "significant number" varies...)

The other camp believes that there would be more competitors overall if there were more classes, and that even if you only beat one other person, that jacket means something.

I can see the point of both....  Although I will say that I admire Shauna Marinus and Rita Wilsey (SP?) a heck of a lot more than a certain AML in a Honda a few years ago....

Question to the PAC/MAC/SEB (current and/or past):  would the rules be more or less complicated for each class if there were fewer cars in each class to try and make competitive with each other, and would the OVERALL rules resulting from this be easier to manage? 

ESP89:

So how about if you just say below some number no more rule changes?  I know nobody thinks resources matter, but they do and are limited.  Trying to find a solution to a dying class takes time.  That was my basic point above.  At some point you have to let it go and spend your limited time on something  that might have a chance of succeeding. 

In any business, you don't want to give up on ideas but at some point you need to manage your resources.  I know both Randy and Katie are familiar with this. We are only just discussing at what point is it hopeless?  0 is a dead horse and at that point you have wasted resoureces if you were working on it.  The higher the number the more motivated competitors will be to make sure their class has good competition and fun.
 

The SEB doesn't have to spend any resources working on a "dying" (in their opinion at least) class.  Leave it alone and let it die.  Or, leave it alone and let the participants work on it until it really dies or takes off again.  Either way, the SEB has not wasted any resources on it.

 The change from 12 to 17 was a philisophically poor decision carried out for some biased reason.  Over on the scca.com forum, Marcus used the buzzword "relevance".   I continue to wonder what that means.

ESP89:

One person does not make any SEB decision.  And nobody is excluded from Nationals based on what kind of car they have.  Their competitveness may not be what they like but that is the case of over half the competitors in any given class.  So just to make this clear, BP can run at Nationals in XP or EM if they like. Nobody has been disenfranchised to my knowledge.  Every rule change to some extent adjusts competitveness.  For some it is good and for others it is bad.  Every competitor lives with this in any competition.  Be it F1 or shuffle board.

Intellectually dishonest.  If you eliminate the class a particular car was designed for, then you are disenfranchising.

Yes, a rule change adjusts competitiveness.  We're not talking about adjusting competitiveness.  We're talking about eliminating it.
 

I wonder if the minimum participation number is something like the Fed Interest Rate?   E.G. A number that needs to be periodically adjusted up and down to adjust to the current market.  (I'm not referring to the part where it's used as to calm markets, etc)

My unofficial opinion is that the number is a little high right now.  But, I just don't see dropping it entirely, or massive changes as being good. I also don't see how keeping it too high is good for growth of the sport.  How can you grow if you alienate a portion of your membership? 

Are any non P&M people reading this thread?  (Besides SEB or EX-SEB members)  If you are, and have an opinion either way, please write a letter to seb@scca.com

Not official and just random thoughts,

DaveW

Question to the PAC/MAC/SEB (current and/or past):  would the rules be more or less complicated for each class if there were fewer cars in each class to try and make competitive with each other, and would the OVERALL rules resulting from this be easier to manage? 

Only a few years on the PAC, but the number of cars actually attending doesn't make the rules any easier, unless you mean removing eligibility entirely for some cars. 

Even if someone isn't running one, you have to watch for the killer car or making a new killer car with a "simple" allowance on another car.

It might make it harder.  Much harder.  A lot of time is still being spent on what to do with various BP refugees.  Given the unhappiness of some DM guys over recent changes, I can't imagine the amount of time that would be needed to to consolidate DM and EM.  In a class where almost any autocross weakness can be corrected, how do you equalize ~1300# 150hp cars with ~2000# 400hp cars?  Really the same thing with prepared as well.

DaveW

47CP:

Question to the PAC/MAC/SEB (current and/or past):  would the rules be more or less complicated for each class if there were fewer cars in each class to try and make competitive with each other, and would the OVERALL rules resulting from this be easier to manage? 

Only a few years on the PAC, but the number of cars actually attending doesn't make the rules any easier, unless you mean removing eligibility entirely for some cars. 

Even if someone isn't running one, you have to watch for the killer car or making a new killer car with a "simple" allowance on another car.

It might make it harder.  Much harder.  A lot of time is still being spent on what to do with various BP refugees.  Given the unhappiness of some DM guys over recent changes, I can't imagine the amount of time that would be needed to to consolidate DM and EM.  In a class where almost any autocross weakness can be corrected, how do you equalize ~1300# 150hp cars with ~2000# 400hp cars?  Really th