SCCAForums.com

ESP89:

I think we just fundamentally disagree on a basic point.  For Solo to be respected form of motorsports competition, I believe a National win needs to have some value based on competition.  A Runoffs win is a highly respected trophy and it is not because they have a lack of competition.  Many people think of solo as just a stop over until they move on to real racing.  Is that our goal, just to be a stop over when somebody is bored?  A step child in the SCCA family? 

As for Ladies classes, there are multiple options to handle this differently and it is a big discussion.  Regional and National handling could very well be different. Mark has made constructive suggestions but there was not (at least while I was on the SEB) a ground swell of support for any changes in that area. 

Adding classes or keeping old classes will for the short term (I think) grow participation but over the long haul, I question the strategy. 

And just for your information, Jennifer and I do not agree on this at all.  :)

That is my opinion and it is not worth the paper it is not written on.  We have change over in leadership for this very reason.  Opinions differ and in a sport full of type "A" personalities, they will often disagree vehemently.  The pendulum stings with each change, hopefully in smaller and smaller angles each time.  I believe I understand the points for not having the number but I don't agree.  I think solo should be a respected motorsports competition and I believe others share that feeling.  We don't necessarily agree on what that means and how to make it happen.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled off season discussions.   Can we get rid of R tires in Stock?  Should Stock mean showroom floor condition?  Can I please change my timing belt in Stock?  How about each Stock class gets a rim size?  Spec tires in a Spec class? What should be done about direct injection in Prepared and Modified and Street Mod?

:)

Marcus 

I've run SCCA SOLO or equivalent events since 1973. I even did a couple of Road Race drivers schools.

I've never won a National Championship. (my cars have)

Several (6-10) D/E Mod competitiors run all our local Region events. Most of our local D/E mod competitors go to Nationals. If, by some miracle I could win a jacket running against "only" our local Region competitors, it would have HUGE personal value to me. The value is being faster than the folks that are there. 10 or 100 doesn't matter, as long as I know it is the best 10 or 100.

I've never been to the RunOffs, I don't ever intend to go to the RunOffs, but I'd like to be a SOLO Nationals competitor till I get too old to get in and out of the D/E Mod car.

Del Long

ESP89:

I think we just fundamentally disagree on a basic point.  For Solo to be respected form of motorsports competition, I believe a National win needs to have some value based on competition.  A Runoffs win is a highly respected trophy and it is not because they have a lack of competition.  Many people think of solo as just a stop over until they move on to real racing.  Is that our goal, just to be a stop over when somebody is bored?  A step child in the SCCA family? 

Wait. You drive your car around orange traffic cones, in parking lot, for time. And you're worried about what people think of you.

-Katie

marka:

Howdy,

SpyderVenom:

Prepared and Mod aren't moving up in the sense that you think.  Time was that in order to go fast, you have to build a P/M car in order to use real racing slicks.  Now DOT R-compounds are just as sticky and many classes in SP and SM are within a couple of tenths of Prepared cars on course at substantially lower investment costs.  
 

Is that the same SM that has one of its two classes on the minimum participation bubble as well?

Sounds like maybe that's not the full story then, eh?

Mark

Well, I think it is part of the whole story.  IMHO, there seems to be a limit in time and money that people will invest to go around cones in a parking lot.  That limit has been going down especially in the last few years.  And what we are seeing is a move away from highly prepared/engineered cars and toward cars that give 95% of the performance for the price of an extra set of rims, a front sway bar, and a set of tires.  Prepared and Modified as categories require more investment, not just in terms of thier cars but also in terms of their support - tow vehicles, tools, storage space, tinkering time.  At a National level, one doesn't just go out on a whim and build a car.  So when you look at the regional level - there is even that many less people willing to make that commitment.  And each local region is where your National competitor base comes from. 

I have the car mod bug is a big way.  I do understand wanting to engineer a car to do exacly what I want it to.  I see myself in a DP or CP car in a few years.  If I had access to a wind tunnel, I might even consider AM (I don't but would still consider AM).  I run Stock right now and I am very involved in these conversations because I do want there to be Prepared and Modified classes in the future.  But they have to be viable and be able to draw new blood to the category.  The rules have to be straight forward and easy for someone with only a few years autocross experience to understand.

modernbeat:

It's not always about going fast. One of the big challenges that most competitors in these classes face is BUILDING and TUNING the cars. They're not know as builder's classes for nothing. Plus, if any Stock class competitors ever get tired of the what-car-this-year hokey-pokey, they can move to P&M and feel free to modify their car as it becomes obsolete, rather than trading it in on the next car with a quasi-warranty. 

I do understand that.  But "the next generation" of autocrossers who build and tune cars have found different outlets for thier creativity.  The SP and SM categories have taken people who might have gone to P&M.  The best P&M cars start as a bunch of tubing on a garage floor and that's daunting to a whole lot of people out there.  It was daunting to me up until I had such a pile of tubing on my garage floor, a tubing bender in one hand and a welder in the other.  It's up to people like you to convince people like me (and someone considering going to SP or SM) that it really isn't that much harder to do. 

I happen to believe that some of our popular assumptions are not quite correct-not that correcting them will change much!

Someone said:

"I believe a National win needs to have some value based on competition. 

A Runoffs win is a highly respected trophy and it is not because they have a lack of competition.

Well...when was the last time you spoke to a road racer who actually understood Solo and exactly what we do?

I have, and several have surprised me by saying that they thought that a Solo Championship was harder to accomplish than a road racing Runoffs Championship..

Maybe they didn't know about some of our small classes.  

But John Q-Public probably doesn’t know that some of the road racing classes have been so small that the Run-offs Championship win was really an "attendance award" too?

or that a road racing win is many times about whose car lasts the race-not who is the best driver. Most of our cars will last six 45 second runs-so our venue is probably biased to be more about setup and driving than "lasting". 

BTW, a lot of road racing classes are being lumped together now because the separate class numbers are so small.  The new F-1000 motorcycle powered 1000# w. driver formula car class barely got off the ground and it was grouped into FB.  (100% legal for Solo BM also with another 20# added,) 

Look at ARRC results in latest SportCar. BTW their run-offs is at Road Atlanta- one of the many tracks that SCCA road racers wished their runoffs were at instead of Topeka.

Anyhoo,

My perception is that no amount of angry letter writing by members will help growth and help retain the sovereign nature of the classes in the future.

A few letters with good ideas might actually help. 

THAT's the real challenge for us poor denizens of the mod and prepared class.

500 Letters with weak emotional arguments probably won't impress anyone.

SpyderVenom:

modernbeat:

It's not always about going fast. One of the big challenges that most competitors in these classes face is BUILDING and TUNING the cars. They're not know as builder's classes for nothing. Plus, if any Stock class competitors ever get tired of the what-car-this-year hokey-pokey, they can move to P&M and feel free to modify their car as it becomes obsolete, rather than trading it in on the next car with a quasi-warranty. 

I do understand that.  But "the next generation" of autocrossers who build and tune cars have found different outlets for thier creativity.  The SP and SM categories have taken people who might have gone to P&M.  The best P&M cars start as a bunch of tubing on a garage floor and that's daunting to a whole lot of people out there.  It was daunting to me up until I had such a pile of tubing on my garage floor, a tubing bender in one hand and a welder in the other.  It's up to people like you to convince people like me (and someone considering going to SP or SM) that it really isn't that much harder to do. 

Actually, because of the "low barrier to entry" ruleset"quite a few Prepared classes could be competed in with fairly low prep cars. Look at the DP cars at Nationals in '07. Lots of Miatas, some with built engines and some with reasonable stiffening and minimal lightening. As far as Mod goes, the winning car may start as tubing, but a number of runner-ups start as obsolete road race cars.

As far as exciting others, I'm currently in a B-Mod car and if I'm not on championship tires, I'll loan it out to other drivers to try to get them excited.

The cars are already fairly exciting. The complications and uncertainty of the ruleset are scary and like you mentioned, the speed parity that the P&M cars share with SM, SP and SS cars leaches off some of the potential car builders.

You didn't mention it, but it's been brought up that the cost, and the need for a support vehicle and trailer is a major deterrent. But the cost of a SP-BMW is higher than many P cars. And most AS and SS cars cost more to run (in tires and depreciation) than many of the small bore P&M classes. The number of Stock and ST cars that show up on trailers in my region is equal to the number of P&M cars on trailers. And that's at a regional.

I think that one of the things that could excite folks about the P&M classes is to encourage them to take advantage of more of their allowances. I'm been told that the rules are in place to lower the bar to entry. Obviously, that's not attracting competitors. Current tire limits and minimum weights don't encourage folks to make cars in these classes REALLY fast. The fact that SP and faster stock classes are catching them makes the P&M cars exciting, but not enticing. 

modernbeat:

Actually, because of the "low barrier to entry" ruleset"quite a few Prepared classes could be competed in with fairly low prep cars. Look at the DP cars at Nationals in '07. Lots of Miatas, some with built engines and some with reasonable stiffening and minimal lightening.

And I completely agree.  In fact enough people see that so DP isn't on the bubble.   

Andy Hollis:

47CP:

I know you were joking, but if this issue is not relevant to S* classes, then there truly is no one to get hurt by lowering the minimum number. They can ignore the existance of both categories and be just as happy with thier SCCA membership.

As you will learn with more years on the board, people only tend to get whicked up enough to write a letter when something is directly negative towards them.  I wasn't joking.

It was interesting to note at last year's Solo Town Hall at Nats, a number of folks got up to say we had too many classes and stop adding more.  A similar sized group got up and said we needed more classes.  Welcome to trying to please everyone.
 

--Andy

 

Personally I recall one person saying we had too many classes, but he says that every year. I don't recall people saying we needed more classes. But I certainly recall more than one who questioned why we're worrying about it at all.

 What defines too many classes? Is it small classes? What, you expect everything has to be Super Stock and bring 67 cars? Or your class (STS) and bring 50? You ask where's the fun in running a small class? It's good fun if the people in it are good drivers and challenge me. I don't need 67 cars in it to have fun, I need three or four to challenge myself against, that's all. And when you look at even the 67-car class, it too has a handful to challenge yourself against. I wonder where's the fun of finishing 60th? I'd rather be 5th in a 10-car class than 50th in a 60-car class.

 The thing is, 1150 people come to the Nationals and 70 go home champion (68 in '07 actually). So did all the other 1080 people come really expecting to win? Of course not! Yes, Andy, it IS a social event, and oh there's an autocross too, which given our enjoyment of such things makes it even more attractive. We spend a week there to get six minutes of seat time. There are other reasons to be there, other reasons it is enjoyable, so why must you try to fit all 1150 of us into your particular definition of fun? Why can you not accept that even those of us in smaller classes are having fun and let it go at that? By that same token, I'm not going to go tell those guys in the bottom half of Super Stock that they are not having fun. Fact is, we don’t have to win to have fun, we don’t have to beat 50 other guys to have fun, we don’t even have to finish much above DFL to have fun, we just have to be there and be part of this annual Happening. (Something the BP guys were denied last time.)

As to what defines "too many" -- would it be a dilution of the entry? That's not happening. Here’s the data from all 35 years of the Solo Nationals. (Note, classes is total open classes; Ladies classes are included in for this purpose just as they are for calculating participation). You will note that even though class count is 2.5 times what it was in the beginning, the average per-class entry has doubled.

Year       Drivers    Classes         Avg.

1973           224            14         16.0

1974           272            14         19.4

1975           309            14         22.1

1976           376            15         25.1

1977           352            16         22.0

1978           435            17         25.6

1979           460            17         27.1

1980           436            17         25.6

1981           492            18         27.3

1982           577            18         32.1

1983           532            21         25.3

1984           504            21         24.0

1985           608            23         26.4

1986           616            23         26.8

1987           628            23         27.3

1988           657            24         27.4

1989           637            25         25.5

1990           653            25         26.1

1991           668            25         26.7

1992           733            25         29.3

1993           655            25         26.2

1994           704            25         28.2

1995           762            26         29.3

1996           747            26         28.7

1997           920            25         36.8    (25th anniversary event)

1998           863            26         33.2

1999           908            27         33.6

2000          1073            30         35.8

2001           954            30         31.8

2002          1106            32         34.6

2003          1090            33         33.0

2004          1075            33         32.6

2005          1112            35         31.8

2006          1153            36         32.0

2007          1157            35         33.1

Also note that it took about 4 years for Nationals entry to average 25 cars per class and then it hovered around there for the next 20 years or so (the primary class additions -- the creation of Street Prepared in 1983 and expanding Modified from 2 classes to 6). In the past 10 years, when the ST and SM classes came in, the per-class average jumped into the 30s.

Too many classes? No, the “proliferation” of classes is a response to what members wanted, and proven by the increase in entry. This does NOT mean the existing P & M classes should go away to “make room” for them -- it only means more people are enjoying our sport in more ways.

The only thing irrelevant here is for someone in an oversubscribed ST class to try to tell someone in an undersubscribed P or M class he isn’t having fun. Actually, if you have some good plan to enhance my fun, great. But telling me I have to go play somewhere else, or that I have to spend a bunch of new money to reconfigure my car to something else isn’t helping me.  

Andy Hollis:

Jim G:

  Over on the scca.com forum, Marcus used the buzzword "relevance".   I continue to wonder what that means.

...  here's my definition:  "something that matters to or appeals to a significant group of your constituency".   Trends and cultural shifts change the relevance of various things to various groups of people over time.

Not bad.  Now how does that play into the issue of minimum participation numbers?  There are quite a few people in this thread and others that can be considered a significant group who are concerned about the number being too high.

Then they should be writing letters to the SEB not posting here.

You know that this is un official and Andy and I have not stake in this fight anymore.

Marcus

ESP89:

Then they should be writing letters to the SEB not posting here.

Marcus

Marcus and I disagree on the minimum participation rule, but we do agree that you should be letting the SEB know your opinion, seb@scca.com.

Jim G:

 

Not bad.  Now how does that play into the issue of minimum participation numbers?  There are quite a few people in this thread and others that can be considered a significant group who are concerned about the number being too high.

 

"significant" is a relative term, especially in terms of different people's perspectives.  10 people on a thread where only 15 are speaking sounds very significant.  Ten people out of 1200 participants sounds much less so.

In business development for product and service oriented fields, a product must stay "relevant" to enough of a customer base to support continued production of said product or service, or the company loses money.  Hopefully, there is some extra for proft, as well.  The most successful businesses are those that stay relevant to the largest segments of the market, ignoring the smaller segments.

That said, we are a club not a business per se, which means the argument can always be made that *all* segments must be served.  Thus, the conflict.  The right answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.  Where exactly?  That's where politics matters more than economics.  And that's what will eventually determine this outcome.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass where it all ends up, since it isn't relevant to me, and I no longer am a politician.

--Andy

Very bottom line and logical post, Andy, except I take some issue with "The most successful businesses are those that stay relevant to the largest segments of the market, ignoring the smaller segments."

 If we using business analogies, we have to acknowledge that businesses not only can have large gross incomes with no net profit and but also that niche markets may be the most profitable markets of all. 

I also put forth that Mod and Prepared have additional value to the rest of the membership and to society beyond the enjoyment that Mod/Prep members themselves derive.

Chuck Voboril

Andy Hollis:

"significant" is a relative term, especially in terms of different people's perspectives.  10 people on a thread where only 15 are speaking sounds very significant.  Ten people out of 1200 participants sounds much less so.

A class of 50 drivers is still only 4% of 1200. Everyone's insignificant. There is no majority.  

-Katie Kelly

modernbeat:

You didn't mention it, but it's been brought up that the cost, and the need for a support vehicle and trailer is a major deterrent. But the cost of a SP-BMW is higher than many P cars. And most AS and SS cars cost more to run (in tires and depreciation) than many of the small bore P&M classes. The number of Stock and ST cars that show up on trailers in my region is equal to the number of P&M cars on trailers. And that's at a regional.

I can sell the 'car-d'jour' in my stock class at the end of the year for probably 80% of what I bought it for.  How much you gonna sell an uncompetitive specialty built Lotus for?