SCCAForums.com

Pardon a long post. I just sent the letter below to the SEB (cc to the BOD). Under this rule 10 of the current P and M classes are threatened, either below the ominous 17 number or within 5 cars of it based on participation in the 2007 Nationals. My basic premise is that the rule is simply unnecessary and should be done away with.  (also posted in the Prepared section.) -- Rocky Entriken

 

To the Solo Events Board--

 

In the Solo rulebook there is a rule which threatens a number of classes of cars, primarily those built to the Prepared and Modified rulesets. This rule is wholly unnecessary and I would ask that efforts be made to remove it entirely from the rulebook.

 

This is rule 4.9, titled “Minimum Participation Level for National Classes,” which specifies: “If in two consecutive years at the Solo National Championship a class fails to field a combined total (Open and Ladies) of at least seventeen (17) entrants, then the following year that class will be consolidated, eliminated or restructured...” and goes on to detail how this may be done.

 

I am opposed for the basic, and perhaps obvious, reason that my class -- G Prepared (12 entries in 2007) -- is one threatened by this rule. However my class is far from alone. We have already lost B Prepared to this rule (15 entries in 2006 -- imagine no place competitive for race-prepped Corvettes!). A Modified  is similarly threatened (nine 2007 entries), as is D Modified (15), while B Modified (17), C Modified (18), F Prepared (19), E Prepared (21), B Street Prepared (21) and E Street Prepared (22) are all within five cars of that ominous number.

 

The overriding argument for removing this rule is a lack of need for it. Some years ago the Solo Nationals supplementary regulations established an entry limit of 1250 cars. We have yet to approach that number, being still almost 100 cars short of such a figure. The 2007 Nationals had 1157 competitors -- would it have hurt the event to let another dozen or so Corvette drivers also enjoy competing?

 

Unlike the Runoffs where a limiting factor is the number of races that can be run in a day, the limiting factor at the Solo Nationals is the number of cars that can be run through a course in a day. It does not matter if 1250 cars are broken into 70 classes or 10, it still takes X amount of time to give 1250 cars their six runs over a four-day span. Therefore, if we are not yet approaching that 1250 limit there is no need to disenfranchise any of our members from competing.

 

At this juncture I should emphasize that I do NOT oppose efforts to increase participation, nor to consolidate or restructure classes if such action can be taken without rendering one group totally uncompetitive within another. The Solo Events Board does not need a rule to be able to accomplish that. Such action has always been within its mandate but the members have always wanted it to be done in a thoughtful and careful manner.

 

I am mindful, however, of the recent action of the SCCA Board of Directors at its Dec. 10 meeting directing the Club Racing Board to “develop a plan that would include all National classes in the 2008 National Championship Runoffs event...”. I note that this edict specifically does not demand separate races, merely a method to enable ALL competitors in National racing classes to compete. In essence, I ask the same for those of us competing in Solo.

               

As I said, at this time we are not yet pushing that 1250 limit. At the 2007 Nationals 1157 cars competed. In 2006 the number was 1153. Five years previous in 2002 it was 1106. While the program continues to grow, it has reached a level where the growth is slower -- perfectly understandable given the level we have reached today. If entry patterns over the past 35 years hold true, we probably should not expect to top 1200 until about 2012.

 

If it was determined at some future date that handling an entry beyond 1250 was desirable, there are ways to accomplish that including making the Nationals a five- or six-day event (the current four-day format is actually two separate two-day events with half the field competing Tuesday-Wednesday, the other half competing Thursday-Friday). I am not advocating such action at this time, merely illustrating that there are ways to move beyond the limit should member demand make such desirable, and thus that even the 1250 is an arbitrary figure which is by no means absolute.

 

But since we have not yet approached that number, it makes no sense to impose another equally arbitrary number to create an artificial benchmark at which a class is deemed to be worthy to continue. Why 17? Why not 10 or 30? And what is the reality?

 

The reality is that classes comprising cars that can be bought off the showroom floor, have a few goodies bolted on and adjustments made to be competition-ready will have more competitors than classes that require a great deal of engineering. Simply stated: Stock and Street classes will always be more populous than Prepared or Modified classes. Note that the list I mentioned above includes more than half of the 15 Prepared and Modified classes, but just two of the 21 Stock and Street classes (those two, as it happens, the “Detroit big-iron” Corvette and Ponycar classes).

 

There are those who decry a claimed “too many” classes in Solo today. In 1973, the year of the first Nationals, we had 15 classes. In 2007, 35 years later, we had 70. But that number is misleading. The 15 classes in 1973 included just one Ladies class and 14 Open classes, while today there were 35 Open classes and a parallel 35 Ladies classes. So in reality, 1973 had 14 classes and 2007 had 35.

 

1973 had 224 entrants while 2007 had 1157. Or to put it another way, in 35 years the entry at the Solo Nationals has increased 517%, while the number of classes has increased 250%. Or, even while we have 21 more classes now than when we started, the average entry PER CLASS is double what it was in 1973. And that even takes into account the classes supposedly below the line as regards total entry. Again I ask, where is the need? We are not seeing an “I-class” situation here, we are seeing a growth in classes to accommodate the diversity shown in the growth of competitors.

 

Adding classes should be a careful process. A new class should not be approved lightly. The new classes that have been approved have achieved that approval only through a careful, even laborious, process. But Rule 4.9 does not really address this. Rule 4.9 threatens long-established classes populated to a great extent by long-term and committed SCCA members.

 

There is also a dynamic involving the owners of the various classes which plays here. The greater the preparation level required in a class, the greater the emotional attachment an owner has to his car. Drivers in Stock classes tend to bring out the “car of the year” and bounce from car to car depending on what’s hot. Drivers in Prepared and Modified classes tend to stick with the same car for years and years, working to make it better and better. As a result, when the SEB shuffles cars around in Stock classes, members may grumble a bit but they mostly just go buy something else. When the SEB does something to Prep or Mod classes the owners of cars in those classes react as if their child had been abused.

 

By the same token, those passionate about their cars and the sport tend to stick around longer. It comes as no surprise to learn that of the 52 members currently enshrined in the Silver Circle -- those who have competed in 25 or more Solo Nationals -- 40 of them compete in the Prepared and Modified classes while only a dozen are primarily Stock or Street drivers. Thus the 17-entry rule primarily targets long-term members.

 

I bought my G Prepared Spitfire, a 1964 model, in 1966. I’ve been competing it ever since, always in Solo, racing it when budget allows. I am not unusual by any means in my attachment to this car -- but those sharing my affinity are found most heavily in the Prep and Mod classes, a few in Street Prepared; almost none in Stock or Street Touring.

 

However just as those whose emotional attachment to a given car are a smaller group so also is it a more passionate group. To equate us with Stock and Street owners, and thus require us to meet a participation level they reach easily (the Super Stock class alone had an entry in 2007 more than half the entire Prepared category!!!) is counterproductive to our primary goal of just having fun with our cars. At the end of the day, isn’t that why SCCA exists?

 

--Rocky Entriken

   #4 G Prepared

---

--Rocky Entriken

Rocky:

 

That is a great letter that states well your position. While I have never competed in a Prepared or Modified class vehicle at Nationals, I have many friends that do, and have always appreciated their loyalty to the sport, creativity in car construction, and discipline in car maintenace/optimization. Besides, they are just plain fun to watch.

May I paraphrase or just duplicate your letter and send it to the SEB to help support the cause?

 

---

Al Chan

Rocky,

You have stated your case well, and I can appreciate your position.  I generally agree with you that a 17 car limits seems arbitrary.  Without going into other details or opinions, I wonder if you've considered an alternative to the rule? I personally think there needs to be something.  Having a couple classes where just one or two people show up every year would just be sad.  Allowing classes to be eliminated "as the situation merits" makes it subjective, and opens the board to criticism over fairness and favoritism.  I somehow think they do not want that.  I think there needs to be some kind of automated mechanism.  What, I don't know.  Any thoughts on that?

---

Patrick Washburn
STU Evo
www.winghats.com

Patrick Washburn:

Rocky,

You have stated your case well, and I can appreciate your position.  I generally agree with you that a 17 car limits seems arbitrary.  Without going into other details or opinions, I wonder if you've considered an alternative to the rule? I personally think there needs to be something.  Having a couple classes where just one or two people show up every year would just be sad.  Allowing classes to be eliminated "as the situation merits" makes it subjective, and opens the board to criticism over fairness and favoritism.  I somehow think they do not want that.  I think there needs to be some kind of automated mechanism.  What, I don't know.  Any thoughts on that?

5 CARS (not drivers)

12 drivers?

10 drivers?

Just some thoughts.  There should be a middle ground, IMO.

PLEASE write letters whether you agree with this overall premise or not.  You might also urge for the change to be put out for member comment.

DaveW

Not Official

I think Mod and Prepared classes should be exempt from meeting minimum numbers.  Rocky brought up many good points.  M and P classes are not for everyone - the cars typically take more work and ongoing maintenance than other cars, excluding pretty much everyone who doesn't do their own maintenance.  Why eliminate our flagship classes that generate a tremendous amount of interest?  Who wouldn't go out of their way to watch A Mod run?  How could we justify not having a solo class for our club racing sports racers?  How many drivers of stock cars don't dream of driving a race car?

As Rocky mentioned, many of the biggest supporters of solo racing gravitate toward these classes as their driving careers progress.  Many solo racers like race cars, but can't afford or don't like the challenge of road racing.  To exclude this group of people from solo racing would be a huge mistake.  The likely result would be the emergence of a competing car club that welcomes these classes, creating a bigger problem for the SCCA than the "problem" they're attempting to fix.

 Does the SCCA really want to become the "Stock Car Club of America"?

---

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

I wouldn't get rid of any classes. More should be added IMHO in the street tire area.  But I don't think any jacket should be rewarded for classes with fewer than 10 drivers, and classes that happens to should be collapsed and combined/run in temporary indexed classes, similar to Pro Solo indexing.  So what if BP falls too low?  Combine it with GP and run them indexed.  Ladies classes?  For those not making the minimum (all of them?) combine all stock classes into oneindexed class, SP classes, M classes and P classes as well.  So you have a stock indexed ladies champ, etc.  That way no classes are eliminated but the winning of a jacket in a two driver class doesn't happen either.  My 2 cents.  Oh, and through creative scheduling you could run these drivers in the same heat.  Just make it clear ahead of Nationals when that is based on the rgistration list.

---

Jer
#196 ES
#187 SS retired

Extend the time before a class is eliminated so it has to not meet the lower limit for four or five consecutive years, instead of just two.  Make it so you have to have a long-term disinterest in the class, instead of just a dip in attendance, to kill it.

For what its worth, I think A-mod should be exempt from the minimum participation rule.  There's something to be said for having an open class for a designed-from-scratch dedicated autocross car.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

A well written letter to be sure but let's look at the rule:

4.9 MINIMUM PARTICIPATION LEVEL FOR NATIONAL CLASSES
If in two consecutive years at the Solo National Championship a class fails to field a combined total (Open and Ladies) of at least seventeen (17) entrants, then for the following year that class will be consolidated, eliminated, or restructured, using competition adjustments (for example, weights and/or wheel sizes) if necessary and applicable within the affected category. This is not intended as the only criterion for class consolidation, elimination, or restructuring; the SEB may pursue such actions as deemed necessary to address participation problems. The SEB may take into account participation levels at other events such as National Tours when making decisions regarding the need for changes.

Emphasis mine.  

Classes that do not meet minimum participation levels must be adjusted by the SEB.  That is what the rule says.  It could mean something as little as adding cars to the class or as large as elimination.  That's up to the SEB.  All the other classes change all the time - cars are added and moved, allowances are granted and taken back, and interpretation of rules change over time as members of the SEB change.  Why should Prepared or Mod be any different?

What if you were to look at the class minimum as the minimum to ensure fair competition?  That it's not about overall participation numbers. 

If you want Nationals full, move it to before kids go back to school.  There are plenty of college kids and teachers who would come out to Nationals if it didn't interfere with school.

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

Why should Prepared or Mod be any different?

Excellent point!

But, in P&M, many allowances are not remotely bolt on/in.  My (former) CP car had been converted from McStrut suspension to a proper SLA.  There are several P cars that have done this.  If you determine that SLA conversions are hurting a class and take that allowance back, how do you convert the car back?  And how do you "consolidate" when classes may be wildy different in weight, size or "type" of car.  I doubt it is different in any other class, but IMO consolidating two P or M classes, is really the same as killing off the one with the attendance problem, just slower.  Guys in BP Corvettes who ran at 2700# aren't interested in going to XP at much less weight or CP at much higher weights.  DM guys in a 1300# 140HP Lotus 7 aren't real keen on running in EM with a 1700# minumum weight and cars with 3-4-500hp.  Conversely, at Topeka, EM guys aren't real happy about "little" cars coming in either.  That example would kill BOTH classes.

I think some type of minimum is needed to ensure classes viability.  12 seems like a decent number.  But, whether the number is 10 cars, 12 drivers, 17 drivers or whatever, I seem to be gravitating towards the idea that the period needs to be lengthened, considerably, perhaps with an average.  Economic downturns can effect class participation at Nationals severely for a year or two.  Or, rule changes or any other number of factors. 

How about "If the last 3 years attendance in a class at the Solo National Championship fails to field a combined total (Open and Ladies) of at least an average of fourteen (14) entrants, then for the following year..."?  (I actually like 12 better, but in the spirit of compromise :))

Either way, if you are interested in this topic, WRITE A LETTER TO SEB@SCCA.ORG

DaveW

 

47CP:

Why should Prepared or Mod be any different?

Excellent point!

But, in P&M, many allowances are not remotely bolt on/in.  My (former) CP car had been converted from McStrut suspension to a proper SLA.  There are several P cars that have done this.  If you determine that SLA conversions are hurting a class and take that allowance back, how do you convert the car back?  And how do you "consolidate" when classes may be wildy different in weight, size or "type" of car.  I doubt it is different in any other class, but IMO consolidating two P or M classes, is really the same as killing off the one with the attendance problem, just slower.

Do you mean like a Corvette Z06 and a Lotus Elise in Stock? 

You say 12 people should make a class...  We get more than that locally in many classes.  Nationals should be about running against the best of the best.  How do you know who the best is when there aren't the participation figures to back it up? 

I'll chase the red herring of bolt-ons.  That's not what P&M are about and that's not likely to change.  But did you ever stop to think that it's because you have to make such major modifications that the classes are losing interest?  I personally look around my region and don't see fabricators - the experience nor motivation are there.  I have an EP car in my garage.  Most of the autocrossers who have seen it say that it is out of their league to build. 

This has been mentioned in several threads but...  Those classes where large amounts of money and fabrication are needed are starting to seriously lose participation. 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

I think that the rule is fair and balanced. I think that consolidating some of the P/M classes would be beneficial to the sport.  It might turn some cars into "also ran" cars, but that is the nature of the sport.

 I would rather see a couple of P/M classes consolidated/removed, and the creation of a couple more ST classes, as this seems to be the direction that the sport is heading, judging from participation.

 From the thread about SP, numbers were introduced with the average class size:

Average class size:

Stock: 39.7
ST: 40.5
SP: 25.3
P: 21.5
M: 17.5

I just think that the evolution is an important part of this sport, and necessary to attract new members.

 

-Brian
 

---

89/189 STS/STX '89 Civic Si

SpyderVenom:

47CP:

Why should Prepared or Mod be any different?

Excellent point!

But, in P&M, many allowances are not remotely bolt on/in.  My (former) CP car had been converted from McStrut suspension to a proper SLA.  There are several P cars that have done this.  If you determine that SLA conversions are hurting a class and take that allowance back, how do you convert the car back?  And how do you "consolidate" when classes may be wildy different in weight, size or "type" of car.  I doubt it is different in any other class, but IMO consolidating two P or M classes, is really the same as killing off the one with the attendance problem, just slower.

Do you mean like a Corvette Z06 and a Lotus Elise in Stock? 

You say 12 people should make a class...  We get more than that locally in many classes.  Nationals should be about running against the best of the best.  How do you know who the best is when there aren't the participation figures to back it up? 

I'll chase the red herring of bolt-ons.  That's not what P&M are about and that's not likely to change.  But did you ever stop to think that it's because you have to make such major modifications that the classes are losing interest?  I personally look around my region and don't see fabricators - the experience nor motivation are there.  I have an EP car in my garage.  Most of the autocrossers who have seen it say that it is out of their league to build. 

This has been mentioned in several threads but...  Those classes where large amounts of money and fabrication are needed are starting to seriously lose participation. 

 Are they losing participation or are they maintaining their participation while the rest of autocross gets much more popular?  What were the numbers at nationals in P&M classes in 1990?  Yes, at our local events we have classes that are bigger than 12, but not in prepared or mod cars.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be a review process to reorganize classes, but maybe give it more than two years.  [CAUTION, Generalization Ahead] Given that drivers in P & M classes are generally more experienced and skilled than your average local stock or ST driver, you're still getting a high level of competition at nationals with fewer people.

Before I helped you work on the aforementioned EP car, I would have thought it was out of my league too.  Now that I see what's involved, the only skill I'm still short on is welding.  Well, that and about $10,000 worth of tools.

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

SpyderVenom:

Classes that do not meet minimum participation levels must be adjusted by the SEB.  That is what the rule says.  It could mean something as little as adding cars to the class or as large as elimination.  That's up to the SEB.  All the other classes change all the time - cars are added and moved, allowances are granted and taken back, and interpretation of rules change over time as members of the SEB change.  Why should Prepared or Mod be any different?

What if you were to look at the class minimum as the minimum to ensure fair competition?  That it's not about overall participation numbers. 

The reason to treat Prepared and Modified differently is because every change to the rules of that class requires extensive effort to make the car competitive. Something as mundane as upping the minimum weight may require new spring rates and different shock valving, wheel offsets, brake proportioning, sway bar settings, a change of gearing and cam profiles.

All that takes time. Some folks throw in the towel. Some folks decide to take on the challenge, but it won't happen overnight. Sometimes it doesn't even happen within two years.

I'm personally in favor of using the established "non championship event" Bump Order should classes fail to meet minimum participation levels. But even then, I'd set somewhat lower levels for P&M classes than S, ST and SP classes. The red herring that the Nationals are for the best of the best and that's only achived with large participation is a wrong. I'd guess that the level of driving skill in the P&M classes is on average better than the lower prep classes, and that a better crop to pick the cream from is represented even with a smaller participant count.

---

Aut tace aut loquere meliora silentio.

BrianGT:

I just think that the Evolution is an important part of this sport, and necessary to attract new members.

 Fixed that for you. 

---

Dave Heinig

07 GXP Z0K (Thanks Rob!)

DaveH:

Are they losing participation or are they maintaining their participation while the rest of autocross gets much more popular?  What were the numbers at nationals in P&M classes in 1990?  Yes, at our local events we have classes that are bigger than 12, but not in prepared or mod cars.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be a review process to reorganize classes, but maybe give it more than two years.

P classes, if I'm not mistaken, were made so that the Club Race cars of the same designations could participate and "cross pollinate."  Good idea in theory but it didn't work so well in practice with major set-up changes needed between track and solo courses. 

Why longer than 2 years?  Hopefully people would see a downward trend in their class and try to work on it before it got to the point of a restructure.  You are  then given one years warning to get your numbers up and then if you don't make them in year two, the class gets restructured.  Like I mentioned above, it is up to the SEB to do something at that point.  If the SEB believes that it's only a local time trend and that a few cars stayed home because the price of travel was so high or the cars were broke, they may only make minor adjustments. 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.

modernbeat:

I'm personally in favor of using the established "non championship event" Bump Order should classes fail to meet minimum participation levels. But even then, I'd set somewhat lower levels for P&M classes than S, ST and SP classes. The red herring that the Nationals are for the best of the best and that's only achived with large participation is a wrong. I'd guess that the level of driving skill in the P&M classes is on average better than the lower prep classes, and that a better crop to pick the cream from is represented even with a smaller participant count.

If that were true then one would expect that times would be closer at the top than in the lesser prepared classes - i.e. the top 5 cars would be closer in times than the top 5 drivers in say stock classes.  The cream in each class is at least 5 deep so to speak.  And from a preliminary glance of the results that is true - of the classes that are not on the bubble.  The classes that are on the bubble, the gap from 1-5 is a bit larger.

 

---

Rob Leone

'07 Solstice GXP in AS
'87 Toyota Corolla in EP
ex - '91 MR2 Turbo in SM2 <- If you can't set a good example, serve as a horrible warning.