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 Modified 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