Cheyne
Basic Member
Posts:483
 |
| 07 Jun 2012 12:51 PM |
|
Just saw on the SCCA site that the merging/changing of classes for Touring and SS have been approved for 2013. The articles says the new T1 will be at a performance level between current T1/T2 and T1 cars that don't like the restrictions can always move to STO. The new T2 performance level will be based on 2010. The new T3 will be the home of most current SSB/C cars and T4 some SSC and the B-Spec cars.
DSR and CSR will be combined, but not until 2014. FE and FM will not be combined.
http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=51038
Personally I will wait and see, but the grass is looking greener over in NASALand right now.
Cheyne |
|
|
|
|
jasonberkeley
Veteran Member
Posts:2598
|
|
twin_turborx7
Veteran Member
Posts:1636
|
| 07 Jun 2012 05:27 PM |
|
Not shocking. Take a look around, a continued big decline in the number of racers. Giving more racers reason to leave is an idea we will have to see how it plays out. I personally think the belief that this kind of move will bring racers into SCCA is foolish thinking but that is just my opinion and I hope they are right because they are going to lose some upfront and need to capture that number back and then some for these changes to be successful.
As a side note this kind of change will require the CRB/BOD/Committee's change their way and rapidly approve/make changes including during the racing season and not just off season to even have a chance in heck of being remotely successful with this consolidation. Rapid changes will have to be the norm. Maybe the current (newer) crop of members of the SS/T committee and the new CRB members can help push this as important and I hope they do. Again remains to be seen, and a big hill to climb making a believer out of a lot of people including me. Taking a bunch of requests recently that competitors asked for and deferring them until 2013 when these consolidations would occur was not off to a good start in my opinion.
I hope it works out. I would love a reason to come back to SCCA racing in bigger fields that have several competitive makes and models and parity is important and kept in line (quickly) instead of taking cracks at it once a year. |
|
|
|
|
MGrand34
Advanced Member
Posts:534
|
| 08 Jun 2012 08:36 AM |
|
Talking to my Evo buddies that run in NASA they tell me that their unrestricted Evo that runs at nearly 300 pounds lighter than my T2 car are typically 3-4 seconds off the pace of the vettes on the larger tracks. If the SCCA gives me the same as the NASA Evo, what can be done to a T1 vette or Viper to slow it by 3-4 seconds?
In 2010 T2 was crazy close with the top 8 cars being separated by less than a second, last year there was a 2 second gap just between 1st and 4th after the class was messed with.
|
|
|
|
|
Foglght
New Member
Posts:
|
| 08 Jun 2012 12:58 PM |
|
NASA is getting better. Finished my 3'rd weekend in Spec E30 with them. Standing starts, No major contact yet. Under $10k for a car that can run up front. 2-3 races per weekend. Stable rule set. |
|
|
|
|
twin_turborx7
Veteran Member
Posts:1636
|
| 08 Jun 2012 01:09 PM |
|
SCCA making funny moves, but maybe they will be for the better longggg term?
In the meantime, saying you want to reduce classes, yet making room for adding (2) classes effectively (B-Spec and STL) B-Spec is T4 is not panning out as expected.
B-Spec: How many entries this entire year thus far? 3?
STL: 1 handful of true STL cars when this class was supposed to help pull existing entries from HC and NASA and instead this year has sen inflated numbers of Spec Miata's double dipping into STL (out of STU entries).
I doubt these two NEW classes and making the changes hurting other classes to enable them coming in (which included parking existing SCCA racers and race cars) was what people saw in their crystal ball?
I still don't get the notion around this plan being the answer to year over year losses of members and racers and creating bigger fields when year over year losses of members and racers is happening. I posted a year ago that basic business aptitude shows you that you come up with a new plan and/or products but you cannot alienate or give reason to those you already have to quit doing business with you. Simple customer economics is to keep "sticky" the ones you have. Does this plan do that? Not even close. But again on the flip side, the think tank may get the last laugh 5 years from now. I for one just think that while you may get bigger fields 5 years from now, it will be only a few classes beyond the big field classes now, not likely the ones impacted with these changes and the core membership and number of racers will be 5 more years of decline.
|
|
|
|
|
rjohnson999
Basic Member
Posts:154
|
| 09 Jun 2012 05:18 PM |
|
Why? twin_turborx7 wrote:As a side note this kind of change will require the CRB/BOD/Committee's change their way and rapidly approve/make changes including during the racing season and not just off season to even have a chance in heck of being remotely successful with this consolidation. Rapid changes will have to be the norm. Maybe the current (newer) crop of members of the SS/T committee and the new CRB members can help push this as important and I hope they do. Again remains to be seen, and a big hill to climb making a believer out of a lot of people including me. Taking a bunch of requests recently that competitors asked for and deferring them until 2013 when these consolidations would occur was not off to a good start in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
maxjns
Advanced Member
Posts:707
|
| 12 Jun 2012 12:55 PM |
|
Foglght wrote:
NASA is getting better. Finished my 3'rd weekend in Spec E30 with them. Standing starts, No major contact yet. Under $10k for a car that can run up front. 2-3 races per weekend. Stable rule set.
The jury is still out for me on NASA. Gingerman June 9th-10th , there were several on–track car incidents. Witnessed a T1 prep level vette hit the Armco in a spot I have never seen anyone get into before. Spec 944 flipped over on Saturday, spec Miata flipped over on Sunday. All this on the safest track in my division. Sparse corner workers is always a little unnerving. On the other hand they refunded my entry fee when I was unable to race due to my own fault. SSCA & NASA have their pluses and minuses, that said I have no intention of running a car in SCCA’s new touring classes. |
|
|
|
|
Olitho
Basic Member
Posts:458
|
| 12 Jun 2012 08:56 PM |
|
On the unacceptability of this matter - I have just kicked off discussion and e-mails with SCCA president Jeff Dahnert, Chairman Warnarka, Peter Keane, Jim Wheeler and others, as well as about 14 So Cal T1 racers and others.
Please way in with your constructive, but very candid thoughts on the class changes, especially with regards to Touring.
What are your plans? Will you still race SCCA Touring or do something else? Why?
I find only detractors of this proposed change. Are there any supporters? If so, speak up and tell us why.
These sentences capture the sentiments of the growing So Cal T1 racing community. One of our racers posted:
Jim posted:
“Regarding the 2013 rules, my position is the same as Bill's. Keep the rules the same next year or move to NASA ST2. I'm not interested in running Regional races without Tire, Brakes and Summit contingencies.”
Our group also feels that changing T1 car performance specs as they sit now annihilate us in the 8.7/1 lb./hp spec in NASA ST2 that was developed around the C5 T1 SCCA race car. A change from this forces us to move from one club to another.
Oli
|
|
|
|
|
jasonberkeley
Veteran Member
Posts:2598
|
| 12 Jun 2012 10:51 PM |
|
I think we are all against this. Especially when you look at 50% of the GT classes (GT2 and GTL) didnt make the 2.5 rule, and the club talks out of both sides of it's mouth saying that stock type cars are no longer relevant, while killing our classes to introduce B-Spec, a stock class for cars that have no business being race cars, that are slow enough that they should put cones out on all the straights at Road America to turn them into a slalom for these rolling refrigerator boxes, all to pander to the manufacturers that could care less about the SCCA and only give a dam about selling little econoboxes.
What RACER in this club proposed and supported B-Spec?
Also, keep in mind that both T1 and T2 made the 2.5 rule, two out of three sports racer classes did not and yet merging CSR and DSR is postponed to 2014 (lets see if the CRB actually follows through on that), GTL still exists in spite of the fact that it is a combination of two classes that dies (GT4 and GT5), hasn't met the 2.5 rule, and hmmm, the outgoing CRB chair is a GTL guy...
Someone please explain why GTL hasn't been relegated to a regional only class?
AJ Aquilante showed that it is easy to speed up the faster T2 cars to run witn T1 cars with little work. Yes, he is a better shoe, but there is alot more development that can be done to that car. Same with a Porsche 996, etc... I'll wait and see how the final draft of the rules shakes out, but odds are I, along with every other T1 racer I have spoken too, will go race with another sanctioning body.
Than PK and his crew will have what they want- the sports car club of america with no sports cars. Three cylinder sh!? Boxes and a ton of formula cars and Miatas. |
|
|
|
|
fatbillybob
New Member
Posts:92
|
| 13 Jun 2012 01:04 AM |
|
jasonberkeley wrote:
AJ Aquilante showed that it is easy to speed up the faster T2 cars to run witn T1 cars with little work. Yes, he is a better shoe, but there is alot more development that can be done to that car. Same with a Porsche 996, etc... I'll wait and see how the final draft of the rules shakes out, but odds are I, along with every other T1 racer I have spoken too, will go race with another sanctioning body.
Oli, This was mentioned at our meet with president Jeff. But if I remember correctly this issue was not part of his notes that he read back to us. Maybe this point needs to be told to him again...louder. The ability to speed up T2 cars and the fact that those T2 cars are years behind the C5/C6 in development, meaning there is alot more development left in T2 cars, is the most compelling reason to leave T1 cars alone and let T2 speed up. T1 does not need to slow down and the class can be merged when T2 guys make the same investment developing their cars and writing to the CRB for tweeks that we have done for years. |
|
|
|
|
paulgauzens
New Member
Posts:
|
| 13 Jun 2012 01:20 PM |
|
This consolidation will be a pain for many and perhaps not as much for others. What I read into some remarks here is a bit of unfairness since some Touring classes made the 2.5 but are lumped into the deal.
Methinks it could work out in long run but the idea of doing a similar thing in parts of GT, SR, Prod and Formula means years of paper cuts and blood letting to get classes consolidated. By then it could feel like death by a thousand cuts.
IMHO, the goal is a healthy club hosting events that compel people to race with us - and keep it easy to do so. I once suggested that we find a way to have classes that equal the race groups at each event. Big Bore, Small Bore, Fast Formula/SR, Wings & Things, Prod & Vintage, etc. We may end up very close to that if numbers continue to tail off over the next 5 years. |
|
|
|
|
Olitho
Basic Member
Posts:458
|
| 13 Jun 2012 10:10 PM |
|
Paul:
Please elaborate on this sentence. I am not certain I understand what you mean.
"I once suggested that we find a way to have classes that equal the race groups at each event. Big Bore, Small Bore, Fast Formula/SR, Wings & Things, Prod & Vintage, etc."
Thanks,
Oli
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Mathews
New Member
Posts:24
|
| 14 Jun 2012 05:42 PM |
|
Dear SCCA,
As a current Southern Pacific SCCA T1 racer I would like to express my concerns regarding changes to the T1 class. Considering each of the current T1 racers have invested a considerable amount of money and time preparing cars for T1 racing we clearly have a vested interest in the success of this class. Thanks to a few passionate racers here in Southern California we even have a healthy, growing community of T1 racers here. That was until we ran into this current rules uncertainty. I am sure we all would like to see that healthy growth continue in the Southern Pacific as well as the other regions. To do so we will need to work on building a strong sense of community and sensible, stables rules that the racers believe in.
I am strongly against any changes that will slow our cars down from their current performance levels and strongly against any increases in minimum weights. From my point of view, as we add cars to T1, at a minimum they must be brought up to the current C6/LS3 performance levels. If the C5 is deemed to be inferior, then it too should be brought up in performance.
As you can imagine the other two key issues I have are safety and cost which I expect to be strongly considered in all decisions.
With Respect,
Chuck Mathews
Southern Pacific
T1 #38, 2008 C6/LS3 Corvette |
|
|
|
|
paulgauzens
New Member
Posts:
|
| 15 Jun 2012 09:06 PM |
|
Olitho wrote:
Paul:
Please elaborate on this sentence. I am not certain I understand what you mean.
"I once suggested that we find a way to have classes that equal the race groups at each event. Big Bore, Small Bore, Fast Formula/SR, Wings & Things, Prod & Vintage, etc."
Thanks,
Oli
Hi Oli
What I meant was to rationalize all Car Classes that comprise the Race Groups we typically use at every event. Don't just pick a few classes and shake them up. Each Race Group would get 2 class designations.
So, in the case of Touring, deal with all the big bore stuff across the board - all the classes that safely race together on any given weekend. GT1 would be the top dog performance mark in Grp.1A; T1/AS in Grp.1B
Another example, don't try to lump smaller bore T/SS cars in there with T1 and slow down T1- instead deal with all the modern small bore as a Race Group to calibrate/balance them.
I don't believe we should do multiple iterations year after year - it's disruptive and depressing to the drivers. Of course not suggesting they touch the top classes like SM, SRF. Heck they should be in a Race Group of their own! ;-) |
|
|
|
|
Olitho
Basic Member
Posts:458
|
| 15 Jun 2012 11:49 PM |
|
Six to eight T1 racers from So Cal had a 75 minute call with representatives of the SCCA. After much seemingly hopeful and promising discussions during the past couple of days to help create a T1 class that would accomodate the currenty mainstay of the T1 class and yet accomodate the two or three V8 Mustangs racing in T2 the call left me extremely disappointed. We had a carefully crafted set of objectives we feel are appropriate to get SCCA racing for the fastest of Touring cars updated in philosophy for the next decade. We also feel this plan could help the rest of the nation experience the growth we are seeing in T1 and other classes in So Cal.
After the call I feel I am witnessing the final nails going into the coffin for SCCA. The current BoD and executive administration are the captains of the sinking ship. Up to this point I felt it could be turned around, but it is evident to me that the organization is incapable of handling a market change where there are actual competitors in the form of track days and NASA racing. SCCA cannot recognize the sense of community, where new drivers come from and how to recruit them.
When tin tops fail at the club level can further marginalization and irrelevance be far behind for the open wheel and sports racer classes?
Oli Thordarson
|
|
|
|
|
Olitho
Basic Member
Posts:458
|
| 16 Jun 2012 09:37 AM |
|
ATTENTION ALL T2 DRIVERS
it is my understanding that there are two or three T2 Mustangs affeted by the classing changes. Those cars are headed for T1 under the current proposal. Several in the afected classes are trying to make this a positive. Your specific situation needs to be consdiered.
if you are one of the affected T2 cars coming into T1, or you know someone who is, please contact me ASAP.
oli at Alvaka.net
Thansk
Oli |
|
|
|
|
Richard Pryor
New Member
Posts:
|
| 16 Jun 2012 05:42 PM |
|
Oli, et al...explain to me why you need SCCA? Perhaps it's time for Cal Club to once again be an independent club without SCCA affiliation. IMHO SCCA needs Cal Club (and the adjacent San Francisco Region) more than they need SCCA. What would the financial model be? No more SCCA sanction fees but higher insurance costs? Maybe. 100% membership fees retained. Local BoD responsive to local racers. Who owns Button Willow? SCCA or CalClub? Is your T1 group oriented toward the Runoffs? or just having fun in T1 at the local tracks with like minded racers. There are so many reasons that I think Cal Club and others need to withdraw. And of course there is always the NASA option. On a much more limited idea you could approach NASA about forming a new class called T1+ with your own set of rules and control. That's the way the Camaro Mustang Challenge started. . It is not far fetched to explore the new T1+ following the BMW Club model of sharing track race dates with NASA and running your own show around their infrastructure. I think the SoCal T1 group is fortunate in that it has lots of viable options. Good luck and have fun racing. Richard Pryor |
|
|
|
|
Olitho
Basic Member
Posts:458
|
| 17 Jun 2012 10:36 PM |
|
RIght now Richard I am trying to figure out why we want SCCA and why the organization if good for us. Right now I can't say that I feel the organization is repelling us via the CRB and the reclassification process. The untimely/early vote by the BoD and the actions of the CRB is hard to comprehend.
I am not real popular with those folks now. They don't appear to appreciate those not going with the flow of traffic. From what I can tell they want compliant "yes" people when in fact they should be seeking to understand their customer and embracing those who are building markets for them.
Oli
|
|
|
|
|
jasonberkeley
Veteran Member
Posts:2598
|
| 17 Jun 2012 11:54 PM |
|
'our' leadership had lead this club into the ground. The SCCA leadership is solely responsible for the growth of NASA into what it is today.
We used to have divisional points championship battles in virtually all classes in all divisions a few years ago. People would trailer clear across the country to get points to earn a spot on the Runoffs by finishing in the points in their divisional championship. No more.
Would the leadership blame US? Sounds like it. They need to look in the mirror and say 'we have fu?!ed up.'
|
|
|
|
|