JasonIsley99
Well-known member
RonInSD":37n5zfto said:Jason, Your image did not uploaded or link.
Is this what you were trying to post?
THAT IS AWESOME. Even more so if it pulls the trailer next to it. :applause:
Runoff Entries
- Thread starter KDENNIS
- Start date
THAT IS AWESOME. Even more so if it pulls the trailer next to it. :applause:
Jerry Oleson
Well-known member
Has the west coast ever tried the car/hauler set up to the runoffs?
JasonIsley99
Well-known member
Jerry Oleson":150os6hw said:
We did it in 2010, took three cars in a six-car enclosed hauler.
This year we are again bringing the enclosed and are full (five cars and lots of spares). But it is crazy expensive.
Jerry Oleson
Well-known member
I was thinking more along the line of the open hauler like the picture for the Solo cars, thinking it would be cheaper.
JasonIsley99
Well-known member
Jerry Oleson":318qs3c0 said:
Yes it would be... But the amount of spares for a solo car are a lot less than a road race car, in this case most the cars are packed with all they need for the event.
Keith Church
Well-known member
SCCA participation is dwindling because members are loosing interest and not encouraging family members, employees or teammates to participate any more. Like most of you, I used to buy memberships for crew members and encourage friends and family members to join in the fun. As the level of $ and work involved in preparing a competitive car has escalated and the reward and recognition for success has declined I find that I almost never encourage others to join in the fun anymore. Before you criticize me, think about how many members you have brought in lately. I have access to several good tracks with SCCA, NASA, Vintage and various Marque clubs offering track dates and races. SCCA competition has become my most expensive, least rewarding venue.
My personal loss of interest is directly attributable to leadership decisions that cost me money with little or no fun or recognition benefit. I will admit that the long drawn out G Prod debacle let a lot of wind out of my sails. After killing my class in 08 they gave me a slim chance in HP for 09. I built a new HP car as the GP chassis was full prep and couldn’t be retro-fit. The HP car was fast, just not reliable. I’ve lost 5 motors in 4 years, all due to con rod failures. Unfortunately, the Prod adhoc chairman’s myopic reaction to the “rules creep” of the 80’s and 90’s prohibits seemingly knowledgeable motor guys from allowing the use of aftermarket con rods on LP motors. Although aftermarket rods offer no competitive advantage or increase engine power, the nattering neighbobs of negativity that make our rules refuse to allow them. At $369 a set they cost less than the CRYO, REM and machine cost necessary to prep stock rods that then fail every 2 or 3 races. My loss of interest has more to do with the ironheaded attitude of a couple of rules czars and the failure of our elected leaders to recognize the attitude problem. If a requested rule change reduces a members cost without providing them with a competitive advantage why is it automatically opposed? Other sanctioning bodies seem to have a much better understanding of how engines work and what constitutes a competitive advantage.
Those of you who wish to restore fun to our club might remember that regional and divisional championships once meant something. Just making the Runoff meant you were good enough to be a National Champion. Now days if you have a pulse, attended 4 nationals and don’t mind spending about $1000 a day to say you were there, you too can earn your way to play at the only SCCA event that matters no matter how many times you get lapped or are otherwise in the way. Kinda SAD. The egos involved in club racing must now prohibit the resurrection of GP or the use of aftermarket rods in LP motors (unless they are the allowed dry sump LP motors).
To future rules makers – remember if it doesn’t reduce members’ cost or significantly increase members’ fun or recognition --- please don’t do it.
See ya
Keith Church
My personal loss of interest is directly attributable to leadership decisions that cost me money with little or no fun or recognition benefit. I will admit that the long drawn out G Prod debacle let a lot of wind out of my sails. After killing my class in 08 they gave me a slim chance in HP for 09. I built a new HP car as the GP chassis was full prep and couldn’t be retro-fit. The HP car was fast, just not reliable. I’ve lost 5 motors in 4 years, all due to con rod failures. Unfortunately, the Prod adhoc chairman’s myopic reaction to the “rules creep” of the 80’s and 90’s prohibits seemingly knowledgeable motor guys from allowing the use of aftermarket con rods on LP motors. Although aftermarket rods offer no competitive advantage or increase engine power, the nattering neighbobs of negativity that make our rules refuse to allow them. At $369 a set they cost less than the CRYO, REM and machine cost necessary to prep stock rods that then fail every 2 or 3 races. My loss of interest has more to do with the ironheaded attitude of a couple of rules czars and the failure of our elected leaders to recognize the attitude problem. If a requested rule change reduces a members cost without providing them with a competitive advantage why is it automatically opposed? Other sanctioning bodies seem to have a much better understanding of how engines work and what constitutes a competitive advantage.
Those of you who wish to restore fun to our club might remember that regional and divisional championships once meant something. Just making the Runoff meant you were good enough to be a National Champion. Now days if you have a pulse, attended 4 nationals and don’t mind spending about $1000 a day to say you were there, you too can earn your way to play at the only SCCA event that matters no matter how many times you get lapped or are otherwise in the way. Kinda SAD. The egos involved in club racing must now prohibit the resurrection of GP or the use of aftermarket rods in LP motors (unless they are the allowed dry sump LP motors).
To future rules makers – remember if it doesn’t reduce members’ cost or significantly increase members’ fun or recognition --- please don’t do it.
See ya
Keith Church
Keith ….. I was in the military and a member of SCCA for about the same number of years – I became to realize that with respect to leadership and management approaches there exists little variance – the only way change occurs is if the faces of those who hold critical positions and offices change ….. I offer the following only as insight has to how difficult it is to obtain change even if it seems so logical – Congress voted to take from retired military, including disabled, access to health care once the veteran reached age 65 – this same Congress voted for members of Congress to receive free outpatient care at all military facilities in the Washington DC area – seems so wrong to me yet so right to them ….. to obtain the changes you so correctly desire getting the attention of those in charge will most likely get you no where – there either has to be face change or those making the decisions sense it is not in their personal best interest to keep going down the same path ….. it would be nice if members could take a confidence vote – no confidence they all leave – the only way to move forward is to vote the board out and a new board in – there appears no other way to get the changes you seek - the production race groups at the Runoffs represent some of the largest – yet there seems little influence – why – not where the money trail takes the board – money talks; look over all the ways one can enter a Miata – the concern of the board is not what makes you happy – it is what makes them happy …..
Acme Speed Shop
Well-known member
blamkin86":1mwwn2xt said:
I believe it somewhere around 650 cars for the last MO runoffs, it's never gotten close to that since then. In fact, I think if some of you do the research some of the HPT numbers were better than some of the Road America numbers. Still 500+ cars is a very respecatble number, even if they do have a half dozen more classes not vs then.
Peter makes a point about the cost of racing in SCCA weekend now, it used to be that 2 day SCCA events were cheaper than 3 day vintage events, but thats not the case anymore, a few weekends ago SARRC regional races at Charlotte was double and it was $450. I'll be racing at VIR in oct. in the gold cup, I'll probaby get more track time than tow SCCA doubles, and race with a dozen plus cars on my class,and my entry fee is $350 for the 3 day weekend, and many of the VDCA v intage races are no more than $300-350.
Jerry Oleson
Well-known member
Not racing this year in an attempt to have a better budget for next year, also trying to put together a group sponsorship for HP drivers in the Rocky Mtn Division to go to the Runoffs in 2013. So I'm one less car for this year but hope to be a big plus for next year.
Keith... Can handle stock rockers, stock cranks etc for LP but agree with you that the lack of decent aftermarket rods makes no sense at all. As soon as I run out of blocks, cranks and rods, I'm gone. Got 3 Vintage eligible full prep engines (with Carrillo rods) that might move me into the "grey hair racing group" where I can go balls out without blowing things up. Only problem with that is I don't have any hair....
Bob
Bob
Protech Racing
Well-known member
Any British car should be allowed good rods. The Honda, VW all have forged rods , OE.
The British cars should be allowed anything inside the engine as long as it breathes through the legal ports, cam and head/carbs. No reason for anything else ,logically. .
Tech should not even pul the pan for them, head, carb, cam cc. done,( maybe allof the cars.??)
Even the Briggs- kart clubs allowed good rods when the factory ones tossed. Blown up engines cost us all money , not just the owner. No shows, poor racing etc.
Write the paper . I''l sign yours and write another .
MM
The British cars should be allowed anything inside the engine as long as it breathes through the legal ports, cam and head/carbs. No reason for anything else ,logically. .
Tech should not even pul the pan for them, head, carb, cam cc. done,( maybe allof the cars.??)
Even the Briggs- kart clubs allowed good rods when the factory ones tossed. Blown up engines cost us all money , not just the owner. No shows, poor racing etc.
Write the paper . I''l sign yours and write another .
MM
Ron Bartell
Well-known member
Edit - Moved to another thread.
Protech Racing
Well-known member
Modern cars have forged rods, easily capable of running to the RPM allowed by the intake system. Just rod bolts needed to run the VW to around 8000.
" Equal weight rods may be subbed" . Is fine with me. with Stock crank. You could even say just the British cars..
The little engines need to run maybe 8500, IMHO . They need rods for this.
FWIW, VW has at least 3 different rods in the 1.8 engine.
" Equal weight rods may be subbed" . Is fine with me. with Stock crank. You could even say just the British cars..
The little engines need to run maybe 8500, IMHO . They need rods for this.
FWIW, VW has at least 3 different rods in the 1.8 engine.
Sydney Yagel
Well-known member
Moving this back to the original discussion, it's been my experience that people don't like change. Especially the ones who've had it a certain way for a while. Rather than bitching about how things aren't like they were 20 years ago (when I was 6 by the way), why don't we give change a chance.
The National office put out a survey about the Runoffs. They collected the results and made a change based on those results. Will it work? How the hell should we know... the race hasn't even happened yet! Let's wait until after the event is over and survey those who attended and those who didn't. Get their feedback, and then make a decision based on those results. I'd like to see what the results were, and then maybe continue this discussion at that time.
Oh and if this post-event survey does happen, I hope every single one of you who have commented on this thread offer your feedback in a constructive manner (meaning give explanations and put some thought into your answers). As a race chairman, I "love" it when I hear someone say they hated something just cause. That's not a valid reason for me to even think about making a change.
And on the issue of the downturn in racing in general, it's my honest opinion that it's not the National Office's job to keep the country racing. It's the job of the Regions and the Divisions. After all, aren't we the ones who put on all of the races, minus the Runoffs?
If you don't think the current program is working, talk to your RE, talk to your Divisional board or someone on a local level that directly influences the races. If you want something changed, don't sit behind the computer and bitch and moan on a thread, send an email to someone who can make a difference and help shape the racing in our own area.
There's no quick fix that can be applied to all areas. In our division, we have a very strong national program, but in other parts of the country, the regional program is bigger. That doesn't mean any one division is more right than another, it just means that different solutions will apply for different parts of the country. Rather than focusing on a nation-wide fix-all, we should be focusing on a fix that is pertinent for the program(s) run in each region/division.
I survey our members and participants constantly on how we can make things better, mainly cause most people don't take the time to send me an email on how our program is going. I want to hear what people think about proposed changes, and most importantly, inform them what's going on in our minds to warn them of what may be coming.
In our division, we are adding more PDX events to our Club Racing weekends. There are two reasons for this: first off, we need more racers, and this is the perfect way to introduce someone to SCCA Club Racing, and second, we need a way to help cut down on costs to the racers. If I can get more PDX entries, I can lower my race entries. It's a win-win situation for everyone. But, we have to combine race groups, and this is going to make some racers mad. But, what's worse, having to race with someone you may not be accustomed to or not having a race at all? It's a decision many regions and divisions will be facing in the future.
I volunteered to be race chairman back when I was 21 because we were faced with a problem in our region, and if I didn't step up, our program could have ended. There are many times I am frustrated with this position, but I don't quit because I want to see that we have a quality racing program. I encourage those who have opinions to get involved, by either providing their feedback or by volunteering.
So, to sum up what I said...
1. Let's see what happens before we judge the Runoffs this year
2. Take every survey you are ever sent about Club Racing to make sure you have a say in what happen
3. Give your feedback to your local region and division on how things are going and bring new ideas to help grow the program
4. GET INVOLVED!
The National office put out a survey about the Runoffs. They collected the results and made a change based on those results. Will it work? How the hell should we know... the race hasn't even happened yet! Let's wait until after the event is over and survey those who attended and those who didn't. Get their feedback, and then make a decision based on those results. I'd like to see what the results were, and then maybe continue this discussion at that time.
Oh and if this post-event survey does happen, I hope every single one of you who have commented on this thread offer your feedback in a constructive manner (meaning give explanations and put some thought into your answers). As a race chairman, I "love" it when I hear someone say they hated something just cause. That's not a valid reason for me to even think about making a change.
And on the issue of the downturn in racing in general, it's my honest opinion that it's not the National Office's job to keep the country racing. It's the job of the Regions and the Divisions. After all, aren't we the ones who put on all of the races, minus the Runoffs?
If you don't think the current program is working, talk to your RE, talk to your Divisional board or someone on a local level that directly influences the races. If you want something changed, don't sit behind the computer and bitch and moan on a thread, send an email to someone who can make a difference and help shape the racing in our own area.
There's no quick fix that can be applied to all areas. In our division, we have a very strong national program, but in other parts of the country, the regional program is bigger. That doesn't mean any one division is more right than another, it just means that different solutions will apply for different parts of the country. Rather than focusing on a nation-wide fix-all, we should be focusing on a fix that is pertinent for the program(s) run in each region/division.
I survey our members and participants constantly on how we can make things better, mainly cause most people don't take the time to send me an email on how our program is going. I want to hear what people think about proposed changes, and most importantly, inform them what's going on in our minds to warn them of what may be coming.
In our division, we are adding more PDX events to our Club Racing weekends. There are two reasons for this: first off, we need more racers, and this is the perfect way to introduce someone to SCCA Club Racing, and second, we need a way to help cut down on costs to the racers. If I can get more PDX entries, I can lower my race entries. It's a win-win situation for everyone. But, we have to combine race groups, and this is going to make some racers mad. But, what's worse, having to race with someone you may not be accustomed to or not having a race at all? It's a decision many regions and divisions will be facing in the future.
I volunteered to be race chairman back when I was 21 because we were faced with a problem in our region, and if I didn't step up, our program could have ended. There are many times I am frustrated with this position, but I don't quit because I want to see that we have a quality racing program. I encourage those who have opinions to get involved, by either providing their feedback or by volunteering.
So, to sum up what I said...
1. Let's see what happens before we judge the Runoffs this year
2. Take every survey you are ever sent about Club Racing to make sure you have a say in what happen
3. Give your feedback to your local region and division on how things are going and bring new ideas to help grow the program
4. GET INVOLVED!
JasonIsley99
Well-known member
sydxracer":1zr8kxxm said:
:applause: I thought a lady never told her age? :lol:
Mazda Jon
Well-known member
sydxracer":3ni7zxlg said:
Damn Sydney, well put!!!! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
Couple years ago a close friend said it was time to put up or shut up so he ran or the local board. He and a couple other racers got on and started making changes and we have great events. Now he's running for the BOD because he says we need changes at the top. I've already got his straight jacket waiting.
Keith Church
Well-known member
OK guys, I wrote letter 9102 to the CRB requesting aftermarket steel rods FOR ALL HP LP ENGINES. Write your letters to agree or not, just don’t take the position that a rule that doesn’t help you must therefore hurt you as that is a very selfish approach. At the Runoffs last year in a miserable cold 8:00am rain start I went from about 16th to 6th very briefly (in part due to offs by three front runners) before a stock rod with less than an hours run time decided to exit the engine through the left side of the block. I was very disappointed as I watched the rest of the race from the exit side of Canada Corner. I watched lots of drivers struggle with the oil I had deposited at the entry to Canada Corner and I saw Tony Drum spin and end his race in the tire wall there. Sudden catastrophic engine failures don’t afford a driver the luxury of deciding where to put the escaping oil and parts so allowing all of us the same level of bottom end reliability may indeed benefit even those with stock forged rods. I will post this on the rules topic so as not to distract from the intent of the “runoff entries” original post.
thanks,
Keith
thanks,
Keith
sydxracer":2rdr4bzy said:
When I read the first post, I thought that's where this discussion would go. Survey put out. Results tabulated: 100's more people said they'd show up if the Runoffs format was different. Format changed. Result? Same entries. Bets on the all new Runoffs week format for next year?
PS See you there. Not running, but enjoy being there. Hopefully Friday and Saturday nights are a little less dead this year.