Runoff Entries

[team-gpracing]

A good example is an FP Miata. It can also qualify in EP.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but how can you run a car in FP and EP? I mean, I know the Miata is legal in both classes, but are you saying your FP-spec Miata, when run in EP is faster than EP cars in your region even though it shouldn't be? Or are you saying that you configure the car differently when in EP?

 

[Dayle Frame]

Not that I've considered doing this buuuuut.....

There are only a few GTL cars running in GLDiv. My HP Sprite is kosher for GTL as it stands now. Is it a 'good' GTL car. Hell no. But I could probably qualify for the dance in GTL along with HP in this division (in other divisions where there are more GTL cars I wouldn't stand a chance).

But, as HP and GTL run together in our divison, it owuld mean that I had to run a minimum of four races for EACH class. That would be pricey. Doing all of this would allow me to run GTL and HP sessions for more track time. But at what cost? I can't afford to do it but the possibility exists.

Dayle

 

[David Dewhurst]

A good example is an FP Miata. It can also qualify in EP.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but how can you run a car in FP and EP? I mean, I know the Miata is legal in both classes, but are you saying your FP-spec Miata, when run in EP is faster than EP cars in your region even though it shouldn't be? Or are you saying that you configure the car differently when in EP?

I'll add my 2 cents for what it's worth.

The spec line for a F Miata is the 1990/1993 1.6 motor, & the spec line for the E Miata is the 1990/1997 1.8 motor. There were no OEM 1.8 motor 1990/1993 Miatas. The vin number stamped in the front firewall tells the 90/03 vs 94/97 chassis. Also there are subtle differences in the chassis.

Or is the spec line saying one may install a 1.8 motor in a 1990/1993 chassis?

 

[JasonIsley99]

I'll add my 2 cents for what it's worth.

The spec line for a F Miata is the 1990/1993 1.6 motor, & the spec line for the E Miata is the 1990/1997 1.8 motor. There were no OEM 1.8 motor 1990/1993 Miatas. The vin number stamped in the front firewall tells the 90/03 vs 94/97 chassis. Also there are subtle differences in the chassis.

Or is the spec line saying one may install a 1.8 motor in a 1990/1993 chassis?

You need to look again, right above the 1.8 listing is a 1.6 listing (-1993 Level 1).

 

[JasonIsley99]

Not that I've considered doing this buuuuut.....

There are only a few GTL cars running in GLDiv. My HP Sprite is kosher for GTL as it stands now. Is it a 'good' GTL car. Hell no. But I could probably qualify for the dance in GTL along with HP in this division (in other divisions where there are more GTL cars I wouldn't stand a chance).

But, as HP and GTL run together in our divison, it owuld mean that I had to run a minimum of four races for EACH class. That would be pricey. Doing all of this would allow me to run GTL and HP sessions for more track time. But at what cost? I can't afford to do it but the possibility exists.

Dayle

Maybe your Region does not like money... So far I have not seen any that wont move run groups around (so long as they are not creating unsafe run groups) to accommodate double dippers. We had an entire run group changed for the whole season to accommodate one person who ran two classes, it was not a big deal.

 

[blamkin86]

I don't care what car the class is legal for. 1.6L SMs are legal in SM, FP, EP, and probably STL and STU too. Good lord you could get FIVE tow fund checks for taking the same car to the runoffs.

I don't see how you should get TWO tow fund checks to get ONE car to the runoffs. It's not like you're towing it back and forth twice.

I hate this gaming the system crap. Any honest runoffs effort was denied tow funds by this nonsense. Every entrant paid for this. You guys slam the SCCA for making bad financial decisions, then you let this anonymous guy get away with this crap.

It's real simple: One car, one tow fund.

I'm writing a letter right now.

 

[JasonIsley99]

I don't care what car the class is legal for. 1.6L SMs are legal in SM, FP, EP, and probably STL and STU too. Good lord you could get FIVE tow fund checks for taking the same car to the runoffs.

I don't see how you should get TWO tow fund checks to get ONE car to the runoffs. It's not like you're towing it back and forth twice.

I hate this gaming the system crap. Any honest runoffs effort was denied tow funds by this nonsense. Every entrant paid for this. You guys slam the SCCA for making bad financial decisions, then you let this anonymous guy get away with this crap.

It's real simple: One car, one tow fund.

I'm writing a letter right now.

Hopefully your letter includes a solution on how to track this stuff - like log book number. :wink:

At the same time if a person pays an entry, regardless of how many or few cars they bring to the track, they are contributing to the tow fund. :think:

 

[blamkin86]

At the same time if a person pays an entry, regardless of how many or few cars they bring to the track, they are contributing to the tow fund. :think:

Yup, that's how the tow fund works. Every national entry helps pay the tow fund of every runoffs entrant.

Some regions offer a discount for double dipping...

 

[zChris]

Being able to double dip probably makes it possible for some that may not be able to afford to come to the runoffs otherwise and probably helps with overall participation numbers in poorly attended areas of the country to boot. Hell, if they run the runoffs on the west coast you may be glad for this loop hole. Don't go and shoot yourself in the foot.
Chris

 

[JasonIsley99]

Being able to double dip probably makes it possible for some that may not be able to afford to come to the runoffs otherwise and probably helps with overall participation numbers in poorly attended areas of the country to boot. Hell, if they run the runoffs on the west coast you may be glad for this loop hole. Don't go and shoot yourself in the foot.
Chris

I agree, I think it is a good thing on all accounts.

I would only change one thing, enforce the 115% qual rule, that should help weed out the "fake" entries.

 

[blamkin86]

Being able to double dip probably makes it possible for some that may not be able to afford to come to the runoffs otherwise and probably helps with overall participation numbers in poorly attended areas of the country to boot. Hell, if they run the runoffs on the west coast you may be glad for this loop hole. Don't go and shoot yourself in the foot.
Chris

That's an odd way to paint the picture. This guy comes on here and says he's actually making money and the SCCA is paying him to test.

I see your point, but that's not what this guy is doing.

 

[blamkin86]

I would only change one thing, enforce the 115% qual rule, that should help weed out the "fake" entries.

I put that in my letter to the CRB as a second option. I mainly don't think one car should get two tow funds. Your idea of the logbook is perfect.

 

[David Dewhurst]

 

[dhrmx5]

Being able to double dip probably makes it possible for some that may not be able to afford to come to the runoffs otherwise and probably helps with overall participation numbers in poorly attended areas of the country to boot. Hell, if they run the runoffs on the west coast you may be glad for this loop hole. Don't go and shoot yourself in the foot.
Chris

That's an odd way to paint the picture. This guy comes on here and says he's actually making money and the SCCA is paying him to test.

I see your point, but that's not what this guy is doing.

What am I doing?
This year I paid for and provided cars for 57 entries for my drivers during the season. I funded 10 Runoffs entries. And you want to piss and moan about my having figured out a way to help alleviate the costs of going racing?

Pull your head out of my arse and figure out a way to fund your hobby.

Oops, I forgot the 12 entries at Sebring and Homestead this year. Make that 69 entries.

 

[dhrmx5]

By the way, anyone who isn't driving 2000+ miles to get to the Runoffs hasn't the right to bitch about tow fund.

 

[blamkin86]

You are funding your runoffs trips on the backs of other national competitors. It doesn't look like you need the money anyway.

I drove 2100 miles this year, and I can bitch about anything I want. It's the internet.

You don't even have the guts to say who you are. You still haven't explained how the SCCA paid you to be there a week early.

 

[Mazda Jon]

People have been double dipping for as long as I've been going to the Runoffs. Ep / GT3 was common. All the GT3 sessions were practice for the EP effort. They still pay for the 4 entries to get qualified and the Runoffs entry, but it is more economical now with double diping at the local event. It's alot easier now for DOT tired cars now with SSB/SSC/T1/T2/T3 cars running STO/STU/STL.

This is the least of the problems facing SCCA.

 

[team-gpracing]

I can bitch about anything I want. It's the internet.

Fantastic! :lol: :applause:

Seriously though, how can you run a car in EP that is an FP car? I saw before I had posted that it wasn't a motor issue. And doesn't every region run those two classes in the same group? More than anything else I'm just wondering why you would do it.

 

[Protech Racing]

Tow money should be linked to logbook #, IMHO
Double dipping counts for the Contingency funds.

 

[blamkin86]

Seriously though, how can you run a car in EP that is an FP car?

If it's really a legal FP car, then it's a 1.6L miata. The 1.6L miata is also a full-prep EP car... but you don't have to actually do the full prep; it just has to be a 1.6L.

The reality is that it's up to the entrant to prove their car is legal for the class. The SCCA clubs are likely to take your entry fee whether you're legal or not - and let the competitors sort it out.