The only race that matters

R

RICK HAYNES

Guest
The CRB does not believe that the results of the 2015 Runoffs provide a good baseline for the adjustment of cars in 2016. Daytona is not typical of the majority of tracks used by SCCA.


I has seen this reason given by the CRB not to make a change more than once, not just using Daytona, I heard it about Road America too. And while I don't necessarily disagree with the thought I think it is troubling because as we all know the runoffs is the only race that matters. You can win all the races year long and if you fall short at the last one it is all been for nothing. I know we are in a different time and circumstances now, what with the runoffs moving around and so many different types of cars with such a wide range of the way those car accomplish their speeds grouped in the same class. But In the past the runoffs ,the only race that matters, was THE gauge that the CRB used in deciding adjustments, now it seems they look at it as just another race to be taken in to account in balancing the factors involved. It is looking a little like a lottery. I know of cases that drivers shopped around to match the car to the runoffs venue, some times it worked and sometimes not, and while there is nothing wrong with doing it if you can afford it, is that what the sport should be encouraging as the way to do things? It would be ideal if every one had the same chance with regard to the potential of our chosen car at every race but that is unrealistic now days. However it felt like it was better years ago when there where more class's to accommodate all the cars rather then now when so many different cars are crammed in to what is left of the prod class's. As a result we all have seen and have our own opinions about drivers that have won a National championship that maybe owed more to their car than to their driving. It always takes a very good car to win but not always is a top driver required. Driving fast in a straight line makes any one look like a champion. But to close and to save some readers some time, I know this isn't the 70s and 80s with 8 prod car class's, but there must be a better way for SCCA to do this, or maybe we just need to start using asterisks in the record book.

rick haynes
 
Rick - As you stated it is a very different time for production car racing. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, the production guys were more attached to their cars. Some even converted their street cars to race cars. In my case I sold my street Sprite and bought a racer with the money. But all of us were dedicated to seeing the ultimate version of our car materialize over time.

Now, with the arrive and drive mentality that is so prevalent in many classes, there is no real attachment to the car, and with the Runoffs being moved around from power tracks to handling tracks it makes sense for someone interested in winning to go with the right horse for the course. Likewise, since the venue changes so frequently, it doesn't make as much sense to use the runoffs as the criteria for making corrections, nor would the 100lbs penalty to the winner be appropriate on a different track.

No Rick, unfortunately we can only rely on the CRB to make adjustments when needed. And sadly for us underpowered but superior-handling cars, even when the lap times are identical, we have no legitimate chance to win against a more powerful opponent because they will always be able to pass on the straight, but we will not always be able to re-pass in the corners.

It will take a track where the premium for handling is enough that lap times are NOT identical, and the better handling cars can get away and not be re-passed on the straight. I am not sure that Mid Ohio is that track, but it is the best shot at it that I can see. Some of the cars that I am racing against in H have enough power to overcome the handling deficiency, and at Mid Ohio, where it is difficult to pass, they may still have the advantage. We'll see, but I agree with one thing: it is the only race that matters.
 
If the layout of the track is what determines "the best" classification to have, then parity is doing pretty darn well. The rules have some stability to them, the "rewards weight" black-eye of Prod is basically gone, the classes are healthy, new and diverse builds are happening, and each class has a long list of viable classifications. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, because everything is constantly evolving and the idea of "perfect" is a fictitious one, but the effort is certainly there to make things better, and is largely succeeding by many measurables. Now that being said, if you're the type of person who's constantly engrossed in thinly-veiled concerted efforts to feed and protect your own interests, are firmly resistant to any changes or ideas that aren't your own, and go out of your way to publicly bad-mouth whenever possible, then you're never going to be happy and there's not much anyone can do for you. But just know this, those actions cause far more harm to this category and Club Racing in general than whatever perceived issue is being rallied against.

RICK HAYNES":6wskbzdd said:
As a result we all have seen and have our own opinions about drivers that have won a National championship that maybe owed more to their car than to their driving. It always takes a very good car to win but not always is a top driver required. Driving fast in a straight line makes any one look like a champion.....maybe we just need to start using asterisks in the record book.
Click to expand...
Just a word of advice, but it might help if you provided some good examples of this, because otherwise it just makes you sound horribly disrespectful and bitter. Luckily I know you better than that, Rick. So you bringing that car out this year? An LBC easily took the gold at Laguna just two years ago, and now with The Runoffs back at Mid-Ohio, you've got to be feeling pretty good, huh? Yes, I hope to see you there. Maybe I will have learned how to drive by then. Cheers.
 
RICK HAYNES":uhb7ggvd said:
As a result we all have seen and have our own opinions about drivers that have won a National championship that maybe owed more to their car than to their driving. It always takes a very good car to win but not always is a top driver required. Driving fast in a straight line makes any one look like a champion.
rick haynes
Click to expand...

Ouch!

Brian Linn
*2015 HP National Champion!

*fastest HP car at S/F at Daytona but weighing more than most, so slower out of the corners. The car was better than the driver.
 
Some have apparently missed the point, I think it would have been as legitimate to say after the Laguna Seca race , or maybe even the Midohio race next year. "It is easy to look like a champion if you cars weights 700 lbs less than mine". But in this case Daytona was the last runoff venue and the clearest example of the problem. Point being , there is a serious fault in the program when a percentage of the field , or even those that choose to attend, are eliminated from being competitive by where the race is held. I don't think that bodes well for the future and there seems to be no solution or even an effort to find one on the horizon. I remember seeing races at Road Atlanta years ago where there clearly was more car than driver involved , despite how good the drive was, in winning a championship. I also seem to remember the CRB making changes to correct the imbalance so it was less likely to happen again. The CRB looks to be much less willing to address the problems now. Mistakes will be made and the CRB has a tough job keeping it close for the good of all. But I am not sympathetic because this is a self inflected dilemma brought on us by SCCA. The lack of enough class's to suit the wide range of cars is the root of it and that was done deliberately. Is this the way it is and there for unfix-able forever? I would like not to think so. If you want an example one of the best is the Lotus 7 in F/p. On the pole in Ca. and not even worth taking to Daytona by any one? But quite probably a very good car at Midohio. Is this the good balance some see in the class?

rick haynes
 
Pretty sure it is Joe Huffaker, not the CRB, that has made it so difficult to race a FP or GTL Spridget. (HP is a different discussion).
 
RICK HAYNES":3klhdcgj said:
The lack of enough class's to suit the wide range of cars is the root of it
Click to expand...

RICK HAYNES":3klhdcgj said:
If you want an example one of the best is the Lotus 7 in F/p. On the pole in Ca. and not even worth taking to Daytona by any one? But quite probably a very good car at Midohio. Is this the good balance some see in the class?
Click to expand...

Your solution for making the lotus competitive at both tracks is really more classes?
 
Apparently I'm still missing the point. From what I've seen the same usual suspects were in the front at Daytona as were at Road America. Laguna was different in that some weren't there. Even though they are not all driving the same car. Now you are questioning their driving ability to be there?
 
Let's cut threw the chase for the 2015 Runoffs F Production.

Entries 20:

http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/sc ... 1443295348

Grid:

http://cdn.growassets.net/user_files/sc ... 1444402175

There seems to be a Fiat, MG Midget, MGA and MGB qualified within the top ten qualifiers. Watching live qualifying, it seemed to be those with reasonable straight line speed did ok provided they could drive the infield segment quickly. IIRC the guy that won qualifying and the race also had the quickest infield segment during qualifying.
 
mlewis":35fo19ip said:
wow... hadn't seen anyone lobbying for more classes. that's a new one!
Click to expand...

Way back when, SCCA Production car category had 8 classes: A-H After many twists and turns, that's been pared down to 3, E, F & H.

So, originally, factory production sports cars could be slotted into any one of 8 classes. Put another way, a car at the "Production" prep level could be classed in 8 different places, with appropriate weight tweaks, to achieve parity.

Today, we have three Prod classes, E,F, and H. So the CRB has only 3 slots to put Prod prep level class cars into. This inevitably has two effects - really fast cars can't be classed in Prod, and the ones that are classed in Prod have to have more drastic equalizations applied in order to achieve parity within class. Many feel - rightly I think - that the more drastic the equalization factors, the more a particular car is likely to dominate at a particular type of track.

To take it to an absurd example, you can put ballast into a Jaguar to make a Bugeye Sprite competitive with it at Lime Rock, but the Jag will run away at Daytona. If you put enough ballast into the Jag to make the Bugeye competitive at Daytona, the Bugeye will run rings around the Jag at Lime Rock. The fewer the classes at a given prep level, the more extreme any equalizing factors need to be, and the more likely it is for a given car to be dominant on a particular type of track.

Al Seim
HP VW Scirocco 1.6
 
OK
Here is the craziest idea ever
Guaranteed to drive everyone up the wall
Have different weights for each car for each track to equalize them
:whistle: or should it be :-[...
 
There is a 100% difference in size between the smallest motor and the largest motor right now in F/P. If you go on a more representative engine size, about 1300cc to 1850cc it is 35%. When a new runoffs venue is announced, what is the 1st thought everybody has?? It is 'O good I get to run a new track" No , people think about how their car will fit the requirement of the track and plan accordingly. It is undebatable that some racers have quit altogether and others plan their racing year on where the runoffs are being held. This is all because it is impossible to design a rule set that creates a level playing field as it is now and I would like to see a improvement that will include more cars, more of the time. I think another class is appropriate now after all the years of adding new cars. I think it would close up the performance gaps that make some cars go from being winners to losers based on no more than which track the SCCA front office can get the best weekly rental on. I never thought this would be such a foreign concept to others when it looks so clear to me, but I am surprised by Brian's presumed slight by me when there was none. Brian has been a formidable driver is a number of cars for years. I was pointing out that to remain competitive at a number of tracks Brian has found it to his advantage to tailor his cars to the challenge, a situation created by SCCA not Brian and I repeat. Is this the best way? I don't think so. I just read Al Seim's post and I think he laid out the problem very well. I expect criticisms but to be accused of being " constantly engrossed in thinly-veiled concerted efforts to feed and protect your own interests, are firmly resistant to any changes or ideas that aren't your own, and go out of your way to publicly bad-mouth whenever possible", from some one that has raced a car at the top end of the motor limit while the runoffs have been at tracks for 6 of the last 7 years that reward that type of advantage seems grossly self serving. and a statement like "But just know this, those actions cause far more harm to this category and Club Racing in general than whatever perceived issue is being rallied against". sounds to me more like , "The way it is now has been good to me and I don't want it changed".
 
Al..... my point was that its pretty much accepted that the scca has too many classes now for too few drivers. in the majority of the country most classes cant fill a podium anymore. if you're here for the competition, spreading the thinning driver pop over even more classes doesn't seem to fit. this will open the flood gates to 'why is the driver pop thinning' which will then spiral into the 'scca office sucks' rabbit hole. that never gets anywhere productive and no need to derail this thread. good racing in 2016 everyone.
 
Although for some the runoffs is only race that matters, this is not the case for the majority of racers. Keeping the rules focused on a generic baseline track makes sense for everyone. In my opinion MO is the most "balanced" track that we race at and I look forward to the runoffs there more than any place it's been lately.

Yes, there are horses for courses and folks with more money than you have an advantage. This is true of every competitive sport on earth. I'd have it no other way and I'm a dyed in the wool open trailer/sleep in the truck cast member. Racing is racing. Let's not try to make it socialism.

-Kyle

PS: Mike, Nice job of shoving your unwanted incorrect opinion in where it's inappropriate and then asking that no one dispute it to avoid them derailing the thread. You should be in politics.
 
Rick,

You have only entered the Runoffs twice in the last 15 years. A Spridget won in CA and went 138mph without benefit of radial tires in FL. Maybe you could share with us exactly which track you are waiting for?

Additionally I have read your inflammatory and worse post all over the internet ref SCCA and Vintage for years now and you have never once done other than advocate for the Spridget. We all know that is where this is headed despite the Lotus reference. You are perhaps the best example of exactly what you criticize.
 
kyle.

nice job declaring yourself the arbiter of whats correct and appropriate. not that its surprising...
 
disquek":3nk3cwxa said:
Although for some the runoffs is only race that matters, this is not the case for the majority of racers.
-Kyle
Click to expand...
True, but it is also true that the majority of the racers have no chance to win the Runoffs. As someone pointed out in another post, [we have achieved parity and] it is a lot of fun and good racing provided you are in the car that has enough top speed and a wide bumper.

A perfect example of what Rick is talking about occurred a couple weeks ago at Homestead. Maybe his rhetoric actually applies more to H Production because theoretically the F Production cars can always come up with more power. I broke the lap record and was more than a second a lap faster than the next few cars, but was lucky to get one win on a mistake against a couple of top-ten cars, when mine is arguably one of the fastest of its type in the country. That does not sound like parity to me.

Believe me, once you have won one these things, the Runoffs is the only race that matters, and it has been a long time since the LBC's have had a legitimate chance in H.

What is the answer? Speaking only for H Production: Take some weight off the tin tops and choke them down, or give us some way to make more power out of a limited prep motor and achieve a higher top speed. Or........bring back G.

Tell me if you would be having fun here. Granted one of these was a front wheel drive car on a slippery track, but most of these will give you the idea of what is being talked about:

https://youtu.be/HwvKqwcQKPM

In fairness I should point out that in most cases on these videos my lap times are the same or faster than the cars that are running away on the straights, so there is a lot of fun associated with driving one of these underpowered cars, we just don't have any chance to win the big one.
 
Mike. If somebody like Kyle didn't say it a newbie reading your post might not have any idea that you spent the last 25 years trying to take the "club" out of "club racing". I respect yours and Ricks right to your own opinion, but just can't respect the insincere approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top