Harold Flescher
Member
Something I sent to the CRB - for your comments please
Folks,
Although not yet chased from SCCA racing, I'm am, indeed, chased from the runoffs. SCCA and SCCA/RA Runoffs advertising tout the opportunity to have a good time with other fellow racers, you tout being able to run one of the worlds great circuits, you tout the great parties - lots of parties, and tout getting to race with the best in your class. I've been racing for over 50 years to win. I always though that the other things now being touted as reasons to go to the Runoffs were simply part of the experience, not the end game. That's sure true for me. Parties, etc do nothing for me if I don't have a chance to win, since I'm not going without any semblance of a chance to win.
My Runoffs experiences started in 1994, late in my racing career which started in 1962 (Driver lisc 1598). I never wanted to go to the Runoffs with no chance of winning, and I had not put together the hard work and money to have a potentially winning car until the early '90s. In the 15 years from my first Runoffs in 1994 to 2008, I had 8 podiums including a win and a pole. What the CRB has been doing in the last few years has been to classify production cars in such a way that gives strong performance preference to a few, (intentionally or not - I'll stay out of the politics). As an example, the result in FP is that it is impossible for a Spridget (or most older cars) to have a chance of competing for the win, or even being in the hunt save praying for a massive first lap accident up front. In my first year at RA I did indeed set a race lap 0.5sec off the fastest race lap, but it was the last lap with dry tanks and when few up front were trying to run fast rather than protected lines. I do appreciate the 50# weight decrease the next year and apologize that I never got to race my class at the Runoffs that configuration, but my testing indicated that 50# was not as significant as it might sound. I had asked for a 100# weight break, but could never have achieved very much more than the 50# w/o starting with a whole new tub and building a less substantial car. And 100# isn't the answer if you see my calculations below.
My 2011 Runoffs were washed out by the long repair period from the 2010 Runoffs qualifying crash and a late 2011 season fuel fire, so I had to pull my 2011 entry. This year I was faced with a choice. I'm a part owner of a 60' steel boat (called a barge) in France, and this year the only dates available were the before and during the Runoffs. After 6 weeks of thought, I chose to bone the Runoffs and go use my boat. Why? Because it has become too frustrating to drive 1700 miles each way and spend 10 days and a zillion dollars trying to finish 6th or 7th. That isn't what racing is or ever has been for me. I've spent a ton of $ over the years to get what's available from the Spridget, but that is no longer enough. I can't get there from here. Racing is to win, not drive around quickly. I can do the latter at open track days at Moroso, 20 minutes from my house.
And I'd venture there is a lot of truth to what I say for the other 6-12 Spridget drivers that might show up were they at all competitive. And that's only FP. How many Spridgets or older competitive cars are there this year or last?
I do believe that in some ways you, the CRB, have been trying to help, but what you have done has worked for the LP subset of cars, the ones with factories that are still open. You haven't helped older cars much. Racing with the older cars could still be better than the situation today if you do some thinking about working differently. Only part of the problem is power, torque and aero are the less addressed problem.
You folks are better than secretaries that open and read mail. You have eyes and brains and can see what is happening. What I think is that you need to be able to be proactive about equalizing cars, rather than waiting for requesting letters. It is a bit silly that one should think they have to always write essentially the same letter to get anyone's attention. Just look at the Runoffs entry/finishing rosters to see who might need some help. Like the cars who are not there? I'm only smart about some things, so I'll use Spridgets as examples. You have to be willing to break some of the long held paradigms that have driven your past decisions. Power to weight ratio is a critical parameter, and I think you make two mistakes here. The first is that you don't first try to balance #/cc as the single most important parameter. Some kinds of motors get more or less power/cc, and some cars handle better, but #/cc has to be the primary metric.
The second is that the problems we have with older cars can only be solved by adding weight to the LP cars to bring the LP torque equation back in line with the full prep cc/# line. We have a real problem running big LP motors with concomitant torque with small full prep motors which produce only HP. Full prep cars can only benefit from weight reductions if we can get the weight out, and I sure can't anymore. Here is the paradigm shift you need to buy into - adding weight broadly across many cars to provide some equalization of cc/# with torque. Balancing the LP big motor torque vs. the full prep small motor HP problem can only be addressed (I think) by broadly adding weight to the LP cars, which will also to help equalize speed at the end of the straight as it lowers acceleration.
For full prep only, as an example of the simple Spridget equality point on #/cc, look at the #/cc disadvantage the Spridget still has compared to the 1500 Spitfire and Lotus, ignoring all other parameters.The Midget is 1.28 and all other full prep cars are lower, [Spit is about 1.17.] The Spridget still is the highest #/cc of full prep cars, so the Spridget would need about 100 lbs off to get to 1.2, but we couldn't benefit from that change because there is no where left to get weight from. And the only way to get more power from the motor is to go to the later larger intake valves, which are worth only ~4HP (because siamesed ports only breath so well).
There are a whole lot of racecars not going to the Runoffs because they are simply outclassed by todays rules. Go do your long division of cc/# as a first approximation, and then look at starting grids and finishing grids at RA and other places. In part I'm selfish about wanting you to address the Spridget inequality, but there are many older cars (full prep, small motors) in the same boat and they can only be helped by adding weight to LP big motor cars, not lowering weight for the full prep cars beyond what is possible. Adding weight is the only way I know to provide more torque/power equality.
H
Harold L. Flescher
Folks,
Although not yet chased from SCCA racing, I'm am, indeed, chased from the runoffs. SCCA and SCCA/RA Runoffs advertising tout the opportunity to have a good time with other fellow racers, you tout being able to run one of the worlds great circuits, you tout the great parties - lots of parties, and tout getting to race with the best in your class. I've been racing for over 50 years to win. I always though that the other things now being touted as reasons to go to the Runoffs were simply part of the experience, not the end game. That's sure true for me. Parties, etc do nothing for me if I don't have a chance to win, since I'm not going without any semblance of a chance to win.
My Runoffs experiences started in 1994, late in my racing career which started in 1962 (Driver lisc 1598). I never wanted to go to the Runoffs with no chance of winning, and I had not put together the hard work and money to have a potentially winning car until the early '90s. In the 15 years from my first Runoffs in 1994 to 2008, I had 8 podiums including a win and a pole. What the CRB has been doing in the last few years has been to classify production cars in such a way that gives strong performance preference to a few, (intentionally or not - I'll stay out of the politics). As an example, the result in FP is that it is impossible for a Spridget (or most older cars) to have a chance of competing for the win, or even being in the hunt save praying for a massive first lap accident up front. In my first year at RA I did indeed set a race lap 0.5sec off the fastest race lap, but it was the last lap with dry tanks and when few up front were trying to run fast rather than protected lines. I do appreciate the 50# weight decrease the next year and apologize that I never got to race my class at the Runoffs that configuration, but my testing indicated that 50# was not as significant as it might sound. I had asked for a 100# weight break, but could never have achieved very much more than the 50# w/o starting with a whole new tub and building a less substantial car. And 100# isn't the answer if you see my calculations below.
My 2011 Runoffs were washed out by the long repair period from the 2010 Runoffs qualifying crash and a late 2011 season fuel fire, so I had to pull my 2011 entry. This year I was faced with a choice. I'm a part owner of a 60' steel boat (called a barge) in France, and this year the only dates available were the before and during the Runoffs. After 6 weeks of thought, I chose to bone the Runoffs and go use my boat. Why? Because it has become too frustrating to drive 1700 miles each way and spend 10 days and a zillion dollars trying to finish 6th or 7th. That isn't what racing is or ever has been for me. I've spent a ton of $ over the years to get what's available from the Spridget, but that is no longer enough. I can't get there from here. Racing is to win, not drive around quickly. I can do the latter at open track days at Moroso, 20 minutes from my house.
And I'd venture there is a lot of truth to what I say for the other 6-12 Spridget drivers that might show up were they at all competitive. And that's only FP. How many Spridgets or older competitive cars are there this year or last?
I do believe that in some ways you, the CRB, have been trying to help, but what you have done has worked for the LP subset of cars, the ones with factories that are still open. You haven't helped older cars much. Racing with the older cars could still be better than the situation today if you do some thinking about working differently. Only part of the problem is power, torque and aero are the less addressed problem.
You folks are better than secretaries that open and read mail. You have eyes and brains and can see what is happening. What I think is that you need to be able to be proactive about equalizing cars, rather than waiting for requesting letters. It is a bit silly that one should think they have to always write essentially the same letter to get anyone's attention. Just look at the Runoffs entry/finishing rosters to see who might need some help. Like the cars who are not there? I'm only smart about some things, so I'll use Spridgets as examples. You have to be willing to break some of the long held paradigms that have driven your past decisions. Power to weight ratio is a critical parameter, and I think you make two mistakes here. The first is that you don't first try to balance #/cc as the single most important parameter. Some kinds of motors get more or less power/cc, and some cars handle better, but #/cc has to be the primary metric.
The second is that the problems we have with older cars can only be solved by adding weight to the LP cars to bring the LP torque equation back in line with the full prep cc/# line. We have a real problem running big LP motors with concomitant torque with small full prep motors which produce only HP. Full prep cars can only benefit from weight reductions if we can get the weight out, and I sure can't anymore. Here is the paradigm shift you need to buy into - adding weight broadly across many cars to provide some equalization of cc/# with torque. Balancing the LP big motor torque vs. the full prep small motor HP problem can only be addressed (I think) by broadly adding weight to the LP cars, which will also to help equalize speed at the end of the straight as it lowers acceleration.
For full prep only, as an example of the simple Spridget equality point on #/cc, look at the #/cc disadvantage the Spridget still has compared to the 1500 Spitfire and Lotus, ignoring all other parameters.The Midget is 1.28 and all other full prep cars are lower, [Spit is about 1.17.] The Spridget still is the highest #/cc of full prep cars, so the Spridget would need about 100 lbs off to get to 1.2, but we couldn't benefit from that change because there is no where left to get weight from. And the only way to get more power from the motor is to go to the later larger intake valves, which are worth only ~4HP (because siamesed ports only breath so well).
There are a whole lot of racecars not going to the Runoffs because they are simply outclassed by todays rules. Go do your long division of cc/# as a first approximation, and then look at starting grids and finishing grids at RA and other places. In part I'm selfish about wanting you to address the Spridget inequality, but there are many older cars (full prep, small motors) in the same boat and they can only be helped by adding weight to LP big motor cars, not lowering weight for the full prep cars beyond what is possible. Adding weight is the only way I know to provide more torque/power equality.
H
Harold L. Flescher
, and you get way more track time. I'll be at SCCA event this weekend with my FP Miata racing friend and look forward to it, but with my MGB I will race it where it is more embraced, and where my kind of car are in greater numbers. Not mad, not sad, just moved on, and I'm not alone. I often think what things could have been like if SCCA had embraced vintage racing as another type of venue under their label, but they dropped the ball here, and that ship had already sailed.