How many races is too many?

Randy Blaylock

Highlander Motorsports
How does 17 races over 12 weekends strike you?

If you wanted to run for a championship, you had to do at least 7 races last year. This year, assuming all the clubs get their proposed dates, it will be 9 races to qualify for a championship. Thoughts?

Last year, 2 racers attended all the races, out of 400ish licensed racers. 2 racers.

Given the current economic situation, does it make sense financially for the health of Conference to expand the schedule, or does it make sense for the clubs to work together to shrink the schedule some temporarily?

What if all the clubs agreed to do two races each, for a total of 10 races over 7 weekends? Doubles for the outlying venues and two singles for the corridor maybe? Would it matter? Is "X" dollars in income distributed to offset 17 races worth of expenses the same as 10? At what point does the incentive translate to greater participation rather than less, and vice-versa?

I know there are concerns about losing rights to dates, but at what point does that translate to unnecessary or unwarranted financial risk?

Discussion?
 
Last edited:
Randy,

Thank you Thank you Thank you

I brought this up at least 3 years ago and it just seems to keep falling by the wayside.

One of the member clubs were trying to put a proposal together for this year's fall meeting but what with everything else that needed to be done, this didn't get too far off the ground.

And no the sky is not falling......yet

I will send you an email thing.
 
It would seem that this is the kind of question and resulting discussion that will not be settled on a forum such as this one, or even at an E-board level meeting for that matter.

This is something that will only be decided by market forces.

Conference should not be able to dictate the number of race weekends any particular club can host; nor should any club be favored over the others with regards to number and format of races; that is what makes us unique (or at least one way we differ from other sanctioning bodies).

We do not lack for number of races in the NW, that's a good "problem" to have! What may come of this heavy schedule, however, is certain races may not be as well-attended as others which could lead to lost revenues from the hosting club. Too many undersubscribed events and that club will then be forced to trim back its schedule.

Unfortunately, the only way to find the true market in this case is to continue increasing the number of races throughout the season until something breaks. And hopefully, whichever club or clubs feel the pinch are not struck so negatively that they cannot recover. It's a risk for sure.

The other element here is our worker base. It's tough enough for drivers and crew to make all the races and seems it is getting increasingly difficult to keep the worker ranks deep enough to also make those races consistently. Keep in mind that we're not just pulling from a pool of "Conference Workers"; rather this is the limited number of folks who work ALL racing events throughout our region. As we increase our schedule, we further endanger the current system of volunteer workers. Again, here comes the market to dictate to us what happens next!

It's not doom and gloom, per say, but it does beg for caution when considering the race schedule each season. Inter-club cooperation will become all the more important as we move forward. Schedule creativity will also become increasingly important (e.g., race on Saturday and Sunday).

Another method of helping to determine what the market will bear is through surveys. I've been around Conference since 2005 and have seen only one survey (relating to the CSCC fall enduro) in that time. I think the survey proved valuable in some regard and it may be advisable to pursue such a thing for going forward with the schedule in the future. It is a conference of drivers, after all, so why not attempt to determine some consensus out there amongst the drivers (and workers) or more correctly, of those who attend the races? We cannot make good decisions based on information that is anecdotal, or confusing a vocal minority for the majority. (side note, I understand this forum only reaches about 20% of the Conference population...)

This, and $695 will buy you an SFI 38.1 certified and FIA 8858 homologation head and neck restraint device...
 
We're called participants now, Mike. A positive move to keep us all on the same page, so to speak.

And I appreciate the recognition that race operations (as opposed to race driving) participants are just that, and although we all have our preferences on any given weekend, we may be participating with any given sanction, at any given event, on any given weekend. Usually the closer event will take precident over an 'away' game. But that's the gray area, isn't it? Who's game is gonna be the most fun for the $$? Sound familiar?

Where NWMS has been tested by the market for a few years now and has settled into the one weekend, twin race scenario, will they want their slice of the three race pie, and grab one more weekend for a single event?

Will TC continue with it's three race schedule? CSCC is planning on the loss of one ICSCC sanctioned event, but are in a good position to retain their date(s) at PIR by marketing their services to other sanctions, or carry their own event. Maybe another enduro (tongue firmly planted in cheek.), or maybe a special invitation for some spec groups... Who knows?

IRDC's pretty much set in their ways, so why would anybody expect that to change. (there's about 18 of that 20%, Mike)

SCCBC decided to 'sacrifice' a date last season, really. Will they do that again, or stay at three home games?

From what I can find, ICSCC policy neither mandates, or even suggests three events per club, per season. At least not on paper. I believe that it has always been wholly dependent upon the agendas of each of those member 'racing' clubs to decide what they require to survive their fiscal responsibilities, and present their desires to the BoD at the meeting. Some have more responsibilities than others. But ICSCC as a sanction body serves only as a venue/forum for each club to discuss how they would like to conduct their race, and driver training season to avoid date conflicts (for all good intent), then with a vote, the gavel allows for that agreement to be scheduled.

So whomever suggested it, all clubs are not equal. But their rights to choose are.

DTs are going strong, around these parts anyway, and that should continue to be a positive revenue source with less stringent mandates for operational participants.

Good sense, and deciding what makes for a reasonable championship season.

Get ready to roll the dice.
 
Last edited:
I think the suggestion of three races stems from the maximum number of races that will be counted towards points at any given track each season.
 
If you wanted to run for a championship, you had to do 7 races last year. This year, assuming all the clubs get their proposed dates, it will be 9 races to qualify for a championship. Thoughts?

Small correction - the number of races one has to run to get championship points is 10. It doesn't depend on the number of races on the schedule. From 503.A:
"...For the purpose of tabulating year end point totals, a maximum of 10 races will count...."


If a survey asked me how many races is too many I'd say 13. Just hypothetically...
 
Bob, championship eligibilty is half the races on any given year, for purposes of total points it's the ten best races.

Ken, I guess I was under the impression that Conference was more than just a scheduling utility. I thought it was more meaningful than that. Stupid me, I guess I need to re-examine and perhaps narrow my loyalties.

If that's truly the case, then there really is no hope of the clubs taking a wider view about our collective future, and it's gonna be market forces or minimum staffing that decides the fates of the races, and by extension, the clubs. That's a shame, because it could be so much more than that.
 
We can always come up with a formula to determine the number of races. Just need to know what to base the figures on.

Or we can wrassle fer it!!
 
...and by "survey" I'm referring to something rather detailed, more so than a simple matter of surveying the participants to determine how many races they will atend, but what's the motivator to attend one race and not another, what influences a decision most - track time, entry fees, ammenities available near the track, weather, astrological signs, planetary allignment, and what-have-you. Determine if a double race weekend really is more beneficial than a single-race weekend (both formats, two-day and three-day). Find out if people are more willing to give up an extra day of work to make it to more double-race weekends (three-day format not on a three-day weekend, like Spokane). Or, better yet - if it has to do with points-earning races or is just getting to race?

That last one needs some explanation. At the NASCAR West race at PIR this summer, the PRO3 contingent experienced a Saturday Qualifying Race which set the grid for Sunday's race. In this case, the qualifier was 30 minutes and the race was 45. We qualified as normal for the Qualifying Race, then raced as if it were a typical race - but this was for position. There was a practice session Sunday morning and then the main event in the afternoon.

The cool thing about this format was that we got two races in the same period of time as a Conference race. It's just that only one race counted. The qualifying race was different in that you now had to be able to sustain a fast lap time for an entire race and use your race craft to better your position. I think we could do something like this in the current Conference format - the Saturday afternoon qualifying becomes a qualifying race. Sunday morning is practice, and then the main event. This would give us two chances to race in one weekend, even though only one race counted towards points. Just a thought, and again, something to survey the participants about.
 
Hey, buck up Randy. It ain't all that bad. The 'Conference' is a wonderful group of diverse, and dedicated people with the likeness of their passions for this great sport of ours, and the satisfaction that it may provide.

ICSCC, on the other paw, is a means to that end. The 'organization' is a the tool that has been created to provide for those wants, needs, and desires. These clubs created a co-op intended to pool resources and expand each club's racing fold into a recognized international championship points series. The same basic tool has been used for over 50 years.

How many tools last that long? How many tools last that long without some maintenance?

My analysis may seem a bit cold. But it's mine, and I have to assess of fundamentals of an operation by pounding, or even drilling down that essence to find the common denominator, and build out from there. So the existential logic may, or may not suit the sensibilities of some, but then, some of the logic that I've observed leaves me a bit cold too. As do some of the common denominators.

If I didn't feel a part of larger whole, I wouldn't even bother... every year... for pretty nearly half my lifetime now. It is not my intent to de-humanize the rituals of the ICSCC, but I have to recognize a distinct difference between the actions of a corporation, and how that affects the sum of its parts. Those part are what I perceive as the 'Conference'.

Some parts fit better than other parts. And I suddenly felt an analogy coming on... but that for another thread. Instead...

And to make a long story longer... Here's something that I found in s'ekiM archives. It's from the 1979 ICSCC Banquet program.

HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
SPORTS CAR CLUBS

The International Conference of Sports Car Clubs concludes its 23rd season of raod racing in the Pacific Northwest, a testimony to the success of its structure, its goals and its people.

The first race was held at Abbotsford, B.C., on April 7. 1957. At the end of that season, the first awards banquet was held at the Edmund Meany Hotel in Seattle on November 30, 1957. The Conference charter was adopted the year before by eight founding clubs, the Sports Car Club of British Columbia, Cascade Sports Car Club and Willamette Motor Club.

Founded as the International Conference of Northwest Sports Car Clubs, this organization is a federation of independent clubs. Participation was initially restricted to clubs which conducted racing events, but the application of the Touring Club of Oregon to join in the late fifties resulted in a charter amendment creating the Affiliate Club category, and TCO became the first name on a distinguished roster of affiliate clubs which participate directly in Conference through the Contest Board and indirectly through club and individual racing activities.

Currently, ICSCC is composed of five Member Clubs—the clubs which stage the races—and 16 Affiliate Clubs. Member Clubs are represented on the Executive Board and all 21 clubs are represented on the Contest Board, which formulates the competition regulations. Contest Board votes are based on the number of IRR & ARR drivers in each club, which provides direct driver representation in rule making.

FormulaCarTPFD1.jpg

Have the fundamentals changed?​
 
Last edited:
Just a little food for thought: Has anybody considered that instead of 12 race weekends, the ICSCC does 10 race weekends and two weekends for "something different". My idea of "something different" is a combined driver education and time trial/time attack weekend. This might make the club more appealing to a different group of drivers (i.e., those not interested or not yet ready to race wheel-to-wheel). The DE sessions would be separate from the time trial/time attack session. Or perhaps Saturday for DE and Sunday for TT/TA? Maybe pattern the TT/TA session after what Redline does or what NASA does or what the Pacific Grand Prix does (but not on a go-kart track)?
 
We're called participants now, Mike. A positive move to keep us all on the same page, so to speak.

IRDC's pretty much set in their ways, so why would anybody expect that to change. (there's about 18 of that 20%, Mike)

.

Ken, I do not understand what you mean by this statement. Having attended almost all of the IRDC Board and Membership meetings IRDC is planning on doing the same as they have the past several years. Same number of races and other events as in the past. No increase.
Explanation please? Plain english?
 
"IRDC is pretty much set in there ways,so why would anybody expect that to change?"

As you have just confirmed, Scott.

Also it's not a stretch that the larger percentage of the 20% of the people that this forum reaches (as Mike referred) are IRDC members.

I don't understand how you find that so difficult to understand.

>'snarky' comment removed<
 
Last edited:
Considering the turn out at some of the events last year.... If a few less races meant more turn out at more events then I'm all for it. I see this as a topic where a change can be good for the overall state of things yet not please everyone. I'm biased on the number races though because I had more race wins than the 2 people who finished ahead of me in points... but that's kind of a different subject.
 
Clubs need to survive. So if that means a club needs to put on one race vs 3 so be it. Why is it that so many clubs feel the need to put on the 3-race max for points and in doing so are creatively figuring out ways to make that happen over the fewest weekends possible? I assume to try and get the "draw." Before long we could nearly have every race weekend either be a double points race or a double race weekend. Maybe before long clubs will just start to pay us to come to an event...
 
Mr. Killam - just for the record, I am the President of the IRDC which you seem to be trying to make some point about and I didn't really understand your post either in spite of a deep and thorough understanding of the English language.

The number of races, length of season and the resulting affect on driver attendance and volunteer participation is something that the IRDC Board has spent countless hours agonizing over. As elected representatives of the members of the IRDC, we are duty bound to do our best to enact the will of the membership as a whole. I have publically requested input from our members every year that I have been on the Board and done my best to act in accordance with their wishes.

At the last General Membership meeting I once again informed the membership that I felt the schedule was moving in a direction that would ultimately hurt race attendance for ALL of the clubs. The brutal truth is that a bloated schedule will likely hurt the IRDC the least of any club as we are centrally located and about the shortest tow from any other track. A 17 race schedule will hurt the outlying clubs the worst since the races that most racers sacrifice are the ones that are the least time and cost efficient. Mission, ORP, and SRP represent a significant increase in time and logistical impact. Since the two highest membership counts (IRDC and Cascade) have reasonably short tows if they attend their own races and each others, they are in a position to be harmed the least.

The downside of huge schedules?

1) The statistics show that more races only creates only a nominal amount of additional entries. We are really geting close to the same amount of entries and just dividing them among more events. This results in lower car counts for all events. Worse for outlying tracks than the core tracks.

2) I've watched the statistics for years and posted them here on the forum in the past. A driver has to enter 1/2 of the scheduled races to be eligible for a class trophy. I haven't done the statistics for this year yet, but I believe the number of drivers who have met that requirement in the past has always been less than 18% of the drivers. The maximum number of races that can count toward the seasons point total is ten, with no more than three results coming from any one track. With the season getting so large, the percentage of drivers qualifying for year end honors will drop further. With the exception of just a couple classes, obtaining a year end trophy has become all about the size of your racing budget and your willingness to skip all other summer activities to race. Oh, and by the way - the outlying tracks are trying to incent drivers to come to their events by holding two double race weekends. I commend them for trying to give drivers more value out of one trip to get attendance up, but because of the maximum results from any one track rule you can only take three races worth of points from the four races you attend. I can see this causing drivers to attend one of those doubles but not two if the efficient gathering of points is what they are after.

3) Making the minimum numbers to stay a championship class is going to get harder. Lots of classes have had some pretty light participation - dividing a low turnout by a larger amount of races wil make average participation smaller yet. Is this going to lead to fewer championship classes?

4) Are we content that a smaller schedule will eventually come about because the outlying tracks will start cutting races that lose money every year? Cascade and IRDC can probably hold their traditional three races a year and stay in the black for the foreseeable future. SRP, ORP, and SCCBC are having a little harder time accomplishing this so they are looking for new and innovative ways to get car counts up. In the end it comes down to economics - is there sufficient financial reward to hold any given number of races? The balance sheet tells the tale.

5) Doesn't matter how many races are added to the schedule, the number of week-ends available during the "racing season" doesn't change. Will we not be happy until we race on every single week-end between April and October? Even for those who can afford the money and the time to race three week-ends back to back, can you also afford to ignore your non-racing responsibilities midweek to work on your racing program? To run all of the races you would just about need a professional team to maintain the car!

Personally? I would probably be fine with every club holding two races for a ten race championship. I don't think I have ever done any more than ten races in a season and statistics show the gross majority of drivers do that many or less. On the other hand, it could concievably hurt attendance because of a fair sized contingent who don't haul to outlying tracks. You would be removing two races from those who only go to Pacific and PIR which is a larger group than you think.

Like most complex problems, this will require a pretty complex solution. Suggesting that any member club is somehow misguided or uninformed because they don't jump on a simplistic answer favored by anything less than a vocal majority of the members is misguided rabble-rousing.

We have no choice but to be results oriented. We can listen to all of the opinions on the forum, we can solicit input from our members at meetings and in private, and we can brainstorm as a Board until we lose conciousness - it will still involve less than 20% of the membership. It always comes down to one thing: RACERS VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS. In spite of a tough year, a tough economy, and several mistakes by the aforementioned board, IRDC finished the year in the black while providing quality motorsports opportunities for it's members. This was no small feat and I thank every one of our fine volunteers along with everyone who chose to enter one of our events for supporting our club and the ICSCC.

A long answer to basically say - " I guess as long as attendance stays strong, we will be holding our regular three races."
 
Just to throw a Web site stat out there that might help to explain the 800lb gorilla that is IRDC, the three most downloaded race announcements in the past year were for the 3 IRDC races.

"Also it's not a stretch that the larger percentage of the 20% of the people that this forum reaches (as Mike referred) are IRDC members."
Uh, yeah, it is.

Also, Ken, your style of written communication can be pretty obtuse, so I don't think your snarky rejoinder to Scott was deserved.
 
I think that you think that I was thinking of a way to put IRDC in some bad light. I was not.

Nope, that was all. Nothing obtuse about it. IRDC is, and has been pretty much consistent in their approach every year, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to change. What is it that spurs such indignation? I point out the obvious, and you assume some dark, underlying insult? Please...
 
More races is NOT the answer. It is simply a mathematical solution. X number of drivers, X amount of financial resources for these drivers, X number of races, X cost to each club to hold an event, X charges to enter and event. A few more factors to consider, then put them all in an equation that will provide a reasonable answer.

Either that or we can wrassle fer it.
 
Back
Top