How many races is too many?

Scotch for Saturday, aspirin for Sunday.

Rick has pretty much summed it up, and I know that the CSCC BoD works toward those same goals. It is that interaction between clubs, when they have some semblance of the dates that they can work with, that I believe is the essence of what Randy is trying to get a feeling for. And it's the traditional weekends that are hard to give up when conflicts do arise.

Some of those conflicts have been 'other than ICSCC' conflicts. Portland Historics has been around for many years so it may be considered a traditional date, but NASCAR-W, has bumped up with the Spokane race for two years now. That may not affect ICSCC overall, but when Spokane loses entries, and race operations volunteers because of it there is a real impact.

I have to disagree though, Karen. Each of the clubs, whether member clubs, or associate are autonomous. They each hold their own charters, and work within the mandates of their individually created bylaws. These clubs partipate in ICSCC only as is the desire of the membership. I believe that each club's BoD formally considers, and votes on whether they will pay the membership fee to ICSCC.

That, as opposed to an organization like NASA, or the SCCA who similarly forms around geographical territories with events at local race tracks that are designated to a region (club) which in turn, serves a division (a couple-three regions), within areas (some number of divisions), that are ultimately controlled by the national office. That is what becomes of an organization that grows into so many regions (clubs) that operational consistency, compatibility, and cooperation become a much larger 'herd of cats'.

Comparitively, and because of the more localized operations of the ICSCC, there is only a two step heirarchy of organization, and the ICSCC is not a controlling entity that can dictate the parameters of operations for each member, or associate club other than how it applies specifically to their sanctioned events. It's a good system.

Each club is otherwise, independent, and who doesn't like that aspect?

Even with those occasional conflicts that arise when dealing with the fellowship of conference clubs as they come together eek out a plan for each season, and through only two formal meetings each year.
 
I was using "autonomous" in a broader sense of the word--beyond charters and voting, etc. For each club to function completely independently of Conference/other clubs would be losing something very great. We are much better off working together for the good of the whole--one reason the Conference series is so great.

*Do we even have time to get a survey out before the schedule needs to be locked down?
 
I would be happy to work on a survey and/or some ad hoc committee for this (or in Rick's case, a ham-hoc committee!) I think regardless of how this discussion ends up, a survey of the greater membership is a good idea if only to spot potential problem areas that could be fixed or to tweak events to help increase attendance. (side note: when I mentioned a survey, the enduro survey was front and center. We said we wanted a 12hr event, then no one showed. You can see the limitations of surveys and their responses.)

What's the goal here? To increase attendance at races or just hope the clubs break even? I think this is a zero-sum game; there are only so many races that our members will attend each season on a regular basis (or only to a certain frequency of events). And using that assumption, that means that any new track or existing track wishing to add races must take from existing races typically held by another club. That's to Randy's point about cooperation among the clubs.

Otherwise, we will have five awesome tracks with mediocre attendance levels at each. I for one, would rather see full grids and fat attendance which would be achieved through increasing the number of double race weekends during a season where practical.*

Now that I dwell on this a bit...we have survey data already in-house: all the entries for the past several seasons at each track and the resulting points earners from those entries. Do any of the clubs sit down after a season to analyze the entries? Make comparisons to the previous years data, etc.? Might be interesting results just from that...

We do something like this in PRO3 each season - a look at the number of entries vs the number of drivers eligible for championship points as compared to previous years numbers. It's always a bit enlightening...

...but now I think my mind is rambling...
 
Karen,

*Do we even have time to get a survey out before the schedule needs to be locked down?

I think the time is up for 2011. Historically the schedule is set at the fall meeting and then finalized in Jan. at the spring meeting.
Conatracts are done, so we will have to see where we end up.

The earlier we can get results of the survey, that Mike has offered to do, to the clubs, the more tme they have to decide how they want to proceed from there for 2012.

See you at the banquet.
 
The size of the schedule is quite likely to be a topic of discussion at the meetings, but Lynn is right - decisions made now for substantial change would be hard to institute before 2012.

A lot of planning has to take place well in advance of these events if they are to happen at all and velocity has pretty much carried those plans beyond the point of major change for 2011. Some movement is still possible though, so make sure your E-Board rep goes to the meetings with a clear understanding of what the members want!
 
I would suggest that the race dates rotate each year, just like the race groups do each race to make it fair that no one group has its race at the end of every weekend.

Why is the first race of the year always at PIR????

Also each club have an equal number of race weekends, be it two or three per year.

Just my .02

John Rissberger
# 10 A/S Camaro Oregon ICSCC & SCCA
 
@ John. The first race isn't always at PIR. 2003, 2004, 2005 it was at Mission. What does it matter where the first race is?
 
Well it is single shots at 10 paces or Wrassling Itell-ya wrassling!!!

Just thinkin out side the box, maybe it is better as a driver to keep out of this as I will pick and choose the race weekend I what can afford to race. Haven't made any money at this racin yet. Sure have had a lot of fun though.
 
"...maybe it is better as a driver to keep out of this..."

You can't do that John. The drivers drive the Conference. Fill out the survey(s). THEN, "...pick and choose the race weekend I (you) what can afford to race..."

You might come up with something that no body will admit that they didn't think of already. Although the wrasslin' thing does have a particular appeal... wesson oil... visqueen (sp?)... somebody just outside the ring with a bucket of water.
 
10 paces huh? Need my reading glasses for that one!

My .05's worth: Fewer race weekends, a couple doubles thrown in for those Clubs willing. The result are larger grids. Clubs should look at offering a "rebate" if the number of entries is high. Simply put, if we get 150 entries and the entry fees are $250.00 and that covers the costs OK (Total "income of $37,500.00). If there are 200 entries kick back $50.00 per entry (clubs can keep the remaining $12.50). Do the Clubs need to make a ton of money?? Not in my opinion.
 
The one thing I have not seemed to find in this discussion is the demand on turn workers for additional race weekends. How do the workers feel about spending additional weekends at the track away from their families and/or their responsibilities? We racers tend to think it is all about us, but it is not. We are only 1/2 of the equation. There is also the family support network, which some people do not think about and don't even consider until it is too late. I have seen many families destroyed from all of this "fun". Now, I realize that it is not the clubs responsibility for that, it is the persons, but for someone whom really enjoys racing and feels the need to go to every single race, this can turn out to be tragic .

Adding more races has the same effect as the economy does on the upper and lower classes in society. All you do by adding more races is make it impossible for an average joe to come out and win a race, let alone a championship. In the competitive classes you will never be a consistent front runner if you do not have seat time of the front runners. If there are 17 races then only a couple of people in each class, at the most, will even be able to afford to run all needed to win. This can discourage existing or newcomers out of running because they cannot keep up with the Jones's. It just turns into a spending war. I am willing to bet money that I could guess the income bracket for most of the class winners this year based on the current schedule and that would be greatly amplified if more races were added to the schedule.

I have been involved in Conference as a driver and crew since about 1991. I remember when we only had PIR and SIR when Westwood was gone. We quickly added a couple of tracks and had a decent schedule load and some EPIC battles in multiple classes (anyone remember the club rabbits?). Is it ever going to be enough? Do we always need more?

Anything that will add cost will reduce entries, period. It may not be noticed at first, but it will hurt over time. I remember when club ford had over 20 cars ever single weekend and now we are lucky to have 3 or 4. Between politics and out of control rules that led to high running expenses, we are now almost gone. How many mid-pack guys would be hurt by having more weekends? Tires, engine rebuilds, repair, travel, it all adds up. I hope that the people whom vote on what the schedule will be will think a little about the little guy. Otherwise, all of this will be gone at some point.
 
10 paces huh? Need my reading glasses for that one!

My .05's worth: Fewer race weekends, a couple doubles thrown in for those Clubs willing. The result are larger grids. Clubs should look at offering a "rebate" if the number of entries is high. Simply put, if we get 150 entries and the entry fees are $250.00 and that covers the costs OK (Total "income of $37,500.00). If there are 200 entries kick back $50.00 per entry (clubs can keep the remaining $12.50). Do the Clubs need to make a ton of money?? Not in my opinion.

Are you gonna buck up with when the entry doesn't meet the break even point? As far as I know all the clubs are not-for-profit organizations so the profit is likely reinvested in racing. I know my club, the SCCBC, has invested past surplusses in inproving the facility at Mission. Comparing our current facility to the one that we had when I first started cornerworking in the late 90's is a night and day comparison.

db
 
@ db, of course the clubs would have to cover the races that don't break even. Just like CSCC did this year at the enduro. The goal here is to get the entries UP so it doesn't have a short-coming!
 
If I might touch on Mr. Harvey's comments...

Of course he's right. Every event depends on that symbiotic relationship of driver entries, and operational personnel. That balance is important because once the money is spent on the facilities, insurance and so on, it's gone, baby.

Last season was particularly busy for me personally, as for others, but I won't speak for them. In years past, my 'normal' season has run about 9 ICSCC events and that included the 3 day double race @ SRP, then the NWMS events conflicted with those "other than" events at PIR, my local track. It's hard to go to an away game when your team is playing at home. I attend 8 ORSCCA events. 5of which are three day events. Then there are the 'special' event. Historics (CSCC supported), Mazda GP (ORSCCA supported), and now NASCAR-W (CSCC supported) all three-day events, and pretty much swallow up July starting with the (now) ORSCCA 4th of July Dbl. Nat'l., then I participated in the first ever Chumpcar 24-ish hour (CSCC supported), and this year's 12+6hr ChumpCar race (supported primarily by locally trained personnel).

When I do the math and consider how many days I've been at a race track someplace it comes to about 17 days for ICSCC when I was attending the Spokane event, but this year with ORP, it was 18 days. SRP was conflicted again, and I missed the Sept. IRDC race. ORSCCA costs me plenty in vacation time, and they would have added another race at ORP, but as it is I was at PIR for another 21 days. Special events were as mentioned above, and added up to 8 more days. So that's about 46 days give or take for a couple early season DT's.

Now I'm not the only one with a schedule like that. Our colleagues up north have the CASC, and some other special events to add to their ICSCC participation. It can certainly affect your attitude by the end of a season.

So what if ICSCC goes to 15 races per year? The odds of conflicts with 'other than' events goes up and every club will have to depend more, and more on local talent to operate those racing commitments.

ORSCCA, this year averaged >19 people per event day in the Flagging & Communication specialty, but that is down only slightly from last years' average (>21 per event day). That, with acquiring some new people, but not at each and every event. Also, non-holiday fridays are way not good for attendance.

I've got a good job, with a good wage. I can use vacation days, and then 'no-pay' days when those run out.

Sure, I can.

Holly wants to take like a whole week type vacation someplace. What's scary about that is... I don't know how. I've never done that... least ways not that I can remember. And that approaches Mr. Harvey's other point in regard to personal relationships. I'm lucky (so far) that my mate is involved in this great sport of ours... but I digress.

When/if ICSCC starts using a three day format to run a double race weekend, what they gain in less 'tows', they may well lose in operational participants that are either unable, or not willing to give up so much of their vacation days, or that day's pay.

I have never been to a race at Laguna Seca. I wanna go to Laguna Seca. TC's events took that opportunity away this season. I'm the one that made the decision to go, but who's gonna try to take that trip to Laguna away from me next season?

I'm conflicted.

conflicted.gif
 
Last edited:
I took a quick look at the memo that just arrived, which contains the final season qualifying points for championships. Take from this what you will, but I find it rather enlightening:

There were 45 points-earning classes this past season, including ST as a "Provisional"

Of the 45 classes:
11 classes have three or more podium/trophy earners for points (24%)
15 classes have just one podium finisher (33%)
19 classes awarded no champion as no one in the class attended enough events to qualify (42%)

Can we infer from this that points is not the motivator for people to attend races? Seems like it.

More to follow on this...
 
Last edited:
I went back to 2009 and 2006 to see what similar results would show:

2009 (44 classes) 12 races
10 classes had three or more podium/trophy earners for points (22%)
17 classes had just one podium finisher (39%)
17 classes awarded no champion as no one in the class attended enough events to qualify (39%)

2006 (47 classes) 13 races
14 classes had three or more podium/trophy earners for points (30%)
18 classes have just one podium finisher (38%)*
15 classes awarded no champion as no one in the class attended enough events to qualify (32%)

(* For simplicity, I counted classes with two qualifying finishers as "one"; what is interesting here is that there were signifcantly more classes in 2006 with two qualifying finishers than in 2009 or 2010)

Why these counts I think are important is that this is a quick way to determine racing habits of Conference drivers as it relates to points chasing and the race schedule for that season. 2009 was a recession year and that had an impact on budgets. Notice in 2006 that there were 13 races but a higher number of points chasers for podium finishes than in 2009 and 2010? (30% vs 22% and 24% respectively)

Maybe number of races doesn't matter as much as outside economic influences. Just a quick glance through this bit of history, I also noticed a few names from 2006 that were not nearly as active, or even present in 2009/2010; losing racers surely has an impact as well.

This last bit of info could be an alarm of something - sure we're increasing membership in Conference of new drivers, but what happens to those drivers after their Novice races? After the first season? Do they stick around for more? Are we losing "senior" or "seasoned" racers to other venues for racing? Or is this just the natural order of Conference? I don't know the answers and know there are as many reasons as there are people as to why someone runs consistently full seasons, then suddenly stops.

Do we need to reduce the number of races or do we need to increase the participation of the membership base?

Food for thought. My gut tells me that fewer folks are interested in pursuing a championship due to the costs involved. As a result, they continue racing because its fun and they enjoy it, but the incentive to race more than 6 races does not come from the championship chase. Therefore, could we increase attendence at these events if we were to change how the championship is determined? Don't reduce the number of races, but reconfigure how the championship is determined.

Or, I'm completely off-base and all this has done is waste a couple of my hours...believe me, it wouldn't be the first time!
 
Since I'm in the process of making out my Treasurer's report for the Fall Meeting on Saturday, I felt some statistics should be shared with all of you.

In 2009, ICSCC had 2114 race entries with 12 races. In 2010 ICSCC scheduled 14 races which was a 17% increase. When the budget was presented to the E Board in January of this year, 2200 race entries were projected equaling a 4% increase in entries with a 17% increase in supply (number of races). Mike is correct, racing is almost a zero sum game. These budget assumptions were based on data going back to 2001.

The 2010 stats have been compiled. 2243 total race entries or 2% over budget. The special race groups at the last two IRDC races put us over budget.

Some other interesting 2010 stats:

419 ICSCC licensed drivers for 2010

64 ICSCC licensed drivers (15%) raced enough races (7) to qualify for a year end trophy

2149 Championship entries and 94 Special Race Group entries which equals the 2243 total entries.

299 of the 2149 entries were 700 numbers (non-ICSCC licensed drivers)

762 of 1850 entries (2149-299) were from the 64 ICSCC licensed drivers who qualified for a trophy. Meaning 15% of the ICSCC drivers accounted for 41% of the ICSCC entries.


It is obvious this thread has a lot of drivers and workers concerned about the 2011 race schedule and rightfully so. Please do not panic until after this weekend. Each of the 5 Member clubs have their own unique concern or concerns, but somehow when push comes to shove they all come together and do what is in the best interests of the drivers, workers and clubs.

Dan Heinrich
ICSCC Treasurer
 
Can we infer from this that points is not the motivator for people to attend races? Seems like it.
I infer more than that.

The double-demands of a whole lot of races, combined with the fact that decent results in all the races trumps excellent results in a subset of the races, results, I think, in most racers not caring at all about the season standings.

In effect, I think that by counting all races toward season standings, and by having so many races, Conference has provided a powerful DISincentive for racers to be motivated by season standings.

It would be an interesting analysis to do a pro forma of season standings in the larger classes if, instead of counting all races, you only counted a driver's top 8 or 10 races.

I think this approach would encourage people to enter that many who present do not, and would reward excellent driving, rather than rewarding just entering all the races.
 
Back
Top