Group 3 and 6 increase participation

unxetas said:

Actually, here's a nice easy suggestion that really seems to reap huge benefits - BBQs! I dunno what it is, but open wheelers sure love their BBQs. Throw in a complementary dinner pig roast and see those entries roll in!!

Click to expand...

LOL or, have a catered dinner with Tony Roma's baby back ribs. At $12 a rack from Fred Meyer's that ain't a bad idea

unxetas said:

(just make sure you leave a clean spot on the grill for my veggie burgers..)

Click to expand...

LOL agian Unxetas. Now you sound like my son, Jeff. He only eats the workers veggie lunch boxes or, brings his own stuff which does include the veggie burgers. When we was racing we had veggie burgers on the grill in the paddock every lunch time. I actually ate one once.

Steve Adams said:

.... The best race of the week-end and one I talk about to this day was a large group of FFs (or maybe CFs; did that class exist then?) that battled wheel-to-wheel for the duration. Over the last 4 laps, the top 4 cars were each 1st through 4th! It was AMAZING and some of the best racing I'd seen anywhere, ever. Even the non-racing people I was with were riveted by the action.

Click to expand...

YES STEVE! Okay you tin-top guys put on a great show and make lots of loud noises. But for 'serious' wheel-to-wheel racing you just cannot beat the open wheelers at that game no matter how hard you try. And done right (as it often is in Conference racing) it's a thing-of-beauty to watch like, Hedy Lamarr.

westipton said:

If drivers would give them a try they'd understand why we love it so much, but I have had little luck actually getting anyone into my car for a playday or a race week-end.

Click to expand...

Hey Wes, I'd love to try your car if I'll fit. Bremerton next month?

westipton said:

We've known for a few yaers now that group 6 is being eyeballed for CW ....

Click to expand...

Actually Group 3 would be much better for a closed wheel class like PRO3 so there is enough time to turn the cars around for Group 5 participation. When PRO3 moved from Group 4 to Group 1 a couple of years ago there was a sharp increase in PRO3 cars going out in Group 5.

Actually, a point that has been mentioned but I'm not sure that it's been emphasized--those of you who are current ICSCC OWers, get your cars out to the track!
Don't worry about being fast (bring the tired motor, shot struts, etc.). Just get your cars out there more often!

Cars on the track means competition. Competition draws more racers. Like Colin said in another thread, just going around in "circles" fast is not enough after awhile--real racers want door-to-door RACING!
Three cars on track in a run group doesn't look exciting at all to prospective entrants.
Get the numbers up internally; take some pictures; go hunt up new prospects. Hang some flyers. Get something out in a newsletter. Email every car buff you know...

I also think having an OW special race group is a stellar idea. It adds interest. Find a catchy theme and go for it!

karen_stimson said:

Actually, a point that has been mentioned but I'm not sure that it's been emphasized--those of you who are current ICSCC OWers, get your cars out to the track!
Don't worry about being fast (bring the tired motor, shot struts, etc.)......

Click to expand...

Karen, Open Wheel cars are "REAL" race cars. No stinking struts. Genuine shocks and springs!

I like the idea of having all open wheel and sports racing cars be able to run a second race group like most or all of the closed wheel racers. Our club races at mission have an open wheel group that includes anything from F/Atlantic to F/V.and novice open wheel.we commonly get 20+ grids and play nice, usually. contact between cars is usually between cars in the same class. We can also run our sports racer in the Westcoast Sports Car Championship race as well so seeing as we share the car we can both run races on the same weekend. At conference races there is only one run group available. We like to travel to as many conference races as time and money will allow, but have to think twice about the cost and long tows when only one driver is able to compete. Another class in group 3 would be great . I don't even mind running with the door slammers, we could be GT Prototype.
Just my 1.99 cents Canadian .

RS

RS

Great idea (or a very valuable $2.03 USD).

To summarize:

Allow group 3 and 6 cars to compete in class in both run groups for an additional driver/car entry.

If each club had done this for a single race in 2010 that's between 70 an a 115 2nd entries, based on participation numbers, that were left on the table with no where to play, not to mention the additional cars that could have shown up. Even if the predictive glass is only half full it is still significant.

More over it is in good agreement with ICSCC culture in that it allow cars to be raced in multiple run groups and rewards these drivers with discounted track time.

Doing this at Car Tender, and Dornbecher could potentially put a bunch of cars on the grid and develop a lot of interest in racing groups 3 & 6.

Of course if the groups are combined all of this potential revenue becomes a lost opportunity that following HBS guidelines would need to be replaced with a better opportunity, but that is a different post. lol

Thanks

Greg

I hope you OW guys are talking to your clubs' E-Board reps about some of these ideas, as they'll be the ones voting on whether to combine 3/6 at the Fall Meeting... or to implement one of the ideas being discussed here.

Steve

Thanks for the heads up. If we don't get the right folks on board this is just so much blather in the ozone

Greg

WRONG! I've sat in on a lot of E-Board meetings at this point and it has nothing to do with getting the RIGHT folks on the E-Board. The RIGHT folks are already there.

As a group I would say it is one of the most selfless and non-self serving groups of people I have seen in operation. It takes nothing more than an actual effort by the membership of the individual clubs to constantly shape Conference into exactly what the racers want it to be. This is the reason Conference has been so successful where competing organizations in the region have failed. The same people who have to play by the rules are the ones who get to MAKE the rules. The individual clubs elect what is almost universally a very experienced member who has shown over time that they are willing to place the clubs need above their own to be their E-Board rep. The club board then gets input from their membership and sits down with the E-board rep and they have a discussion so everyone is on the same page about what the CLUB wants from Conference to maximize it's benefit for it's members and sends him off to the E-Board meetings to do the best they can for their Club and Conference.

At E-Board meetings there are a number of people at the table who have the right to propose items, discuss, and advise. When it comes right down to it - FIVE PEOPLE VOTE - the E-Board representatives from the five member clubs. The President, currently Kevin Skinner, runs the meeting and he and the other Conference officers and advisors offer insight and guidance from their years of experience, but DO NOT VOTE. If you think there is some kind of conspiracy where anti-OW forces are lining up on the E-Board to kill open wheel groups, think again. It's interesting that some of the comments here make it seem like this is a big secret that was sprung unexpectedly in an effort to grab something in the dark of night when it is too late for anyone to react. In reality, I can remember having a meeting with Wes Tipton, Stuart Dye, the late Jay Boggs, and several others to brainstorm ways to get numbers up for the OW classes so they wouldn't get consolidated ... FIVE YEARS AGO! It is a testament to the E-Board that they have probably let it go on too long so that they were sure all avenues were exhausted before making such a major move.

While we are on the subject - what makes you think that "the Board" is where you need to go to change things like having two run groups for all OW cars? The Conference Policy and Procedure manual is available right on this site - have you read it? Drivers make the rules in Conference and generally they are only overridden by the E-Board with great reluctance when driver safety or the continued existance of the organization are at stake. A couple years ago OW drivers wanted to make sure that anyone running in Group 3 would have a second Group to run. They wrote up a rule change proposal within the normal flow of year end business and got it voted in at the rules meeting that every club has. As a result, Formula Libre in Group 6 is available to anyone from Group 3 that wants a second entry. That same process has been available to the drivers of Group 6 and they have yet to take advantage of it. We could have a Sport Racer Libre right now if someone had wanted to write a rules change proposal in the last few years!

As to the numbers of second entries that might produce - the jury is still out on that. In the meetings that we have had there have been concerns about durability and operating costs, as well as availablity of qualified renters that wouldn't tear up the equipment if they wanted to go that route. Just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean people will take it. I think there were only 14 total entries in Formula Libre last year which if all were 2nd entries averages out to about one per race.

I agree with the "blather in the ozone" comment though. While this is a good forum to bounce ideas around and gather a core of supporters the only way to really get anything done is to get out, talk to racers, convince them of the quality of your ideas, and then attend and participate in your clubs meetings. One of the most important parts of my job as IRDC President is to talk to members of the club and make sure I understand what the club as a whole wants. I communicate with experienced members who I have known for years and newer members who I might not even have met yet pretty much every week. We don't encourage IRDC members to participate, we beg them to. Among my favorite quotes is "People get the government that they deserve." You really only get out of it what you put into it, so get off the sidelines and make a difference - and I don't mean post on a forum really only seen by less than 10% of our members twice as often! Whatever club you belong to - I guarantee your club president is more than willing to take a call or e-mail from you so he knows what you want. Don't be surprised if he then drafts you into a more active role of volunteerism!

Lance

Interesting point about why Pro 3 took off.

Simply stated the clubs collectively made a change that made it more attractive and cost effective to race. "Build it and they will come."

This is the very core of our sucess as an organizing body, and is the single most important aspect of growing or rebuilding a class/group.

However, unless you guys move to an every 3rd group format (3/6, 1/4, 2/5) the prep time issue remains the same as it is no?

If you figure the combination of group 3&6 is a done deal and Pro 3 should be stand alone as group 3 (has a nice ring to it !, kind of European) I would caution that as near as I can figure out from 22 years of racing, single class groups are a tough go over the long haul.

That said encouraging local organizing groups to combine 3 & 6 when they are under populated, such as at the first few 2010 races, and giving Pro 3 their own run group (especially with the high propability of a wet race) makes all the sense in the world. Everyone gets their track time, Pro 3 gets, I assume, a better on track experience, and if it is combined with RS's idea above, 3 & 6 retain the ability to offer some form of 2 car entry at select races that groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 enjoy.

The key is developing some guide lines of when to combine 3 & 6 rather than being locked into a set of hard and fast regulations with no flexibility.

Thanks for your comments

Greg




Greg

There's a hole in the ozone.

Greg said, "get the right folks on board ". I don't think he said 'E-Board'. And I know that he's absolutely correct. Let's review...

Page 1 of the ICSCC Competition Regulations

"HOW THE CONFERENCE WORKS
E The International Conference of Sports Car Clubs, Inc. is an association of independent sports car clubs in the United States and Canada. It is a regulatory and administrative organization providing the basic guidelines for organized sports car racing in its membership area.

E It is the goal of Conference to supervise and regulate competition in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the Conference license holders.

E Clubs which sponsor and conduct races are represented on the ICSCC Executive Board, which deals with scheduling, general regulations, financial matters and basic Conference policy. All clubs are represented on the Contest Board. Member clubs are represented on the Executive Board. Both boards are responsible for racing regulations and car specification rules. The Executive Board designates which sections of the Competition Regulations are the primary responsibility of the Contest Board, the Executive Board, or a combination of the Contest Board and Executive Board. The Executive Board meets at least twice annually, in the spring and fall. The Contest Board meets once a year, at the Fall Meeting.

E Every Conference driver is represented in affairs of ICSCC through his/her club’s
representative on the Contest Board. Drivers are involved at the club level in formation of the meeting agenda, and representatives participate in Contest Board meetings under specific instructions which assure that their drivers’ opinions are reflected in discussion and voting. Each club has one vote on the Contest Board for every driver licensed with the club...."

So just lets' attempt to be objective as we endeavor to understand, and convey what things need to take place to re-arrange the ICSCC Championship Series race groupings.

Rick, since you brought it up, and are a leader this charge, perhaps you would post a review of the primary regulations/policies that would need modification/changes to properly accomodate the re-structuring of the current ICSCC groupings. From that, some may be made aware of which entities are directly involved with making those changes. I am positive that it would be helpful. Especially to those that haven't had the chance to become as familiar with the processes as others.

And while we're on the subject, it's necessary to be sensitive to the affects on each club individually. As the participation records (registrations', not results) at each event for their particular grouping make-up may easily differ from one another needs some analysis to assess the real impacts on their bottom line. What is an acceptable market share of track time/scheduling space for each club's operational income? If we are to be honestly objective, that is important data. Looking at past data shows trends, but only provides insight to forcasts of the possibility of any number of futures.

I hope that we aren't forgetting the contributions of any of the "700 club" participants, and whether that baby may be thrown out with the bath water. Sure, they don't have a vote, but they represent a certain portion of the real income at any given event at any given venue for any given club's operation. Maybe insignificant to some, in the "Big Picture" sense, but certainly one of the many shades of color that enhances the beauty of that portrait we like to call the International CONFERENCE of Sports Car Clubs.

Just sayin'...

greg_coffin said:

Lance

Interesting point about why Pro 3 took off.

Simply stated the clubs collectively made a change that made it more attractive and cost effective to race. "Build it and they will come."

Click to expand...

Greg,

I am certainly not one of the true Pro3 oldtimers, but have been around long enough to have some history. I'm not sure what Lance said that you gave you that impression, but IMO, while the Conference environment helped immensely in getting Pro3 to "work", it wasn't the Group 1/5 double entry that did it. It was Conference's rule making structure that allowed Ken and Wes Hill (with help from others) to write a rule set that allowed for a cost effective, but exciting method of racing to start, and later, to grow. It also helped that the class was based around a relatively inexpensive car to work on, with a large cult following, especially in the local area.

IMO the two run group option is nice, but not necessary for success. What is necessary for success is having a group of people willing to put a lot of work in to promote the class. For Pro3, this list is well known, and includes the Hills (initiating the class, plus sharing their cars with all comers), Lance (publicity - worldwide in the BMW community), Olsen (BMWCCA rep, and Pro3 line author for the Zundfolge), and a host of others.

I would caution that as near as I can figure out from 22 years of racing, single class groups are a tough go over the long haul.

Click to expand...

I think you are probably right here, but the structure of Conference allows changes to be made as trends ebb and flow. While I don't really want to see a "Pro3 only" group, I believe it will be inevitable, as entries grow. I personally don't like it, because one of the things I enjoy about Group 1 is the differences in closing rates, and the training it provides us relative to being aware of other cars on the track.

If Pro3 (or any other class of cars, for that matter) grows to the point where they need their own run group, conference structure allows us to do that. If that group later shrinks in size, Conference needs to address that as well. I don't think Pro3 will see reductions in size because it may have a single class run group - it will see a reduction in size due to an increasing unavailability of donor cars, availability of faster classes that are relatively affordable (ST, for example), economic conditions, and other similar reasons. Again, just my opinion, and worth every cent you paid for it! ;-)

Dan

Rick

The only right people on the E board are the ones who are on it, all of them.

I was only responding to what I thought was some positive input i.e. make sure your ideas get to the E board.

I am sorry that you misunderstood my comment to imply any critisim of the existing board.

I don't believe that I have made any comments to the effect that there is a secret plot to eliminate OW racers, however I cannot control what other people post or for that matter think.

That said your comment wrt FL is true. It is a failed solution, so let's just move on, and try some other method to increase participation. One thing "for sure" (to be said with a F1 accent) is that once 3 & 6 are combined the second entry rate will be zero.

You are correct in that the reach of this forum is limited. I make it a habit of having a quick chat or of introducing myself to most if not all of the drivers in group 3 at each race and I plan to include the group 6 folks in my rounds this season with the topic of conversation to include a discussion of how we can rebuild our numbers.

Thank you for your insight and guidance on how rules are made in our organzation.

I hope that once we get some potentially viable ideas together your guidance and support will be there to help us thru the process and that everyone wins.

Greg

Ken

Thanks. Wish you had got your comment out before I tok the time to say I was sorry for an unintended interp of what I was tring to say.

Cheers

Greg

Dan

Good comments.

Any input as to why Pro 3 and for that matter Spec Miata have become the sucess they have can only help towards a solution for the current 3 & 6 situation. I have never been involved in the actual structuring of a new class but I have been involved building up a class to where it went from a single car to a seperate race group. I do know that as you pointed out it almost always takes a dedicated core of people, a good product, and a helping hand from the organizing group.

Thanks

Greg

Ken

Just for the record my key board was acting up on the last post. I was not intending to be cute by leaving out any letters.

Greg

In my rush to keep current on this topic I see I read "right people on board" as " right people on the board". Sorry 'bout that!

Some great points and an excellent discussion, and in spite of potential mistakes and misinterpretations it is remarkably positive and inclusive. Bravo!

There were some great comments made just above by Dan and Ken in their last posts, which I will respond to later as I am out of time now! Keep at it folks.

Greg, my comment on PRO3 moving to Group 1 from Group 4 was to point out that the second entries of PRO3 cars in Group 5 (running in the EIP class) took off at that point. The Group 5 entries were a mix of first entries (second driver in the car) and second entries by the car owner. These extra entries have helped the race clubs bottom lines. PRO3 originally started in Group 1, and for some reason was moved to Group 4 for one year, which was a pain for second entries.

PRO3 entries were already taking off then, it was the second entries that benefited from the move back to G1.

Between PRO3 first entries, second entries in Group 5, and some even running a 3rd driver in Novice on the same weekend, I think it is safe to say the Treasurers for each club love how these E30 BMWs help the bottom line of the clubs administering the races.

Not to hijack this thread, but PRO3 is not asking for it's own run group. But at some point it will become painfully obvious that it may need a run group with no other classes. If there are 40+ PRO3 cars in a race, what ground pounder can feel they are getting any quality track time when they have to pass 10-15 PRO3 cars per lap, every lap of every session? And what slower car wants to spend every lap of every session watching out for trains of PRO3 cars passing them multiple times per lap, every lap? This is not quality track time for the faster or slower cars. And at worse, becomes more dangerous than local amateur road racing should be.

There are 50 PRO3 cars in the Pacific Northwest with log books ready to race. Another dozen PRO3 projects are caged and under construction that I know of. I've been told of a couple more in the works that are not on my list. The silver lining with the projects is they are a little more concentrated in the Portland and the BC areas. So as they come on line, they will help fill the fields at Portland tracks and at Mission. And possibly not bust the grids at Seattle as much.

Rick

No worries mate

Greg