2011 ICSCC schedule posted

None of us WANT to combine Groups 3 and 6 - we are going to be forced into it becasue of the lack of support from racers in the form of entries. The guys who DO show up and race in Group 6 are some of the biggest supporters and longest contributors to roadracing in the Northwest. No none wants to marginalize them, but I would guess that more people have appeared on this thread to speak in favor of protecting the preservation of sperate Groups for 3 and 6 than usually show up to race. What we need is ENTRIES and the problem is solved. All of the well reasoned arguements and us vs. them rhetoric achieves nothing but bad feelings and so far hasn't changed the reality of specific groups shrinking to the point that they are economically not feasable. Some of it is cyclical and things may swing drastically in the reverse sometime in the future and we will be having heated discussions about needing to consolidate closed wheel groups to accomodate three open wheel groups. Those of us just trying to figure out how to plan and pay for quality racing events don't read tea leaves, chicken entrails, tarot cards, or consult psychics. We don't know what the future will bring. We've watched for several years hoping the shrinking OW ranks was just a short phenomenon, but it hasn't turned out to be. There is no hidden agenda. We respond to the actual, measurable conditions currently occurring and react in as appropriate a fashion as possible to serve the members.

We can create separate run groups for ex-Formula One cars, Monster Trucks, and Unicorns as well if that is what the membership wants. It just doesn't make any economic sense no matter how fond you are of any of those, because they aren't going to show up, the clubs will hemorrorage money, and next year no one will be able to put on a race.

This isn't about what we like. We like formula cars and sports racers. Unfortunately we also have a duty to spend the members money wisely in a way that preserves the clubs ability to continue hosting races for the next generation of racers.

So please - make my job easy. If you support Groups 3 and 6 then drag a car out to some races and lets get the numbers up so this whole issue can go away. That is what we really want, not consolidation. Talk is cheap - vote with your entries. Not entering is voting "No" for the continued separation of Groups 3 and 6, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Geez, Rick.

One might think that you had a one track mind. I will talk about my very real observations if I want too. As I would allow others.

And I don't remember attacking your elevated position of responsibility, so lighten up.
 
Ummm ... just a comment Ken. Wasn't aimed at you or anyone else. As a matter of fact I was so surprised that you seemed to take it so personally that I had to backtrack and read your posts to see if I had perhaps said something that you could interpret as personal. Didn't see anything. Care to enlighten me?

If you thought that my post was in some way intended to limit input on the subject, nothing could be further from the truth. It's always possible that some good idea can come from a free exchange of information. Just so long as we realize that in the end, you can win at the debate competition but it has no effect on the decision unless it results in more entries. Results based decision making. Get it?

I like the discussion of SRF's. I've seen large enough grids of those that we could actually extend the possibility of one of our Special Races to them. They would get introduced to Conference and we would get to see some good Spec style racing, and hopefully in the end it leads to more entries and a solution to our problem.

I've actually been having some serious discussions with Open Wheel people I consider to be friends who have contributed consistently over enough years to make my paltry contribution insignificant in comparison. I want their groups to remain strong just as they want mine to. These are people who for the most part feel as strongly about safeguarding racings future in the Northwest as anyone. I wanted them to know that even if something like consolidation needs to happen, their friends take no joy in it.

P.S. - "Lighten up"? Mr Pot, may I introduce you to Mr Kettle?
 
It was a re-iteration, Rick. A beating of the 3+6 concept drum again. Heard ya the first times. And that after the OTopic, but positive discussion had drifted to some of last season's events.

And I suppose I did take it a bit personal when I read, " If you support Groups 3 and 6 then drag a car out to some races and lets get the numbers up so this whole issue can go away."

Of course, that might have been a collective "you", but there's that interpretation bugger again, and on this screen, my own.

"A perfect a$$h#le doesn't have to practice."--Me

But that doesn't mean that we won't.
 
Last edited:
POST 64
“Of course, that might have been a collective "you", but there's that interpretation bugger again, and on this screen, my own.

"A perfect a$$h#le doesn't have to practice."—Me”

POST 36
“Uh, excuse me gentlemen, but the Saturday special groups take up time that would otherwise be used by the rest of the regular entries, which is being conveniently overlooked. One Q session and one race rather than extra time for the folks who pay $285.00 for barely 25 minutes of track time on Saturday does make a considerable difference, unless I have totally forgotten my basic math………..
I do not appreciate or accept the premise that underutilized groups be dangled out there as a bargaining chip. We all pay the same dollar per minute, regardless of how many cars are on track, so this continuing debate over groups 3 & 6 is quite irritating to me at this point.”


Same song, same tune, same message. The club is supposed to be just that, a club. Therefore, it is in the best interest of “the club” to replace the descriptor “me” with the descriptor “we”.

Ken, your posts over and again point to safety issues, they riddle this forum. I read every day, but rarely post. Safety, safety,safety.
Which, above all, MUST be paramount.

And yet, when you manufacture from whole cloth a possibility of a hypothetical tangle between two mismatched cars with different closing speeds in OW groups, yet do not in passing even nod to the VERY REAL possibility of a multi car tangle between 45 mismatched cars in CW groups.
Atypically, you remain curiously silent. From my vantage point, that is an expression of “me”. You are so entitled.

When it comes to the economics question (outlined above as “basic math”) there does seem to be some collective memory loss. Using the vernacular “me”, yes, the "expense" is $285 per person, no question. But simple, most basic math, tells a different story of “cost”, that unless you have done some work in economics or have run your own organization, may seem to be the same, yet they are vastly difference.

Moving on, the “expense” in my example shall be 20K for a race weekend at PR. This is what flows from club Z coffers to PR coffers.

Now then, let us analyze "cost" and "expense". Assumption A shall be that each operating day shall consist of 8 hours per day, or 16 hours per total. Assumption B shall be that there are 6 individual run groups. And, assumption C shall be that run group X consists of 50 entrants, and run group Y consists of 10 entrants.

Now then, the 16 hours shall be divided by six to reveal how many total hours each run group shall be allotted. We come up with an answer of 2.67 hours per run group.

We have identified above the entry fee “expense” above at $285 per participant, now let’s look at the “cost” per run group. Run group X has paid 50 X 285 for their 2.67 hours of track time, for a “cost” of $14,250 dollars to group A. Group Y, using the same formula, has a “cost” of $2,850 for the same 2.67 hours.

It can be argued by theory or example, and has been, about the potential safety issues surrounding closing speed, novice drivers, etc., etc.

So, we arrive at a somewhat obvious and immutable conclusion. Group X, with its “cost” of 14K gets the privilege if running in an over subscribed group, and due to its size an inherently less safe group, and again due to its size the actuality of suffering more caution laps, thus less “laps at speed” then group Y is exposed to.
Group Y, with its “cost” of 2.8k, enjoys open track, rarely (if ever) two car incidents, and far less yellow flags.

Group X contributes 70% of the expense back to club Z in the form of its allocated “cost”.
Group Y contributes 14% of the expense back to club Z in the form of allocated “cost”.
Group X and Y constitute the “WE” described above.
Group X OR Y constitutes the “ME” described above.

Economics are like gravity, they are pretty much the law and seemingly immovable. The racing experience at our level is a recreational activity, an “expense” that we pay voluntarily, unlike taxes.

I will repeat again, NASA did not become an economic powerhouse and suitor to the throne in club racing because it held on to “what used to be”. Rather, it embraced “what is” and thus far has managed to hand SCCA its lunch. Do you believe we are exempt locally from these immutable forces?

Like real estate, is it really “different here”?

RP
 
Last edited:
Yes I am old fashioned and a believer in protecting the very premise of Conference Rod. I will not insult anyone here or in person by expressing my thoughts about the disappointing move by drivers away from purpose built race cars, or the sadness I feel when envisioning Conference as a CW only entity if it continues as it's going.
However, I have worked hard behind the scenes for years to find ways to keep 3 and 6 going, but if the numbers aren't there again this year then a decision will have to be made. I realize there will be a proposal submitted, which was already done prematurely a few years ago. I personally have no problem running with whatever cars are out there, from V's to Atlantics. OW people are good drivers who take care of each other, so it will be what it will be. Once that group is lost it will not be available to us again though Rick, as we all fully realize, and that has been one of the arguments for leaving things alone.
My head hurts also from the opinions and emotions and numbers being tossed out there. I could care less about x vs y, and all the justification offered to prove a point one way or the other. We all pay the same dollars for each minute of track time alloted to us, and never before has anyone in this organization complained about large grids and their 'inherent' risks. Why I believe that exists I will keep to myself.
Why drivers with talent will not move up to faster cars that are very exciting to drive is a mystery to me. Perhaps it is the extra maintenance involved, or the initial cost for some of the really fast cars, but without that interest 3/6 will eventually become a reality. I blame that on both the OW guys who aren't participating and the current drivers who talk about making the switch, but never do. Spec classes are fine, and a great learning tool, but Conference has to be much more than just the same group after group scenario. I won't argue the point anymore, nor will I spend anymore time here allowing these posts to raise my already high BP. I will just continue to run and support my group and hope that others will as well.
 
Last edited:
I've been glued to this thread without contribution because I am not in any influential position, nor one of decisions making but I have a questions.

1: How many times were group 3 and 6 combined last year?
2: During those weekends in which 3 and 6 were combined, were the participants asked to combine voluntarily (I know they were in Spokane)?
3: If we had to combine 3 and 6 to accommodate the GTCC and JTCC at PR last year to make time, how else would we have accommodated the Special races had we not combined the OW groups? How many other groups would have been negatively impacted and were the OW groups truly negatively impacted?


other thoughts
Rod says it's all "economics" and since that's clearly the case we then have to wonder what economic structure we wish to utilize so that Conference prospers in the events it holds and the racing it promotes to attract new racers.

Should our economic model be:
1: Based around the Greater Good
2: Based around Priority for largest financial contributors (largest run groups/classes)
3: Based around equality of run groups regardless of subscription base
4: Based solely on Conference financial solvency


I don't have any answers, so far just questions.
 
Ken and Wes, let me make clear that I have absolutely no ill will towards any OW guys, they are, like the rest of conference, some of the finest people I have met.

I will also concede that they are one hell of a lot braver than me, as I will not now, nor ever, drive an OW car. Simply put, I’m scared of them and the injury I could bring down on myself if not properly respecting the car.

As you all likely know, I adhere to the slogan “with age comes the cage”, and as such, I choose to drive a large Abrams Tank.

My point, and only point, is to answer Colins question directly, and this comes from personal experience.

Without a clear and concise answer to 4) asked by Colin above, 1 through 3 do not exist, even on an intellectual level.

The special run groups have helped to insure 4 in the past, and should be allowed to help 4 insure into the future, if need be.

And participation and growth in a particular class should not only be encouraged, it should be rewarded, lest we all drown together.
RP
 
Last edited:
Speaking of drowning--look out the window. Probably explains why quite a few Pacific NWet dwellers (myself included) do not consider an open-cockpit car to be a pleasant choice here. Just saying...
It's either drowning wet here or blazing hot. Not alot of perfect days for racing.

It is obvious that there are OW cars out there. They showed up in force for one of the Seattle races last year. Why don't they come to more of our races? If you are one of the people interested in preserving the opportunity to run OW in Conference, you should be out there finding out "what gives?" The Pro3 guys have put a huge amount of time and energy into creating a well-put-together and growing class. Do what they have done!
Our special classes show that, again, someone put alot of initiative into doing something different. While not creating an opportunity for the whole unit, they have a positive impact on finances and keeping particular groups of people coming back for more. They are also alot more stimulating for spectators. These races have been alot of fun to be involved in, spectate at, and watch the awards (e.g. growling Godzilla robots!). They generate interest.
By rotating the types of cars involved in the special races, it gives a broader spectrum of racers the extra opportunity for track time. Probably a good thing. So have a special OW race--someone come up with a cool theme (the Japanese race was way cool, especially having Japanese commentary! :) Get creative.

Some people could step up to the plate and do the same for the OW sector as the Pro3's and the special races. If not, then you are allowing things to simply play out unaided, and the class numbers could go either way. If you care, be proactive.
 
Colin - I assumed that everyone had this until they wre sick of it, BUT:

Remember - the German Touring Car Special Race Group at our mid summer race and the Japanese Touring Car Special Race Group at our fall race that were so popular and well attended did NOT come at the expense of combining Groups 3 and 6 on those week-ends.

Those races are held on Saturday in place of part of the time that has been reallocated from what has traditionally been track time for the Open Wheel Novice Group. The OWN Group had grown so small that often less than three drivers would be out in those groups and sometimes ....... nobody.

Lets not forget that one of the reasons that our SPecial Race Groups can happen at all is because the Senior Drivers in Groups 3 and 6 have accepted those Open Wheel Novices into their SENIOR race groups and true to their history of looking out for each other take those novices under their wings, mentor them, and accept the delicate task of helping train those drivers while having their own Senior Races.

In a very real way, the Senior Drivers of Groups 3 and 6 are substantial contributors to the success of the Special Race program in this way and it has served them well, helping to stave off the financial pressures that might have forced 3 and 6 to combine before now. The reality of car counts may very well force this to happen, but it isn't because both our OW and CW drivers didn't try to help by any means!

Couple of cleanup items -

Ken - nah, universal you or we or us or gestalt. Nothing personal intended or implied.

Wes - I respectfully disagree that OW will never rise again. I think there is always something coming down the pike that we don't expect. A completely new Formula car that is affordable and easier than traditional OW cars at the entry level could revitalize the Groups in a very short time. A resurgence of top level Pro OW racing might drive more to dream in that direction. Champ cars used to be wildly popular and that funnelled down to people dreaming of OW cars when they dreamed of racing. Now Nascar is the dominant stateside Pro Racing series and that is where the best driving talent in the US goes because that is where the popularity, marketing and money are. In a way I think you can blame Tony George and the incredible way the split in Professional Open Wheel Racing simply KILLED the image of Formula cars in this country. They went from the penthouse to the outhouse in record time becasue of pig headed turf wars and garbage marketing of a substandard product. I think that trickles down all the way to what we are seeing at the grassroots level. It's a shame to be fighting that as well, becsue at our level you really can't do anything about it.
 
Last edited:
I had the pleasure of working one day at Pacific with a gentleman from Great Britain last year. We were both bemoaning the dearth of open wheeler. I asked him if it was this bad in Europe. He said that things were just as bad over there. I always considered Britain the home of open wheel racing. Never dreamed that what I considered a local problem was actually a world wide problem. In Europe, the popularity of touring cars gets the blame. Sad.
 
As an open wheel driver that has recently returned to the sport I find this thread quite interesting. I went through the novice program and recently received my senior license. I enjoyed every outing with conference and this is where I would prefer to race. At SCCA events group 2 & 4 race together and consist of CSR, DSR, S2, SS2, ASR, FA, FB, FC, FE, FM, FS, FF, CF, FST, FV, F500. If I was to run in the vintage group I would have vintage sports racers, vintage open wheel and vintage production 1, 2 and 3. The combination of groups 3 and 6 would not be the end of the world. I raced in group six as a novice and had a great time with the sports racers and the dwarf cars. Those sports racers can turn just as quick or quicker times then my FSV/FA car can and can make for good racing. Whether you are the fast car lapping the slower car or in a slower car being lapped isn't that part of developing your racing skills. It is also the responsibility of all of us in group 3 and 6 to get new drivers in these cars and to help develop the novice driver. We also need to get other sports racer and open wheel drivers looking at conference. It is a great place to race.

Tim Bland
1984 Anson
 
I've got some thoughts to consider.

1) If there is a possibility for an OW/sports racer to run in both Group 3 and Group 6 (albeit it doesn't seem like it happens often) -- It doesn't seem fair to combine them and take that opportunity that most of the rest of us CW guys have. What if we opened Group 3 to all Group 6 cars, and vice versa. Effectively combining the groups but not eliminating one of the run groups from the schedule? It would allow the OW guys to run double entries with the same car.

Obviously there is a conflict of the same class running in 2 groups... but there seem to be some reasonable ways to resolve those conflicts (OW wheelers run double race weekends or relabel the classes ESR2, FA2, etc).

2) I don't understand the argument that combining the groups in the as discussed format in previous posts takes time away from anyone... Every group gets X number of mins on the track. The special groups are just in addition to that schedule. I do see that those X minutes would increase for EVERY group without the special race group qual session... but 20 min split over 7 groups is close to 3 minutes per group.... we're really gonna ***** about a possible 3 minutes per group.....

3) The JTCC had a blurb in the Grassroots Motorsports Magazine in the December issue... how cool would it be to see a full article about one of next years special races.

4) I thought this discussion got started because of a possible GTCC mini "series". I'd like to propose (in combination with those races) that at the tracks where we are not time limited (Spokane, ORP, maybe PIR) -- How about an hour long mini "enduro". Each team entered in the special race would have to have 2 drivers. Either allow drivers to change whenever OR throw a full course caution after 30 minutes and force driver changes then.
 
Last edited:
Caution: Long post, airing frustrations, probably not worth reading


robjacobsen said:
In Europe, the popularity of touring cars gets the blame. Sad.
Click to expand...

The only blame Touring cars should get is the blame for being Awesome! Touring cars are not to blame for the demise of Open Wheelers... Open Wheel racing is responsible for it's own demise. An appropriate quote from the 1980's: "The recordable Cassette Tape isn't killing the music industry, ****ty music is."

Touring cars (even in their bastardized DTM form) are something the public can relate to especially BTCC, WTCC or WRC. With Formula cars the racing isn't as close, as exciting, as often for the fans. F1, however is unique as it's such spectacle but even then, I often sleep through it. NASCAR gets the same criticism for becoming a spec of cars that nobody can relate to.

I don't see it a sad thing when touring cars get the popularity because it's the best form of auto racing that fans (new and existing) can relate to, can compare to and most importantly, could possibly see themselves doing.

Even when I read the highlights of an Indy Car race I fall asleep. Nascar?...just Fast Forward to the last 50 laps and with F1 I just watch the start, sleep through the middle and watch the end... But with Touring cars or WRC, that's fun the WHOLE time.

If Touring cars in the USA grew in popularity I think it would increase newcomers to grassroots racing more then the growth of other types of autosport (Indy, NASCAR, etc) as the fans can see these touring cars dice it up and say, "I want to do that!"

There's millions of 20-35 yr olds out there that have money burning holes in their pockets who love cars but you know who's getting their attention? SEMA, NOPI, XZIBIT, Fast and The Furious, DRIFTING.... Millions of enthusiasts are spending millions of dollars making their cars go faster and grassroots racing all over this country is doing a piss poor job recruiting their enthusiasm.

We keep talking about making Conference financially solvent and all our money comes from our participants. Maybe we should increase the number of our participants?

Where's the 8 page thread talking about how we're creating a "media team" from our existing members to help promote what we do? Considering how many highly intelligent people we have in our club and the age of electronics, I find it strange that Conference doesn't have promotional DVD's, posters, youtube channel... Nothing?!

Racing is like Smoking, it practically sells itself. So why isn't it?



:End Soapbox:
 
I'm also a new-ish OW driver.. I raced Mission exclusively my first season and will primarily stick to racing locally this season as well, but pending finding time off work and figuring out a decent towing arrangement, I really want to do 2 or 3 races in conference this year..

I think I can understand why OW cars aren't so popular right now, but part of me can't believe it. Growing up (in Portugal), I watched quite a few touring car races, from DTM to FIA GT races, to smaller spec classes, to WTCC races.. Still, nothing was quite as thrilling as the open wheelers. They were REAL race cars, you know, not like the other street cars with stickers running around the track :)

I never thought I'd be racing in my twenties - actually never thought I'd be racing at all - but moving to Canada and a bit of luck with my career choices has allowed me to take part in the madness. A friend of mine drives a miata (not a race car, just his daily driver) and kept talking about spec miatas this, spec miatas that. I looked into it and I guess that's what made me realize I might be able to afford this after all.

Still, I just wanted to race an open wheeler. Thankfully I heard about vees and it was a simple decision - cheap to buy into, cheaper to maintain, VERY easy to work on. And locally, the class is growing every year.

Honestly, I get it. It was very enticing to buy a spec miata, get out there with 20 other cars and bash my way through. My first race ever was a 24h of LeMons thing at Thunderhill with 160 cars out on the track. That was also my first time ever driving a car on a track - hadn't even done a track day before rolling onto the hot track. I was nervous, but after a couple laps, and getting a bit too close to a couple cars with no consequences, I was racing! Being able to race wheel to wheel without fear of a major tangle, even very early in your racing career, is very, very appealing. It's crazy fun and as long as you're going with the flow, the risk is fairly limited.

My first few sessions in a Vee were completely different. Total sensory overload, the feeling of driving an open wheeler is impossible to replicate in a tin top. But along with that, comes the realization that even in the slow speeds of a Vee, things can go very wrong, very quickly. After a season, I'm comfortable enough driving by myself that I'll push the car as hard as I can without fearing the walls, but driving comfortably in a pack of open wheeled cars will take a while longer to master. What I did in 3 laps on my first time ever in a tin top, will take me seasons to do in an open wheeler. But then again, that's the challenge for me and that's what makes me want to do it again and again.. I know that I won't get tired of it until I master it, and mastering this will take a long, long time.

I think it takes a certain kind of personality to be attracted to open wheelers. Not necessarily fearlessness (although I'm sure that would help!), but patience. Convincing drivers that if they commit to driving an open wheeler for 2 years they might eventually be able to be competitive and drive in a pack without killing themselves, versus jumping in a miata (or a Pro3!) and getting right in the middle of all the fun after their 3 novice races isn't an easy thing to do.

Like someone else said, I hope something comes along that makes young drivers dream of formula cars again. Maybe F1 will be good again one day, or one of the new formula classes will make it big. I have high hopes for the F1000 series, looks like they're doing a lot of things right. Incredible looking cars, incredibly fast and most likely the cheapest way to go faster than just about anything else. I hope they keep being successful and that like me, other people will dream of driving an FB while "practicing" in a cheaper open wheeler :)

Sorry, I'm kinda rambling here, but all this to say - I personally don't have a problem with combining 3 and 6 - as it is, I'm stuck in the slowest class driving with the fastest classes anyway. I'd rather be out there with the fords than the DSR's FA's and FB's, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not sure what the outcome will be though - I'm hoping that having more cars in the same session, albeit in different classes, will make it look more exciting and appealing to anyone watching. Also hoping that if it does happen, the door will remain open to separate the groups if the number of formula cars starts picking up again..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top