It looks like sombody get it!

You are correct. I misspoke. It is not Double. But it is:

TC Single Race $250.00 entry, 90 min track time $2.77 min
NWMS $275.00 entry 55 min track time $4.09 min
NWMS Day 2 $200.00 entry* 50 min track time $4.00 min
NWMS 3 day entry $425.00 155 min track time $2.74 min
CSCC Member $260.00 entry 90 min track time $2.88 min
IRDC $270.00 entry 90 min track time $3.00 min
IRDC PR Member $275.00 entry 75 min track time $3.66 min
PR $285.00 entry 75 min track time $3.80 min
IRDC Ridge Mem. $275.00 entry 90 min track time $3.05 min
IRDC Ridge $285.00 entry 90 min track time $3.16 min
SCCBC $260.00 entry 75 min track time $3.46 min
TC Double $295.00 entry 94 min track time $3.13 min
Mon Only $295.00 entry 58 min track time $5.08 min
3 day $450.00 entry 152 min track time $2.96 min

So my big question is why does the rate increase when the 2nd day is held as a Race? It does not cost any more for the Clubs.

I don’t have the answers, just concerned that a large number of the 406 racers will only be able to have 2 race weekends available to them. The facts do prove that the majority can’t afford the time or expense to travel. Reducing the number of weekends sounds good, but I am not sure it is the total answer, especially if the rates for a Double weekend go up.
 
The only answer I can provide Kyle is: Perspective.

We are not paying for track time. I think that's the key thing to remember. We are paying for racing. If I want "affordable" track time, I can do HPDE's.

Why is it that when I go to Cheesecake Factory and order dinner I get HUGE portions? Because the food is pretty crappy but the huge portions make people feel like I get good value. Perspective.

So as my palate for food has changed so has my palate for race time. If I double enter I pay more. If I enter a Special race, I pay more. It is my opinion that we are paying for RACING. If you do more racing, you pay more. Selling more racing makes the clubs more money and being able to sell more racing makes the club weekends more attractive to a wider audience (IMO).

If I enter the SCCA weekend that is only a Saturday and Sunday but is 4 sessions (with 3 races) I expect to pay more than a Conference single entry weekend (4 sessions but 1 race) because I'm racing more. I think Conference is throwing money away by providing 3 sessions per 1 race. Offering 1 practice and 2 qualifying session before only 1 race seems like a wasteful allocation of track time by the clubs.

These are race weekends. This is racing. If you need track time, if you need practice, if you need to dial in your car I think you should use the appropriate outlet for that which are HPDE, T&T's and open track days (and maybe Simulators).

Most folks know where I stand regarding my feelings about the SCCA (and how they relate to SFI) but I think next year I'm going to try one of their 2 day, 3 race weekends and see if what I speculate is correct. As of right now I'm struggling to see the downside.
 
Kyle
So what would your dollar cost averaging look like with a triple race weekend over 2 days ????
Qualify Saturday morning race Saturday afternoon, reverse the finishing grid of Saturday’s race and race Sunday morning, reverse that finishing grid and race Sunday afternoon.
Just thinking outside the box here.
 
I only showed what was done this year so far. As far as a 2 day 3 race event, that is interesting.

Still, why pay more for calling it a "Race"?
 
Last edited:
Just a couple of quick points I'd like to make:
  • There's lots of speculation about WHY car counts have gone down but not one of you KNOWS why. Drawing conclusions on what we need to change based on speculative information (or simply crappy data) is a recipe for mistakes. Big ones.
  • If you want things to change, either at the level of competition regulations or the P&Ps, you need to get ORGANIZED and FORMALIZED. In other words, a small group of people chatting away on the Conference forum isn't going to result in anything productive. Create a group of interested parties (drivers, volunteers, maybe some E-Board reps) and figure out exactly what you want to change, and then lobby the voting members to make rule changes and the E-Board to make P&P changes.
 
Respectfully, what is the sense about the value of reducing the total number of weekends, all the other details aside?
 
Randy Blaylock said:
Respectfully, what is the sense about the value of reducing the total number of weekends, all the other details aside?
Click to expand...

My selfish answer as a racer is -- there is no value in reducing the number of weekends. It limits my options/opportunities as a racer as to what weekends I'm going to be able to race. I like have the option of 10 or 12 or 15 weekends (whatever we get), and I can chose how many I want to go to. If there are only 7 weekends and you have to run all 7 weekends to qualify for season end points... that would suck!
 
"If it ain't broke....don't fix it" Well, this change has been talked about for at least 4 years that I know of. If we want to stay healthy as a member club or as a sanctioning body, I don't think it's a case of it being broken. It just needs a tune up, like a car.
I, as a volunteer, look forward to a proactive proposal. (We have just driven over 1600 miles in the last 3 weekends (just for racing) and are pretty much beat.)
Less weekends with more racing can be done.
We have had 2 race weekends with watered down entries this year. We have had race weekends where it was pretty much unsafe due to lack of experienced volunteers. It's all part of the same theme. No, not theme, problem.

Thank you Randy for putting pen to paper (so to speak).

I hope all the member clubs take a long, hard, and realistic look at it before they vote. Get rid of the boogie man that says if you give up a weekend you can never get it back. That has been a large part of the unwillingness to change.
(If the ROD were given a vote on this, that would be kinda cool too.)

Randy, is there a core group, as Steve mentioned, to formally hash this out?
If not, just go for it.......we have way more to lose by just simply ignoring this.
 
Steve, you had posted while I was still typing and I need to respond to your comments.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see you race but.........if there are 50 cars or 250 cars it still takes the same amount of volunteers.

We don't really get to pick and choose. Why don't we??? Because our job is to keep everyone ORGANIZED and SAFE.
There would be NO RACE if we didn't cover the races and the miles we do for THE DRIVERS. Why? Because on the whole we are a very UN-selfish lot.

So as a driver, who picks and choses which weekends to race, you tow, arrive, unpack, get ready and ooops, you have to go home.....race cancelled. Why? Because the volunteers (in all areas) decided to pick and choose too. How many drivers would be ticked off because we opted not to show up for that particular weekend?

There is way more than just the drivers picking and choosing when they want to play.
We only have a very small, tiny actually, core of drivers that come and volunteer on a weekend they opted NOT to race. AND, they do that at races that are out of town too. Maybe more should think about doing the same thing. Then a driver can be selfish and race at the other weekends they want. I wouldn't mind the picking and choosing so much then.
But to want a constant buffet.....?????
 
I have been doing my best to stay out of this but ....... Randy and Steve have a couple very important points that I would like to reinforce.

1) Randy made note of the number of drivers who run all of the races, but I would go one step further - take a look at the number of drivers that actually run enough races to qualify for a trophy and you will find that last year about 80 out of 451 car/driver/class combinations - or slightly less than 18% - ran the minimum number of races to qualify. Take out the super competitive Pro3 amd Spec Miata classes where they have to run a full slate of races to even have a chance and the remaining classes have an even lower qualification rate. My own opinion only here - we need more entries at fewer races so more people are contesting championships door to door with each other! It is currently possible for two contenders in the same class to qualify for a trophy while only showing up at the same track on the same day ONCE in a season to race each other head to head. How can that be good? Have we lost the value of a season championship?

2) Again - I can't help but agree with Randy - the problem isn't too many races, but too many week-ends. If we were to reach into my crystal ball and produce what would be the most likely scenario to provide success for the clubs it would probably look something like this:

(3) Races with IRDC - Single at Pacific, Double at the Ridge becasue of the availablity of a much longer schedule day. - (2) weekends.
(3) Races with Cascade - Single and a two day double at PIR - (2) weekends
(2) or (3) Races with TC - just seems like most are willing to make one tow a year so a double or a triple - (1) weekend
(3) Races with NWMS - This seems to be the format for another single tow per year venue - (1) weekend
(2) or (3) races with SCCBC - Either the double and a single as current, or maybe just the double? - (1) or (2) weekends

That adds up to seven or eight weekends comprised of 13 to 15 races, half of the races rounded up to qualify for a trophy, all points count dropping your worst two. Scheduling is much easier and reduces the chances of back to back races because we are now trying to fit a max of 8 weekends into the 22 or so weeks from May to September.

I understand your wanting more choice Steve C., but if clubs keep holding races that lose money the long term result is having LESS opportunity to race and at fewer venues. Having more only offers you more choice in the short term.

3) Steve A. is EXACTLY right and reinforces a point I have tried to make before - if you aren't prepared to put a very well thought out, thoroughly researched, and painstakingly detailed plan on the table for the membership and the E-Board, then this discussion is a complete waste of time. Wanting something to happen and making it happen are two very different animals. If the right people contribute some feedback and effort on this you may have the right guy to work with in Mr. Blaylock. I saw first hand the amount of thought and research that went into his rewrite of the enduro rules and this will be a similar undertaking times about five. To make a change like this will require a complete plan on paper and an in depth review of every section of the Conference rule book to detail potential changes to seeming unrelated sections that could be affected. It's almost too late to try to make this happen for next year - if you want it to happen it needs a bunch of concentrated and carefully directed effort right now.
 
Last edited:
Oh, the feeling is mutual Madame Rimmer. Out of respect for Thomas and Linda, I fear our love will remain unrequited but I promise to pine for you from afar ....
 
Keep the hormones in check and your focus on the subject Rick! I have been throwing this out since the late 90's, and even tried to approach the E-board about a new format around 2001, with no luck. So I'm very happy to see this moving in a positive direction finally. Lynn and I had a couple of meetings 2 years ago with a few workers and drivers to try and move this ahead, but we stalled for whatever reason, don't recall right now.
Bottom line is fewer week-ends with more racing, and that can be worked out by committee or through the E-board, and I have had lengthy chats with my E-board rep about this going back to last year. We still have time to formulate a plan before the rules proposals are due, so can we get together soon and get down to details? Let's a day and a meeting spot and go do it.
I can reached at 206-730-0771 by anyone who wants to discuss this or meet and put that pen to paper.
 
It does cost each club more to put on a race versus a qualifying session. Conference charges each club a driver levy that is a fixed cost per driver,
per race. That same rate also applies to special races. This is computed based on every driver that shows up on a race results sheet for the weekend.
 
I have car and can travel Randy/Wes/other interested parties and am volunteering if needed/wanted as well. 604-584-1503
This can be made to work.
(If drivers/volunteers miss the socialization of a race weekend maybe we can figure out a way to party without a damned schedule.)
 
Lots of good points Rick! In section (2) of your thesis I wanted to address your proposed race schedule with just one tweak... Without increasing the number of weekends in your proposal, increase the number of races. The argument Rick D made that started this thread wasn't about too many weekends, it was about TOO LITTLE RACING. I don't see why single race weekends need to exist. Reducing weekends without

rick_bostrom said:
2) Again - I can't help but agree with Randy - the problem isn't too many races, but too many week-ends. If we were to reach into my crystal ball and produce what would be the most likely scenario to provide success for the clubs it would probably look something like this:

(3) Races with IRDC - Single at Pacific, Double at the Ridge becasue of the availablity of a much longer schedule day. - (2) weekends
(3) Races with Cascade - Single and a two day double at PIR - (2) weekends
(2) or (3) Races with TC - just seems like most are willing to make one tow a year so a double or a triple - (1) weekend
(3) Races with NWMS - This seems to be the format for another single tow per year venue - (1) weekend
(2) or (3) races with SCCBC - Either the double and a single as current, or maybe just the double? - (1) or (2) weekends
Click to expand...

What do you think of:

IRDC: 2 weekends - Double @ PR (Qual/race, qual/race) and a Triple at The Ridge (Qual/race, race/race)
Cascade: 2 weekends - Double and a Triple just like IRDC
TC: 2 weekends - Double and a triple, same format as IRDC
NWMS: 1 weekend - Triple BUT with a *Free* T&T day on Friday for those who enter all 3 races. Still a 3 day event at the same price but: Fri: T&T, Sat: Qual/Race, Sun: Race/Race (adding the Friday t&t gives it that value to set it apart)
SCCBC: 1 weekend as a triple or 2 doubles?!

So there we have it: 8-9 weekends (reduction of 2-3) and 20-22 races (5-7 race increase!). That looks like it benefits the workers and drivers.


To Randy's question about reducing weekends. It seems to me that reducing weekends may accomplish a few things:

1: Improve the lives of the workers and possibly removing the potential of weekends that are under staffed by workers.
2: Increase the number of people who can play in championship battle or increase the "value" of a championship (less towing).
3: Reduce the chance of back-to-back-to-back weekends.
 
Your last 3 line items sum up the basic reason behind this push Colin, and they couldn't be more valid at this point in time. It was mentioned last year how many races the average worker attends, and it is pretty high with Conference, Sovren, SCCA and a few away races thrown in. They aren't getting any younger than the drivers, and they need a break from the travel and the expense involved in working long hours over a long season doing what they do for us every year.
Not sure the driver levies are enough to cause a change in fees for a double or triple, but it's been awhile since I've dealt with any of that and I'd love to hear the current numbers.
 
Somebody should mention the logistics and compromises the Novice Program may have to make to accomodate event scheduling conventions discussed here. Usually something like 40 minutes of practice/qualifying through two sessions and one thirty minute race. Is the Novice race the last Saturday race? Or will there be two races? Are the points series races a full point count? Or are they 1/2 pt each so only one Novice race may be needed on the event weekend.

As for our visitors getting enough track time to be competitive... I see most clubs these days seem to be scheduling their DT/HPDT/TnT/Track Days right up cozy to their race weekends, so there may be some incentive to approach their learning curve in that environment as many do already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top