Sent the following today to the SEB (with cc the BoD)--
Merry Christmas to the SEB. I bring to you a proposal that could solve a
number of issues currently creating problems within SCCA Solo.
Simply put, I propose that we cease trying to define what constitutes a class
and instead define what constitutes a champion.
This would eliminate the problems and hard feelings caused by Rule 4.9 -- much
despised by many of us in the Prepared and Modified classes who feel
specifically targeted. This would resolve the eternal discussion over ladies
classes and whether a class with one or two entries should crown a champion.
This could even be used to recognize the fact that some Supplemental classes
are nevertheless highly competitive classes whose winners have totally earned
the sobriquet of champion but for a rulebook technicality.
And totally coincidentally -- since I have been formulating this proposal
since before this years (2009) Nationals -- it is almost exactly the same
concept just adopted by the SCCA Board of Directors to determine Club Racings
national champions. Which means you would have a BoD highly receptive to such
an approach.
Basically the change would be this: Eliminate the current Rule 4.9 and in its
place institute a new one:
4.9 National Champions
The winner of any single class competing at the Solo National Championships
comprising seven (7) or more starters will be declared a National Champion.
The first-place driver of any class not meeting this criteria will be
recognized as a National Winner.
Currently, in attempting to define a National Class as one that fields 17
entrants, combined Open and Ladies, we place a number of classes in jeopardy
every year. Most of them are the built classes in the Prepared and Modified
categories, classes which are mostly populated by our most long-term and
dedicated solo competitors. It is significant that of the eight 100 Percenters
still competing in Nationals, six drive Prepared and Modified cars. It is
significant that of the 58 drivers currently enshrined in the Silver Circle --
those who have competed in 25 or more Nationals -- 41 of them (70%) have
competed primarily in Prepared and Modified classes.
And yet these are the drivers -- our most dedicated, our most loyal, our most
deeply involved with a car they prepare and maintain and love for years, even
decades -- who are most threatened by Rule 4.9. And the tragedy is, there is
no real need, no true benefit, derived by placing the Prepared and Modified
drivers in such a precarious situation on an annual basis.
After the 2009 Nationals, the following classes failed to meet the 17-car
standard: AM, BM, FSAE, FJA, FJB, SMF. Yes, I realize the last four were
supplemental classes, but this proposal can be applied to that as well. Also
noteworthy is that the following classes brought 22 or fewer drivers --
classes threatened because they could easily drop below 17 by the loss of as
few as five entries just because of the uncertainties of who might be able to
enter from one year to the next: CM, DM, DP, EP, GP, SM.
After the 2008 Nationals, classes failing to meet the 17-car standard were:
AM, BM, CM, FJA, FJB, XP, FP, BSP. Threatened classes with 22 or fewer drivers
included: DM, EM, FSAE, DP, GP, ASP, SM.
The rule also discourages people from building new cars for the threatened
classes. Why would someone want to invest time and money to build for a class
that may or may not exist in a few years? Guarantee the existence, and the
negative reasons go away.
A former SEB member asked me who would come to a Nationals if they knew their
class would not crown a champion. I replied it would be the same types of
drivers who currently populate the supplemental classes hoping to elevate to
championship status, not to mention the hopefuls in the Ladies classes. The
proposed rule would not discourage participation. To the contrary, it makes it
possible for competitors to aspire to championship status without a death
penalty awaiting those who do not achieve it.
Yes, I realize A Modified is specifically exempted, which actually only
illustrates the problem when you have to make a special dispensation for one
class that you want to keep regardless of its performance instead of simply
recognizing that the drivers of AM cars want the same thing as the drivers of
every other class -- to compete without having to worry about how many show
up. And by the way, why does their class deserve an exemption while my
class doesnt? Again, the result is to upset your most long-term, loyal and
dedicated members.
Rule 4.9 has already cost us B Prepared. How incredible that the Corvette, the
original true American sports car, an icon in Americas motoring history, has
no true place to compete in solo in full-race form. No, XP doesnt count
because thats something far beyond what BP was. Only one Corvette (Su Brude)
even tried XP this year. Randy Herrick went back to his RX7. Sam Platt took
his Corvette to E Mod. Claire Ball, a 100 Percenter, quit coming as did most
of the rest of the BP Corvette drivers.
And the limitations of Rule 4.9 are simply not necessary. Unlike the Runoffs
where you can only cram in so many races during a day (and they will resolve
that with multi-class races for the least-subscribed classes), at the Solo
Nationals it is how many cars we can run through the courses over four days --
a limit currently established at 1250 cars although we have yet to get within
approximately 100 cars of that limit (current record, 1157 cars in 2007). It
doesnt matter if those 1250 cars are in one class or 100 classes, the car
count is the controlling factor.
And now with the new Lincoln site -- spacious enough for the possibility of
having a three-course Nationals even though we may be years from that as a
necessity -- the car-count limit could be raised to something in the 1800
range or more. Even less reason why we need any kind of class-size limit.
And yet, we have those who say it is all about the competition, and that a
small class is not competitive. While I refute that -- I say it is more about
the participation -- the proposal still recognizes and rewards the competitive
aspect. We get to have and enjoy both -- competition and participation.
We eliminate the current rule 4.9. We dont care if a class shows up with
fewer than seven cars -- as (including Ladies) 24 classes did this year. Yes,
while we bleat about competitiveness and some imagined need to have bigger
classes, we gave champions jackets to four drivers who were the only
competitor in their class, and to 15 drivers where the winner claimed the only
trophy finish in the class (a class of three or fewer drivers). Most, but not
all, were Ladies classes, two of which had no entries at all. Yes, of 74
classes, 17 of them, 23 percent, could not even put a second driver on the
podium. And yet we want to tell a class that puts 15 drivers on course that
they are not worthy to compete?
My proposal requires a class of seven drivers to declare a National Champion.
Why seven? I choose that number because it is a full podium under current Solo
Rules. Three trophy winners. It is a number even the ladies classes can
achieve, as 13 of them did this year. It is a number that, if achieved by a
supplemental class, would declare that winner a champion (FSAE and FJA this
year, but not SMF or FJB).
It is a number that, if not achieved, does not threaten a classs existence,
only its status for this year. It is a number that lets anyone come and enjoy
the event -- eminently in keeping with current qualification policy that
requires only that a driver participate in a Divisional or Tour event.
It is also a number that could be easily modified. You want to make the
standard a four-trophy class (10 drivers)? Fine. Or even four trophies in
Open, three in ladies? Go for it. There is no real magic in the number. The
magic is in the fact anyone can play, no one needs to worry about their class
going away. Whether you have enough to declare your winner a champion is a
separate matter.
A supplemental class would still be running under a proposed ruleset for
purposes of evaluation, but in the past we have had some supplementals produce
solid entries and stiff competition, only to denigrate its winner by refusing
him the mantle (and jacket) of champion. I submit that that driver competed
under the rules as they existed at that moment -- which is true of any class
since the rules can always change for next year -- and the fact that the
ruleset is not in final mode is no reason to demean the accomplishment of the
class winner. F125 was supplemental for five years before being accorded
championship status. Did their rules really change much during their
evaluation period? Why shouldnt FSAE get the same consideration? (Borrowed
rules is not a valid rationale since F125 and the FJ classes also use borrowed
rules.) But under the proposal there is no need to rush to judgment, nor to
unreasonably delay judgment. Any time you get seven competitors, you make a
champion.
I would also address the oft-raised issue of too many classes. I contend we
have nothing of the sort. Given that Ladies classes are merely a duplication,
we really have 38 classes (including the two Formula Juniors) plus 36 Ladies.
In 1973, the first Nationals, we had 14 classes plus one Ladies. In 1973 we
had 224 drivers at Nationals, in 2009 we had 1148. So over the years, our
class count has increased 271 percent while our entry count has increased at
twice that rate, 513 percent. The increase of Ladies classes from one to 36 is
irrelevant -- theyre the same classes and rules governing the specific cars.
The new classes weve added merely addresses the needs of our membership and
new technologies, and frankly if you add a new Whatever class it really
doesnt affect my enjoyment of my class one bit, so theres no reason I should
care -- other than somebody else might enjoy my sport.
This is not any support for an I class. As the SEB sees classes fading away,
it should rightly step in and do what seems necessary. Maybe it needs new
cars, maybe it needs a different rule structure, maybe it really does need to
fade away with whatever few cars are left being assimilated elsewhere. But
few I would suggest is probably a class chronically below the full-podium
mark. It certainly isnt a class able to put 12 or 15 or more cars on track.
The SEB has never needed a Rule 4.9 to make changes in the class structure. It
has always been the SEBs mandate to create the best competitive balance it
can, which includes combining or splitting classes, creating new ones, or
changing the entire makeup of a classs ruleset. If you decide that all
Corvettes are not really competitive in Super Stock, go ahead and drop some of
the older models to A Stock. If you decide that the new GP needs some
capability to grow the current rules dont provide, go ahead an add a limited
prep concept. You never needed 4.9 to permit you to do that. But when you (in
an earlier incarnation, not the current SEB) looked at BP and it didnt make
numbers, BP was eliminated and its drivers told they could become AP (XP) or
EM cars. Well that didnt work out so well, did it? Under the proposal you
could bring BP back. And if it doesnt make championship numbers, well so
what? The point is, theyd still get to play.
For that more accurately fulfills the purpose of SCCA and its competition
programs. As surprising as it may be to some, the purpose of the competition
programs is much less to make champions than it is to provide a place to
compete. SCCA exists to give members a place to play with their cars,
front-runner and backmarker alike.
Our Solo National Championships have always been an inclusive event. To
qualify to come all we need to do is compete in a Divisional or a Tour. We
dont even have to do well there, just participate -- just demonstrate some
commitment to the sport. Over in Club Racing theyve just taken this page from
the Solo program and applied it to their own -- all a race driver needs to do
is compete, doesnt even have to do well, doesnt even have to score a single
point(!) in order to go to the Runoffs as of 2010. And where for the past few
years only the top 24 or 25 classes could go, as of 2010 all 29 classes can
go.
Theyve seen the success of the Solo Nationals with 1100+ entries. But in
their changes they eliminated what had been their version of Rule 4.9. Now, it
is simply if a class doesnt bring 10 cars, then its winner doesnt get to be
listed as champion.
Same basic thing I propose for the replacement Rule 4.9.
--Rocky Entriken
Salina Region SCCA
#4 GP
The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not winning but taking part;
the essential thing in life is not conquering but fighting well. --Baron
Pierre de Coubertin
To win is nice. To race is enough. --Clay Regazzoni
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
Autox mailing list
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/autox
http://www.team.net/archive
|