Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If you haven't noticed there is a sepparate Group F forum. Please visit it and get familiar with what is being proposed. We are trying to address the issues of SAFETY, COST, AND DRIVER COMPETITION. The finns have had great success with this. We are tinkering just a littel with their recipe to try it out here.

I feel that our current system is malfunctioning. You don't need to agree with me. But please be optimistic and stay positive.

Please understand the following before commenting.

1. Group F is, at this point, an experimental, informal competitor controlled class that is trying to focus on the driver, not the machine. It HAS THE POTENTIAL to allow for cheaper, more competitive competition. It does this by creating a more competitive ENVIRONMENT. It won't do it immediately but we need to focus on where the sport is currently headed and where we want it to go.

Wouldn't a spec class be better?

A spec class would be best. However, there is no risk taker stepping up to provide the cars or the services cheap enough to make it any cheaper than Open class or Group N. Group F is the next best thing and it is cheaper by far, therefore including most competitors who wish to compete.

Why are you doing this? The last thing we need are more classes.

Correct. It is just an informal experiment that will be overlain onto the rally. I will still be in G2. You can be in both. It's similar to the Woodner cup points that way. The SCCA has nothing to do with Group F at this point.

How is it going to make rallying more competitive?

Ralliest that want more competitive DRIVING (not check writing) will be attracted to this environment. We can create the environment and after a while those who want to participate will go for it. At OFPR we would have had 14 or 15 cars in Group F

4. How are we proposing the class to work? Like this: It is NA 2wd with minimum weights for engine displacements, this means balast for some cars. There are no turbos and no 4wd. At the moment we are working on tire limits, max. weight allowed, and max displacement allowed. Please visit the forum to get the skinny.

5. How is Group F going to make it cheaper to race? There is an idea that as a driver you need to move up to a faster car to get better. The more that people do this, the less competition there is a the 2wd level. Most people who can afford a Lancer or a Sube already race one. Currently in order to compete you must spend. I almost did this. I have saved money. If people agree with this principle and make a commitment to competitive DRIVING we will see F flourish and we all won't have to spend as much.

6. This looks currently just like Group 2. What's the difference? There is a lot of difference. Go read the rules. The reason it looks just like G2 is that all the cars are currently built toward P, G2, and G5 specs. We don't have many cars in G5 currently except turbos. If we create the environment and demonstrate that we have real competitionin the class (more than 2-5 cars) people will try it.

7. People will always spend money to racing. Yep. But I want to spend as little as possible.
 

·
SURF!!! I'll cover you myself!
Joined
·
663 Posts
I think the basic answer to prolonged growth is simpley more rallies at the club level, not more classes. GF looks interesting but it does not address the core issue.

We need more rallies that are cheaper. This may mean one day rallies with fewer stage miles and no foof to help with costs.

I think the trend in SCCA of more car than driver would change to, more rallies and less car, this would make for better drivers.

The Pro championship has to many events, 6 maximum is better, then we can get more hype on the 6 events and make them "appear" to be more "Professional".


Peter
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
>I think the basic answer to prolonged growth is simpley more
>rallies at the club level, not more classes.

Are you sure? NEdiv is having trouble subscribing it's club rallies. I've heard similar complaints about club events in Cendiv as well. Perhaps we have enough, or dare I say too many club rallies? Naw, there's no such thing as enough rallies!


>The Pro championship has to many events, 6 maximum is
>better, then we can get more hype on the 6 events and make
>them "appear" to be more "Professional".
>
>
>Peter

The problem isn't the number of events, it's the distance they are spread. MFR is like 3000 freakin miles from RIM! Australia has the same problem I hear. Countries like New Zealand, Finland, and GB all have strong national championships cuz every rally is held in an area the size of California. ESRC as WSRC were created to address this problem, and the more I look into them the more I see they may be the way of the future. I'm not excited about the idea of not having a true "national" champion, but realistically the sport just can't support that kind of effort at this time. I think this country is big enough to have an East champ and a West champ and still call both legit.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,738 Posts
Is it just me that REALLY gets pi$$ed off when the word "PRO" or "Pro" is used in the same sentence as "rally". I vote it gets removed from all SCCA and rally vocabulary everywhere. It doesn't exists, therefore it can't be.




Can't see me in your mirrors?
I must be in front of you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
>I think the basic answer to prolonged growth is simpley more
>rallies at the club level, not more classes.

F is kind of like the Woodner cup, it doesn't take any cars out of any classes. It actually can operate in the background very informally.

GF looks
>interesting but it does not address the core issue.
>
>We need more rallies that are cheaper. This may mean one day
>rallies with fewer stage miles and no foof to help with
>costs.

More rallies would be great. What we need are more organizers though, and a business model for them to succeed.

I see fields shrinking rapidly.


>The Pro championship has to many events, 6 maximum is
>better, then we can get more hype on the 6 events and make
>them "appear" to be more "Professional".
>

I think our pro series right now is like scraping not enough butter over too much bread.

>
>Peter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
RE: N started small

One argument I hear against F is that creating the class won't change anything and that all the F cars are basically G2 cars.

I agree that it won't change anything, at that very moment, but remember it's about creating an environment.

When Group N started it had next to nothing for entries and I thought is was pretty silly. Now it's probably one of the biggest classes. There won't be any F cars until there is an F.

But once there is an F class there will already be between 10 and 15 cars at LSPR that would work in the class. That's a big class and that would be only the start if we could foster the competition of DRIVING not spending.

Heck, if we want to showcase driving, let's go to the woods. If you want to showcase check scratching, let's go to a freakin' shopping mall.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top