Eligibility expansion discussion

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
redspitfireracer	Eligibility expansion discussion		Lead	[-]
Registered User Posts: 70 Jun 28, 2009 10:21 AM	To all our members- In the latest Vintage Messenger is a report from your Board, summarizing what was discussed & agreed upon during a retreat held on June 20th. It has also been posted on the RMVR home page, & emailed to all members. We have tried to put these concerns into context for what we think is needed for the long range future of this club. Please read it, & give it the serious consideration it deserves. This BB is a great tool; use it as a place for all to discuss the pros & cons of the matter. Your Board will not dictate to the membership what we think should be allowed as far as Eligibility. That should come from the Run Groups, as has been done in the past (i.e. Small bore expansion to '72, FV expansion,etc). Big Bore is already moving forward with their proposal. This BB is not the only venue that can be used; it's just the most visible & accessible. Consider organizing a Run Group meeting- maybe at the next HPR race. Your Board & Eligibility Team stand ready to help. This is your Club. Please consider what is best for the Club as a whole, & its future. The basis for the change are the SCCA 1981 General Competition Rules (GCR). This has many suitable allowed cars that would be appropriate for running with our existing classes, and precedes the proliferation of tube-framed cars that merely resemble a production car. Many of the allowed cars are a continuation of pre-73 models that are running with us today. For open wheel cars, the Monoposto Register already has a rule format that may be suitable to consider. While we hope to attract new cars & new members into existing run groups, this would NOT mean you'd have to update your existing car. Our race results include the car class, so you can measure yourself against similarly-prepared cars. If approved, the new cars would be classed by the rules they are prepared to (my suggestion would be, for example: EP (for '67 GCR), EP2 (for '72 GCR), and EP1 (for '81 GCR)). We have obtained copies of the '81 GCR, & PCS (Production Car Specification) for review. Thank you for your thoughtful evaluation of this topic. Let us know what you think. Mark Robinson, RMVR President
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
MikeR129		#1	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 15 Jun 29, 2009 8:22 PM	This is a good solution to a serious problem. I am fully supportive. (And I look forward to occasionally beating those '81 GCR cars whenever possible.) --Mike
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
fv62		#2	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 27 Jun 29, 2009 8:40 PM	I can go along with the expansion of the present groups that we have at this time. I believe that there are plenty of cars out there that fit into the existing groups, but than again, there may be drivers out there that already have a race car that would fit into the expansion of a group. My only concern would be an addition group which would cut down on track time, but this seem to have been considered by the Board. I think with the new track and time RMVR would regain the entries of past years. I have to agree that marketing is important in promoting the track and RMVR. I always had the idea of involving a car dealer, used or new, in promoting the track and RMVR via one of their commercial, maybe for an area at the track to let them promote theirself. Just my thought. Any way I am going along with the expension. The FV group did this a few years ago and the new Vees run in the same group. Add thought, I would really like to see a F5000 race with about 10 competitve cars.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
hmodrenault	Let me see	#3	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 34 Jun 29, 2009 10:32 PM	So when the eligibility was '67, turn out was 1000 entries a year, and when it was opened up to '72 it dropped to 6-700. What's the goal? 300? Maybe you guys should give up the RMVR board and run for Congress............................
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
RMVR53		#4	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 374 Jun 29, 2009 11:43 PM	come on Henry...you could finally run that Pinto.... As keeper of the flame during the prior expansion (Big Bore to 72) and creator of "Dash-Crap 1..the prequel" the "reasons" were pretty much the same then as they are now... dwindling run group size in Big Bore. Result?...we gained 7 lost 10. The significant question begs to be asked...is this an across-the-board change? or a production classes only change? If so...gonna be interesting to keep up with who can run what....Production to 81, FV to 79, FF to 72. When asked oh so long ago as to why we didn't have a bigger Big Bore group, the answer came back we didn't have tracks Big Bores wanted to run on. Look at CVAR... Hugh Big bore run groups and small Small Bore groups. Why?...big long power hungry tracks. Small bore drivers just didn't have the stomach for knocking off chapters of War and Peace on each lap to pass the boredom. Well folks, we finally have a long legged track other than Pueblo. Give HPR a few runs and lets see if the groups grows. If not, have at it. BUT...before you do...ask the question...just what cars have been coming out as "Exhibition"?...just how big a grid of Porsches and BMW's do you want? What I'm saying in-between the lines here is this: 1) don't do this for one run group at the expense of another 2) don't do this to make legal one or two cars that currently run pretty regularly with us 3) don't do this without a club-wide decision Bill Fleming
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Dekedenver	Expansion	#5	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 1 Jun 30, 2009 7:09 PM	I am a fairly new member to RMVR, only 2 years in, and thank you for being such a welcoming membership! I am for the expansion only if it serves it's members properly and achieves the goals set forth. So, if that means I need to put my money where the boards mouth is, so be it, sign me up for some hard labor doing some marketing, but, I want the goals to be realistic not "congress size goals". The attraction for me to RMVR initially was to have some real racing, gentlemen style versus the "no passing" racing I was used to. The vintage side of things came about later when I was lucky (litteraly) enough to have a vintage car that was eligible. Only $20k later and it's race ready. The comraderie of the club members is also very much enjoyable, and if lost or dilluted may not be as an appealing club, maybe just a bunch of meatheads driving around banging against each other. So, to not squander the hard earned raceability of my newly found passion, I am for the expansion as long as none of the aforementioned cons of expansion are experienced...less track time, less of a vintage feel, etc. I do not agree that there are less available vintage cars on the market. Look at the numbers of how many vehicles were produced in this era....millions. I don't think that this club is for the faint of heart/faint of pocket book which is maybe where the availability stat comes from. There needs to be some limits set that serve as guidlines for the culture of the club and it's future. I'm all for expansion and progressiveness to get the membership up to keep the club viable...I'm not for losing the culture, this is what I have come to love. Derrick Neikam 303-408-4022
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fchicken109	Later years, and other machines.	#6	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 2 Jul 2, 2009 6:22 PM	I recall something my grandfather told me years ago that seems appropriate at this time. When he first showed up at RMVR with his Bocar XP-5 in 1986, they would only let him show it, not race it. This was because it wasn't an english car. After a short debate of Bocar racing history, it was allowed. Followed shortly by another Bocar, Cobras, and so on. I also recall a debate on if Camaros could run. RMVR allowed up to 1967, then more recently up to 1972. Bumping things up to 1979-1980 would bring in a whole new class of car. Not just sedan cars, but sports racers, open wheel, and so on. Would folks from the east coast bring out their 1977 Monzas, 1979 GT corvettes? 911 RSR's? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But I can tell you this, it will perk up the ears of some more of the locals. Where I live, there's a guy with a 1975 Datsun 240Z, built to racing specs. He uses it for autocross and may soon be chomping at the bit to skirt the turns with us guys and gals of RMVR, if we allow for expansion. The list of possible entries just from this area is endless. A Ford Capri RS, several 911's, a few corvettes, some BB Camaros, you name it. If it drums more entries for the club, and keeps it alive and kicking, by all means, do it. I'd hate to someday go race with someone else if RMVR goes belly-up. Not to say that we will go belly-up, but we do need to keep looking foreword and keep our eyes open. Let's not turn away something like another Bocar that could open the door for all of us.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
chriswening		#7	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 3 Jul 3, 2009 12:12 PM	One of our challenges has been the incredible increase in value of many of the older, interesting race cars. As values have escalated, many of the cars we know and love have been retired as the investment value has simply grown to high to risk in club racing. Amonst the many reasons for declining grids this one should not be overlooked. For a racer, a vintage car is often thought of as the car we wanted in our youth. To expand participation it behooves RMVR to attract racers who have a "newer" concept of vintage racing. We fully support the expansion for small bore and big bore to the 1981 GCR to attract new members and expand racing fields. Chris and Jamey Wening
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
hmodrenault		#8	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 34 Jul 4, 2009 6:04 AM	There is no evidence that the "newer" concept of vintage racing having a great untapped source of cars. It is merely something dreamed up by a board grasping in the dark for some kind of salvation followed by blind members convinced that moving forward is always better. The 1981 racing scene was the thing that drove people to create vintage racing. People who had raced in the fifties looked around and concluded that the current SCCA scene sucked and went vintage racing tapping off a huge number of potential racers for the SCCA. RMVR wants to repeat this cycle and calls it being "Progressive"? If I can race an old car, anyone can. The current economy is making old cars cheaper and there are still plenty around, yes, you may have to restore something. Advancing to the 1981 GCR will not make racing with RMVR more fun. Older cars will disappear as racing with guys who have flares and slicks becomes less fun. The speed differentials will become huge and the racing less exciting and more dangerous. That ought to increase participation. The unique identity of RMVR would be destroyed as RMVR events become the same as going to NASA or other "run what ya brung" clubs. But you hippies goa ahead and do what yer gonna do. I know it'll be a real big sucess.................................Cheers Henry
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Alder RMVR		#9	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 1378 Jul 4, 2009 9:20 AM	hmodrenault wrote: . . . . It is merely something dreamed up by a board grasping in the dark for some kind of salvation followed by blind members convinced that moving forward is always better. The 1981 racing scene was the thing that drove people to create vintage racing. Gee Henry, I'm glad to hear that you think so highly of the RMVR Board and all RMVR members. They all speak well of you. With reference to 1981, I'd have to agree with you. But it was what happened AFTER 1981 that started driving folks away from SCCA and to vintage. It was AFTER 1981 that tube frame and silhouette cars became acceptable in SCCA and probably did indeed play a part in driving folks way from SCCA and towards vintage racing. That is exactly why 1981 seems to be a natural cutoff. Maybe even more "natural" than is '67 or '72. For most production cars up you'd be hard pressed to argue that a '69 or '72 MG is any more "Vintage" than a later MG. Ditto most Porche's and, for example, a 240Z vs. a 260Z. Lighten up. If all vintage racing clubs conformed to your veiw of what vintage racing should be there would be very little vintage racing today. There's maybe two clubs in the whole country which conform to your very strict view of the "vintage" world. Has the whole world gone mad, except you?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Bbruce		#10	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 1 Jul 4, 2009 9:57 AM	RMVR members, We are now at a crossroads in the history of this club. Since the last Steamboat race many years ago, our membership has steadily declined. The reasons for this are many-loss of and condition of tracks, economy, aging drivers, disappearing older and expensive cars and on and on. We have an opportunity to sensibly and thoughtfully bring this club to a place that it deserves to be. By expanding eligible cars to '81 using the SCCA GCR eligibility rules we can bring in new members and cars that will move this club to a place where it can once again thrive and be profitable. By the way, most clubs across the country already do this. I race with HSR, VSCDA and VARA and they are successful, thriving clubs. In the last race at Atlanta, I had 40 cars in my run group. It was a phenomenal race! By comparison, the Big Bore group at the Trans Am race in Pueblo, had 12 cars at the beginning of the weekend. Yawn. By the time we had the main event on Sunday, there were 4 cars in the group. If this happens again, I won't waste the gas driving to the event! As a side note, no disrespect to Keith Davidson who did a hell of a job promoting the race early and often! I would have hated to see the result without Keith's hard work. Hat's off to you for a job well done! We can idly sit by desperately trying to hold on to the past, rejecting all change, and watch our club literally disappear,or we can get our heads together and figure out a way to enable this club to expand its membership and offerings. I would respectfully ask the membership to take the attitude of "what can I bring to the show, how can I help this club." It's easy to criticize and bash change and I know it's scary for some, but if we don't embrace change and growth in a sensible and thoughtful way, we won't be in existence very long. Currently there are 16 RMVR members that are running cars that aren't technically legal under the current rules. We were running under the Exhibition class until the rule change. We have a 2 race per year limit as the new rule read. I support the board getting the Exhibition class back to its original intent - that makes sense. However, if we don't expand eligibility, the club will loose 16 entries per race for all but 2 races a year. Can we afford to do this- can we afford to loose this much revenue in an already declining market? I don't thing so. Let's all get on board and make this happen. I want this club to be successful and thriving for many many years to come! Respectfully submitted, Bruce McGrath
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
hmodrenault		#11	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 34 Jul 5, 2009 8:00 AM	So if this expansion goes forward suddenly there will be 40 cars at the Trans Am event. HSR has no eligibility requirements. If your car has 4 wheels and a check, your in. Is that a vintage club? I don't think so. Another basic assumption is " all the other clubs are going to '81". Name some, I don't see it. I guess HSR is there but they have always been there and I think their events suck. But they have the big advertising budget and suck up with Classic Motorsports so I guess that makes them legit. VARA has a series for pro open wheel cars, a class for mid eighties Super Vees, but the cutoff for production remains '72, same for VSCDA. If you're going create a class for GTP cars, great, just don't put them in my group. As for the board, maybe one of them will be mad enough to just shoot me. Then I won't have to live to see the fruition of their evil plans.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
FiatAbarth	Eligibility expansion discussion	#12	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 17 Jul 5, 2009 10:11 AM	What changes to the "Formula Ford" run group are proposed? Are we going to add 12 to 15 "Club Ford" entries from SCCA?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Alder RMVR		#13	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 1378 Jul 5, 2009 4:43 PM	Well, the open wheel group needs to determine that. Would someone like to host a meeting? Via email we can invite all openwheelers to discuss the overall subject of expanded open wheel. While FV have already done their thing a couple of years ago, given the possible effect on the two run groups, it would seem that all Open Wheelers should be in on the discussion.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
FiatAbarth	Comments on Eligibility expansion discussion	#14	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 17 Jul 7, 2009 5:15 PM	I think all run groups should share the responsibility to increase the number entries. I am very much for the change. I have an F prod 1974 Fiat X19 in progress. (Thanks to BobC for the help so far). However I think it is silly to have a strict cut off car production date. "1981 for the rule book" but continued production years of models available in 1981. Many of the same cars in 1981 were unchanged until 1990. With the rule of no pure tube chassis permitted. Some of the changes? Slicks on wider rims, Fiberglass body panels/doors air dams, crankfire ignition, alternative make transmission? I think most of the production cars in the club now were race prepared for vintage racing from street cars and not converted older SCCA cars. The focus should be on pushing the local car club collecting people to fix up a car for vintage racing. Having been a SCCA member myself in the past. I have my doubts that this local area could provide more than 20 suitable cars long term for all groups combined. Maybe thats enough? See ya at the track. Kent Baird
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Fchicken109	Crossroads indeed.	#15	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 2 Jul 7, 2009 10:11 PM	Here! Here! This is most certainly not a time for the members of this club to be narrow minded, but more open and focused on what is to come. I thank Bruce McGrath for putting things so well, and making himself heard. Had RMVR remained what it was back in 1986, we would have very few members, and would probably gone south a long time ago. Henry, I do indeed understand your view, and I sympathize. But had the club not been open minded enough to accept american cars and later classes those years ago, we would not have survived long enough for this issue to come to a head. Although I sympathize with those opposed, I must point out that many of you would not be racing with us now if the board had not been open enough to accept classes other than that which was in place back in the eighties. More cars and entries? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it is a logical step. I am sorry to hear that some people can't accept that the world changes, people change, and interests change. This is indeed an issue of heated debate, and I am sure some people will be hurt by whatever solution is come to. But i do find it disheartening to hear someone rant and rave with sarcasm and insult about something that will have little or no effect on their rungroup or class. Taking note of previous posts, can we please keep the discussion on a civilized level and not try to tear eachother apart? Insults and sarcasm are the results ignorance and cowardice. Thankyou once again Bruce, you put things in writing that us Curley boys usually keep quiet about.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
dreimol		#16	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 17 Jul 8, 2009 2:36 PM	I haven't been active in some time but I have been following this thread with great interest. One possible underlying theme I believe I hear is not just what car but, "What kind of driver will these new cars have?". When I hear "I won't put my car on the track with an exhibition car.", I see the way we race is as much of the concern as what we race. Is it possible that addressing this issue will help in finding the appropriate way to keep the club successful? Just a thought. Dave Reimold PS: I have been attending the Monterey Historics the last few years and they seem to manage to have just about everything running with very clean racing although not much track time. I enjoy all the classes but miss the VEEs. Last Edited By: dreimol Jul 8, 2009 2:41 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Andy Keller	Elegibility Expansion, thinking in a different box	#17	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 98 Jul 9, 2009 11:22 AM	Dear Friends: The approach to thinking about elegibility that I took was to analyze what was missing. There are few small and compact sedans participating in RMVR, in particular: These and others raced in professional events, including at CDR, and showroom stock series. While probably not listed in the SCCA rules, they were a significant part of Colorado racing history. Compact sedans Rambler, AMC, including Gremlin (not-V-eight) Plymouth Valiant and Barracuda; Dodge Dart Corvair (not Yenko Stinger) Chevy II Pontiac Tempest Mercury Capri Chevy Vega Small sedans VW bug Renault Fiat Saab What would it take to recruit them? Vrooooom, Andy 912 Keller
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
hmodrenault	Ignorance and Cowardice	#18	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 34 Jul 10, 2009 7:11 AM	I consider many of the statements on this thread to be quite ignorant myself. Here's one. "Why are you so upset about a change that doesn't even affect your run group?" I was told this at the last expansion and continually I go to events where I am racing in a group with the fastest Mustangs in the club. Most drivers are real cool about dealing with slower traffic, but it's not everybody. Here's a truth: Eligibility expansion affects all run groups because sooner or later they all get mixed together. Here's another ignorant concept. "It's a logical progression to move forward with eligibility." Sounds good, unless you look at where the SCCA was going at the time. The SCCA banned spectators from their events, so not many folks really remember these and the playing field got progressively more steep as preparation levels increased demanding a much higher level of committment from their participants. Answer this: Do you think the SCCA was successful in promoting road racing during the post '72 period? Here's something else reeking of ignorance. "All the other club's are doing this." Please provide a list of these clubs. Open your mind to this concept that to me rings of cowardice. The club can't enforce it's own eligibility rules, continually bends them to allow cars that don't conform to participate, therefore stepping on the toes of those folks that do follow the rules. Then these folks move in to change the rules to accomodate their cars. Maybe this is just another sarcastic rant, but I can't wrap my mind around this concept. The expansion of eligibility to 2.5 million Mustangs didn't even measurably slow the decline of the car count at RMVR events, but 16 cars times 5 events, so 80 cars per year gain is favorable to the 5-600 we've seen in losses. Blame it on Steamboat, but is this expansion really the answer? Open your mind to the possibility that the change that faces RMVR at these crossroads is its own eventual extinction as a vintage racing organization. As the club embraces more modern cars and higher levels of preparation, it changes from a club celebrating obsolete wonderful cars of the past into something else. This section was reserved for witty insults that I'll get back to later. Cheers Henry Morrison
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
BobC		#19	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 107 Jul 10, 2009 12:46 PM Moderator	I think that if you investigate SCCA events becoming non-spectator, you'll find that the change in insurance - requiring additional premium for spectators - was the cause not an outright banning. Locally the regions have been purchasing the spectator rider so they can have spectators again rather than 'guests'. Their problem is that there is no spectator base for roadracing in Colorado.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
RossLotus90	Firing before aiming	#20	[url]	[-]
Registered User Posts: 39 Jul 23, 2009 12:27 PM	I attended the Small Bore lecture last night to see what the varied opinions might be about expansion and found that the decision seems foregone. It is all about staunching declining entries (that actually increased in 2008). If my perception is correct, I believe we are changing the club from a "vintage car club" to a "kind and gentle racing club". Before you fire off a heated response, let me explain. In a vintage club the cars are the stars, and, as Henry so enthusiastically yet caustically reminds us in his posts, we seem to have drifted away from that philosophy over the past five to ten years. Instead we seem to define "vintage" as a spirit or attitude from a more civil time and it doesn't really matter what the car is. Now both of these are fine, no value judgment is intended, but they certainly manifest themselves differently. I guess the club wants to look more like a generic car club with really good behavior required. Whether that increases the entries though is, I think, still an issue. I like seeing cool cars driven with gusto. As I look at the cars of the late seventies that will now be eligible I don't see much that looks really cool that we are likely to see race. Mazda RX7, Porsche 924, and a bunch of Japanese sedans plus later versions of all the cars which are already eligible under our current rules and for which we can't find interested entrants. I would argue that the single proposal we have on the table for expanding eligibility ignores the root causes of the decline and opens some potential problems of its own. It doesn't address the economy and its effects on participation; there are ample pre 1972 cars available right now at reasonable prices for those who can afford to scratch the itch to race. It doesn't address the lack of a "Steamboat" event that provides a showcase for new people to have a great family weekend and get caught up in the concept. We came close with the vintage group at the Denver Grand Prix, but it wasn't consistent and regular enough to build a tradition. We still need such an event. It doesn't address the changes in people's personal situations; we are seeing an uptick in participation and perhaps as other factors change people will solve their personal reasons for not participating. Perhaps not…but 1981 eligibility has no effect. It doesn't address the lack of tracks. In fact, this is one of the bright spots in all of the gloom, and it is completely independent of any change in eligibility. Now we have HPR, it looks as though PPIR is creating a new facility and perhaps one or more of the "Country Club" tracks may come along. This has rejuvenated interest in a number of people as evidenced by over 190 entries to the inaugural HPR race. It very well may take away the few "cool" cars we now see as they are not as competitive with the new breeds, much as happened in SCCA in the day. I appreciate the chance to speak even if I am in a very, very, small minority. Ross Robbins
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Eligibility expansion discussion

Eligibility expansion discussion

Quick Reply