Mark is actually just a great driver! I have raced against him for years and he's a few notches beyond my ability. That is hard to admit for a racer. Sometimes the good guys do win (in this case less budget, no cheating). To Scotts credit his driving has improved each year and the cheating was dismissed on a rogue employee (isnt that always the case).
LOL - are you selling subscriptions or something? Just kidding, that's a telling compliment. Is Mark playing anywhere else? On another note, Rob, you should join us for the enduro at Road Hotlanta where we're going to beat Seth, whether he likes it or not.
I know a lot of people are bashing the SCCA. It seems like in the past few years NASA has gained a lot of drivers. Here are my issues with NASA and they might not be valid as I have not verified them - how trained are the corner workers. Are they just anybody who shows up at the track and is put at a corner station? I like the SCCA corner workers - they are trained and in my opinion when you need them in an emergency situation I want an SCCA trained worker. Also in NASA I understand that there are a lot of classes to race in. However if you are in a run group with only 1-2 to race against it is not much fun. In addition the horsepower to weight issue is really easy to beat. Just have 2 maps in the car and a hidden switch. On the cool down lap just change the maps. My World Challenge has a switch for 2 maps (dry and rain). The general opinion is that the SCCA is still the top of the heap when it comes to amateur racing. I have been racing in the SCCA since 1992. I also ran 12 years in the World Challenge series so I guess I am a little biased. I know people who run in both series and they say that the competition is tougher in the SCCA. As in any racing series there is always *****ing and complaining about car classification and money buys speed. I watched the T-1 race and it appeared to be really close.
"The general opinion is that the SCCA is still the top of the heap when it comes to amateur racing. I have been racing in the SCCA since 1992. I also ran 12 years in the World Challenge series so I guess I am a little biased. I know people who run in both series and they say that the competition is tougher in the SCCA." If you want to race a spec racer ford, then SCCA is your home. If you want to race a Porsche Cup Car, your toughest competition will be found outside of SCCA. If you want to race a Ferrari Challenge Car, your toughest competition will be found outside of SCCA. If you want to race many types of formula car, your toughest competition will be found outside of SCCA. If you want to have a career in racing, you are wasting your time in SCCA. I likely will run two cars in SCCA next year, but I think they have major unaddressed problems and doubt anything will be done as older and older drivers race older and older cars. Classification of the 430C in T1 makes no sense at all. It's a GT car, exactly like the Porsche Cup Cars. As for competition being tougher in SCCA than in WC (or whatever Koni Challenge is this week), those series are club series in many respects. I try to make the case for SCCA, but it's a tougher and tougher battle.
It is a toss up between SCCA and NASA on corner workers. SCCA has advantage because of their training, experience, and SCCA workers are volunteers enjoying what they do. NASA has advantage because they run as a business and pay their corner workers. Sometimes that's better because they treat it like a job and also no problems actually getting enough workers like SCCA. More than half the time SCCA tried to run the 2.9 at TWS they would shorten to 1.8 because they didn't have enough workers. NASA is more inconsistent region to region because the national body isn't as strong, NASA Texas is solid and owners were SCCA people before. There are the same number of classes in SCCA and NASA. Both have their strong and weak classes. In Texas the 1-2 entrants in a class is a problem with SCCA. They have had even less than that in Touring 1. When I ran Touring 3 I wouldn't see more than 3-4 cars in class until the Runoffs. In NASA we've had at least 5 and often 10 in class here in Texas. I agree that is the problem with weight/HP, but NASA has battled that with GPS analysis, supposedly accurate on HP to 1-3%. Even with the HP cheating, I find that better to stomach than the games you can play with a thick SCCA rule book and spec sheet. Many of those games start with the manufacturer. All of those games are made mute with weight/HP. Without a doubt SCCA Runoffs has more talent than NASA Nationals. NASA closes the gap every year and as already posted by someone else, the talent at Runoffs isn't what it use to be. On the regional level, at least in Texas I will take the NASA drivers 5 to 1 over SCCA. I use to win 40 minute SCCA Touring 3 races by 20-40 seconds at Division National events. It comes down to the SCCA is old inflexible stagnant dying verse NASA being new evolving growing.
It's very difficult to compare the SCCA vs NASA experience in the terms that you guys are doing so, because both are loose collections of regional organizations and the experience will be different from region to region. But my experience (in several regions) *in general* has been that SCCA embarasses NASA in terms of organization and safety. NASA definitely wins in terms of adminstrative stuff, including the rulebook. No question that out west there is much more competition in SCCA. I'm actually afraid to race NASA sometimes due to the safety crew, but oh well. There are WAY more classes in SCCA. I'm not saying that's an advantage for either side. There are arguments both ways. There are 2 formula car classes in NASA. There are a dozen in SCCA. There are 0 sports racer classes in NASA. There are half a dozen in SCCA. There are at least double the number of sedan classes in SCCA than NASA. That's true but also let's look at all the HPDE and TT stuff in NASA. SCCA is race only (ok some limited PDX now) and I'm sure overall still has quite a lot more RACERS than NASA does. SCCA ain't dead yet.
In the North East the SCCA has a good amount of SSC, SSB, T-1, STU cars running. These are the classes that I am most interested in. I understand that both series vary greatly from region to region. My biggest issue is safety. Have any of you been at a race where a driver has been killed on the track? I have. Let me tell you, once you experience a situation like that it makes you really appreciate the corner workers. They can be the difference between life and death. Regarding NASA's runoffs - it is my understanding that they do not get the same number of cars as the SCCA runoffs. I know of a driver that entered the NASA runoffs and was the only car in his class. I have not seen that at the SCCA runoffs. I have heard that NASA has a larger contingent of PDX cars then race cars which is not a bad thing. My view of the racing series ladder would put the SCCA Nationals at the top, SCCA Regionals a rung below nationals and NASA below regionals. I am not familiar with any of the Porsche or BMW racing series other then there is the 13/13 rule. It would seem that the 13/13 rule would really limit the racing action. I am not hammering NASA in any way. My only issue is safety. I have spent years running EMRA which is a local (North East) racing series that has been around since the 60's. Great organizaton however the corner workers are not trained like the SCCA.
SCCA has National and Regional classes, only the National classes compete at Runoffs as you know. All NASA classes compete at Nationals. NASA Nationals is a very very new thing with increasing participation each year. For example, SCCA Touring 1 = NASA Super Touring 2. SCCA Runoffs had 16 entrants in T1, NASA Nationals had 22 entrants in ST2. SCCA has more consistent participation through the classes. I don't think you can ladder them like that. It is very region to region. I have found NASA regional events to have much better participation than SCCA Regional or National events in Texas. I also think the talent is higher. However, I still agree SCCA Runoffs has more participation and talent than NASA Nationals. There is just more enthusiasm and energy with NASA. The racers want to race. SCCA seems to mostly be racers that have done that forever, they do minimum number of qualifying races at then go to Runoffs. Just an older habit chasing trophies. NASA seems to be more about the enthusiasts. FYI, there has been more SCCA racers die each year than NASA, even on an average basis considering NASA has fewer races. I attribute most of that to age of drivers, many of the SCCA deaths have proved to be medicals before impact or highly suspect leading to that conclusion.
I have also and you really start to appreciate safety then. Agreed. Very smart of them too -- it's hard to grow big enough to be self-sustaining if you just have race groups which compete against SCCA. Having the HPDE and TT as a ladder of sorts to race is a guh-reat idea and it is working for them.
yep. However on the down side the way NASA runs races is amateurish compared to SCCA. I can't tell you enough about the consistent keystone kops efforts we see out here in NASA. However SCCA is aging and they have this bureaucracy which makes it difficult for the young folks with energy to make the necessary changes to revitalize themselves. It's frustrating.
Just thought of a NASA anecdote I wanted to share. At the Miller nationals this year, let me emphasize, the nationals, THIS year, a sports racer was allowed to run with the big cars (GTS?). Now for one thing this is unsafe just because of weight differences, but also this particular SR was modified to take a chevy V8. Way more power than an amateur racer could ever need, but neat anyway. Oh, except that to remain within what I assume is a wheelbase limit (either rules or chassis restriction), the cockpit was shoved forward. The drivers legs were forced to overhang (well past) the front axle. There was no rear bodywork because of engine cooling requirements I think. Of course this is stupid for a sports racer because it destroys the aero but hey he's making up for it with way too much power. So also because of no rear bodywork you can see the frame, which had sloppy welds and obvious rust. And they let this car run at their annual national championship event.
"a sports racer was allowed to run with the big cars (GTS?)" Maybe Super Unlimited? Interesting, sounds like a mess.
"yes, SR's run SU" That's my problem with running a 430C in NASA, at least in SU. You bring your 430C - heck, you bring your 430GT - and I spank you with my little sports racer.
I know Chief Stewards, Corner Workers and everything in between, the Corner Workers are the only ones with a real clue. Chief Stewards act like Bernie Ecclestone. I have, too, as most everyone knows. He burned to death. Everyone then runs around for the next year or two trying to improve fire safety, but it's back to the same sad state of affairs it was 10 years ago. People talk the talk, they seldom walk the walk after time passes by. That's what I noticed as well. Hard to attract new blood to 'management' when the OLD management reacts with 'but this is the way we have always done it' to everything a newbie proposes.
