Just so we're looking at actual numbers, the average turnout in the RM region was 12 cars last year (based on race results posted). By far the best of any region, no doubt, and yes the current formula does not work in the RM's favor. However, having all 12 on Nittos is not more cost effective than having all 12 on Toyos by the math I laid out earlier (including year-end payouts). The only way to spend less is move cars out of the class. This may not work out well financially at the events where 5-7 cars show up (4 races last year) if 1/2 show up on Nittos?

The SM guys actually have it worst, on a national level, in this regard, and they enjoy large fields.

The current formula does help the newer regions, and helped the RM get its good start. On a national basis, it is still the best single option. If we make different rule set for each regions individual benefit, we don't have a class.

Ultimately, each racer is free to race where they like, but within this class, on a national level, we can only choose one tire, and for the forseeable future, that's the RA-1.

Weston wrote:


I totally understand you. I too hate the 5 car payout only. Under that system a guy that wins 4 straight races early $150 times 4 and therefore pretty much one set of tires in 2 weekends. ($600) He can't go through tires that fast.

The guys at the back get zip.... Realizing this we revised the system in Arizona and it has worked well. The fast guys still get reward for being fast, but give up 1/2 their money to support positions 6-10. In effect it is good deal since no money goes to waste for the fast guys and at least the guys at the back get something to offest their efforts.

I would however love to see another $200 toseed in for the top 10 guys with 15 starters. To me that would be nice draw to get 15 guys at each race and help out. As it stands I cant really see dividing the $400 over more than 10 guys as there is just to enough to make difference.

However greater payout for 15 starts would be good deal for NASA as well as our class. Why? NASA wants more entrants because more entrants = more money. I think they can also so Toyo that it would not be all that common so why not toss in more? Is not that hard to ahve 10 5 car classes a race weekend, but there not many 15 car classes that I see. So the added bonus is rely small money even if the double it to $800 total for 15 starters.

Now it becomes our job a directors/racers to get 15 starters.

That is my thinking...

The thing about our average of 12 cars per race (or 13.2 by my quick count; 158 / 12) last year is that although that's the highest in the nation, we see that as being a low-participation year... The numbers are comparable to the two previous years, so on the surface of that, growth would appear to have leveled off. There's a reason for that, but I'll save that for now. The hidden metric here is that the ratio of available cars in the RM region to ones that actually show up is not impressive at all, and it keeps getting worse. If you have 15 cars built and an average of 13 show up and race, that's good; but if you end up with 30 cars built and you're still only averaging 13, while 17 just sit idle in garages, something is wrong. This has been observed by people outside of our group as well. It's easy to miss that if you're just looking at participation metrics, but it's a bit more visible when you're here and know the people.

Once this whole checkbook-racing circus began, we saw participation stop growing and people have been voting with their wallets. We have new people building more cars just to maintain the same average participation count, but that wont last forever. And as you know, the RM region class participation average is expected to take a nose-dive in 2011, so we wont even be talking about hidden metrics anymore at that point.

I suppose the one true benefit of keeping the status quo and politics is that the numbers will get small again, and then the Toyo money will be great for the handful of cars that care to show up. It just sucks to have a potentially huge field available, but only a few show up, because the rest see how things have become are and no longer find it worthwhile to participate in a farce.

joepaluch wrote:


You're right, and I know that point has been made to NASA before, so hopefully it can have more success this time around. 15 is going to be hard to get when there's only officially an incentive for 5 though. But change the official payout so that the new level is contingent on having 15 cars and I bet you'll see those numbers happen more easily.

I'll work on that sighting system!

I posted this in another section as well but looks like it applies here too.

Tires.....

A.....It would be nice for the racers, be it whatever group, to get the tires at a better cost. A racer card if you will that will allow someone in a race group to purchase the tires at cost or at the very least, heavily discounted.

B.....Take some of the contingency money from 1st, 2nd, 3rd away and add some in for 4th, 5th, 6th and so on, better trickle down economics. More people finish out of the money than in and that could lower the cost for everyone.

C.....Find another tire Manufacture that will put more $$ in than Toyo.


I understand that Toyo is a business and so is NASA. They have to make money to stay in business or they wouldn't be here. There's only so much profit in it and if we take the profit away then there's no reason for them to stay.

Weston wrote:


The idea would be to ADD the addtional payout for 15 cars. Keep the existing and if a class gets 15 than added in more. Don't replace the 5 car deal.


As for class growth in RMR and cars on track vs sitting.

Az has the oldest region having started back in 2002. We have had 30+ cars in the state built to 944 spec, but it always has been a challenge to get guys to show up to events. Some guys simply burn out. Others run out of money and others are down for repairs otther still move on to faster cars. I personally have run one race since August. My reasons have nothing to do with NASA, tires or the class. I know there are other in my region like me fighting personal issues that have little impact on what the class is doing. I can run through the list name by name on who is not showing and why.

In fact Az has been on 4 year cycle. We get 3 good years of growth and good numbers followed by a down year. For us 2011 will be a down year. 2006 was growth year after a down year in 2005. With any luck the economy will improve and 2012 will be better year.



Growth is great, but maintaining is hard.