I suspect that I might be alone in thinking that both the broad state of the economy and each individual racer's transient economic circumstances mask a broader underlying demographic shift in the sport. Sort of like confusing climate and weather. To be sure, interest in motorsports among the young is still alive, because I can see it in autox and track day events, but I don't think it's all that well, plus I don't think the pool of those still harboring an interest in things mechanical is growing enough to refill it. Maybe as racers, we are just too close to see it.

That's all for today from your resident seer and racing philosopher,
tony

Hal B. wrote:

stu coomer wrote:Have you considered towing with a Chevy Volt?

You tow with internal combustion...you push with electric.

H.(duh...)B.

As a Volt owner, I haven't even given the slightest thought to towing my racecar with it. It's a terrific sports sedan, actually, BMW 3 Series-like. So let me think...

Handles great! Really grippy. Surprising acceleration.

Oh, towing, yeah, so...

Fuel mileage, unreal. I'm averaging 75 MPG so far. When I move closer to civilization in a few weeks and the weather warms up, it'll be north of 90 MPG, easy.

Towing? Hmmmm...towing...

No.

Anthony Tabacco wrote:I suspect that I might be alone in thinking that both the broad state of the economy and each individual racer's transient economic circumstances mask a broader underlying demographic shift in the sport. Sort of like confusing climate and weather. To be sure, interest in motorsports among the young is still alive, because I can see it in autox and track day events, but I don't think it's all that well, plus I don't think the pool of those still harboring an interest in things mechanical is growing enough to refill it. Maybe as racers, we are just too close to see it.

That's all for today from your resident seer and racing philosopher,
tony

As a marketing/advertising guy, I'm tending to agree with you on this. Real underlying weaknesses that are probably independent of the economy.

Anthony Tabacco wrote:I suspect that I might be alone in thinking that both the broad state of the economy and each individual racer's transient economic circumstances mask a broader underlying demographic shift in the sport. Sort of like confusing climate and weather. To be sure, interest in motorsports among the young is still alive, because I can see it in autox and track day events, but I don't think it's all that well, plus I don't think the pool of those still harboring an interest in things mechanical is growing enough to refill it. Maybe as racers, we are just too close to see it.

That's all for today from your resident seer and racing philosopher,
tony

Tony,

There's no doubt that the SCCA driver contingent is a whole lot north of 40 years old. Speaking as somebody who didn't get into the sport until my late 50's, there's a personal squeeze between economics and other things to do (family, bucket list, etc.). It's not so much the economy but personal choices. I like to race and the wife likes to travel. Sometimes I get to see you and sometimes I don't.

To grow participation I think that new blood is the name of the game. Capture more of the affluent boomers (the mid-life crisis types who are looking at Harleys and Vettes) and then also build from the bottom with young driver programs. A lot of this is about smart marketing ... perhaps we're not so smart? I'm always surprised at what the public thinks it costs to go racing. They assume we're NASCAR or formula one. I met a relative during the Christmas holidays and when he found out that my car cost under $20K and that my racing budget was about half of that, he was floored. Is that information easily found on the SCCA or Enterprises web site? No, not really ... and that's where my son's generation goes looking for their info.

Rich

SRF #33, San Francisco Region

The SCCA hasn't got a clue how to grow it product. This is evident in the way they just keep adding car classes to an already crowed grid. There is nothing exciting about watching a collection of different classes of cars (some with only one car) race around the track. It isn't much different from a track day. IMHO club racing should be structured around a ladder type system...so there is a natural progression from an entry point. I will go and take my meds now...if I don't fall and hurt myself getting down from this soap box.

bob gardner wrote:The SCCA hasn't got a clue how to grow it product. This is evident in the way they just keep adding car classes to an already crowed grid. There is nothing exciting about watching a collection of different classes of cars (some with only one car) race around the track. It isn't much different from a track day. IMHO club racing should be structured around a ladder type system...so there is a natural progression from an entry point. I will go and take my meds now...if I don't fall and hurt myself getting down from this soap box.

Not to use the "N" word, but by limiting the classes, NASA is able to blend HPDEs with race days. HPDEs and TTs are actually in separate run groups. That's a great way to turn track-day guys into racers.

Hey, the board isn't owned by SCCA, so it's more than OK to talk openly about NASA.

So fell free to discuss NASA or any other race group. NASA could be the group you are all racing with a few years.

I don't see NASA as limiting classes. They limit the groups though. IIRC there are 3 maybe 4 race groups instead of the 6-9 we see at SCCA weekends. Take those extra group times and you'll have a lot more time to add other things.

cooleyjb wrote:I don't see NASA as limiting classes. They limit the groups though. IIRC there are 3 maybe 4 race groups instead of the 6-9 we see at SCCA weekends. Take those extra group times and you'll have a lot more time to add other things.

My bad. Yes, they have lots of classes, they just lump them together. GTS1-2-3-4-5? and in many cases 3 or 4 cars per class. I always wondered how they had HPDEs and TTs and a full race schedule. It's the big, diverse run groups. At this point, NASA has little to offer SRF due to the classification system. NASA seems happy with production-based cars.

Don't over think this. It's simple Econ 101. Higher prices mean less demand.

So, no matter what the costs are (gas, tires, entry fees, etc.)...as costs go up, car count goes down. If racing cost only $100 per weekend, we would see a lot of people racing.