Split Starts

[MMiskoe]

In the northeast, ITS and ITB usually run together. Usually the group is about 12-18 ITS cars, 8-12 ITB cars (others jump in if I am wrong here, but I don't gather it matters). There has been some low level grumblings about the two classes having to run together. Unfortunately, I think its a fact of life, based on car counts & track availabilty but that doesn't mean we can't try to improve on it.

The grumbles revolve (mostly) around fast B cars feeling the slower S cars get in the way. Having been 'that guy' I am curious how a split start would help or hurt this. From what I have experienced, its easy to tell that the car that has spent the last two laps reeling you in is faster & deserves to get by. But on a start, is that B car faster than you or are you together because of circumstance? This was especially true this past weekend w/ a wet qualifier & mostly dry race.

Split starts will not solve the problem of what to do when two slow S cars are going at it and two fast B cars catch up. But nothing is perfect, we will just have to play together & hope for the best.

I've only seen split starts used once or twice, when SM first started they ran SM and ITA together giving the ITA cars a half a lap head start via a second pace car. Problems I can see is that once the front group goes green, there is no ability to do a wave off if the second group starts running over each other.

Do other regions use split starts on a regular basis & if so what is the outcome?

Matt

[zracre]

i am a believer in split starts...it gives the lead pack and the trailing pack time to sort their race out...if you are caught by the trailing pack you have more time to see em coming. if shenanigans ensue in the trailing pack it is easy to cure the offending driver with a black flag and a conversation on pit road with an official

[gran racing]

I have mixed emotions. Overall, I have no problem running a mixed start. (As an average, I consider myself to be a top 1/3 in ITB)


The grumbles revolve (mostly) around fast B cars feeling the slower S cars get in the way.[/b]

Do I ever have difficulties with some of the ITS cars? Sure. While it can be frustrating at times, it's also a part of racing. I do think this conversation depends upon the track being raced at. For example, at LRP a front running ITB car should be mid or towards the front of the ITS pack. In this case, I do not believe a split start is necessary. In fact if there was a split start, the top ITB cars would be up on the back ITS cars pretty quickly. Some would argue that it is better to let the back markers have some time to get space between themselves before cars work their way through the field. (For the record, I am not in the belief that just because someone runs towards the rear of the pack means they are necessarily a poor driver. There are many circumstances which play a role in things.)

Drivers that are racing close to one another have to negotiate with the same cars. Sometimes it will work for you, other times it will work against you. Hopefully you've done your planning, use traffic to your advantage and things work out for the best most of the time.

[85itccivic]

In the MARRS series ITC has had a split grid from the SRX7s and now the ITB cars. This works a bit different than a split start. We are lined up split from the other class and roll off just like a normal grid. On the pace lap the ITC pole sitter leaves a roughly 50 to 80 yard gap the the last of the lead class. Here is where class unity comes into play . The C pole sitter puts his left hand out the window. The lead class takes the green . The C field stays in line and maintains speed until the pole sitter reaches the end of the pit wall. At this time the C leader drops his hand and the C race begins.

This has worked very well at eliminating a lot of first lap chaos as the two classes vie for positions . It also is enough gap to allow the second group to check up if the first group has issues at turn one . Yes the C leaders catch the back of the other class but it is easier to deal with them . we have found by race end we usually have caught up to about where we would have qualified in a normal grid . It has also allowed for much better racing amongst the C group .

I think this system works very well , however , If the entire class is not on board with the agreed start point it does not work and creates a mess.

[spnkzss]

In the MARRS series ITC has had a split grid from the SRX7s and now the ITB cars. This works a bit different than a split start. We are lined up split from the other class and roll off just like a normal grid. On the pace lap the ITC pole sitter leaves a roughly 50 to 80 yard gap the the last of the lead class. Here is where class unity comes into play . The C pole sitter puts his left hand out the window. The lead class takes the green . The C field stays in line and maintains speed until the pole sitter reaches the end of the pit wall. At this time the C leader drops his hand and the C race begins.

This has worked very well at eliminating a lot of first lap chaos as the two classes vie for positions . It also is enough gap to allow the second group to check up if the first group has issues at turn one . Yes the C leaders catch the back of the other class but it is easier to deal with them . we have found by race end we usually have caught up to about where we would have qualified in a normal grid . It has also allowed for much better racing amongst the C group .

I think this system works very well , however , If the entire class is not on board with the agreed start point it does not work and creates a mess.
[/b]

I agree (since I am also one of those MARRS ITCers), but want to put emphasis on the ENTIRE class has to be on board (or willing to at least play nice) for this to work. Once the green flag drops there is nothing preventing a back marker to jump it. The track IS green.

The past two years in ITC have been some of the closest well fought races and I love the split grid.

YMMV

[charrbq]

Classes getting mixed up at different speeds on track is a fact of life. I've seen the "split grid" type start at the ARRC once between B and C. It worked fine, but the chief steward didn't like what she saw and threatened to disqualify the front row cars after the race. As it was, she denied them a victory lap and a post race interview. It can be confusing to the uninitiated.

Almost always, the second class gets the green if the first group does, but I've seen it not happen. Usually, offenders are covered with black flags, but I've seen when the second group screwed up and got a "Black Flag All" rather than a green. The pace car would roll to catch the first group under a full course yellow until the second group cleared the course for a question and answer period in the pits. Meanwhile, the race laps would be counted by the class remaining on course.

Pretty nasty punishment, but they paid attention and didn't screw around.

[Knestis]

Split starts are stoopid - completely contrary to the basic assumptions of mixed-class group racing. They don't eliminate problems, they just move them around. We all have to race on the same track, with the same chances of issue while negotiating the same traffic. Coping with it is one skill set that the discipline requires.

Most of the arguments I've heard for split starts are predicated on a just a few me-oriented arguments.

** If there's a conflict, the guy in the other class is at fault - but of course!

** I don't want MY race messed up by other people's races - but I have no qualms about imposing my needs on others

** He's holding me up where I'm fast - but I'm NOT holding him up where HE's fast, y'know?

One purist's perspective...

K

[944-spec#94]

I have run with and without split starts.


The best thing about split starts is that it allows you race class time to sort it self out before traffic begins to play a role. In mixed start if the group lap times similar you have an awful time with non-class cars in the mix with class cars. If both are running similar lap times it can create traffic the entire race. This can be fun, but also frustrating.

A split start is nice because it will create gap such that for at least a few laps one class has time to sort things out. Usally the first 2-3 laps quite busy and then the field strings out a bit making traffic a little easier to deal with. The biggest problem on split starts is making sure the 2nd field is the right distance back. There have been times were the 2nd field was too close. This does not cause safety issues so much as horrible traffic. There are then often times slower less experience drivers being rapidly apprached by faster better drivers from the "front" of the slower class. If this happens in first lap things get very tough.


Overall I like split starts especially if there two classes of similar speeds in the same run group. If however you have fast cars and slower cars then the value of split start is less bacause the field naturally seperates quickly.

[shwah]

We sometimes have 8-10 classes in our run group. I am fine with one start and all playing on the same 'field'.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Being in an ITS car that is in the front row of the ITB cars and was in the races that Matt is talking about, I can tell you that I am frustrated and I am POSITIVE Ritchie and Erik (sp?) are very frusturated with me. I am still slow in ITS terms, but getting faster each race I go to. I can get past all of the ITB cars once we go to single file, but damn when its packed in I am fast in MUCH different places than they are. I personally would like to see a split start. I hate having to worry about messing up the ITB race for the front runners and I also wish I would qualify fast enough to see the ITS cars and stay with them instead of fighting through the ITB traffic. This would also help me continue to get faster.

[tnord]

Split starts are stoopid - completely contrary to the basic assumptions of mixed-class group racing. They don't eliminate problems, they just move them around. We all have to race on the same track, with the same chances of issue while negotiating the same traffic. Coping with it is one skill set that the discipline requires.

Most of the arguments I've heard for split starts are predicated on a just a few me-oriented arguments.

** If there's a conflict, the guy in the other class is at fault - but of course!

** I don't want MY race messed up by other people's races - but I have no qualms about imposing my needs on others

** He's holding me up where I'm fast - but I'm NOT holding him up where HE's fast, y'know?

One purist's perspective...

K
[/b]

i'm majorly in favor of split starts.

if you ask me, there's a major bias against momentum cars at the start when the classes are mixed. I can't think of the last time i didn't get shuffled back a few spots in the first lap, and not because i got a crappy start personally.

i've qualified multiple seconds in front of ITS/ITR cars before, only to have them destroy me on the start and park it in the first corner. i'm seriously screwed here, as the other ITA guy who has motor but no braking or handling has already blown by me on pure HP alone and stayed in front of the S/R guys. after about half a lap of me being held up by out of class cars my ITA competitors are gone, I end up attempting a risky pass, give the out of class car a bump coming out of the corner to say "get on it or move over," or just plain having my race all fubar'd up.

this has been the scenario for just about every one of my races for the past two years.

attached is a pic of this exact scenario playing out. that's me behind the BMW trying to go around the outside into T8/9 at topeka....which locals will know takes more than a little cooperation from the other car to make work.

[joeg]

Everyone can have an opinion on this.

A true split start requires a longer track. I would not think it works that great at Lime Rock or a Beaverun. The Summit deal does not sound like a true split start, but it is nice to see people cooperating.

Of course, even if you have a long course--like at the Glen--a no star, full course yellow or black flag all messes things up again.

There is no correct answer, but with multiple classes and disappearing track time, the split start may not survive.

[Knestis]

...There are then often times slower less experience drivers being rapidly apprached by faster better drivers from the "front" of the slower class. If this happens in first lap things get very tough. ...[/b]

GREAT example of changing the problems rather than eliminating them. There was a huge flap over a NASA race where the "faster" US Touring Cars got put in front of the Honda Challenge cars (all classes), because it "made sense." It assured that cars capable of a 2:15 were in back of cars capable of only 2:20s or 2:25s.

K

[tnord]

GREAT example of changing the problems rather than eliminating them. There was a huge flap over a NASA race where the "faster" US Touring Cars got put in front of the Honda Challenge cars (all classes), because it "made sense." It assured that cars capable of a 2:15 were in back of cars capable of only 2:20s or 2:25s.

K
[/b]

iirc...not quite a fair example Kirk. the race in question had a standing start, and had HC cars multiple seconds/lap faster than the USTC gridded immediately behind. In all the split starts i've witnessed with SCCA, the groups do rolling starts and take the green practically a half a lap apart. this basically ensures that you don't encounter any traffic for a few laps.

[charrbq]

If given a choice, I'd rather have a split start than a mixed grid. I got caught at the back of a mixed field recently due to brake problems in qualifying. Even though my start was good, and I passed a bunch of cars at the strart, I soon got caught up in a production race and couldn't get shed of them. I stayed close to the other C cars for a while, but had to give up or risk crashing into cars I wasn't racing with. I've also seen where one car got a tow in qualifying off a faster classed car which put him about 10 cars up from the other C cars in the group. He was pretty tickled, but the other cars in his class were too excited about it. It pretty well guaranteed his win.

[dazzlesa]

runnig with the S cars is the biggest reason i have not embraced running my B car. i think the split start should be tried. i would rather try to pass a back marker S car then run with a mid pack S car that is running similar times.

[Knestis]

iirc...not quite a fair example Kirk. the race in question had a standing start, and had HC cars multiple seconds/lap faster than the USTC gridded immediately behind. In all the split starts i've witnessed with SCCA, the groups do rolling starts and take the green practically a half a lap apart. this basically ensures that you don't encounter any traffic for a few laps.
[/b]

True enough but my real point was about the logic behind the decision. A "real" split start like you describe still assures that the front of the second pack WILL encounter slower traffic - that is NOT being lapped - at some point during a typical race.

K

[charrbq]

That's true, Kirk, but slower traffic is a part of racing. Until we get class counts large enough to justify seperate race groups and long weekends, it will always be. Split starts just give us a little while longer to race those in our own class before the slower stuff pops up.

I'd rather not see them, but only when we have enough to have our own classes.

[grjones1]

I'm in complete agreement wiith Knestis (and please don't hold him guilty by association). As part of the MARRS contingent, I've found the "split grid" starts at Summit to be less than appealing (and of course I have expressed my disenchantment.) But we'll do it again.

First if we are qualifying as a mixed group, in our case ITB and C, we should race as a group with cars gridded by qualifying times as God meant for road racing to start. If you are faster than a higher classed car and you out qualify him, for the most part you are rid of him at the start and don't need to deal with him later in the race (usually in the middle of a dice with someone in your own class.)

Second, the split grid business gives the C polesitter a definite advantage because he or she is the only driver who can see the start marker (i.e., the end of the pit out wall) so he or she inherits a jump simply by the set up. He or she can easily accelerate and then wave his or her hand so the rest of us get to go and of course only the car directly beside or behind the polesitter can see the hand wave. That's why they put the starter stand in the air - so more drivers can see the race start and accelerate together (as God meant for road races to start.)

And regardless, the B drivers in MARRS are as good as any, fun to race with and most of the time show excellent judgement. I personnally enjoy being mixed with them, and really don't like the extraordinary measures imposed on our group. It's not road racing as I've known it for 30 years, and I would add that if drivers don't like mixed traffic perhaps they should try Solo 1.

G Jones

[jjjanos]

Split starts are stoopid - completely contrary to the basic assumptions of mixed-class group racing.[/b]

Ahhhh, but we don't do mixed-class groups because we want to do it. We do it because time constraints force us to do it. In a perfect world, we'd all be putting 50 cars in a single class out there for every group and class.


They don't eliminate problems, they just move them around. We all have to race on the same track, with the same chances of issue while negotiating the same traffic. Coping with it is one skill set that the discipline requires.[/b]

It does eliminate some of them and it changes many of the remaining.

With a combined start, cars not in your class who have better acceleration may get in front of you. He might park it in corners, but he's got a rocket attached to the back. Saw this at Kershaw with a Baby Grand - took off like a rocket on rails and kept moving backwards like a chicane after that.

Coping skills don't help you when people in the other class either see the red mist for the first two laps or when they have the philosophy "I'm in a spec class. You've got to bump to get past someone." Fine - but I'm not in your class. We had a string of MARRS events where drivers in a spec class took out cars in the non-spec class and it was all caused by first lap red mist. Stevie Spec might still be a chowder head when you catch him on lap 5, but by that point the rush has worn off and his special needs driving skill has left him out of contact with the next car in his class. (On the first lap, Stevie Spec most likely still is in contact with that car and is driving even more over his head than he normally does.)



** I don't want MY race messed up by other people's races - but I have no qualms about imposing my needs on others[/b]

Some might take this view, but when the leaders of the faster class are set to lap me, I consider whether the chances of me passing the car in front of me are high enough to screw up their race. So far, I've left my low odds chances sitting on the pavement and let the other class leaders through. It's called common courtesy and while I could hold my line and pace, it would really fubar their race.


** He's holding me up where I'm fast - but I'm NOT holding him up where HE's fast, y'know?[/b] Hmmm, usually the issue is between fast in a straight line versus fast in the twisty bits. If the latter is holding the former up, it's called blocking. If its the former holding up the latter, it's called not knowing how to drive.

[jjjanos]

The MARRS ITC split starts were an outgrowth of our previous marriage to class of spec cars. I'm not naming names, but it's got a rotary engine.

They were fast in a straight line. They were slow in the corners. Some of the mid-pack drivers used poor judgement and when spoken to regarding pounding ITC cars were dismissive using the "spec classes need to bump" point of view. If they jumped the start or got a jump on you at the start, you never were going to get past them unless they went off or hit someone (and then you only got past them if they didn't collect you on their way to a DNF). The stewards were uninterested in "counseling" the offenders. In short, it was making lemonade 'cause all we got was lemons.

Re: ITC pole sitter jumping the start - possible, but I haven't seen the ITC pole sitter do this. I've relied on the second row to speak up if this happened and I haven't heard a peep. If it happens, that'll be the end of the arrangement. My understanding is that the ITC "go" point is when the pole sitter hits the end of the pit wall. The hand out the window is just a signal. For the most part, the 10-12 cars in ITC tend to have good formations and you pretty much can tell when it is time to go.

[grjones1]

I am fully aware of the history behind the "split grid." But it's just that - history. Why are we still paying for a group that was poorly matced. (And "poorly matched" mainly because of the different handling characteristics of the classes. Sp7 had as much right to their racing habits as we do ours. You just need to learn to deal with it.)

And be informed, I was not suggesting anyone had jumped any starts. I was suggesting that the opportunity to misuse the advantage was available, and because the polesitter is given so much control of our starts, he or she inherits an advantage. There's a big difference. Starters with big green flags are supposed to start races, not the lead competitor - The polesitter already determines the speed for the start, let's not add to that with allowing him/her to determine when we can press our go pedals.
And unfortunately if I'm on the third or fourth or more rearward row my x-ray vision has not fully developed to the degree that I can see at ground level when the polesitter has reached the end of the pit out wall. I'm glad you are equipped with that kind of super sight.

G

[Knestis]

Ahhhh, but we don't do mixed-class groups because we want to do it. We do it because time constraints force us to do it. In a perfect world, we'd all be putting 50 cars in a single class out there for every group and class.[/b]
Oh, no question - but don't get me started. That's a whole 'nother thread about how we should really only have 1/3 of the classes we do in Club Racing.


Coping skills don't help you when people in the other class either see the red mist for the first two laps or when they have the philosophy "I'm in a spec class. You've got to bump to get past someone."[/b]
There you go - the problem is always "the other class." Red mist and bumping are separate issues, that should be dealt with separately. Creating a procedural rule to enable butthole behaviors isn't solving the problem. Now, if a class in a group decides that they want to separate themselves from the pack, and the stewards are OK with it, I'll grant you that's a little different story. But only a little.


Some might take this view, but when the leaders of the faster class are set to lap me, I consider whether the chances of me passing the car in front of me are high enough to screw up their race. ...[/b]
With respect, lapping is an entirely different thing than being forced to pass a slower car because it's in a class that got put in the front pack of a split start. That's essentially racing for position - recognizing of course that we aren't supposed to race out-of-class (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).


Hmmm, usually the issue is between fast in a straight line versus fast in the twisty bits. If the latter is holding the former up, it's called blocking. If its the former holding up the latter, it's called not knowing how to drive.[/b]
So because a Miata, by its layout, weight, drivetrain, etc., is faster in corners than, say, a Nissan Sentra SE-R, the guy behind the wheel is automagically a better driver? You don't think that having to pass that same Miata that's marginally slower on the straight doesn't cost the Sentra driver some time - pulling off-line to get the pass done just before or under braking, sacrificing apex and exit speed to do so? You're making value judgements based on where cars have relative advantages, and essentially suggesting that the fast-in-a-straight-line cars are being piloted by people with less talent than the fast-in-a-corner cars. I'm going out on a limb here but I'm GUESSING you consider yourself to be in the latter group, eh?

K

[tnord]

First if we are qualifying as a mixed group, in our case ITB and C, we should race as a group with cars gridded by qualifying times as God meant for road racing to start. If you are faster than a higher classed car and you out qualify him, for the most part you are rid of him at the start and don't need to deal with him later in the race (usually in the middle of a dice with someone in your own class.)
[/b]

not my experience at all. if you are faster than a higher classed car odds are he's got motor on you, will go by at the start, and phuck everything up in T1.



Second, the split grid business gives the C polesitter a definite advantage because he or she is the only driver who can see the start marker (i.e., the end of the pit out wall) so he or she inherits a jump simply by the set up. He or she can easily accelerate and then wave his or her hand so the rest of us get to go and of course only the car directly beside or behind the polesitter can see the hand wave. That's why they put the starter stand in the air - so more drivers can see the race start and accelerate together (as God meant for road races to start.)
[/b]

am i the only one that doesn't see anything wrong with the guy on POLE having an advantage?



And regardless, the B drivers in MARRS are as good as any, fun to race with and most of the time show excellent judgement. I personnally enjoy being mixed with them, and really don't like the extraordinary measures imposed on our group. It's not road racing as I've known it for 30 years, and I would add that if drivers don't like mixed traffic perhaps they should try Solo 1.
[/b]

rediculous statement. if ITS/ITR cars park it in the corners and totally killing my momentum i'm left with no good option. i can either make a bonzai braking attempt, slow down and cost myself huge amounts of time, or i can keep it to the wood and give them a little tap on the rear bumper to let them know 'hey buddy, you're really phucking me back here!" which costs me less time.

i typically choose the latter, which nobody likes, but unfortunately is the best option i have.

why does Grand-Am do split starts for DP/GT?

[charrbq]

why does Grand-Am do split starts for DP/GT?
[/quote]

Probably to define the classes for the spectators, attempt to eliminate differences in performance for a few laps, improve the racing, and then, there's that safety thing.

No, you are not the only one that think it's okay for the pole sitter to have just a little advantage. However, if it's deemed by the stewards that the pole sitter is gaining a huge, unfair advantage, then they need to change their methods of granting a start. Race starts at the green flag, not the last turn before the straight. If the green is already displayed when the pole sitter gets to the appropriate start location, then screw it! I'd defy any steward to come down on me...unless it was absolutely and specifically spelled out in the supps.

[jjjanos]

I am fully aware of the history behind the "split grid." But it's just that - history. Why are we still paying for a group that was poorly matced. (And "poorly matched" mainly because of the different handling characteristics of the classes. Sp7 had as much right to their racing habits as we do ours. You just need to learn to deal with it.) [/b]

1. With all due respect, no driver needs or should have to "deal" with drivers who think that running into their competitors is either permitted or par for the course. Nor do rights extend to failing to lock down a car when it is out of control. There also are the issues of courtesy and common sense - if a car in a different class has caught you (as in a generic "you" and not a specific "you") and is all over your tail end in the twistys (or actually passes you in the twistys) and then you (again, generic) use straight line speed to get past him, common courtesy suggests that you get out of his way and let him go. Common sense suggests that you get out of his bloody way and let him go because he's obviously faster in the sections that require skill and there are things to be learned by following him. Common sense also suggests that you (again generic) will be faster if you aren't fighting to keep him behind.

Perhaps I have the wrong view of these things, but there were drivers in my own class that I let by in the early stages of the race simply because I knew I wouldn't be able to keep them behind me for the entire race and by letting them through, I could go to school.

2. I did not mean to imply that you had suggested anyone had jumped. The polesitter does not determine when we accelerate by dropping their hand - we go when the end of the pit wall is reached by the polesitter. As for X-ray vision - I suppose that would be useful but it is not required. Simply knowing where you are on the front straight and your approximate distance behind the polesitter should provide sufficient information. Similarly, one is far more likely to see the pole sitter and the pit wall sitting in the fourth row then one is to see the green flag waved sitting in the 12th row.

I for one would prefer that we receive our "own" green flag. The stewards, however, will not do that, nor, to the best of my knowledge, have given reasons why they will not. Perhaps someone should ask them the reasons for their opposition at the open competition meeting. My sense is that the answer will be a long winded version of "because."

[jjjanos]

There you go - the problem is always "the other class."[/b]

Well... yes. For the most part interference is caused when the faster cars in the slower class get mixed in with the slower cars of the faster class - or to be more specific, when the faster slower class cars get mixed in with the middle of the faster class car. (Reason - most of the slower faster cars KNOW they are slow or are mechanicals and get out of the way. The middle of the faster class tends to be guys who THINK they are fast... but if they are so darn fast... how come a slower car is hanging with them?)

Sometimes the problem goes both ways, but my experience is that it generally is caused by a small set of one of the classes in a two-class group.


Red mist and bumping are separate issues, that should be dealt with separately. Creating a procedural rule to enable butthole behaviors isn't solving the problem.[/b]

Agree. It doesn't solve the problem. It deals with it. Solving the problem requires stewards that act on their own or a combination of drivers willing to protest and stewards unwilling to write most everything off as a racing incident. Stewards don't want to act because then they are the blackhats. Drivers don;t want to protest because then they are the blackhats. Splitting the sheep and the cattle avoids the problem.


So because a Miata, by its layout, weight, drivetrain, etc., is faster in corners than, say, a Nissan Sentra SE-R, the guy behind the wheel is automagically a better driver?[/b]

Well, I find that being in a Miata automagically causes you to lose good judgement :). The comparison isn't appropriate because those two cars are in the same class according to the GCR. If we're talking about a Miata ITA) and an ITR Integera, yeah, I'd say the Miata driver is a better driver. I've seen ITC cars hit healthy ITS cars in the back under acceleration... the C driver shouldn't do that but, then again, he should be ABLE to do that.


You're making value judgements based on where cars have relative advantages, and essentially suggesting that the fast-in-a-straight-line cars are being piloted by people with less talent than the fast-in-a-corner cars. I'm going out on a limb here but I'm GUESSING you consider yourself to be in the latter group, eh?[/b]

No value judgement on where cars have relative advantages. A value judgment on whether a healthy ITS or ITR car should be getting in the way of an ITB or ITC car. And no, I don't consider myself in the latter group - I'm still on the steep part of the learning curve.

[grjones1]

1. And with respect to you Jeff, but I'm not sure you were interested in "getting out of my way" on the start at MARRS 4- you and the blue car were certainly squeezed together pretty tightly in an effort to keep me behind; however, that's another story. I'm just thankful when cars in front of me hold their line instead of moving to block. After all we are out there to race. I really don't expect anyone to "move over"- just give me the chance to try an alternate line for the pass. I expect everyone to compete.

2. If I could see when the polesitter is even with the wall, your rebuttal might hold water, but I disagree heartily - the flag up high is definitely easier to see even from the 12th row than the polesitter is in relation to some arbitrary point at ground level even from the 4th row.

For you Travis, in my experience if my car out qualifies another car I'm usually faster everywhere (with of course exceptions) even on the start. And even if he wins the drag race, I will take him at T1 or thereabouts. Gee guys sometimes it sounds like you don't really want to race, you want to preset all contingencies and involve yourselves in a parade?!

But perhaps we have bored our fellow readers long enough. I'm in favor of mixed class starts according to qualifying times; you are not. So be it.

G

[tnord]

wait....

each group involved in the split start doesn't get their own green flag? why the heck not? that's how we do it in MiDiv.

[ddewhurst]

***A value judgment on whether a healthy ITS or ITR car should be getting in the way of an ITB or ITC car.***

This thread started with reference to ITS folks that don't have their stuff together YET. Maybe these folks started road racing in a class that far exceeds their begining skills, BUT they will get on with their skills & no longer be among the B cars. EVERYONE needs some time to gain skills.

*** perhaps we have bored our fellow readers long enough. I'm in favor of mixed class starts according to qualifying times;***

I'm in favor of what this person ^ said.

Qualify, line em up & lets go racing. If there is a car in class or out of class whose car gets wider than normal while it should be following a classic line in several turns in a row have a talk with the driver ONCE.

[grjones1]

Travis,
The ITB/C Group in MARRS at Summit Point is using a "split grid" start, not a "split start".

It's set up where the C polesitter must reach even with the end of the pit out wall before the C cars can accelerate. Yes, it's even worse than a split start, it's completely "stoopid".

G

[charrbq]

I've seen a "split grid" start only once, and it was at the ARRC. THE most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Most of the stewards hadn't heard of it and the Chief would listen to no opposing arguements, but did get very mad at the front row starters of the second group as they didn't do as the CS wanted...whatever that was...even though they did exactly as the were told on the grid. They were denied their victory lap, and had to come to the tower after the race where they were threatened with disqualification. Cooler minds ruled.

That was the last year a split grid has been used, and it's been promised that it will never happen again.

[tnord]

Travis,
The ITB/C Group in MARRS at Summit Point is using a "split grid" start, not a "split start".

It's set up where the C polesitter must reach even with the end of the pit out wall before the C cars can accelerate.
[/b]

well i agree then, that's just retarded.

[spnkzss]

I'm not going to get into a big long discussion on this, but there are 11-14 or us in ITC and 1 person has stood up, said they did not like it, but agreed to continue because the vote was against them. Most of us love the racing it has started. There are quite a few "spectators" that have said it has made for some awesome IN CLASS racing. We do have a split grid not split start. We all go when the front driver reaches the end of pit wall. It has worked for I beleive this is the 3rd year of it. We have fun and you have to have a specific group of people WILLING to make it work, which we have. I have definitly enjoyed the racing quite a bit more with this format for ITC. I could not see it working in most other classes.

[jjjanos]

1. And with respect to you Jeff, but I'm not sure you were interested in "getting out of my way" on the start at MARRS 4- you and the blue car were certainly squeezed together pretty tightly in an effort to keep me behind; however, that's another story.[/b]

Welllll, that's 'cause based on qualifying times, you would have fallen in the category of cars that go fast in a straight line :).

We moved to take away some of the middle, but the absence of scraps is evidence that we left just enough room for a VW. I just wanted to make you work for it.

I knew you were going to try to come up the middle, so I moved that way immediately. There was a VW-sized space to the inside too. Having moved once at the start, I wasn't going to move in either direction to stop a move from behind me, though I would have moved if something opened up to my front. I could have squeezed tighter, but that's neither Kosher or what this is all about.

[grjones1]

Welll OK guys if we're going to make this personal:

Jeff, you didn't "leave just enough room" for anything, especially my Fiesta. You guys could have held hands going down the front straight. The only way I got any room was to do a little bump drafting on your buddy and a little bumper rubbing on your "borrowed" car. (If people are going to team up out there, one must take extra-measures to defend himself.) And guess what, when you move your car to keep someone from going by, you are BLOCKING and BLOCKING is not gentlemanly behavior.

As far as my lap times, I believe the race times might indicate that occasionally I can get around a corner; at least I don't remember seeing you again after lap one.

And Spanky most Germans right before WWII thought Nazism was OK too: sometimes the majority doesn't get it right; they just get it.

See you guys in August.

G

[tnord]

And guess what, when you move your car to keep someone from going by, you are BLOCKING and BLOCKING is not gentlemanly behavior.

[/b]

not true. one move to keep someone from going by is called defensive driving. more than one move between corners is called blocking.

i have no idea what happened in this scenario...just pointing it out.

[Knestis]

...and picking a line - any line - and sticking to it is entirely within our rights.

I'll let you all in on a secret: I'm pretty much going to put myself on the inside going into every corner on the first 1/2 lap or so, until the pack gets fully up to speed. I do this because it decreases the chance that someone will spin and take me off the outside or get clever ideas about filling a too-small hole and using my inside quarter as brakes. If you decide you are faster than me (in that corner or over the course of the race) you are going to have to find a way around the outside, regardless of what class you're in.

Now, if that means that I'm going exactly the same speed as the guy in the next-most inside lane, we aren't blocking. We're just doing the same thing in different places.

:P

K

[grjones1]

not true. one move to keep someone from going by is called defensive driving. more than one move between corners is called blocking.

i have no idea what happened in this scenario...just pointing it out.
[/b]

Travis,
That's pretty much accepted,, but in reality it's not always how many moves you make but when and where you make them. "Defensive driving" is taking a middle line instead of a classic line; it's not jumping over in front of someone just to keep him from going by, that's just plain "blocking". You may not get called in by the stewards for one such move but don't be surprised if you get poked in the rear by the guy trying to pass.

G

[tnord]

Travis,
That's pretty much accepted,, but in reality it's not always how many moves you make but when and where you make them. "Defensive driving" is taking a middle line instead of a classic line; it's not jumping over in front of someone just to keep him from going by, that's just plain "blocking". You may not get called in by the stewards for one such move but don't be surprised if you get poked in the rear by the guy trying to pass.

G
[/b]

i can use as much of the track as i damn well please.

like kirk....i'm on the inside as much as possible to start. if i'm on the outside at the green and I have an ITR/S/E car right next to me. you'd be a fool to think i'm doing anything other than IMMEDIATELY moving over into that spot he just vacated.

[grjones1]

K,
When two people immediatlely close side by side on the straight at the start and continue that way without trying to maneuver to pass and then move left when the car behind moves left, I may be wrong but I think they're trying to hold back the following car by all means.

I would be the last person to suggest that one, two, or three cars don't have a right to whatever lines or formation they choose, but if they are manuevering with the single purpose of holding off a following competitor, they are blocking. Otherwise we'd have to say there's no such thing as blocking. In that case I can play by those rules also the same way I'm playing by the stupid "split-grid" set up.

G

[JLawton]

it's not jumping over in front of someone just to keep him from going by, that's just plain "blocking". [/b]


If that's the definition of blocking, then I will block the sh*t out of anyone if I'm racing for position. And I would expect nothing less from the guys I race with every week.

Now, if there is a huge difference in speed for some reason (held up by a slower car, putting two wheels off, near spin, etc) and they get a run on me I won't "jump" right in front of them.

[Knestis]

K,
When two people immediatlely close side by side on the straight at the start and continue that way without trying to maneuver to pass and then move left when the car behind moves left, I may be wrong but I think they're trying to hold back the following car by all means. ...

G
[/b]
Or perhaps they were both pedal-down and going the same speed, neither wanting to get out of it and both willing to sacrifice something to not let the other of the pair in front? Nah - couldn't happen. :)

K

[ggnagy]

The MARRS ITC split starts were an outgrowth of our previous marriage to class of spec cars. I'm not naming names, but it's got a rotary engine.

They were fast in a straight line. They were slow in the corners. Some of the mid-pack drivers used poor judgement and when spoken to regarding pounding ITC cars were dismissive using the "spec classes need to bump" point of view. If they jumped the start or got a jump on you at the start, you never were going to get past them unless they went off or hit someone (and then you only got past them if they didn't collect you on their way to a DNF). The stewards were uninterested in "counseling" the offenders. In short, it was making lemonade 'cause all we got was lemons.
[/b]

Actually it was an outgrowth of a driver of one of those unnamed spec cars with a rotary motor making the split start suggestion to the class admins. There were two groups of the aforementioned cars, the fast group, and the slow group. The slow group just happened to be turning lap times about the same as the front ITC drivers. The slow group drivers wanted to race amongst themselves, but kept getting stuck in the midst of the ITC race.

Lots of classes have idiot drivers, and yes, the unnamed class had its share. One was a driver who qualified much better than he raced, and would hold up the rest of the "slow group" with borderline tactics. ( #$%&^@ unnamed spec cars should not need to hit the #$%&@ brakes before the kink in the chute.) Funny, though, how after the split starts started, there were a few discussions of questionable driving tactics WITHIN the ITC class.

The split starts worked for both groups, simply because they had very different performance characteristics.

ps. working in downtown DC is for suckers. :P :happy204:

[jjjanos]

G. Robert,

In terms of the specific issue - we should talk in August about the June start. I do not recall moving to the center after I made the immediate move to the center. If I did, my sincere apologies.

I know I never caught you during the race, but during qualifying, I almost gave you a proctology exam in three and ten just before the checker came out. :lol:

In terms of the more general issue - I do not think that moving in anticipation of another driver's action is blocking. I also think that any movement in reaction to another driver's action is blocking - i.e. no 1-move rule.

Jeff



Lots of classes have idiot drivers, and yes, the unnamed class had its share. One was a driver who qualified much better than he raced, and would hold up the rest of the "slow group" with borderline tactics. ( #$%&^@ unnamed spec cars should not need to hit the #$%&@ brakes before the kink in the chute.) Funny, though, how after the split starts started, there were a few discussions of questionable driving tactics WITHIN the ITC class. [/b]

My apologies. The unnamed spec class has plenty of excellent drivers.


ps. working in downtown DC is for suckers. :P :happy204:
[/b]
Yes

[grjones1]

Or perhaps they were both pedal-down and going the same speed, neither wanting to get out of it and both willing to sacrifice something to not let the other of the pair in front? Nah - couldn't happen. :)

K
[/b]

K,

But when one admits in writing, "I knew you were going to try to come up the middle, so I moved that way immediately," his intention is to block. When I moved left, they both moved left. I don't think they were just racing each other. Let's not ignore the evidence in front of us.

But I'll admit they had a right to any tactics they devise, that's racing. I just don't like people teaming up against one other driver, but that's my problem, and believe me I'll deal with it.

Jeff,

"I know I never caught you during the race, but during qualifying, I almost gave you a proctology exam in three and ten just before the checker came out."

It's a given, I was slow in qualifying owing to a number of factors primary of which was two hours sleep Friday night, but again that's my problem. Apology accepted.

G. Robert

[Mike Spencer]

I have read this thread with great interest. Personally, I have no strong feelings either way on split starts.

What I wanted to add to the discussion was something I read a couple of years ago about "blocking". I'm definitely paraphrasing, but the essence of it was this; If the car behind moves to the inside and the car ahead does likewise, that's racing. If the car behind makes a second move before the corner and the front car responds again, that's blocking.

[shwah]

G, I don't know you or anyone involved in the race you have described.

But what you have described to me is racing, not blocking. I can tell you that if it happened to me, I would only be mad at myself for not finding my way around those competitors in the ensuing 20 laps.

Races are not won at the start.

[grjones1]

G, I don't know you or anyone involved in the race you have described.

But what you have described to me is racing, not blocking. I can tell you that if it happened to me, I would only be mad at myself for not finding my way around those competitors in the ensuing 20 laps.

Races are not won at the start.
[/b]

Chris,

I found my way around (through) both of them before turn 1 and finished in front of them (slow as I was "in the twisties"). And had you been there, you would have witnessed a prime example of teamwork "defensive driving." My crew said it was kind of like roller derby tactics. You know when they lock arms to keep the guy behind from skating through.

Anyway, it's water over the dam.

I would agree you can't win the race on the start, but you sure as hell can lose it.

G ;)