SARRC Points Proposal

[seckerich]

I am planning on submitting a change to the SARRC committee for the 08 season. With 23 races on the schedule for 08 counting only 6 for points is a little outdated. The current system also rewards the SIC with the equivilent of "triple points" and is too track specific in my opinion.

My Proposal for your input:

1. Count 1/3 of the races run in the season for points (that would be 7 for 2008)
Would change if there were less races scheduled without a rule change.

2. The SIC would still be double points

3. Ties would be broken by number of wins (or possibly count one more race for the tie breaker)

Like to hear your thoughts on this. In the current system we have more of a "roebling" championship" than a season champion. Too easy to win without the season long results to back it up.

[JeffYoung]

I think this is fine.

Only comment, and this is something that benefits you and I both but needs to be considered -- the number of races at particular tracks.

My car likes the point and shoot of CMP. You kick a#$ there. There are six SARRC races scheduled for CMP next year.......

[Knestis]

What Jeff brings up is more of an issue with the calendar - the decisions re: what races to include in the SARRC, and where - than it is the points system.

I like the suggested changes as I look at the possibility of actually running for a championship next season, now that things are settled down a bit.

K

[Cobrar05]

I have built my schedule around this rules package. I am running SARRC, SEDiv national, and NASA American Iron.

Force me to run more races and I have to start cutting.

[tom_sprecher]

For obvious reasons I am very interested in this topic and would like to hear more input on this subject and the justification behind any changes to be considered. Please do not take this as questioning anybody's logic but I need to understand it more.

1. Unless I missed something a quick review of the SARRC points did not show many examples of close points races that went down to the SIC and triple points. For the average racer why are total points from 6 races outdated or less appealing than that of 7?

2. While there is a certain appeal to having the SIC at different tracks it is hard to get away from the fact that Roebling is just about smack dab in the middle of the SEDiv and appears to be rather affordable. Are there any suggestions for comparable locations or a rotating schedule both Areas can agree on?

3. The double points with the tie breaker being winning the SIC was done in part to guarantee the importance of the SIC and ensure the race would be well attended. If the SIC is degraded to a level not much above a typical regional race and suffers from low subscription it will run at a loss and eventually not at all. Would an increase in the entry fee, say about 25%, or requiring running the SIC to be the SARRC Champion be acceptable to offset this possibility?

4. There have been a few grumblings about too many races from workers, drivers and racing regions alike. While it gives everyone plenty of opportunity to race it can cause economic hardship to all those involved. The racing pie is being divided into ever smaller pieces yet the bills keep getting bigger. Although it may be full of insurmountable obstacles perhaps fine tuning the schedule is in order. This of course is outside of my jurisdiction but is definitely within that of your RE at the Annual Meeting. Let them know how you feel.

[JeffYoung]

Tom, I might be wrong, but I think ITS, ITA and IT7 all went to the SIC with three or four drivers who could conceivably win the championship based on the SIC's results.

Need to think on this one for a while. I see Steve's point and tend to agree with it as someone who tries to run at least 8 to 10 SARRCs a year. But I also see your points about making the SIC something special, which I think it is right now.

[Cobrar05]

The SIC is our special event. The track is in the middle of a large southeast division and unlike the other quality venues in SEDiv, is owned by the SCCA. We get a prime date at affordable rates. Its a track that is both challenging and doesnt beat your equipment to shreds.

Where would you rotate the date to? The good tracks are booked with most decent weekends returning to the same groups annually. That is why the runoffs don't rotate.

Road Atlanta is booked. VIR is booked AND too far north. Daytona and Sebring are too far south.

Who wants to run the SIC at CMP?

I probably could deal with one more race, but does one more race really mean that much?

Leave it alone.

[seckerich]

I think this is fine.

Only comment, and this is something that benefits you and I both but needs to be considered -- the number of races at particular tracks.

My car likes the point and shoot of CMP. You kick a#$ there. There are six SARRC races scheduled for CMP next year.......
[/b]
There are actually 4 SARRC races at CMP. Two are CCR, and two are SC region which has a waiver to use CCR's home track.

I said nothing about moving the SIC?? I do not see how the SIC would not be attended by anyone who is running for points. It is 2 races added to you total (double points) and is part of the best 6 plus the SIC that made up this years total. I just think a championship that only counts 1/4 the races is not good. I want to see people not park their cars after 6 and wait for the SIC. Some classes were won with less than 6 races. Great if you can get away with it. A driver can win every race they enter all year and loose to someone with 2 wins--sound like a championship? That is what the ARRC is for if it is all about one track and one race. All I want is a little more towards the driver that wins all year and a little less about just the SIC. All that would change is one more race counted and a more fair tie breaker. The SIC was triple points and tie breaker for a while--what a waste of a season.

[JeffYoung]

There's six CMP SARRCs on the schedule -- 2 in March (SCR), 2 in May (CCR) and 2 in October (CCR). Just realized that the last two are for 2009, my bad on that.

Ok, I am for this. 1/3 of the total races makes sense to me. It does require more commitment to the SARRC series, and I like that.

So, to be clear, points would be:

1. 1/3 of the races

+

2. the SIC, which would count double points?

Is that right Steve? If so, yes, I support that. Seems to keep the SIC's importance, while rewarding more consistency.

Means I have to finish more races.....lol.

[seckerich]

You are correct Jeff.

Currently:
6 races for points (1/4 approx)
SIC counts 2 races (total of 8 for points now)
SIC is tie breaker (basically count the SIC 3 times)

Now the SIC is basically 1/3 of the total deciding factor for champions.

Proposal:
1/3 races run in the year (7 if schedule holds) Less if races are canceled
SIC counts double points (total of 9 for points)
Number of wins or pull in the next highest finish to break tie (either one is fair so whatever works for drivers)

A driver would only have 7 races to count if they skip the SIC (all others count 9)so it would not diminish the big event. It would reward the driver who wins consistently rather than the fastest car at Roebling. Smoke it over. :D

[Parrish57]

I'm really split on the issue. As I plan to run for SARRC points in 08 this is an important issue.

I can see the need to tweek the tie breaker issues at the SIC. The championship should reward consistancy thoughout the year over the final race. Making the number of wins the tie break instead of SIC finish makes sense.

But..... I'm opposed to changing the 6 race rule. There may be 23 races on the schedule but at least 11 of them are "geographically undesireable". And if I lived in the southern end of the region that number would be 15. Also, not everyone can make all of the ones that are close, whether that be for time or financial constraints. For example, the ECR series rules make it impossible to run for points. Too many races in too many places. I see the SARRC series as a great alternative to that. And after all there is nothing stopping someone from running more than 6 races if they have the $ and time to do so.


And.... I don't see any reason to change the location of the SIC. RRR is the most logical choice for a divisional championship.

I'm not closed to change, I just think we should make baby steps and then give it some time to see how it works...

Steve
SARRC Hopeful

[tom_sprecher]

I mistakenly read "roebling championship" as a desire to have the race at other venues which, although has some appeal, may be impossible to schedule.

As with most decisions there are pros and cons. On one hand it rewards those who run often and can afford to do so, but this is true of any points series using a "best of X races" system. On the other hand anyone who consistantly finished first could most likely do the same at the SIC and would not need an extra race or fewer points assigned to the championship. There's the combination of the two as well.

I think it's a good idea, will talk it over with the "usual suspects" and would appreciate any additional input you guys can give here.

[seckerich]

That was the reason for the post. Lets talk about it and see what makes sense. Steve might be right with just the tie breaker change and leave the number of races alone.

[Ron Earp]

I didn't fully understand the situation until Steve laid it out in his post. I sort of got it, but it seems the SIC simply counts too much in the year's tally. I feel a driver should be rewarded for consistent performance at a variety of tracks, not heavily weighted on one track. It makes sense to me to change the weighting a bit to reduce the importance of RR.

I plan to run for points in 2008 (as a beginner I can assure you not many points!) and I do see an attractiveness to moving the race around. However, hearing a few bits and pieces of track scheduling issues with a few of the locations I can see where this could be extremely difficult to pull off.

Good thread!

Ron

[RX3]

Tom
Can you tell me why that most of the races in the northen part of the division are SARRC? And are doubles on top of that. And most of the car raced in the division are in the state of Fl. And there only two doubles down here one in CFR other in Fl region.

[JeffYoung]

RX3 -- is that a Florida region issue? Double SARRCs are sort of the order of the day up here. Why is that not the case in Florida?

[tom_sprecher]

Tom
Can you tell me why that most of the races in the northen part of the division are SARRC? And are doubles on top of that. And most of the car raced in the division are in the state of Fl. And there only two doubles down here one in CFR other in Fl region.
[/b]

Some of the Regions in Area 3 may feel that both the SARRC and ECR squeeze isn't worth the juice, or so I've heard. The feeling is that when ever they hold a race weekend it will be over subscribed irregardless of if it is run as a SARRC or ERC race. Then they do not have deal with the restrictions imposed by SARRC or ECR rules including paying the awards fees (used for trophies and year end purses, respectively.)

This has only occurred in the past year or so. It may seem to take advantage of all the other racing regions that choose to pay for SARRC and ECR funds as well as the drivers who participate in each series and want to win that jacket but it is capitalism at work.

Also, if I am not mistaken, there are only two racing regions in Area 12 and rules restrict the number of races and doubles that can be run by any one region. In addition, Area 12 regions generally want the race to be run under SARRC or ECR rules, and as a double if possible, as it draws a bigger crowd of serious, series oriented drivers, and their $$$. Or so I've heard. ;)

[DavidM]

I don't really see anything wrong with the current number of races. I think 6 races is a good number. It's enough that you have to be committed to running the series, but isn't so many that people with less $$$ to spend get left out. You could conceivably do three double race weekends and get your 6 races. Add the SIC weekend and that's 4 weekends. That may be all some people can do. I've been trying to do 6 or 7 weekends a year including the SIC and ARRC. So I'm really only one weekend more than the current minimum required to run the SARRC. I don't see that requiring another race for the SARRC really changes anything. So some people park their cars after 7 races instead of 6. What changed? Most people are going to race ever how many races their budget and time will allow regardless of the minimum number of races needed for the SARRC and how many points they've collected.

The tiebreaker rule I could see changing. Most wins (including the SIC?) or some other mechanism that factors in the entire season.

Ron, you'd be surprised what a beginner can do. My slow ass has finished 6th in ITA points the last two years (which is significant because you get a plaque to commemorate your effort and thousands of dollars spent :smilie_pokal: ). This is mainly because I've done my 6+ races and finished every race. I pretty much illustrate what the season championship is about. I ain't the fastest, but I show up and finish. Now all I have to do is get faster so I can move up a couple places next year.

David

[RX3]

The SARRC rules say that a region can only hold one double a year. That is why there is only 2 doubles SARRC in the state of Florida.(it is a SARRC rule ) On a single race weekend (one sanction number not a SARRC race) the regions in Florida hold three races. At a lower cost to the driver. That way the drive gets to start in three races, race three races and have more fun, more time on the track. The Central Florida region this year sanction 8 race weekends. Two of the weekends were regional national one was a double SARRC that means they pulled 11 sanction numbers.(2 national 9 regional) On top of that the region put on two drivers school. So they sanctioned 13 race events. And the Florida region did almost the same number of event as the Central Florida region did

[raceit]

RX3 -- is that a Florida region issue? Double SARRCs are sort of the order of the day up here. Why is that not the case in Florida?
[/b]

Does it take a double to get your attention up north, otherwise it is not worth your trip?

[Ron Earp]

Ron, you'd be surprised what a beginner can do. My slow ass has finished 6th in ITA points the last two years (which is significant because you get a plaque to commemorate your effort and thousands of dollars spent :smilie_pokal: ). This is mainly because I've done my 6+ races and finished every race. I pretty much illustrate what the season championship is about. I ain't the fastest, but I show up and finish. Now all I have to do is get faster so I can move up a couple places next year.

David
[/b]

Those double SAARCs are where it is at. I'm not sure I'd like to tow 5 hours for a single. The SIC would be the only track I think I'd do that at.

Any chance of changing some of the rules around so a region can have more than one double a year? I mean if the club racers want to drive it and pay to come what is the issue with restricting how many doubles you can have?

David you are driving well AND finishing. Important! Nice work, very nice job. I've not had the best of luck finishing and BARELY made my three SAARCs to drive the SIC. I towed to about all the SAARCs though but withdrew or DNFed a bunch. You make your luck though and I'm working hard to make 2008 different.

Ron

[raceit]

If SARRC races are so important to everyone.........................explain this...................
according to DLB racing, the entry numbers are this.................

SIC ....total entries.......194

1 week later Sebring, a plain jane regional........276

I see the desire for more SARRC races in Florida, or do I?

Maybe you drivers from the north can enlighten me on this

[RX3]

If they would change the rules the Central Florida Region could hold a triple race weekend. And you get it all in two weekends.

Quote rlearp

"David you are driving well AND finishing. Important! Nice work, very nice job. I've not had the best of luck finishing and BARELY made my three SAARCs to drive the SIC. I towed to about all the SAARCs though but withdrew or DNFed a bunch. You make your luck though and I'm working hard to make 2008 different."

Ron
That is strange I see a car that only ran two races and got to go to the SIC.

[raceit]

If they would change the rules the Central Florida Region could hold a triple race weekend. And you get it all in two weekends.

Quote rlearp

"David you are driving well AND finishing. Important! Nice work, very nice job. I've not had the best of luck finishing and BARELY made my three SAARCs to drive the SIC. I towed to about all the SAARCs though but withdrew or DNFed a bunch. You make your luck though and I'm working hard to make 2008 different."

Ron
That is strange I see a car that only ran two races and got to go to the SIC.
[/b]


Not only that........ HE WON THE RACE

Who is responsible for that?

[JeffYoung]

Huh??? Ron finished three races, one at Rockingham and two at CMP, and finished 10th at the SIC.

Yes, except for Daytona which I would go to just for the track, I would only tow to Florida for a double and even then, probably wouldn't do that.

You guys in Florida need more double SARRC weekends. They are our bread and butter up here, and good racing. Qualifying morning and race afternoon both days.

[raceit]

Another scenario.............. SARRC vs CFR reg

Labor Day.. Atl Reg Dbl SARRC 112 entries

Same weekend Sebring, plain jane regional w/ regional enduro 245 entries

Can you explain the emphasis on SARRC races, especially doubles?

[JeffYoung]

Raceit, I'm not sure I understand your question.

What I can tell you is that the Labor Day Atlanta Region Double SARRC was held at Nashville Motor Speedway, which is not seen as an "attractive" place to race and is a LONG ways from most of the rest of the SEDiv. This is what kept car counts down.

That said, we probably don't get more than 150 to 200 cars at most Double SARRC weekends. The higher car counts in Florida I think reflect a greater density of race cars (I believe Ron Earp and I are the ONLY ITS cars in NCR REgion 55 for example), plus higher profile more attractive tracks -- Sebring and Daytona.

So, again, I guess the real question is -- why not more double SARRCs in Florida and if it is this "single double" rule, then let's change it.

[seckerich]

Raceit=troll, but lets play along. You are well aware that sunny Florida with all their wonderful tracks can call it anything they want and fill the place. Good weather year round attracts and encourages more racing. Congratulations!! Many of your racers just run the florida series and are happy. It is a little different up here in NC. VIR is the only facility that has that draw for us. Double SARRC races pay the bills and make it cheaper for drivers with expenses. Same money to tow for one race as two.

The SARRC rules restrict to one double per TRACK by a region with a waiver to SC for Kershaw.

[tom_sprecher]

Another scenario.............. SARRC vs CFR reg

Labor Day.. Atl Reg Dbl SARRC 112 entries

Same weekend Sebring, plain jane regional w/ regional enduro 245 entries

Can you explain the emphasis on SARRC races, especially doubles?
[/b]

You compare apples to oranges. There are a lot more variables a driver considers when choosing when and where to race. SARRC and double race weekends are just two of many. As others have mentioned there is also the drive time, budget, track, weather, etc. Personally, how many of my friends (and sometimes which ones ;) ) will be at a race is a very important factor to consider as I feel a weekend at the track with out them just isn't as much fun.

Maybe it's a different mind set in Area 3. I know a couple of drivers there that talk mainly about how they are doing "in the points". They are talking about regional points. I don't think most Area 12 drivers would know where to find their regional points. SARRC points, on the other hand, is a totally different story.

For what it's worth, when we had Road Atlanta on Labor Day Weekend we typically had closer to 300 entries...

[RX3]

Steve, Jeff and Ron

You are missing the point. SARRC is supported by the people that do not go to SIC. (count the number of people that have points and do not go to the SIC--- that will give you a good idea of what I am talking about ) Most of the moneys that goes to the trophy fund comes from the people that are just running another race and want a place to race, not people chasing a championship. Yes the double format draws more cars because there is more opportunity to race. (The more doubles you have, the more you dilute the draw of a double) Drivers are not there because it a SARRC. Yes there is a need for SARRC championship racing, but there is a bigger need for just another race. How do you think NASA got a foot hold in racing? Then look at their format (more that one race on a weekend). It is not about championship racing it is about supplying a place to race. The region only has one thing to sell and that is track time. How they do it should be up to the region not up to SARRC or anyone else. They have to make money to be able to stay in business. The more rules that are put on them by special interest groups (i.e. SARRC, ECR, Pro IT and National Racing ) the harder it is to put on a race and the less attractive it is to put on. Racing is a very fragile business and is hard to manage at the club level.
You said that the C.R.F. has a large car count because of the tracks they run on. Well I do not think that 1.7 miles of track at Sebring, the short course (club course), is a championship course but last year in February they had over 300 cars. I thought that road Atlanta is a championship track (why is their car count low?) You get car count by providing what the racers want (a place to race their car) at a price they can afford and by making it easy to get to the track (i.e. friendly people.--- 1st Registration needs to help people register at the track. 2nd Techs to help the drivers get their cars on the track and make them safe, not find a way to disqualify them. Rule compliance will come with championship racing (do we really need the windshield washer bottle ), 3rd Timing needs to put out the results out in a timely manner. 4th The stewards need to be fair and understand that the region is putting on the race, not them. And the region is the one that is going to lose money if it goes bad. All this is very hard to do with volunteer people. We should not be hampered by the rules that we make. [u]

[JeffYoung]

RX, it took me a while to get what you are saying. I don't think we disagree - I am saying get rid of the "one double" rule, and allow a reasonable number of SARRCS in each region. There aren't enough in Florida now, add'em!

On your last points 1, 2, 3 adn 4, I think we are fortunate here in NC/SC/GA to already have all four of them.

[seckerich]

RX you are missing one point. It is your REGION that decides what races to host. They can choose to include SARRC, Pro IT, ECR, or any other series they wish. No region is forced to hold a SARRC event. It is actually quite competitive to get a SARRC weekend on the schedule. Host all the regionals you want, nobody is stopping you. Talk to your RE and get the rest of the story. Only about 1/3 of the entrants probably care about points in any series. You seem to have problems with every aspect of a club race by your post. You seem to believe Tech is out to get you, and registration is out to inconvenience you. When is the last time you volunteered to help with any of these specialties to make it better? If you want some change then step up and help. :eclipsee_steering:

PS. The SARRC fee is a whopping $4 http://www.sedivracing.org/SARRC/sarrc_sop_2007.pdf

[RX3]

I do not think that we need more doubles. I think that a region should have to put on a single in able to put on a double. And yes I think Atlanta region is an unfriendly place to race.

The last race that I worked was Sept 29&30 of this year. And the next race I will work will be Oct 20-21 of this month. And when did you work last?

And there is more of a cost to the Region that the $4 fee.

[seckerich]

I do not think that we need more doubles. I think that a region should have to put on a single in able to put on a double. And yes I think Atlanta region is an unfriendly place to race.

The last race that I worked was Sept 29&30 of this year. And the next race I will work will be Oct 20-21 of this month. And when did you work last?

And there is more of a cost to the Region that the $4 fee.
[/b]
Once again that is the decision your region has to make. You choose to run SARRC races, it is not forced on you. I am glad you are working races, it is appreciated by the drivers. I have been race chair and Tech many times this year as well. As for Atlanta region--support the races you enjoy and skip those that you do not like. Drop a note to the region if you have legitimate complaints. They might surprise you.

[Ron Earp]

I suppose each region is different. Doubles work well up here in NC/SC. If I am towing and spending $300 to get there and back I prefer to race twice. Most racers would agree with that I feel, at least the ones living around here that I know. Basically the staff count to run a single or double is the same, seems the double makes more sense.

The NC and SC/GA operational folks (CMP, Roebling, VIR, Rockingham) I've come in contact with in racing are fantastic. Points one through four are well covered by people that care. Sorry to hear you think your area isn't managing these things very well.

[raceit]

Huh??? Ron finished three races, one at Rockingham and two at CMP, and finished 10th at the SIC.

Yes, except for Daytona which I would go to just for the track, I would only tow to Florida for a double and even then, probably wouldn't do that.

You guys in Florida need more double SARRC weekends. They are our bread and butter up here, and good racing. Qualifying morning and race afternoon both days.[/b]

Why do we need more doubles? You just stated you probably wouldn't come. Doubles in our area limit the number of races. With a double, our drivers get more practice and qual time than race time and one race per day. We try to institute a 3 race weekend as was the last event at Daytona.

The $4 per car is per day on a double. With 300 - 400 cars that ia quite substantial when the SARRC title draws only a fraction of that car count.

[DavidM]

For what it's worth, when we had Road Atlanta on Labor Day Weekend we typically had closer to 300 entries...
[/b]

Damn AMA. I'd love to do a double at Road Atlanta on Labor Day. Oh well.

Maybe they could get a waiver for Barber and hold it at Barber....

David

[seckerich]

Why do we need more doubles? You just stated you probably wouldn't come. Doubles in our area limit the number of races. With a double, our drivers get more practice and qual time than race time and one race per day. We try to institute a 3 race weekend as was the last event at Daytona.

The $4 per car is per day on a double. With 300 - 400 cars that ia quite substantial when the SARRC title draws only a fraction of that car count.
[/b]
Lets see--- 400 x4$ =$1600 $200 entry fee average takes 8 cars to cover the cost. Yes it is more complex but you get the drift. Drop in the bucket when you rake in $80,000 plus garage rental. You kill me. :blink: So hold singles--who cares? We do not get the car counts here so we do doubles to get the entries. You make it pay with singles so whatever works. What does this have to do with points? 6 total posts and all bitching--you rock!! Getting bounced for the repave at Daytona should be a wake up call for you. Someone spends the big bucks like they did in Atlanta and you will be out the door too.

[RX3]

And I thought this was about whether or not to change SARRC,s rules.

And you think $25 is to much for a garage?

I also do not think that there should be any more waivers that are not good for the division.

Another double is not good for the division, just the region putting it on.

Steve you all ready said we have to many SARRC point races.

[JeffYoung]

This is getting silly. I think Steve nailed it. Doubles work in NC/SC/GA. Singles seem to work your way. So, we run doubles you run singles.

I just don't see any issue. What are we discussing again??

[RX3]

So the rules are ok as written .

And we do not any waivers.

[tom_sprecher]

I just don't see any issue. What are we discussing again??
[/b]

I too an having a hard time understanding the point of all this. Set me straight if I have any of this wrong.

Raceit is not in favor of double race weekends or money going to the SARRC trophy fund and can't understand the allure of double race weekends, SARRC points or why Area 12 drivers won't tow down to his neck of the woods to race. Well raceit, consider part of your problem solved. If you only attend one half of a non-SARRC double race weekend you have killed two birds with one stone. You do not have to run a double and can rest assured that the $4 the hosting region collected from you anyway will not go to SARRC.

As I alluded to in my last post the allure of the SARRC in Area 3 is only one aspect that draws the drivers to races there, but besides double race weekends, it is probably the strongest. I guess that answers your question. Also, just so you know, the SIC typically has a lower turn out in part to the very fact that it is the SARRC Invitational Challenge. However, the entry fee is cheap, you get lots of track time and it keeps out the riff-raff. ;)

RX3 apparently has had issues at races held in Area 3 and his items 1-4 have been resolved for the most part in Area 12 and for damn sure by the Atlanta Region. RX3, I suggest you present your problem to the people that can affect change in your Area which in case you did not know is not us or not here.

On the other hand, the part about Atlanta Region not being a freindly place to race IS something I can help you with. If you ever have an issue at one of our races, on behalf of the Atlanta Region adminsitration, I assure you we would like to hear from you so we can take the appropriate corrective action.

Also,


Damn AMA. I'd love to do a double at Road Atlanta on Labor Day. Oh well.

Maybe they could get a waiver for Barber and hold it at Barber....

David
[/b]

Your wish has been granted, but since I did not come out of some bottle you do not have two left... ;)

Now, let's try to stick to the topic please.

Thanks,

[RussMcB]

Interesting topic. Good discussion.

I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months. ;)

[Ron Earp]

Interesting topic. Good discussion.

I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months. ;)
[/b]

And that is an entirely different issue - thankfully a national issue with little effect for us folk.

I can't figure out what RX3 or raceit wants. Does he want us to stop having successful double SAARCs? Does he want us to help make his region like ours and run double SAARCs? Does he just want SAARCs to go away?

Ron

[seckerich]

And that is an entirely different issue - thankfully a national issue with little effect for us folk.

I can't figure out what RX3 or raceit wants. Does he want us to stop having successful double SAARCs? Does he want us to help make his region like ours and run double SAARCs? Does he just want SAARCs to go away?

Ron
[/b]
You are missing something in their posts Ron. No names and new account = Florida Race director me thinks.



Interesting topic. Good discussion.

I don't have any strong feelings, but I think it is an interesting contrast to note that while some people think the SIC race carries too much value due to it's double points and tie breaker status, at the same time our club is holding it's national championship races (Runoffs) and the winner of that one race is the national champion no matter who did what during the previous 12 months. ;)
[/b]
And some of these drivers finish half the distance with "mule" motors to just qualify for the big show. Now that is real racing!! Not all--just some.

[tom_sprecher]

You are missing something in their posts Ron. No names and new account = Florida Race director me thinks.
[/b]

God, I hope that is not the case. If so, it would speak volumes about the quality of their leadership.

[Parrish57]

This started out as a good discussion of a rules change proposal to make the SARRC championship better.

Somebody wake me when we get back on topic.....

Signed,
Steve Parrish
ITS 57
CCR member

[camop]

The Sarrc rules seem to work prety well as they are now. . .

The 3 race format CFR used at Daytona with finishing position setting the grid for the next race was terrific. I think CFR is doing a very good job and I race regardless of Sarrc points as my schedule allows.

It seems to me that the SeDiv is doing a great job juggling Regional, National and Series racing.

Neal Norton

[RX3]

Tom, Steve

First off I thought you knew who I was. I have raced with both of you and sat in more than one SARRC meeting with Tom as I am the SARRC representative for Central Florida Region. I drive the #9 RX3 in ITA from Central Florida, nothing new there. I am also the Race Board Chairman for Central Florida region. Nothing new here either as I have signed posts stating that on this forum.

What I did not know is that SARRC has granted waivers for more doubles. What happened to the committee vote? Tom, was a waiver really granted?

And yes like Russ Mcbride said I would like to see something done about the points. I made that statement at last year’s SARRC meeting. I don’t know how to fix it, but I do think it needs to be looked at. And I agree with Steve Parrish that the championship needs something too. I don’t have that answer either, but it should be looked at and I think it could be made better.

I wish the SARRC Committee would stop making rules that affect how a region holds a race and spend more time making this divisional series better instead of diluting the championship with petty bickering and rule changes so that a region or an area can have its way.

We do not need to change the rules we need to fix a few things.

Robin Langlotz

[Ron Earp]

Tom, Steve

First off I thought you knew who I was. I have raced with both of you and sat in more than one SARRC meeting with Tom as I am the SARRC representative for Central Florida Region. I drive the #9 RX3 in ITA from Central Florida, nothing new there. I am also the Race Board Chairman for Central Florida region. Nothing new here either as I have signed posts stating that on this forum.
[/b]


Hi Robin,

You might want to sign your posts with your name in the future. It'd help us newbies who are not "well-connected" to learn identities.

Knowing your name wouldn't change anything I've posted or questions I asked, but knowing your function certainly puts a new light on the thread.

Now, back to the SAARC points suggestions......

Ron

[Parrish57]

Now that we're back to our regularly scheduled programming, a few thoughts:

There seems to be a general consensus, not just on this board but also racers I've spoken to at the track, that the formula for determining the SARRC champ could use some tweeks. I think that changing the tie break rules to put more weight on season performance is the right direction. To balance that and not take away the importance of the SIC I'd be in favor of making SIC participation manditory in order to be crowned champion. What do ya think?

I've expresses my opinion on increasing the number of races counted for the series, but an idea came to me as an incentive for those who want to run more races. In the CCPS series we give bonus points for each Entry. Those points count toward the championship regardless of where you finish, even DNF. What do you think about 1 or 2 bonus points to reward drivers that race more than 6?

Just thinking out loud....

Steve

[tom_sprecher]

Robin,

I didn’t know it was you. I also was not aware you were the CFR SARRC rep. What happened to Mike Schmidt? However, I did know you were the Race Chair. Although I might not agree with some of your decisions I strongly believe in a capitalistic free market society with as little authoritative (government) intervention as possible, so if what you got going is working then congratulations and maybe the rest of us should take a closer look. If it’s not working than let the rest of us (or at least some) help you turn that around.

We (the SARRC Committee) can wave anything we damn well please IF a majority agrees AND it is within the scope of the SARRC SOP. If you need more doubles (because as one, very large geographical region with a boat load of drivers, only two tracks and being schedule limited you need more ;) ) let's talk about it. I think you’ll find most of us are receptive and reasonable towards worthy requests.

To be honest I do not know why we have the two rules that effectively limit one double per region. Actually, I lied about being honest. Why the SARRC rules dictate when (as far as same or consecutive weekends less that 450 miles apart) and what number of races each region will run is done in part to maintain a cohesion (and when I say cohesion I mean “no one region feels like they’re getting screwed out of their fair share of entry fees”) that is necessary to make a Division wide points series continue to exist as long as SARRC has. Could it be better? Hell yes and all we have to do is get each track to clear its calendar and let SEDiv have first pick for our race weekends. In other words it ain’t that easy.

To get back on track I think Russ said he had no strong option either way about the items Steve would like addressed. I am in favor of a different tie breaker or almost anything (within reason) that will make the series better for everyone involved. I also like Steve Parrish's ideas about entry points. Mandatory SIC attendance is interesting,too and like Russ said it's like the National boys putting everything on one throw of the dice every year.

So if you have some ideas I would like to hear them as would probably the rest of the Committee and preferably well in advance of Jekyll so we all have time to discuss it with the members we represent.

[Ron Earp]

Those are some interesting concepts. Clearly, I'm new to all of this, but I personally like the idea of rewarding folks, even if an extremely small bonus, for running more races in the SAARC series.

I do think the SIC attendance should be mandatory to win the series. I don't think there is a direct analogy in sports, but about the best I can come up with is making the playoffs in something like hockey. You might have more points than the other teams in games before the playoffs, but you still have to play those last few games before the playoffs, even if you have enough points to make it without them.

Has anyone ever won the SIC by not showing up, that is had so many points that the 2nd place competitor couldn't come close and the 1st place points holder just skipped the race?

Ron

[tom_sprecher]

Has anyone ever won the SIC by not showing up, that is had so many points that the 2nd place competitor couldn't come close and the 1st place points holder just skipped the race?[/b]

Ron, you keep saying your new to this but you have 3 times more posts than me. What's up with that?

I think it is impossible to win the SIC without showing up but Sean O'Connell won the SARRC Championship in FB this year w/o running the SIC. You either have a class that is lightly subscribed or you're the best and everyone else sucks. :lol:

Someday, I hope to prove the latter condition. ;)

[seckerich]

Tom, Steve

First off I thought you knew who I was. I have raced with both of you and sat in more than one SARRC meeting with Tom as I am the SARRC representative for Central Florida Region. I drive the #9 RX3 in ITA from Central Florida, nothing new there. I am also the Race Board Chairman for Central Florida region. Nothing new here either as I have signed posts stating that on this forum.

What I did not know is that SARRC has granted waivers for more doubles. What happened to the committee vote? Tom, was a waiver really granted?

And yes like Russ Mcbride said I would like to see something done about the points. I made that statement at last year’s SARRC meeting. I don’t know how to fix it, but I do think it needs to be looked at. And I agree with Steve Parrish that the championship needs something too. I don’t have that answer either, but it should be looked at and I think it could be made better.

I wish the SARRC Committee would stop making rules that affect how a region holds a race and spend more time making this divisional series better instead of diluting the championship with petty bickering and rule changes so that a region or an area can have its way.
We do not need to change the rules we need to fix a few things.

Robin Langlotz
[/b]
I figured who you were after your last post Robin. :D No new waivers were granted for doubles. SC has a waiver that I believe runs out next year to use any track for their double. They used Roebling a few times and then moved to CCR's home track at CMP. They have run there for 2 years as we work together to not impact each other. I believe Florida got every race they asked for at the mid-year meeting. Am I wrong?? Every region is limited to 4 SARRCS and may only hold one double at any track so nothing has changed. This whole thread was supposed to be about point totals toward championships and how we break a tie. You went off on a tangent about everything else in the series. I think we have something great that just needs a little tweaking on points. If you have some other gripes then bring them up to the SARRC committee and lets talk. Feel free to PM me a number and lets talk before Jeckyl.

[RX3]

I am with you guy on trying to make a change.
I am going to try write a little history as why some things were done.
as I was one of the people that wrote the rules along with Jim C. and others back when.

Also does anyone know about what (raceit) said someone ran the SIC and did not run three races.
If this happened this is not good for SARRC I can remember when we told CEO of SCCA (Nick Craw) he could not race with us becouse he was not a member of sediv.
I have also heard this from some other drivers.

[tom_sprecher]

If you have some other gripes then bring them up to the SARRC committee and lets talk. Feel free to PM me a number and lets talk before Jeckyl.[/b]

Same goes here. My info is under SARRC officals on the SEDiv site.

[Ron Earp]

Ron, you keep saying your new to this but you have 3 times more posts than me. What's up with that?

[/b]

I post a lot and ask lots of questions trying to get my broken race cars to run? :rolleyes:

Seriously, I just finished my first "ITS" season so am new to it. I only completed three races this year but hope make a full season out of 2008. It wasn't for lack of trying in 2007, just a combination of luck, newness to the car and getting it to run, etc.

[JeffYoung]

For what it is worth, in 05, I ran 2 races and attempted about 5 others. I asked to run the SIC and was properly denied. No ITA/S/7 guy this year ran without more than 3 races under their belt.

Steve P. -- I'm probably a classic example of why the 1-2 points to encourage participation might not be a good idea. I can run 8-10 races finishing anywhere from 2nd to 10th. Probably not a champsionship effort -well not probably, not one.

With those bonus points, this year, I believe I would have finished THIRD in the points.

So, my position:

1. I am slightly in favor of counting 1/3 of the SARRC races with perhaps maximum in the event we add more of say 8 or 10?

2. I don't think staying with 6 instead is a terrible idea, but I do think (1) above helps a bit with consistency.

3. I think that you should be required to run the SIC to win the champsionship (this is true de facto now in all IT classes).

4. The SIC should be the seventh race, count double points, but TIES SHOULD BE BROKEN BASED ON SEASON CONSISTENCY. I would say use average finish over the 6/7/8 regular season races to break the tie.

Let's get a consensus (I'm not strongly wedded to any of the above except 3) and get something done.

Robin, I'm with Tom. If Florida needs more SARRCs, let's vote for waivers so they can do it. I'd like to see more Florida guys at the SIC.

[Butch Kummer]

I've discussed this with Steve and Tom in person, but to go on record:

1. Still count best six SARRC finishes prior to the SIC.

2. SIC counts as double points.

3. Change the tie-breaker to total wins, then total seconds, then total thirds even if it exceeds the top six finishes. This is the same as the tie-breaker for determining divisional champions for National racing.

#3 would encourage people to run more than the minimum number (6) races, which is the point of all this.

On other topics:

Jay Marshall received an invitation to the SIC even though he finished only two GTA races in 2007 (he had a couple of DNFs as well), then won the SIC but not the championship. Apparently he "mis-entered" the February Sebring race in SPO rather than GTA, and this was confirmed by Jim Creighton prior to his entry for the SIC being accepted. The "three finishes" rule is the ONLY SARRC rule that cannot be waived by the Committee, and it was not in this case either.

In general, people tend to run Single SARRCs in their backyard and travel for Doubles.

Labor Day 2008 will be a Double SARRC at Barber. In time we feel this could become a 350+ car event (which is 700 entries).

If someone has a problem with how Atlanta Region events are run, I DEFINITELY would like to hear from you. We've been working hard on Registration issues of the past and must be making progress since people are now complaining when they have to stand in line for ten whole minutes. We are constantly looking at what we can do to improve the "racing experience" for our members (drivers and workers alike) and I'm certainly willing to listen to whatever suggestions you might have.

[seckerich]

Sounds good Butch. Congratulations on securing a good facility for your Labor Day Double. That is one Barber race I will attend.

[DavidM]

Ditto what Butch said.

I think changing the labor day event to Barber is a good move. I know you worked hard on getting Nashville up and going Butch, but Barber has the potential of drawing lots more people just based on the track. Hopefully it will grow to the size of the Road Atlanta events. I will be attending.

David

[JeffYoung]

Butch, that looks good to me. And I triple concur on the Labor Day Barber weekend. I was not planning on going back to Barber due to the tow, or to Nashville due to the track, but this fixed my problems. I will be at Barber next year God, the Courts and Triumph reliability willing.

Also, have always been treated very well by Atlanta region. Never had any issues. At Nashville, both tech and registration went out of the way to help me after my logbook and license were stolen on the way down.

[tom_sprecher]

After talking with some of the usual suspects a couple of ideas were voiced and I would like to share them with you guys.

1. The SIC should be the last race of a 3 race championship series where one race is held in Area 3, one in Area 12 (the Area Races) and the SIC. You count the best two out of three results for your double points and can use the left over race to improve your best of six points total if it helps.
2. Same as above but the best result of the Area Races and your SIC result count for your double points. This maintains the OA significance of the SIC.
3. The SIC should always reward places 1 thru 3 at a minimum.

Just thought I'd run it up the flag pole and see if anybody would salute it.

Thanks,

[RX3]

The SARRC points were set up for a division series so cars would have to travel out of their region to another region to get the required number of races in (six … four races in your region and two in another region). Double points awarded at the SIC is how we tried to insure that a driver could not be a SARRC Champion without going to the SIC. (This may need to be looked at this time.)

Also remember when this was put in place there were less racing regions then there are now. And most racing regions already had there own series in place. (SARRC was an effort to make the cars travel out of region ) The more regions that put on races the more SARRC there are going to be. We must remember that SARRC is a divisional series and not the cash cow for any one region.

If holding a double is the only way that your region can get a good car count, then hold a double. But they do not have to be a double SARRC, and in fact you could hold a double race with one race being a SARRC and the other one not. You also do not have to pull two sanction numbers to hold a double. You only have to pull one sanction for the weekend. You do need to pull two sanctions if you want the driver to get credit for driving more than one race in his log book per weekend.

This is part of what “raceit” and others are complaining about when the Central Florida holds a SARRC. The people that do not run the SARRC series lose track time and races. The whole format of the race weekend has to be changed because of the “Ronie rule” that states how a region can put on a SARRC.

The Central Florida Region holds three races on a weekend for every class except when we hold a SARRC or National race. All regional races except enduros count for points toward a regional championship.

To answer one of Jeff questions, the Central Florida region does not want to hold more SARRC’s.




Off topic
"Jay Marshall received an invitation to the SIC even though he finished only two GTA races in 2007 (he had a couple of DNFs as well), then won the SIC but not the championship. Apparently he "mis-entered" the February Sebring race in SPO rather than GTA, and this was confirmed by Jim Creighton prior to his entry for the SIC being accepted. The "three finishes" rule is the ONLY SARRC rule that cannot be waived by the Committee, and it was not in this case either."


Butch this not what I heard. I will have more information after this weekend.