VIR SARRC/MARRS Proposal

[JeffYoung]

A couple of us have been kicking around the following idea, INFORMALLY (region leadership is not involved), on SARRC/MARRS to try and address some of the legitimate scheduling concerns both sides have.

I'm told that moving the date away from Mother's Day is probably not a possibility. However, perhaps we can help both the guys who want a 3 day event (and an early exit on Sunday) and those locals who prefer a 2 day. How about (and this is rough) the following 3 day schedule:

1. Friday - totally optional. Practice in the morning, and qual in the afternoon.

2. Saturday. Qual in the morning. Participants use the best of their Saturday qual time or their Friday afternoon qual time for the race.

3. Sunday. Races only. Saturday qual time is used. Leave early.

Thoughts?

[spnkzss]

First, I think this is a good idea to try to make things work. Even if this doesn't help for '08 and does for '09 I think it is a good idea.

First off, '07 was my first year at VIR and I have only seen the 2 day format, so I don't know what the 3 day format is like. I do like your idea, but how do you split that cost up? Personally I wish SCCA would do more practice time along with the 2 qual, but understand that is hard in a typical 2 day format even single race.

[JeffYoung]

Same cost for all. I'm an NCR guy and probably would not participate on Friday; but that is my choice. I pay the same entry fee as the MARRS guys who want to come down early.

Prior years had a three day format essentially like the above except the Friday qualifying was mandatory and gave you your starting time for Saturday's race. So, you had to be there on Friday. The only thing we are proposing is that Friday qual be optional.

[spnkzss]

Same cost for all. I'm an NCR guy and probably would not participate on Friday; but that is my choice. I pay the same entry fee as the MARRS guys who want to come down early.

Prior years had a three day format essentially like the above except the Friday qualifying was mandatory and gave you your starting time for Saturday's race. So, you had to be there on Friday. The only thing we are proposing is that Friday qual be optional.
[/b]

I can "see" people being upset with that. "Why should I pay for track time I don't use?" Personally I understand it's a choice and I WOULD be there Friday, but I can hear the screaming now.

***running to put on ear muffs***

[grjones1]

Great idea.

[seckerich]

Actually Jeff you are a little off. Friday was used to qualify for Saturday and Sunday. Seperate sessions and no practice. You had to be there or start at the back if allowed. There was a time when there was a hard luck qualifier on Sat morning and they counted that time for both races. That was a crock. We would show up Friday and run in the heat of the day and someone would show up late and run Sat morning in the cool weather and kick your butt. If you want to make it work just have the one qualifing session and let it count for Sat and Sun. Look at past results and see it is about the same grid both days. Use the extra time available to have the groups smaller and give some practice. Three day is well worth it if you just adjust it a little. Flag all the sessions on the back out of Oak to save cooldown time for practice. This race is too much fun to let die. We only get to race together once a year anyway.

[JeffYoung]

Optional practice all day Friday and a single qual Saturday a.m. works for me. Will be a long day Saturday, but I agree, too good an event to let it die for these reasons.

[spnkzss]

I think this year it was optional practice day on Friday, Qual and race Saturday and SUnday. Are you proposing less track time?

How about a Single instead of a double. Friday optional practice, Saturday 2 qual, Sunday Race? The thing is the $$$ needs to reflect 1 race instead of 2.

[seckerich]

Glad I don't let you plan the finances for my region--I would go broke. :D You need that double to pay what it costs to play at VIR.

[spnkzss]

Glad I don't let you plan the finances for my region--I would go broke. :D You need that double to pay what it costs to play at VIR.
[/b]

I thought about asking that when I was writing it, but I figured someone would say that the only reason it is a double is so we pay the higher costs for track rental. :P

[JeffYoung]

Spanky, wasn't clear. You get the entire day on Friday to practice, well two sessions really, for your regular entry fee. The optional practice day this year was a track run (not SCCA sponsored) test day for an additional $250 or so.

The flip side is I think maybe we do allow qualifying Friday afternoon. It's just optional. Everyone gets to run Saturday morning as well.

[jjjanos]

I like the idea. I like that people are taking affirmative action and not relying on a few individuals to make everything happen.

Let's cut to the chase - $$$$$ 2007 saw 2 P/Q sessions with 2 races at $375. What you are proposing is 3 P/Q sessions with 2 races for...? I cannot see paying much more than an extra $50 MAX for the extra 15 minute P/Q session unless the races were increased in length on Sunday - something that could be done since there no longer would be morning P/Q.

I like the idea in terms of getting MARRS back down there for 2009. I think the ship has left the dock for 2008. Thus, I'm not sure changes are required for 2008.

With MARRS not awarding points and the crickets in terms of returning for 2008, I'm guessing that many folks will take a pass and the crowding issues will get better.

For reference purposes:
176 drivers placed in the MARRS points last year - competed in 50% or more of events.
110 of the 176 raced at VIR.
85 of the 176 raced at Nelson.
60 of the 176 raced at both Nelson and VIR.
50 of the 110 raced at VIR but not Nelson.
25 of the 85 raced at Nelson but not VIR.

Note: Does not include drivers who earned points but did not race in 50% or more of events.
Note: Does not control for cars not ready by VIR.
Note: Does not control for skipping Nelson because it was at the end of a long stretch of racing.

[erlrich]

Let's cut to the chase - $$$$$ 2007 saw 2 P/Q sessions with 2 races at $375. What you are proposing is 3 P/Q sessions with 2 races for...? I cannot see paying much more than an extra $50 MAX for the extra 15 minute P/Q session unless the races were increased in length on Sunday - something that could be done since there no longer would be morning P/Q.[/b] I don't remember the exact amount, but I don't believe the old (2006) three-day format was any more expensive, was it? I'm sure rental costs are up some, but would it really cost that much more to get the track on Friday?

I also like Steve's idea of practice Friday morning w/qualifying Friday afternoon. Let the single qual session count for both races, or better yet let the Saturday finishing positions dictate the Sunday starting positions. At least that way any of the MARRS drivers who didn't want to leave Thursday could skip the practice and drive down Friday morning.

[seckerich]

It was a real eye opening experience for me last year getting involved with chairing races as well as serving on the BOD and looking at the finances. You can do anything you want with the schedule as long as you get the entries. If drivers are willing to give up one qualifing session and count one for both races you get much smaller groups and can justify the friday. Just remember that the length of VIR makes for long out and in lap times so it eats up schedule. Drop the extra qualifier and you could have one 30 minute session and no excuse for not getting a clean lap. Another option is to drop the Sunday practice all together and just have a longer qual session. Changing groups kills the most time so longer sessions and less of them gives more actual track time.


My schedule would have 30 minute practice sessions by group on Friday morning. Qualify some groups (30 min) for Saturday. Resume qual Sat morning Races to follow. Drop the Sunday practice all together and have longer qual Sunday and then race. I will put it in my spreadsheet and see how it fits. Just food for thought.

[spnkzss]

It was a real eye opening experience for me last year getting involved with chairing races as well as serving on the BOD and looking at the finances. You can do anything you want with the schedule as long as you get the entries. If drivers are willing to give up one qualifing session and count one for both races you get much smaller groups and can justify the friday. Just remember that the length of VIR makes for long out and in lap times so it eats up schedule. Drop the extra qualifier and you could have one 30 minute session and no excuse for not getting a clean lap. Another option is to drop the Sunday practice all together and just have a longer qual session. Changing groups kills the most time so longer sessions and less of them gives more actual track time.
My schedule would have 30 minute practice sessions by group on Friday morning. Qualify some groups (30 min) for Saturday. Resume qual Sat morning Races to follow. Drop the Sunday practice all together and have longer qual Sunday and then race. I will put it in my spreadsheet and see how it fits. Just food for thought.
[/b]

I like that one too.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, looks good, although I would suggest that whatever you come up with, Friday has to be totally optional. If not you stand to lose NCR support and then there is a problem.

[mlytle]

one of the issues with this event this year was the two day format. putting a qual or practice session on sat and sun made less time for racing. less time for racing meant fewer run groups. few run groups meant some serious overcrowding in many of the groups. unless you move all qual and practice away from sat/sun, i don't know how you can get the run group size down.

a bunch of folks the previous year complained about the three day format taking too much time and wanted a two day format for 07.

personnally, i liked the old 3/4 day format. vir is a cool track. it is worth the extra day or two of vacation. i would drive down wed, practice thurs, qual fri and race sat/sun.

[dj10]

one of the issues with this event this year was the two day format. putting a qual or practice session on sat and sun made less time for racing. less time for racing meant fewer run groups. few run groups meant some serious overcrowding in many of the groups. unless you move all qual and practice away from sat/sun, i don't know how you can get the run group size down.

a bunch of folks the previous year complained about the three day format taking too much time and wanted a two day format for 07.

personnally, i liked the old 3/4 day format. vir is a cool track. it is worth the extra day or two of vacation. i would drive down wed, practice thurs, qual fri and race sat/sun. [/b]



This is coming up the 3rd year I'll try and make it down to this VIR event, it is a shame that MARRS dropped it but life goes on. I would thing a few DC region people would still make it down to a great track and from all indications to race with some good people.

[mlytle]

This is coming up the 3rd year I'll try and make it down to this VIR event, it is a shame that MARRS dropped it but life goes on. I would thing a few DC region people would still make it down to a great track and from all indications to race with some good people.
[/b]

with fewer cars there this year, it may be more fun, even as a two day event.

i may take you up on that veiled challenge dan! B)

[JamesB]

ding. ding. ding. we have a winner. everyone I know in MARRS loves VIR. But the 90 car start and shorter race each day noone liked. So many did not want to return if it was the same compressed format with that many cars. sure if I had an excess of money I would gladly go run down there even without points. But as I am just now trying to settle my racing budget for next year it looks like I will likely run all the points races before I consider heading off to a race just because.

[spnkzss]

I guess since I never did the 3 day double, I don't have any comparison. Why did people not like the 3 day event with all qual on Friday? Just because it was Friday?

[JamesB]

I dont think it was MARRS that didnt like the format. SARRC prefers a 2 day double and its pretty fast paced, but I just don't see how it works with very large subscription levels if it means 80 car run groups. I was going to attend this year, but something came up with work so I ended up skipping it. But the reports I got back was very crowded track for qual, shorter races with larger fields and it sounded like many where fustrated by that. I didnt mind the 3 day at all, I love the facility and 3 days time down there is nothing.

[dj10]

I would thing a few DC region people would still make it down to a great track and from all indications to race with some good people.
[/b]

"i may take you up on that veiled challenge dan! B) '"



" to race with some good people." Ok Marshall, I guess I'll include you too. ;) :D
Man am I glad I'm out of the Marines, or I'd be guarding the latrine until I was up for PFC again. B)

[mlytle]

I dont think it was MARRS that didnt like the format. SARRC prefers a 2 day double and its pretty fast paced, but I just don't see how it works with very large subscription levels if it means 80 car run groups. I was going to attend this year, but something came up with work so I ended up skipping it. But the reports I got back was very crowded track for qual, shorter races with larger fields and it sounded like many where fustrated by that. I didnt mind the 3 day at all, I love the facility and 3 days time down there is nothing.
[/b]
ding ding ding..we have a winner! :)

for smaller fields the two day format seems to work for sarrc, and it worked at nelsons for marrs. but did not work for the huge amount of cars for a sarrc/marrs event.

believe it or not, a bunch of marrs folks complained about the 3 day format two years ago. too much time away from home//office. marrs actually requested/went along with the sarrc change to two days. well, we got what we asked for this year with an undesirable result.

lets go back to the old 3 day format for 09!

[JeffYoung]

and to get back to the start of this thread -- with Friday optional.

Does that work for the MARRS guys?

[grjones1]

Good for me. Thank you.

[spnkzss]

and to get back to the start of this thread -- with Friday optional.

Does that work for the MARRS guys?
[/b]

I take it that in years past Friday had 2 qual and Sat/Sun were races. I believe the concensus is we need to go back to that? If so, how can you make Friday optional? The reason people want to go back to that format is so we can have more run groups on race day so we have less cars on track.

All the above statements are there as questions and comments. I'm just trying to make sure I have it straight.

[jjjanos]

and to get back to the start of this thread -- with Friday optional.

Does that work for the MARRS guys?
[/b]

Define optional.
Is the schedule you are talking about something like this:

Friday: Two 30-minute qualifying sessions by group to determine starting position for Saturday Race.
Sat: 15-minute qualifying session be group to determine starting position for Saturday Race.
Sat: 10-lap races by group, best time/finishing position determines starting position for Sunday Race
Sun: 2 hardship sessions (?)
Sun: 12-lap races by group

[JeffYoung]

The above would work for me, although I would have practice sessions Friday morning, qual Friday afternoon for Saturday's race, Saturday qual, Saturday race (with the best of teh friday/Saturday time use for the race), and Sunday race (with either Saturday qual times or Saturday race times used to set the grid).

The key for us NCR guys is to make the schedule such so that we do not HAVE to be there Friday. Spanky, appreciate your question on that and wanted to make it clear. That is the NCR concern that has to be addressed, just as there are MARRS concerns that have to be addressed as well.

[mlytle]

I take it that in years past Friday had 2 qual and Sat/Sun were races. I believe the concensus is we need to go back to that? If so, how can you make Friday optional? The reason people want to go back to that format is so we can have more run groups on race day so we have less cars on track.

All the above statements are there as questions and comments. I'm just trying to make sure I have it straight.
[/b]

correct, you can't make friday optional with the old sked. and correct, ditching the sat/sun qual sessions allowed more race groups and far less overcrowding....a critical factor when you have two major series sharing a weekend.

if i may ask the ncr folks...why is driving on friday so taboo?

[JeffYoung]

Last time -- NCR locals don't want to have to be there on a Friday. The three day weekend is too much time away from work for us to go to a local track. That's not just my sentiment, it is the sentiment of the group and one of the two competing concerns that I am trying to balance here -- you guys want a three day weekend and the attendant more track time; NCR wants a two day weekend.

So, again, for this to work, there must be a COMPROMISE. That is where both sides give a little. Comp-ro-mise. SARRC guys pay a bit more money for track time they may not use. MARRS guys have a bit more of a compressed schedule.

Friday has to be optional.

[Bill Miller]

After running the MARRS Labor Day dbl for a number of years, I always had the impression that trying to run a 'real' dbl in two days was a waste of time. It was one of the reasons I quit going to the Pocono dbl. Do it in three days, and do it right. Why would you want smaller fields???

[JeffYoung]

Bill, we run well attended doubles in teh SEDiv. quite a bit. Daytona, Roebling, etc. They can work, and do for us.

But, I understand the MARRS preference for a three day event at a track those guys don't normally run at. That's fine, and makes sense to me. All I am saying is that IT WON'T HAPPEN (not yelling at you) if the compromise position that is reached does not address NCR's concerns. NCR wants a two day double, and can run one smoothly. You can debate whether it is a good idea or not, but they are good at getting two races in on a weekend. VIR runs smoothly and one time.

So, back to the original proposal to start this thread -- if we have an optional Friday morning practice, and Friday afternoon qual, all for the same price as those just running two days, do we have something that while not perfect, actually works for everyone?

I think we do.

[spnkzss]

Bill, we run well attended doubles in teh SEDiv. quite a bit. Daytona, Roebling, etc. They can work, and do for us.

But, I understand the MARRS preference for a three day event at a track those guys don't normally run at. That's fine, and makes sense to me. All I am saying is that IT WON'T HAPPEN (not yelling at you) if the compromise position that is reached does not address NCR's concerns. NCR wants a two day double, and can run one smoothly. You can debate whether it is a good idea or not, but they are good at getting two races in on a weekend. VIR runs smoothly and one time.

So, back to the original proposal to start this thread -- if we have an optional Friday morning practice, and Friday afternoon qual, all for the same price as those just running two days, do we have something that while not perfect, actually works for everyone?

I think we do.
[/b]

Unfortunatly I don't think so. On one side we have people that don't want a 3 day event. ON the other side we have people that want smaller run groups, which means the only solution is a 3 day event. The only real answer is a 3 day event or a single race weekend and not a double, which means higher entry costs.

Making Friday optional doesn't help with the 90 car fields.

By no means am I saying that this is impossible, but I'm beginning to see where the trouble truly was. How can you make both regions somewhat happy?

Now the questions I have, because I don't know, is of those 2 say double that you have:
1.) How long is the track that you are running on? (Makes a big difference in run time/down time on a 3.5 mile course versus 2 mile course)
2.) How many cars do you have?

I have either run or spectated the last 16 straight Labor Day Doubles at Summit Point. I could not imagine making that a 2 day event. Too many cars. We normall get between 350-400 cars.

Recap:

NO 3 day weekend
AND Smaller run groups

And that is the question ;)

[JeffYoung]

Roebling sees 300 cars for its double, but is 2 miles. VIR runs a double, on a 3.27 track, and it works, you guys (understandably) don't like the run groups. Daytona is as long right?

Not sure why the Friday optional "doesn't work?"

The ONE run group that I think was a problem was ITA/B/C/7. In 04, didn't we run A/S/7 (and can put R in there), SRFs with the prod cars, and put the Bs/Cs etc. with SM? Maybe that won't work with the growth in SM.

All I am saying is the MARRS guys can talk about a mandatory 3 day weekend all they want, but if that is the requirement to have you guys here, I don't believe (although I can't speak for them personally) that SARRC/MARRS won't happen.

A shame, it was a great event.

[Gregg]

Not sure why the Friday optional "doesn't work?"
[/b]
So then we essentially go back to what we had prior to '07...



Friday was used to qualify for Saturday and Sunday. Seperate sessions and no practice. You had to be there or start at the back if allowed. There was a time when there was a hard luck qualifier on Sat morning and they counted that time for both races. That was a crock. We would show up Friday and run in the heat of the day and someone would show up late and run Sat morning in the cool weather and kick your butt. If you want to make it work just have the one qualifing session and let it count for Sat and Sun.
[/b]
Here's how you handle an "optional" day -- if you choose not to run it you just start from the back. :-) :eclipsee_steering:

One of our (meaning the DC Region's) suggestions to NCR after the '07 event was to make this a single race event if it was to be held over two days. I guess the loss of 100+ MARRS competitors and their entry fees was less than the region felt they'd lose if they had to reduce the the greater pool's fees to something commensurate with a "single" event. While not knowing what VIR charges for track time I still don't see the logic there.

If you want a two day event, my recommendation is simply to have a 15min qualifying session on Sat. AM for each group. We then have a reasonable length race (say 7-8 laps or perhaps timed at 20min) in the afternoon. That race sets the grid for the Sunday feature of 12 laps (which would be longer than this year's 10 laps). Let the track continue to handle the optional (er...practice) day

This was the format during my first event up at the Glen and worked quite well. This way you get your two races, you get your less crowded groupings, and you get your two day event. What the region doesn't get is quite as much money.

[jjjanos]

Cannot speak for other drivers, but for me, the reason I probably wouldn't go back for a 2-day MARRS/SARRC was the size of the run group I was in. We had 89 cars in our run group (ITA->C, RX7s, SS) and it seriously screwed up my race. Both races I had higher HP bricks in other classes qualify behind me, but because of their HP got passed me by the uphill esses, where they proceeded to hold me up, roar away down the back straight and then, again, hold me up to the front straight. Rinse repeat for a couple of laps.

Now add being a slower class in the back of an 89 car field. We had serious according effect because, I think, they gave a late green. We had cars take to the grass to avoid collisions.

Same problem with the Miata group - 90 cars.

Why the authorities did not decide to use a bona-fide split start for the two huge groups is beyond me.

It won't matter whether this is a 2-day or a 3-day event. I won't race a MARRS/SARRC event at VIR if I'm faced with a run group that large without a guaranteed split-start written into the supps. No offensive, but I don't trust any steward to honor a "gentlemans' agreement" on splitting the start for large run groups.

Roebling might accomodate 300 cars for a two-day double, but the question is... is that 6 groups of 50 or 8 groups of 38?

[Cobrar05]

Jeff,

I just think they, MARRS, want what they want. Either the event is run to their needs/wants or they won't run it. Maybe they would like to try Road Atlanta or Watkins Glen? I doubt they would like that either as the attendance there is big as well.

edit: I've been wanting to rewrite this all day....The MARRS guys want either a 3 day event or make it a single. MARRS is a regional series, not s divisional one and maybe they lose track of the idea that many SARRC participants haul a long way to get to VIR and would not do so were it a single. If it were a single, I wonder how many MARRS guys would not think it worth the haul?

Make it a three day and you lose a lot of people that are just not available to race on Friday. Are there any such three day events on the SARRC calender?

The VIR May double is a NC region/SARRC event that has been shared. I think if MARRS wants to participate they should do it as the host plans it. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know what MARRS would be open to turning their event upside down for the SARRC guys.

[seckerich]

Keep in mind the number of days you have to find workers for. Thursday-Sunday and all the related costs. SARRC has historically run a lot of doubles. Most are traveling quite a distance for races and get more for their dollar at a double. If it is a single you will not get any more track time because there will be other races thrown in. Some say raise the entry fee and give more track time. Sounds good but the market does not seem to support the idea. In the end it is a business decision for the region and it has to make sense. Find a way to make it work without reducing the dollars and they will work with you.

Very few people run just one of the races unless they break so:

Have 8 groups and start Friday with 30 minute practice sessions by group.
Begin Qualifing with 30 minute sessions
Finish qualifing Saturday morning.
Run true 30 minute races.
Sunday 20 minute Qualifing sessions.
30 minute races.
(Might work to qualify some groups Saturday afternoon for Sunday)Have to look at time line.

Reduce the times you change groups and get 110 minutes of track time.

[dj10]

Keep in mind the number of days you have to find workers for. Thursday-Sunday and all the related costs[/b]



Steve, you hit on a key point! :023:

[seckerich]

Is it too early to start recruiting for Memorial Day at CMP???? :D

[Cobrar05]

What's on Memorial Day at CMP?

[Charlie Broring]

I read here "SARRC Historically runs 2 day double races" Let me bring up the history of the SARRC/MARRS Mothers Day race. The first three years after VIR reopened the race was run on a 2 day format. There were fewer entries back them and SM was not around yet. The 2 day format worked well at first. By 2002 we ran 8 groups in a 2day format (!) to accommodate the growing number of entries

However about this time the number of entries and the emergence of SM and SSM made it desirable to add run groups so the change was made to a three day format with 9 run groups for 2003. This was a comfortable arrangement and accommodated the growing number of entries well. It was a high quality race.

2004 and 2005 Were three day races with 8 run groups. I remember this being a very leisurely pace and I thought we could have run 9 smaller groups and spread things out more. 2006 was a 3 day format with only 7 race groups. This was the only Mothers day race that I missed

This year, 2007, the race returned to a 2 day format. And there were a lot of entries. A race that one was once 9 groups over 3 day was squeezed into 7 groups in a 2 day format. And the quality of racing suffered badly. My race had 81 starters on Saturday. I felt that my race finishing was determined by how lucky I was with traffic in a short, crowded qualifying session. Many others had similar feelings.

The MARRS competitor who remembers the less crowded past years at VIR and appreciates the small groups that we enjoy at Summit Point doesn't care for the overcrowding of the present Mothers Day format. If The VIR race returned to the 3 day format that was historically successful instead of "historical SARRC 2 day double" it would offer a higher quality of racing. There were other reasons MARRS isn't going to VIR next year but the bottom line is this race isn't as appealing as it once was.

Charlie

[mlytle]

Bill, we run well attended doubles in teh SEDiv. quite a bit. Daytona, Roebling, etc. They can work, and do for us.

But, I understand the MARRS preference for a three day event at a track those guys don't normally run at. That's fine, and makes sense to me. All I am saying is that IT WON'T HAPPEN (not yelling at you) if the compromise position that is reached does not address NCR's concerns. NCR wants a two day double, and can run one smoothly. You can debate whether it is a good idea or not, but they are good at getting two races in on a weekend. VIR runs smoothly and one time.

So, back to the original proposal to start this thread -- if we have an optional Friday morning practice, and Friday afternoon qual, all for the same price as those just running two days, do we have something that while not perfect, actually works for everyone?

I think we do.
[/b]
i think we don't. it doesn't work. the optional friday does nothing to address the crux of the problem...not enough run groups causing several instances of 80-90+ car fields. vir did not run smoothly last year. sarrc may be good at running 300 car doubles in two days, but not 400 car doubles in two days.

on the worker issue, a good percent of the workers at past marrs/sarcc events are people from the dc region who came with us for the three day events.

gotta love the "IT WON"T HAPPEN" comment...sounds like "my way or the highway". not a lot of compromise or consideration there....sheesh. this was supposed to be a joint event, not a sarrc event that marrs folks are tolerated at. that is sure what it is sounding like. :(

on the bright side, if vir "WON'T HAPPEN" for marrs in 09, NJ motorsports park should be open. ahhh, fresh asphalt, a new facility and jersey in the spring time! :D

[JeffYoung]

I tried, I'm done.

To be clear, I don't speak for NCR. But I don't see any compromise on the WDCR side.

Marshall, I'll send you a pm in a minute. I'm not real happy about the below.

[erlrich]

Gentlemen - if I may borrow from a great old move "what we have here is a failure to commumicate". IMO until someone comes up with a solution that addresses both parties' primary concerns there will never be any agreement. For SARRC it is the desire to run a 2-day double - or at least a double that only requires 2 days of participation. For MARRS it appears to be (and I say appears because there doesn't seem to be 100% agreement) the desire to have run groups that are resonably sized - "reasonably" as yet to be defined, but I think it can be assumed that 80 - 90 cars does not meet the test. Just a guess, but I would think 60 car fields would probably be considered reasonable. I also get the feeling that some of the other issues voiced by the MARRS group would go away with the smaller groups.

So what to do? IMO there are three options that would meet both group's needs - 1, add two more groups to the schedule; 2, make the race a restriced regional, with the two traditionally lowest-subscribed groups being excluded; or 3, restrict entries to 60 per group.

Oh, and for those of you bashing the MARRS guys for their stance on this, it may (probably won't) help to know that they just had to address a similar issue before the '07 season for the races at Summit , and made some fairly major changes within that series to correct the overcrowding problems, including adding a 10th group, and restricting race lengths for undersubscribed groups. So this is not an issue reserved for the VIR race.

[jjjanos]

The VIR May double is a NC region/SARRC event that has been shared. I think if MARRS wants to participate they should do it as the host plans it. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know what MARRS would be open to turning their event upside down for the SARRC guys.[/b]

Well, I think you have your answer. As the host has offered it, we have said no thank you, but if you make these changes, we will participate. Frankly, if a hosting region wants the entries en masse that come with MARRS, it needs to meet the standards/requests that come with that large block of entries. If a hosting region wants to profit from MARRS, it needs to offer something that makes the SERIES - not individual drivers - want to go there.

According to mylaps.com, the event had 348 starters on Saturday. 173 of them were not running for SARRC points. That's 49.7% of the entrants. So something like one-half of the entrants aren't attending because it offers a chance to pick up two SARRC events. 107 of those 173 (31% of the total or 62% of the non-SARRC entrants) were drivers who competed in 50% of the MARRS events and I imagine a large percentage of them will not return without the series. So kiss off somewhere between 25 and 50% of the entry fees.

As for MARRS turning their event upside down for the SARRC guys - if we wanted SARRC to be part of the event and they put conditions on their participation, then yes because that would be the only way to have SARRC be part of the event.

More importantly, if the event had significant snafus as it was run, WDCR would have taken preemptive action to correct these rough spots or not renewed the invitation.


To be clear, I don't speak for NCR. But I don't see any compromise on the WDCR side.[/b]

Oh there's plenty of compromise. We've told you what the problem is - overcrowding for several groups. You're just unhappy that we recognize that your offer isn't a solution to the problem.

A little proactive action last year would have done prevented this problem. For example, SRFs had 37 cars in their group. Why weren't the slower IT classes moved into this group and a bona-fide split start used? On a 3.27 mile circuit, they'd have been practically alone. Why weren't the one or both of the B classes moved into Prod? Why wasn't the Miata field split started since there pretty much was no way to split them apart?

It's doubtful 7 race groups would work, but there were combinations that would have made it better.

[Cobrar05]

i think we don't. it doesn't work. the optional friday does nothing to address the crux of the problem...not enough run groups causing several instances of 80-90+ car fields. vir did not run smoothly last year. sarrc may be good at running 300 car doubles in two days, but not 400 car doubles in two days.

on the worker issue, a good percent of the workers at past marrs/sarcc events are people from the dc region who came with us for the three day events.

gotta love the "IT WON"T HAPPEN" comment...sounds like "my way or the highway". not a lot of compromise or consideration there....sheesh. this was supposed to be a joint event, not a sarrc event that marrs folks are tolerated at. that is sure what it is sounding like. :(

on the bright side, if vir "WON'T HAPPEN" for marrs in 09, NJ motorsports park should be open. ahhh, fresh asphalt, a new facility and jersey in the spring time! :D
[/b]

Dude,
You are kidding yourself if you think you are going to NJ and are not going to see huge turnout like at VIR. The population centers in that area combined with the thurst for a fresh road course is going to attract BIG numbers. VIR is in the middle of nowhere next to Thunder and Lightning there.

Really...give that some thought.

[grjones1]

I would ask my MARRS people to remember that NCR as the host region must be allowed to run things their way, and that NCR consider the problems MARRS had with 2007's event and do what you can within your parameters to adjust them.

Guys, if we can't work this out, a traditionally outstanding event (SARRC/MARRS) will go lost as a monument to the destructiveness of bullheadedness and lack of imagination. Run the damn thing as a single race event if necessary, but find a way.

How about:

Increase number of groups. Limit groups to 75 cars - that is not a "crowded condition" at VIR. Ask the pace car driver to remember he has many cars of differing speeds behind him and he needs to hold a slow pace to keep them together.

Use Friday as an optional practice day. No qualifying.
Saturday, run one 20-minute qualifying session for an 8-lap Saturday race (all groups).
Sunday run one 12-lap race gridded by finishing position from Saturday's race.

That should loosen up the schedule and make everybody happy.

[jjjanos]

How about:

Increase number of groups. Limit groups to 75 cars - that is not a "crowded condition" at VIR. Ask the pace car driver to remember he has many cars of differing speeds behind him and he needs to hold a slow pace to keep them together.

Use Friday as an optional practice day. No qualifying.
Saturday, run one 20-minute qualifying session for an 8-lap Saturday race (all groups).
Sunday run one 12-lap race gridded by finishing position from Saturday's race.

That should loosen up the schedule and make everybody happy.
[/b]

Works for me, but it's got to be done on an RE to RE basis.

[mlytle]

Dude,
You are kidding yourself if you think you are going to NJ and are not going to see huge turnout like at VIR. The population centers in that area combined with the thurst for a fresh road course is going to attract BIG numbers. VIR is in the middle of nowhere next to Thunder and Lightning there.

Really...give that some thought.
[/b]

not saying there won't be a big turnout..bring it on! but if you increase the number of run groups and make it a three day double, it all works fine. maybe wdcr will be the organizer so the 3-day event length won't catch so much crap.

i did give it some thought...did you?

[spnkzss]

Use Friday as an optional practice day. No qualifying.
Saturday, run one 20-minute qualifying session for an 8-lap Saturday race (all groups).
Sunday run one 12-lap race gridded by finishing position from Saturday's race.

That should loosen up the schedule and make everybody happy.
[/b]


That sounds like a single race weekend to me ;)

While I agree it works, the question then comes is that worth $375? WDCR Summit Point single race weekends were ~$220. Go with that format for less then $300 and you might be able to work something out.

[JeffYoung]

Don't know for sure, but doubt that will work due to economics. VIR is not cheap; as STeve E. points out we have to run more than one race to collect enough fees to make it work economically. A single sprint race for the entire weekend, probably won't/can't cut it fees wise.

[spnkzss]

Don't know for sure, but doubt that will work due to economics. VIR is not cheap; as STeve E. points out we have to run more than one race to collect enough fees to make it work economically. A single sprint race for the entire weekend, probably won't/can't cut it fees wise.
[/b]

If you had 348 entries @ $375 that equals $130,500
Without MARRS you have 175 @ $375 equals $65,625
With MARRS single weekend you have 348 @ $300 equals $104,400

[JeffYoung]

The $30k difference may bee enough to kill the deal.

I think (again, I don't speak for them) NCR is confident enough that a double weekend will attract enough drivers to pay the bill, regardless of whether MARRS is involved or not. We had a huge turnout in October for a single SARRC/Double ECR/CCPS -- yes, we ran that many races in two days - and I suspect the same will be true in May.

VIR is an attractive place to run. It draws folks from all over and, honestly, I suspect a lot of MARRS guys will come anyway regardless of whether the MARRS series pays points for the race or not.

[spnkzss]

The $30k difference may bee enough to kill the deal.

I think (again, I don't speak for them) NCR is confident enough that a double weekend will attract enough drivers to pay the bill, regardless of whether MARRS is involved or not. We had a huge turnout in October for a single SARRC/Double ECR/CCPS -- yes, we ran that many races in two days - and I suspect the same will be true in May.

VIR is an attractive place to run. It draws folks from all over and, honestly, I suspect a lot of MARRS guys will come anyway regardless of whether the MARRS series pays points for the race or not.
[/b]

I guess '08 will tell.

Maybe then we need to look at the groupings and change they way cars are grouped together if we stay with a 2 day dbl.

[JeffYoung]

Spanky, here's the race grouping I have been kicking around with one of your guys (GRJones?). I think the only folks with real concerns, but legitimate ones, about grouping were the ITC and B guys. Would this help?

Group 1 -- SM
Group 2 -- IT7/SpecRX7/B/C/Slow production cars
Group 3 - R/S/A/BP/DP/AS/Fast production cars (E Prod?)
Group 4 -- SRF and Sports Racers
Group 5 -- Formula Continental/Atlantic/Mazda/SCCA/"Fast Formula cars"
Group 6 -- Formula Vee/Ford/500 "Slow" formula cars.
Group 7 -- Ground pounders

Again, I don't speak for NCR and don't know if this is something they would do or not. But I think it gets you guys a run group of cars that all sort of make speed the same way?

[spnkzss]

Spanky, here's the race grouping I have been kicking around with one of your guys (GRJones?). I think the only folks with real concerns, but legitimate ones, about grouping were the ITC and B guys. Would this help?

Group 1 -- SM
Group 2 -- IT7/SpecRX7/B/C/Slow production cars
Group 3 - R/S/A/BP/DP/AS/Fast production cars (E Prod?)
Group 4 -- SRF and Sports Racers
Group 5 -- Formula Continental/Atlantic/Mazda/SCCA/"Fast Formula cars"
Group 6 -- Formula Vee/Ford/500 "Slow" formula cars.
Group 7 -- Ground pounders

Again, I don't speak for NCR and don't know if this is something they would do or not. But I think it gets you guys a run group of cars that all sort of make speed the same way?
[/b]

I'd want to take a look at specific turn outs, but taking an immediate look E Prod won't want to run with IT anything due to bumpers :) AS with Ground Pounders, and I know this has been beaten to death, but my opinion is to move ITR away from S and A.

Now, I am just a racer in the WDCR. I am not a rep, and am between classes right now. TIFWIW. (Had to add my own disclosure:) )

WHat about an 8th or 9th run group if we do the dbl in single format? I think the concensus would be to keep the fields under or around 75 cars.

[JeffYoung]

I'm open to anything that works, so long as it give us two races in two days, with an optional third.

A few thoughts:

1. EP ran with S and A this year. Some liked it, some didn't. I think honestly the S guys liked it the least - too much oil everywhere! But it worked.

2. AS runs with S in the Midwest, probably could run with us here (SPU does sometimes, and it works out fine). But if they fit better in a smaller ground pounder group that's fine too.

3. I do think there will be resistance to 8/9 groups do to length of the race day.

What causes this mess is SM/SSM. They have to have their own (large) group which they don't seem to mind, and that results in their beign a catch all IT/Prod class that is too big.

[Cobrar05]

Why don't we just require everyone to drive a miata?

[spnkzss]

What causes this mess is SM/SSM. They have to have their own (large) group which they don't seem to mind, and that results in their beign a catch all IT/Prod class that is too big.
[/b]

That is because SM/SSM drivers drive those cars because they like to be over crowded with lots of metal :) LOL

[Ron Earp]

AS with Ground Pounders, and I know this has been beaten to death, but my opinion is to move ITR away from S and A.
[/b]

R doesn't need to be away from A and S. The pointy end of the S grid is faster, or equal to, the ITR cars that have run thus far. I'm sure this will change as the R cars develop, but right now there is overlap and they can run well together.

R

[spnkzss]

R doesn't need to be away from A and S. The pointy end of the S grid is faster, or equal to, the ITR cars that have run thus far. I'm sure this will change as the R cars develop, but right now there is overlap and they can run well together.

R
[/b]


Depends on region. But I'm not trying to make this an ITR debate.

[JeffYoung]

Spanky, it's fine. Appreciate you and GRJones actually talking about solutions rather than highlighting the real problem which is killing SARRC/MARRS, and that is a power struggle over "control" of the race scheduling.

I've sent the above groupings and schedule to my RE. I've indicated that there is some driver -- but not leadership -- support within MARRS for the same. Maybe you guys can do that same and we can get the powers that be talking?

Thanks a bunch. The efforts to actually work on fixing this are much appreciated.

[mlytle]

Why don't we just require everyone to drive a miata?
[/b]


:lol: :lol:
good idea!

itr/s (not ita) ran with all the prod cars last year at vir. the ep guys were ok to run with, some of the other prod classes...not very good. scary slow and lots of oil...

marrs ran itr/s with as in 06...it was not pretty at all. we moved away from that combo in 07 due to the problems.

the fast itr cars at vir appear to be a couple sec's faster a lap than the its cars (based on the sarrc/marrs results for 07, group 7 and the october race). that actually makes a nice little gap between the classes so they don't interfere. itr/s/a is a good grouping, especially at a long track like vir.

[seckerich]

One of the big problems this year was the unwillingness to fix the unbalanced groups correctly. In the past ITS and ITA have run with spec racers with very few problems. That group was very small and did not deserve to run alone. If we were willing to accept the region changing groups around as necessary the week before the event we could solve the overcrowding. In the past the race chair would only move groups to a later session. Bad policy with the numbers this race draws. Everyone needs to give a little bit.

[mlytle]

or lump the spec racers in with the open wheel cars up front. or put all the open wheel cars together. there seems to be a lot of resistance to running metal body it cars with plastic cars in some regions. there were 39 spec racers, 19 small open wheel and 13 wing n things. three separate run groups. what a waste of track last year. consolidate down to at most two groups for these folks and it help some.

or as someone suggested...run it as a restricted regional...closed wheel only. that is a very tough sell though.

[JeffYoung]

Hmmm...no MARRS races at the new New Jersey track in 2008.....

[Gregg]

Hmmm...no MARRS races at the new New Jersey track in 2008.....
[/b]
Very perceptive, Jeff. So is there some point you're trying to make. We're not going to BeaverRun, the Glen, Pocono, or any of the many tracks we've run at before either. While it was discussed, nobody wanted to schedule dates in the late summer/fall of '07 w/ NNJR for a track that was not open yet and possibly might not be open for a scheduled '08 date. Seems pretty basic to me. While they are paving now, they had barely broken ground when we started discussing schedules. You can bet that once it's operational the MARRS series will look very closely at partnering for an event at Thunderbolt for '09.

[JeffYoung]

Gregg, I had hoped, and still hope, that you are one of the guys interested in working with NCR on options to save what in my view, despite the crowding issues, was a great eent. My comment and point above was that the "I'm packing up my toys and heading to NJ" argument from Marshall if MARRS didn't have control over SARRC/MARRS scheduling (which is the way I read his posts; maybe I'm wrong) wasn't a solution at all. The New Jersey track looks to be just as crowded with the same issues we all face at VIR.

So instead of one side or the other demanded this or demanding that, I ask again: is their a compromise that satisfies both concerns? Revised run groups and 2 day/3rd day optional schedule? Something other than it has to be a 3 days or it has to be single.

If not, well, then I don't know what to do other than to let what was once, I bleieve, one of if not the largest amateur racing events in the country pass into oblivion.

[Ron Earp]

or as someone suggested...run it as a restricted regional...closed wheel only. that is a very tough sell though.
[/b]

Is it?

Money talks. How many open wheel racers are there? I don't know the numbers and have not looked at them yet. But if two groups of say 35 cars can use up 1/4 of the track time (2 run groups out of 8 run groups) in an event of 350 cars then that is not a good thing. 10% of the cars use 25% of the time. Bad.

Clearly I have not looked at the numbers but if what I wrote above is anywhere close to the truth then it simply isn't fair to the majority.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

These are the revised run groups that I discussed with a non-leadership MARRS member, and have sent to Mark Senior, the outgoing VIR RE:

Group 1 -- SM
Group 2 -- IT7/SpecRX7/B/C/Slow production cars
Group 3 - R/S/A/BP/DP/AS/Fast production cars (E Prod?)
Group 4 -- SRF and Sports Racers
Group 5 -- Formula Continental/Atlantic/Mazda/SCCA/"Fast Formula cars"
Group 6 -- Formula Vee/Ford/500 "Slow" formula cars.
Group 7 -- Ground pounders

I roughed out the numbers based on last year's attendance and Group 2 gets down to a more manageable number. 3 is larger but I think the speed differential there is less, and it works. It's possible that 5 & 6 could be ocombined as well, to make room for dividing up the sedan classes even more.

I am hoping that this addresses some of the MARRS concerns on grouping.

[seckerich]

:018: Not going to happen if you want a SARRC sanction. All classes or no points. Combine groups but all must run.

Is it?

Money talks. How many open wheel racers are there? I don't know the numbers and have not looked at them yet. But if two groups of say 35 cars can use up 1/4 of the track time (2 run groups out of 8 run groups) in an event of 350 cars then that is not a good thing. 10% of the cars use 25% of the time. Bad.

Clearly I have not looked at the numbers but if what I wrote above is anywhere close to the truth then it simply isn't fair to the majority.

Ron
[/b]

[Ron Earp]

:018: Not going to happen if you want a SARRC sanction. All classes or no points. Combine groups but all must run.
[/b]

Well, I'm not afraid of exposing my ignorance. I have to admit, that front part of the GCR that has a lot of information about running the races, I uhhhh, sort of skipped over for the most part.

Would be nice to see them combine the run groups though.

And it'd be extra nice to see them put the big groups first. It seemed illogical to me to make 350 guys stand around and watch the open wheels run in the first couple of groups of the day while the majority of racers, the closed wheel guys, waited to run later.

Seems more logical to make the few stand around and watch the many.

Jeff if the ground pounders outnumber the open wheels groups I'd suggest moving them up. On the other hand, maybe they are smaller and you've already logically grouped them.

R

[Gregg]

So instead of one side or the other demanded this or demanding that, I ask again: is their a compromise that satisfies both concerns? Revised run groups and 2 day/3rd day optional schedule? Something other than it has to be a 3 days or it has to be single.
[/b]
And I thought you were just behind on the postings here. Take a look at post #36. I think youl'll see a recommendation for a 2-day event that someone else here posted as their own a few days later (grjones, post 49). I don't see anybody demanding anything here. I see you insulting those of us who represent the DC Region drivers as well as those who represent the DC Region's volunteers. Perhaps you should go back and read Marshall's posts 44 (which was a response to your post 33 about you and NCR drawing lines in the sand as well) as well as 67.

BTW--If we were to race the format that I suggested back on page #2, I personally wouldn't pay more than $250 for the honor since I'm getting the same amount of track time as a single event. As a "non-leaderhip" member of NCR you might want to consider the economics and what the NCR leadership has in mind vis a vis revenue generation (see your post 55). You can be very assured that when DC Region folks talk about quality of track time, the cost contributes to that perceived quality.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not going to get into a spat with you about who insulted who first, or even who I allegedly insulted. Not worth it and not productive. You are wrong and I am done with that.

Back to the issue at hand. I saw your post 36 and the other ideas that essentially make this a single event with the resulting entry fee. At VIR, I doubt the economics of that would work, and both Steve E. and I posted that above. VIR is EXPENSIVE, and will continue to get more expensive as demand for it increases.

But let me look at your schedule and see if I can hash out something that I think might work with NCR.

[Ron Earp]

What about restricting the entries? A few people have brought it up, every time they have the comment has been ignored.

What about going green at 730am on the dot, instead of the typical "green at 815 that turns into 830"? This would add more time to the event and possibly help out with scheduling.

Could lunch/quiet hour be brought down to 30 mins? A worker change over could happen in this amount of time.

[Gregg]

You are wrong and I am done with that.[/b]
Uh huh. If that makes you feel better about yourself....


VIR is EXPENSIVE, and will continue to get more expensive as demand for it increases.[/b]
So that begs the question, "How expensive is it." No offense, but your saying it is "EXPENSIVE" doesn't really tell me much. Is the dollars lost by the majority of MARRS/WDCR drivers skipping the event if you stay w/ the status quo going to be less than if you go back to a 3-day event some SARRC drivers or go to a 2-day modified single event and charge less?

BTW, Here's that tentative DC Region schedule for you to peruse:

April 5-6L Spring Drivers School
April 26-27: MARRS 1
May 17-18: National
May 30-31: MARRS 2
June 13-14: 12 Hour
June 28-29: MARRS 3
July 12-13: MARRS 4 & 5 (Nelson Ledges)
Aug. 2-3: MARRS 6
Aug. 30 & Sept 1: Labor Day MARRS 7 & 8
Sept. 27-28: MARRS 9
Oct. 25-26: Fall Drivers School

Note that the Mother's Day event is one week before the proposed date for the Summit National. Our volunteers have been very concerned about the front-loading of the WDCR schedule in the past. As you know, a very large contingent of WDCR volunteers man corners at the Mother's Day event each year so their concerns would need to be considered as well.



What about restricting the entries? A few people have brought it up, every time they have the comment has been ignored.[/b]
When some keep bringing up how "EXPENSIVE" the track is, I doubt some organizers would think that's a option. The regions are "not for profit," but they always try to make a profit. ;) We would also then have to consider how you restrict the entries? Do you restrict the total, per class, per run group, per SARRC or MARRS, etc. Not only a difficult decision but one that I certainly wouldn't want to make.


What about going green at 730am on the dot, instead of the typical "green at 815 that turns into 830"? This would add more time to the event and possibly help out with scheduling.

Could lunch/quiet hour be brought down to 30 mins? A worker change over could happen in this amount of time.[/b]
As I think has been mentioned, the DC Region did quite a bit of jiggering with our race day schedule, which required lots of compromise from our volunteers in order to squeeze in another group run group during the race weekends we host. This was done to alleviate over-crowding for closed-wheel groups while not disenfranchising some difficult-to-group classes. That includes thinking outside the box as far as start times and cleanup schedules. Given the amount of slop in the schedule at these events in past years this should be investigated. Although I don't think the Sunday church goers are going to go along w/ a change in quiet
hours, it should still be possible to manage some compression. Your suggestions would be a good start to allowing to the time to add another run group, thus lowering total cars per group and allowing you to group compatible cars and not just throwing together just what makes the numbers work.

[mlytle]

Gregg, I had hoped, and still hope, that you are one of the guys interested in working with NCR on options to save what in my view, despite the crowding issues, was a great eent. My comment and point above was that the "I'm packing up my toys and heading to NJ" argument from Marshall if MARRS didn't have control over SARRC/MARRS scheduling (which is the way I read his posts; maybe I'm wrong) wasn't a solution at all. The New Jersey track looks to be just as crowded with the same issues we all face at VIR.

So instead of one side or the other demanded this or demanding that, I ask again: is their a compromise that satisfies both concerns? Revised run groups and 2 day/3rd day optional schedule? Something other than it has to be a 3 days or it has to be single.

If not, well, then I don't know what to do other than to let what was once, I bleieve, one of if not the largest amateur racing events in the country pass into oblivion.
[/b]

so you have obviously not been reading my posts enough to understand anything. i clearly said 2009, not 2008, when refering to NJ motorsports park. i have not said MARRS must control the sked. i have always said it should be a JOINT event, not a complete NCR control deal.

how can the NJ tracks, which aren't even open yet, look to be as crowded as this event at vir? have you looked at the proposed design of the NJ motorsports park? do you actually read what you write? it is no wonder you turn off some positive discussion.

i agree though, would be a shame to let what was a great event pass into oblivion. it was big and fun as a three day event, it was just big as a two day event.

i also agree with you that a single race event isn't a good idea. financially a problem, and not worth the tow.

key factor to make a two day event work is to make better use of the track time. 13 car run groups like there were last year can't happen, neither can 90 car groups.

another key factor is quality racing. just lumping classes together to make the numbers right can't be the only consideration. classes like ITS/R and AS don't play well together.

and i still have to ask why a three day event is so bad to NCR. it was done that way with great success for years. is it just a few drivers that won't commit the extra day? IF, repeat, IF that was the only way to make the run groups reasonable, how many SARRC racers would bail out? fewer than the whole MARRS series dropping out? just trying to scope the problem.

[JeffYoung]

Alright, I'm willing to put the shit slinging aside, which I am as guilty of as anyone. In both posts above I see a desire to try and save SARRC/MARRS. Let me think about this and see if there is some way I can cobble together something that works from all of the above.

I'll be in touch tomorrow.

[grjones1]

"And I thought you were just behind on the postings here. Take a look at post #36. I think youl'll see a recommendation for a 2-day event that someone else here posted as their own a few days later (grjones, post 49). I don't see anybody demanding anything here. I see you insulting those of us who represent the DC Region drivers as well as those who represent the DC Region's volunteers. Perhaps you should go back and read Marshall's posts 44 (which was a response to your post 33 about you and NCR drawing lines in the sand as well) as well as 67. ..." Ginsberg

I've been away and I'd like to see the "shit-slinging" stopped also, but Ginsberg for someone who'd like to see the insults stop you don't appear to want to stop yourself. Forgive me if my 2-day schedule suggestion (post #49) repeated your 2-day suggestion (post #36). I realy didn't intend to steal your thunder or "post it as my own." Who the hell cares whose idea it is if its an idea that works? And "how about" doesn't suggest I was treating the idea as my original. Maybe it meant "consider this idea again."

As a matter of fact WDCR used to run that kind of schedule decades ago probably before you were racing so before either of us take credit for it let's remember that.

Man if you can't find more ways to piss somebody off I don't know who can. If your tact was the one taken when this thing was trying to be worked out for 2008, I can understand why we're not going back next year. And remember you represent the ITA people not all the DC drivers - Express your concerns with civility when talking to other region people or speak as an individual and not as a DC rep.

Grouping is a problem everywhere now that participation numbers are up and the problems are never resolved to everyone's complete satisfaction. But we race; we don't find a way not to race because of some overwrought egos.

Now let's stop insulting each other and find a way to restore the SARRC/MARRS event.

G. Robert Jones
Concerned Individual DC Driver
None of the opinions expressed here represent WDCR or its members other than my own

[Gregg]

As a matter of fact WDCR used to run that kind of schedule decades ago probably before you were racing so before either of us take credit for it let's remember that. Man if you can't find more ways to piss somebody off I don't know who can.
[/b]
http://www.goenglish.com/GoEnglish_com_ThePotCallingTheKettleBlack.gif

Hopefully everyone will excuse me for just a moment, while I try to perform an intervention of sorts:

G. Robert, perhaps you should have taken Mr. Parker's recent suggestions to you to heart, but since you haven't....

I don't really need a lesson in civility from such a prominent contributor to this thread (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=475) or this thread (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=482) and I think you'll find many people who have no problems with my civility here, in the paddock, or at Competition Committee meetings. Nor will you find any besides yourself who question my dedication to ITA drivers, or our volunteers, the MARRS series as a whole, or the DC Region. As an adult (and at almost 40 and with a demeanor to match I think I can call myself that), I, and many others here, do not appreciate being spoken to as if we are small children. Perhaps the diplomat (not bureaucrat) in me has shown me the restraint from belittling you in a public forum as you have done to so many others, and you, after so many years should know that you reap what you sow. Diplomacy helps to further a dialog. Your M.O. here has simply to insult and embarrass. Which do you think is a more effective tool for conflict and problem resolution?

While, having met Jeff at a Summit school and having read his many well thought out posts here over the years, I respect his opinions even though I may not agree with them all, I can't say the same of you or yours. While you are constantly alerting us to how much longer you've been racing than the rest of us, I would have hoped that you'd have spent some of that time learning tact. You'll find that people respect not only your opinions, but YOU when you show some. As I know was explained to you, it is much more difficult to portray emotion when posting online. And to take arrow out of your quiver, perhaps you don't mean to come across as a nasty, arrogant, pompous, crackpot prick to so many people here so often....

But you do.

I can guarantee you that however many "brownie points" you think you've earned or how much respect you think you are owed due to your age, sheer number of years in the paddock, or how low your membership number is, none of that matters one iota if you can't be civil and treat people with respect. So any time you try to get a point across, whether it be here or in the paddock, whether it be to your driver's rep, or your fellow competitors, or your R.E., remember that YOU really hurt your chances of getting a fair shake by your choice of words and your venom.

TTFWIW

Now where were we? Oh yes...


In both posts above I see a desire to try and save SARRC/MARRS. Let me think about this and see if there is some way I can cobble together something that works from all of the above.
[/b]
Sounds good, Jeff. As discussed, finding a resolution, whether it be for '08 (or most likely '09 due to the Summit National scheduling) requires compromise on both sides. I think Ron may be moving us in the right direction with the schedule modification that may give some us some more flexibility to construct more compatible, less crowded groupings.

[grjones1]

Well gee, Greg, somehow I don't believe saying someone "sounds like a... bureaucrat" equates to calling someone "a nasty, arrogant, pompous, crackpot prick " or that the use of cartoons is not necessarily suggestive of the behavior of "small children" but again you demonstrate that what may be disallowed for others is not necessarily prohibited for your own behavior. (Why must we always have to put up with a spoiled, privileged class?)

My "arrows come out of the quiver" when someone attacks me, not before. Every "attack" I am guilty of has been in answer to insults aimed at me. Read all of the threads you are so fond of dredging up from 4 years ago and you will see that is indeed the case. If showing "tact" is what you have been doing, you are the one needing a revisit to charm school.

You say I like reminding you of how long I 've been racing - believe it or not at my age, one does not enjoy reminding anyone how long he's been doing anything (again you lack insight). I recorded that only because it was suggested that I somehow had not volunteered enough as part of someone's ad hominem retort (again read the thread). And you seemed so proud of your having come up with a workable 2-day schedule you had to quote and number where you had said it first. I was compelled to point out that it was not a new idea- someone had not only already come up with it, but it had been worked successfully 20 years ago (something you might not know about).

I'll close out of this with these thoughts: If my posts have in any way helped restore the SARRC/MARRS event, I don't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks of my "tact." If your kind of leadership is however indicative of what we can expect from our new representatives, SARRC/MARRS event or not maybe its time for me to find somewhere else to spend my expendable income. I'll leave it to you self-righteous, self-aggrandizing hypocrites to mess it up. Lord knows there are enough nasty, arrogant, pompous, crackpot pricks without me to make sure a good thing goes down the tubes.

I'll be outside if you have anything else to say, I've had a few drinks so it'll be a fair fight. (bad paraphrase from The Caine Mutiny, but I'm sure even you get the drift.)

My sincere apologies to the rest of you. I promise I won't submit you to this kind of crap again, regardless of the slander that may appear. Good Racing to you and Merry Christmas!

[Cobrar05]

another key factor is quality racing. just lumping classes together to make the numbers right can't be the only consideration. classes like ITS/R and AS don't play well together.
[/b]

AS and GT1 together is better?

[erlrich]

AS and GT1 together is better? Just because that's where they run in many other regions, including every year in recent history at the SARRC/MARRS race, doesn't mean we shouldn't now put them in a class where they're faster down the straights and then hold up everyone in the corners. [/b] There, finished that for you.

[JeffYoung]

Earl, to expand on that as I am trying to think what classes go best in a group in order to come up with groups that work for an extremely crowded event like SARRC/MARRS, let's hear what people think about HOW we should set up run groups.

The unspoken kickers here are, of course, the formula guys want nothing to do with running against even semi-closed wheel like Sports Racers and SRF. The second is, no one wants to be the slowest class in a group.

My initial thoughts:

1. I've always thought the SARRC grouping of S/A/7/Spec 7/R works great. Probably a good sized group for SARRC/MARRS as well, right? 6070 cars?

2. SM and SSM.

3. Fast Production cars (EP), DP, BP, AS, ITO, ITE?

4. Ground Pounders, GT1, 2, T1, T2

5. B/C/H Prod/G Prod

6. Sports racers inlcuding SRF

7. Open wheel?

A variation of what I proposed above, but let's see if we can focus on which groups run best together.

3.

[Cobrar05]

There, finished that for you.
[/b]

Faster on the straights and not as fast in the corners. Thats just racing.

[85itccivic]

As happens all too often threads that start out meaning well degrade into name calling and pissing matches . I applaud Mr Young and Mr Jones for making good faith efforts to save an event they obviously care about . I have not run the S/M challenge at VIR because it has never fit my life schedule but most of my team cars have been there . They like the event . Yes, it has some issues and I hope that our respective regions take an honest look at what has been talked about to keep the event alive. As for everyone else adding there two cents please put your dicks away and dry off your shoes.

Roger Troxell
Casa de Amigos Racing
05,06,07 Marrs ITC champions

[mlytle]

Faster on the straights and not as fast in the corners. Thats just racing.
[/b]

unless you are in a class that is fast in the corners and less fast on the straights, then the "not as fast in the corner" crowd gets really, really annoying.

it isn't just racing, the goal is to find a way to group cars that evens out the numbers while maintaining quality racing, not just get track time. cars that "race" the same style should be grouped together. AS cars don't work well with IT cars. this is particularly true with ITS and ITR, who run similar lap times as the AS crowd, but get the time in very different places. that is not dissing either class in any way, it is just the nature of the cars.

[mlytle]

Earl, to expand on that as I am trying to think what classes go best in a group in order to come up with groups that work for an extremely crowded event like SARRC/MARRS, let's hear what people think about HOW we should set up run groups.

The unspoken kickers here are, of course, the formula guys want nothing to do with running against even semi-closed wheel like Sports Racers and SRF. The second is, no one wants to be the slowest class in a group.

My initial thoughts:

1. I've always thought the SARRC grouping of S/A/7/Spec 7/R works great. Probably a good sized group for SARRC/MARRS as well, right? 6070 cars?

2. SM and SSM.

3. Fast Production cars (EP), DP, BP, AS, ITO, ITE?

4. Ground Pounders, GT1, 2, T1, T2

5. B/C/H Prod/G Prod

6. Sports racers inlcuding SRF

7. Open wheel?

A variation of what I proposed above, but let's see if we can focus on which groups run best together.

3.
[/b]
would group 5 be big enough? would spec7 maybe fit in that group?

would love to see all the open wheel together. there just are not enough of them to justify separate groups. there will be huge push back on it from the open wheel drivers though due to a perceived issue with the closing rates between FC's and FV's.

i suspect we may hear from the miata crowd about splitting sm and ssm into two groups. anyone want to run with them? ;)

[JeffYoung]

So do AS cars work best with the Ground Pounders? They run that way at CMP and Roebling. Plus, there just aren't that many of them.

Do we move them there, out of the fast production car group? Although that group is now shrinking....fewer and fewer EP cars out there, haven't seen many BP/DP cars, and O/E cars are few and far between as well.

AS cars can do ok in the corners, just depends on how they are driven. At a track like VIR, or from what little I have seen of Summit, I agree they probably don't work though, while at Roebling, which is more flowing and more conducive to their live axles, they might.

The goal of all of this is to reduce the size of what was once A/B/C/7/Spec 7/Slow Prod cars. That was the group that I think was the most problematic. If we can get six groups, with a smaller group of the above, then we probably have a workable 3 day optional schedule, with a qual session on Saturday morning. Remember, this event is in May and we can run a later race schedule since we are just past daylight's savings time.

Gregg, to try and answer two of your questions, I admit that I doubt we probably actually lose very few SARRC drivers if we go to 3 days. You certainly wouldn't lose me. But, bear with me here -- I think as a practical matter NCR/SARRC just won't go to a 3 day "mandatory" schedule (meaning you have to qualify on Friday) because they are the host region and have decided they don't want that. I know that is not what you guys want to hear, but I have the feeling -- just a feeling -- that it just "is."

On the lower fee/one race idea, I can't remember the VIR per day rental but it is astronomical. Our other "single" race weekends in March and October have to run a Carolina Cup or one or two ECRs to make them work financially. Since those series wouldn't, understandably, appeal to MARRS drivers, I think we are locked in (again I don't have the numbers to prove it, just the above observation) to a double in order to charge a fee that makes the weekend viable.

So, back to the grouping and schedule:

1. S/A/SRX7/IT7, GTL/SPU

2. SM and SSM.

3. Fast Production cars (EP), DP, BP, AS, ITO, ITE, GT1/GT2, T1, T2, SPO

4. B/C/H Prod/G Prod

5. Sports racers inlcuding SRF

6. Open wheel?

The "unhappy guys" I see here are the ground pounders and the SRF guys and open wheelers. Other than the SRF guys, honestly, these are smaller run groups. So, and I mean this from a totally practical standpoint, we stand to piss off fewer people with this setup than any other I can devise.

Note that the "problem" group -- B/C/H Prod and G Prod is now made up of momentum cars that make time the same way, and the group size is reduced.

We then run the schedule as follows:

Friday morning: 20/30 minute practice sessions for all groups

Friday afternoon: 30 minute qualifying for Saturday race. OPTIONAL.

Saturday morning: 20 minute qualifying for each of the 6 groups. Qual time is used for both Saturday and Sunday races. If you plot this out, you get the following:

8:15 Green track

8:15 - 8:35 -- Grp 1 Q
8:45 - 9:05 -- Grp 2
9:15 - 9:35 -- Grp 3
9:45 - 10:05 -- Grp 4
10:15 - 10:35 - Grp 5
10:45 - 11:05 - Grp 6
11:05 - 11:20 worker break
11:25 - 12:00 Grp 1 race.

Lunch

1:15-1:45 Grp 2
2:00-2:30 Grp 3
2:45- 3:15 Grp 4
3:30 - 4 Grp 5
4:15 - 4:45 - Grp 6

Sunday -- races only, MARRS guys get a head start on towing home.

What do you guys think? Let's tweak it and then submit it with as many SARRC driver and MARRS driver names as we can get on it to our respective REs.

[seckerich]

Just tossing this out. How about making all sessions count for qualifing like the SIC. Many more chances to get a good time than a one shot deal.

[Ron Earp]

Steve's idea seems like a good one.

And, put the track green 30 mins earlier. Call to grid for group one at 735 or so, run them at 745am.

It won't kill anyone and the extra time will be much appreciated throughout the day with tows, offs, and other mishaps.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, good idea.

They won't start the race earlier, for a reason.

That would require the workers to be there at 6:30. Volunteers, folks who don't have to be there. Whatever we do, we can't make it harder on them.

[Cobrar05]

I am sure that when you are quick in the corners and you are stuck behind someone faster on the straight, its annoying. Being on the race track with cars running 50mph faster on the straights is scary. They close so fast that you can miss them in your mirror even when you are looking in the mirror more than out the windshield.

I should show you the video of Tony Ave going by me at the entrance of the climbing esses at VIR. I saw him coming and lifted to give him the corner and he was gone. Later he passed me turning into the roller coaster. I didn't see him then, though. I was looking but missed him in the mirrors because of the up and down tilting of the race track through that back section. I saw a flash of yellow to my right at turn in. That was all the kept me from hitting him.

Annoying....Scary.....both are no fun. I would take annoying. But that's just me.

[mlytle]

I am sure that when you are quick in the corners and you are stuck behind someone faster on the straight, its annoying. Being on the race track with cars running 50mph faster on the straights is scary. They close so fast that you can miss them in your mirror even when you are looking in the mirror more than out the windshield.

I should show you the video of Tony Ave going by me at the entrance of the climbing esses at VIR. I saw him coming and lifted to give him the corner and he was gone. Later he passed me turning into the roller coaster. I didn't see him then, though. I was looking but missed him in the mirrors because of the up and down tilting of the race track through that back section. I saw a flash of yellow to my right at turn in. That was all the kept me from hitting him.

Annoying....Scary.....both are no fun. I would take annoying. But that's just me.
[/b]

BTDT..also have the video...:) . ITS ran with the big bore and AS crowd two years ago in MARRS. i suspect the closing rate between an ITS car and a GT1 is a bit more. at least when running with a really fast class, they are gone in a flash and do not interfere with your race. you just have to pay attention to the little specs in the mirrors. with the long straights of vir, they have plenty of open space to go by. not a big deal really.

Jeff - i suspect you meant to put ITR in with S/A? and if small prod is now a small momentum group...add srx7?

[JeffYoung]

Yes. Although, Earl in the spreadsheet I reference below moved B to Group 1 and SR7 and IT7 to Group 4. While the speeds might be a bit off, I think the numbers work. Other than SM/SSM, car groups are all in the 50-60 range.

I intend to submit a written proposal and spreadsheet with the above schedule and groupings to our RE later this week, signed by as many SARRC and MARRS drivers as I can get. Let me know if you want to see it and sign it. Gregg or Earl, can you guys take the lead on the MARRS side?

Thanks.

Jeff

[erlrich]

While the speeds might be a bit off, I think the numbers work. Other than SM/SSM, car groups are all in the 50-60 range.[/b]Maybe surprisingly, IT7, SRX7, and ITB were all within a second of each other this year, so I don't see speeds being a big problem. Now open wheel...maybe another story. Also it should be noted that the group sizes mentioned above are based on '07 numbers.

I intend to submit a written proposal and spreadsheet with the above schedule and groupings to our RE later this week, signed by as many SARRC and MARRS drivers as I can get. Let me know if you want to see it and sign it. Gregg or Earl, can you guys take the lead on the MARRS side? [/b] I would think Gregg, Marshall, and Charlie could probably take it to the comp comittee, and then let the reps get it out to the drivers?

[Gregg]

Sure, I'm happy to present but I would strongly suggest that some of those drivers lending support to your proposal come from some non-IT folk, especially those groups of "unhappy guys." I'm not so worried about the SRF / SR group as I am the all-inclusive formula car group. To expand on what Marshall alluded to a few posts ago, the driving force behind the MARRS series adding another run group last year (and all the required machinations to make it work) was that the smaller formula cars (ie. FV and F500) did not feel that driving w/ the bigger cars made for safe racing--a viewpoint that the WDCR stewards shared--with GCR 3.5.2.C used to make the point. Although a relatively small contingent (approx. 15 cars in '07), it could cause a disproportionate share of pain. I see little issue with it but would hate to see what happens when an FA comes barreling down up the Esses only to encounter a four- or five-car train of FV's going into South Bend. It wouldn't be pretty.

Just something to think about it.

[JeffYoung]

Understood. We considered it and our thinking was this:

1. Those are the smallest run groups, so the grouping creates the "least" amount of pain.

2. Also, if the open wheel guys "boycott" as a result, lesser chance of affecting overall numbers.

More than happy to run this by open wheelers, just don't know any. Thoughts? Any ideas?

[erlrich]

More than happy to run this by open wheelers, just don't know any. Thoughts? Any ideas? [/b] Well, the past two years the fast formula cars ran with the sports racers, so that is certainly an option. Were there any complaints from those drivers? And even then there were some pretty fast cars running with the Vees; F5s, FFs, CFs, all capable of sub-2:10s while the Vees are running in the 2:23s.

[Gregg]

Well, the past two years the fast formula cars ran with the sports racers, so that is certainly an option. Were there any complaints from those drivers? And even then there were some pretty fast cars running with the Vees; F5s, FFs, CFs, all capable of sub-2:10s while the Vees are running in the 2:23s.
[/b]
Not uncommon as the FF's and CF's don't have wings. They're faster, just not FASTER



Understood. We considered it and our thinking was this:

1. Those are the smallest run groups, so the grouping creates the "least" amount of pain.

2. Also, if the open wheel guys "boycott" as a result, lesser chance of affecting overall numbers.

More than happy to run this by open wheelers, just don't know any. Thoughts? Any ideas?[/b]
Given past experience, I can say with all certainty that #1 is false :bash_1_: while #2 is definitey true. I think we should be looking at contingencies to avoid a boycot (isn't what this thread was about anyhow?). I'd definitely start with the MARRS FV/F500 rep, Bob Tupper. I never like posting contact info in an open forum, but you can find his email and phone here:

http://wdcr-scca.org/ContactUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx

I don't even know where you'd start on the NCR/SARRC side.

[jjjanos]

A couple of things to consider in putting together groupings, etc.

1. While it is true that the DC schedule would again be front-loaded with the addition of this event, the basic fact remains - this isn't a DC event. The primary concern for "our" scheduling is whether "our" workers will foregoe a DC-hosted event to make room for this event.

2. Bona fide, GCR compliant Split Starts. You know, two pace cars, etc. SRFs and small formula could have utilized this easily. There would have been some lapping, but it would have been deep into the race when the field was strung out.

3. Given that NCR splits out the MARRS classes from the SARRC classes, the possible groupings grows considerably. For example ITC runs in group 4, but MITC runs in group 6, etc.

[Ron Earp]

3. Given that NCR splits out the MARRS classes from the SARRC classes, the possible groupings grows considerably. For example ITC runs in group 4, but MITC runs in group 6, etc.
[/b]

I didn't think this was the case although I've only attended one of these events. How can we run a weekend with two ITC groups? I'm pretty sure there is only one run group for each class of cars, regardless if you are running for MARRS or SARRC points.

[JeffYoung]

Gregg, what I meant about open wheelers was you probably have 2-3 Altantics, 2-3 Continentals, 2-3 SCCA E cars, 2-3 f500s, etc. The only ones that seem to have any numbers are FV and FF.

[Gregg]

Jeff-

I know exactly what you meant, and that's why I made my comment about #1 being false. If you've got some time to kill I'll simply direct you here (http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19938) for a little background... Certainly the least amount of pain number wise, not so much on the frustration for organizers side.

As to the other Jeff's suggestion about splitting MARRS & SARRC classes into different run groups (mITC vs. sITC), I'm not so sure that would make the groupings any easier to construct and would definitely take away from the "Challenge" aspect of the weekend. I've always thought that we should get rid of "two races within a run group" aspect of the event. If regions are so worried about profit, imagine how much they'd save by eliminating half of the "$4 pieces of wood." :smilie_pokal:

[Charlie Broring]

3. Given that NCR splits out the MARRS classes from the SARRC classes,
[/b]

I always thought this was bogus.

Back to the subject at hand...

How are the decisions about the race schedule made in the NC Region? Is there there much input from the membership? Is the desire for the crowded 2 day format held by the majority or a vocal minority?

Trying to squeeze this big event into 2 days last year resulted in too may compromises in the quality of racing. In previous years as a 3 day event it went well. In fact the 3 day format had become the norm for this race. It seems to me that returning to the 2 day format was a step backwards.

Yes by rearranging the 2 day format things can be improved upon. However, as you see by juggling the possible class groupings you are trying to force cars together that don't fit well in an effort to control run group size. And there still will be some big groups. It's like trying to pour 5 quarts into a gallon jug, you are going to spill some. I still thing that a Great and Big race like this deserves the 3 days it takes to do it right.

Charlie

[JeffYoung]

Charlie, yes, we actually do have input into scheduling. We have good REs.

This is mostly speculation, but I would guess the following. I think if push came to shove most of us, I would anyway, would obviously go to a 3 day race if the choice was that or nothing.

I think that a large part of the concern though is workers. Its another full day off for them, and that's tough.

I've stridently said that it was my opinion SARRC would not consider a 3 day. That may not be the case after getting some further info from our RE. But it would help if the first day was optional, and if we could do something to ease the burden on workers.

Gregg, gotcha now on the open wheelers, sorry. Honestly though? My belief is that this is a regional weekend and the focus needs to be to make it work for regional drivers.

And, I forgot:

MANY THANKS TO EARL RICHARDS. He on his own did what I was too lazy to do, which was put together a spreadsheet with data from car counts from previous SARRC/MARRS. Invaluable to figuring this situation out.

Thanks Earl. If they event comes off in 09, you will be primarily responsible.

[Gregg]

I think that a large part of the concern though is workers. Its another full day off for them, and that's tough.
[/b]
How would that be different when NCR responsible for the "optional" Friday practice and qualifying. Suddenly you're no longer worried about staffing registration and tech in the afternoon, but need to have tech around all day to man scales, need to have T&S folks, need to have corner workers. An optional day for drivers is a mandatory day for volunteers.

]
Gregg, gotcha now on the open wheelers, sorry. Honestly though? My belief is that this is a regional weekend and the focus needs to be to make it work for regional drivers.[/b]
Agreed. I wanted you to have a little background when dealing w/ a regional issue (such as what kind of uproar there might be when drivers feel disenfranchised at a at a regional event or series). We found that dealing with those same people/cars can cause a large s*** storm that can quickly move from being just a local issue to being a national one. If the same people feel like their toes are being stepped on again there might be more pushback than expected.

[JeffYoung]

Understood on the last point -- thanks for the background actually.

On the first, my optional Friday doesn't help, I agree -- just trying to give you guys some background on why SARRC went to the two day format. Probably as much workers as drivers is what I am hearing -- but that is second hand and not gospel.


What I was trying to say was SARRC would be much easier to work with I think if Friday was optional and there was some way to lower the burden on volunteer workers on Friday. Maybe pay for workers using the track's staff for Friday only??

[jjjanos]

I always thought this was bogus.[/b]

I believe it was done for two reasons -

1. SARRC rules award points based on actual finishing position as opposed to MARRS rules which award points based on finishing position among MARRS cars. I'm not commenting on which system is better.

2. To reduce the amount of carnage between MARRS and SARRC cars in the "same" class. I present the ITA crash as evidence of the success of this aspect of the policy. :)


from rlearpI didn't think this was the case although I've only attended one of these events. How can we run a weekend with two ITC groups? I'm pretty sure there is only one run group for each class of cars, regardless if you are running for MARRS or SARRC points.[/b]

For the last 3(?) years, all cars in class X run in the same GROUP, but those NOT running for SARRC points get put into a special class mx and those running for SARRC points are in class x.

[spnkzss]

I think that a large part of the concern though is workers. Its another full day off for them, and that's tough.

[/b]


I know that a lot of MARRS workers come down and haven't heard much from them? They may be complaining, just silently. They are quietly planning our demise :o :happy204:




2. To reduce the amount of carnage between MARRS and SARRC cars in the "same" class. I present the ITA crash as evidence of the success of this aspect of the policy. :)

[/b]

Personally, points or not, half of the fun of racing out of region is racing AGAINST other cars in your class. I want to know how slow my ITC/ITA car is against people in other regioins :P

[erlrich]

Jeff - thanks, but it was no big deal really. Amazing what you can find to do when you're stuck at home with the flu, and the only thing on SPEED is re-runs of the MX-5 Cup.

As for the splitting of the classes between SARRC and MARRS, I never really understood that either, I mean would it really be that hard for the pointskeepers to segregate the SARRC finishers from the others? But I guess if them's the rules, them's the rules. My attitude has always been I'm racing the next guy in front of me, I don't care what his car says on the side.

As for the Friday sessions, I'm of the opinion that IF the club is going to have to pay for the track for an extra day, and bring in workers, including T&S, EMS, tech, stewards, etc, we should probably take full advantage of it and get the qualifying done on Friday, leaving Sat. and Sun. for racing. I can't imagine that many drivers would pass up this event because they had to spend an extra day at the track. On the other hand, if it is that big a deal and we absolutely need to have Sat. qualifying, then let's make it a 2-day event, and pull out all the stops to make it as good as it can be in those two days. It will take a lot of cooperation and compromise, which haven't been terribly abundant so far, but I think if everyone involved really wants it to happen it can be made to work. Again, JMHO.

[jjjanos]

I've stridently said that it was my opinion SARRC would not consider a 3 day. That may not be the case after getting some further info from our RE. But it would help if the first day was optional, and if we could do something to ease the burden on workers.[/b]

Jeff,

It was a 3-day event at least one year and paid SARRC points. The volunteer officials would bear the brunt of the hardship for the extra day. Minimum staffing of 2 flaggers/staffed station with stations 1,3,4,5,6a,9,10,11, BF, 14, 15, 17 (This map (http://www.virclub.com/guide/Coursemaps/Full_simple.jpg)) gives 24 flaggers, plus S/F. tech, pit, grid, EV is a track function (correct?), T&S, Registration, Stewards... guestimate 50 vols total.

Heck, I'd take a flagger out to dinner if they were there on Friday.

I think Charlie has a point - this is a big event. Keeping it to two days is like trying to cram a 190lb women into a size 6 dress. Everything squeezes into it, but god help us if a seam lets go. With a 3-day event, things are little.... roomier.

[Charlie Broring]

It was a 3 day event in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. It has accommodated as many as 9 run groups in that 3 day format.

Now that's a big enough dress for even me to fit into.

Charlie