Proposed 2009 MARRS

[Charlie Broring]

It may be of interest to those who race in the WDC Region MARRS series that the Competition Committee voted at a recent meeting to adopt a 8 race group format for next year. This is a big change in direction from our previous efforts at providing uncrowded high quality track time with a 10 group schedule. It was argued that this change will provide "more track time", however no definitive plan for such was offered.

As it now stands the two small open wheel classes, SM, and SSM will be unchanged will be unchanged next year, but the remaining 24 classes will be compressed into 4 race groups.

I hope that this big change in the MARRS program doesn't adversely affect participation in the series next year.

Charlie Broring

[JamesB]

Sadly it comes as no suprise after seeing the 2008 participation numbers turn out lower then the previous year. So we can only wait and see what 2009 brings us in the form of an extra lap or 2 maybe for the race, and a few minutes for qualifing.

If we have the same participation levels as this past year I don't think it will effect us other then the two wings groups numbers dropping back to their nearly removed numbers of 2006. But, if numbers start to pick back up, then we will see a lot of wait listed groups leading to yet higher entry fees since they did not keep the format that allowed more cars to attend in place thus shooting the series in the foot...

[spnkzss]

From what I saw, I am rather excited about next years schedule. :happy204:

[erlrich]

Just to give a little better perspective on this, here are the proposed '09 groupings for the MARRS races, with the average number of entries (based on '08 actuals) in parenthesis (the MR2 move to ITB is taken into account):

FV / F500 (19)
Big Wings & Things (18)
SM (35)
SSM (41)
Big Bore / ITS / ITR (34)
Small Bore / SRF (38)
ITA / SpecRX7 / T3 (35)
IT7 / ITB / ITC / SSB / SSC (35)
The way it was explained to us, the additional track time comes in the form of an extra race each weekend; on Saturday we will have a morning session (either practice or qualifying, not sure) and then a 10-lap qualifying race in the afternoon. The Sunday feature race would then be 18-20 laps. More time racing, less time riding.

We were also told that each committee member was asked to make up an '09 proposal for the race groups/schedule, but that very few bothered to prepare anything.

I don't think all of the groupings are perfect, but then when are they? I'm sure ITR & ITS drivers are going to be pissed at having to run in big bore; as well ITB drivers who will no longer be the fast class in their group. I do like the idea of of 8 run groups and more racing time however, and I would be surprised if any entries will be lost because these groupings. I think we will loose more entries due to the current economic situation than anything else.

[JamesB]

Eh, I am against changing the format personally. The reason MARRS is popular was because of its format. And after racing in the SARRC format and the NARRC format, I agree that the 2 qual on saturday and a race on Sunday is the way to go and will keep MARRS popular. To me the Saturday race is useless and just gives someone yet another start in the weekend to do damage to your car and leave out SOL come the race that matters on Sunday.

I am not against less groups, just I dont understand why IT7, basically an ITA car with its own class for what 2-3 cars even needs to exist after IT was realigned weight wise. I say put them back in ITA as the front runners are running comparible lap times as the upper pack of ITA. But less groups based on lower numbers does mean more time, but more time means more expense per driver. So expect entry fees to go up with this new configuration.

[Charlie Broring]

Greg brought 4 proposed race groupings. One with 8 groups, Three with 9 groups. Only one schedule, the 8 group schedule was discussed at length. The Miata guys loved it as it is in line with their objectives and argued strongly for this plan. They get a bigger piece or the smaller pie. And of course it suits ITA. A vote was taken for the 8 group schedule only. Almost no consideration was given to other schedules.

One year after we voted not to return to VIR due to the crowded race groupings with too many classes mixed together, we vote in crowded in crowded groupings of too many classes. In my mind this is a 180 degree reversal in our priorities.

We are sacrificing quality for a couple more race laps. Saturday racing can easily take place with a 9 group schedule and didn't in itself justify this 8. group schedule.

The cars that got screwed the most are the Prod cars. The SRF/Prod mix was not well received last year but will continue. ITS/ITR also received a very undesirable place to race. The SRX7/IT7 was quite content with what they had, shame they were broken up. And the quality of my race (ITb) will certainly suffer. The little open wheel groups got a bye.

I run a small business. The first rule for success is don't piss off your customers. In this schedule, Miata's and ITA were winners, but there were too many losers. Was this a good move when our racing is also facing the stress of the slow economy?

[jjjanos]

It may be of interest to those who race in the WDC Region MARRS series that the Competition Committee voted at a recent meeting to adopt a 8 race group format for next year. This is a big change in direction from our previous efforts at providing uncrowded high quality track time with a 10 group schedule. It was argued that this change will provide "more track time", however no definitive plan for such was offered.

- Discussions of the weekend format are done at the January meeting. If what the stewards will allow us doesn't justify the 8-group format, then we can change it again.
- The drivers seemed to speak loudly that they wanted more track time/more racing.


As it now stands the two small open wheel classes, SM, and SSM will be unchanged next year, but the remaining 24 classes will be compressed into 4 race groups.

Here are the car counts - based on 2008 averages and adjusting for known movements of cars between classes (MR2). This is if we get the same car counts in 2009 and we aren't going to get that.

SSM: 41
Prod/SRF: 38
I7-B-C-/SS:36
SM: 35
ITA/S7/T3: 35
Big Bore: 34
SmOW: 19
Wing/Thing: 18

The 2 Miata groups are a bit over one-third of the closed-wheel cars (30% of the total) and get 25%. The other 24 classes are a little less than two-thirds of the closed-wheel cars (56% of the total) and get 50% of the track time. OW represents 14% of the total and receives 25%.

I agree. From a numbers stand-point, the two OW groups should be combined. I will second any motion made to combine them into a single group. Let me setup my video camera first though.


So we can only wait and see what 2009 brings us in the form of an extra lap or 2 maybe for the race, and a few minutes for qualifing.

We easily could fit 20-minute qualifying in the morning with 10-lap races in the afternoon on Saturday.


But, if numbers start to pick back up, then we will see a lot of wait listed groups leading to yet higher entry fees since they did not keep the format that allowed more cars to attend in place thus shooting the series in the foot...

If we have to wait list cars, the format can be changed. We aren't going to see an increase in cars next year. I wouldn't be surprised by 20 to 30% declines based on the economy.


Eh, I am against changing the format personally. The reason MARRS is popular was because of its format......To me the Saturday race is useless and just gives someone yet another start in the weekend to do damage to your car and leave out SOL come the race that matters on Sunday.

Except at the open competition meeting, the consensus was for more racing/less qualifying. On a dry track, afternoon qualifying was just circling the track. Too hot, humid and greasy to get a good lap.


I am not against less groups, just I dont understand why IT7, basically an ITA car with its own class for what 2-3 cars even needs to exist after IT was realigned weight wise.

IT7 averaged 7 cars/race last year making 9th popular among the 47 classes that can compete on a weekend. It still exists because it's more popular than 38 other classes and because the Region has no process for delisting a region-specific class once it is listed.

We all get 25% more track time. If we lose as many as 25% of our entries because of the economy, so unless the BoD is feeling charitable, expect entry fees to increase proportionally. If that's all that happens, then you are paying less per minute of track time because you got 25% more of it but entry fees were going to increase by that 25% anyway. Unless we lose another 25% because of the format, your cost per minute of track time is still lower. (Not saying the BoD is going to raise entry fees, but we've got a certain sized nut to cover each weekend and if the economy takes out cars, the nut doesn't get smaller.)


Greg brought 4 proposed race groupings. One with 8 groups, Three with 9 groups. Only one schedule, the 8 group schedule was discussed at length. The Miata guys loved it as it is in line with their objectives and argued strongly for this plan. They get a bigger piece or the smaller pie. And of course it suits ITA. A vote was taken for the 8 group schedule only. Almost no consideration was given to other schedules.

Losing ONE group gets us about 40-45 minutes of track time. With 9 groups, that works out to an additional 5 minutes/group. Just because some of us didn't discuss a 9-group format doesn't mean we didn't consider it.


One year after we voted not to return to VIR due to the crowded race groupings with too many classes mixed together, we vote in crowded in crowded groupings of too many classes. In my mind this is a 180 degree reversal in our priorities.

Raising VIR would be more valid if you had not been among the voices demanding a return to VIR without ANY change in their format. 25 cars per mile of paving is OK if its at the end of a 5 hour tow but 17-19 cars at most is crap if its at home? AND unlike VIR where they'll start us all in one big thundering herd, we've been promised split starts/grids?


The cars that got screwed the most are the Prod cars. The SRF/Prod mix was not well received last year but will continue.

And yet, if I recall correctly, both their reps voted in favor of the new groupings.


I run a small business. The first rule for success is don't piss off your customers. In this schedule, Miata's and ITA were winners, but there were too many losers. Was this a good move when our racing is also facing the stress of the slow economy?

Well, based on the comments I received from ITC, count them as winners too.

As for the quality of the ITB race declining... We were promised split grids/starts in the sups without Steward discretion. If that's not to be the case, we can address the 8 groups in January. IT7 in the mix is a non-starter. These cars tend to run as fast, if not faster than ITB. With a split grid, they won't be part of the mix.

[erlrich]

One year after we voted not to return to VIR due to the crowded race groupings with too many classes mixed together, we vote in crowded in crowded groupings of too many classes. In my mind this is a 180 degree reversal in our priorities.

Coming from one of the three race groups that averaged 35+ cars last year, I don't really see how the proposed groups (all but SSM are < 40 cars) could possibly be considered overcrowded. As far as the quality of the racing, yes you can argue that but that was one of the major complaints of the ITA drivers last year.


Saturday racing can easily take place with a 9 group schedule and didn't in itself justify this 8. group schedule.

I won't argue that point; I don't know why the same schedule couldn't be run with 9 groups, but I was under the impression some of the race specialties thought that might be too much?


ITS/ITR also received a very undesirable place to race. The SRX7/IT7 was quite content with what they had, shame they were broken up. And the quality of my race (ITb) will certainly suffer. The little open wheel groups got a bye.

I think ITR/ITS probably got the worst of the whole deal IMO - maybe that could be taken care of with 9 groups? What I do know, is that ITS & ITA did not play well together last year. I personally had no issue with ITR running in our group; I think the problems others had with ITR were with one specific driver, and not the group in general.


I run a small business. The first rule for success is don't piss off your customers. In this schedule, Miata's and ITA were winners, but there were too many losers. Was this a good move when our racing is also facing the stress of the slow economy?

But by that philosophy wouldn't you want to please the majority of your customers? By the numbers, 3 classes (out of 41 that ran in the MARRS series) made up almost 40% of the entries last year. Those were SSM, SM, and ITA. Add in #4 (SRX7) and #5 (FV) and you're well over 50% of the entries. With the exception of maybe SRX7 I don't see where any of those would have a complaint with the new schedule. Of course, it could be that ITA was the only class that had anything to bitch about last year, so maybe this is all about us.

[jjjanos]

I won't argue that point; I don't know why the same schedule couldn't be run with 9 groups, but I was under the impression some of the race specialties thought that might be too much?

The chiefs were OK with anything that didn't make the day longer.

9 run groups with 15 minute sessions + 8 minutes "down" time = about 3.5 hours qualifying.

8 lap race = 22 minutes (including pace/cool) + 8 min down = 30minutes or 4.5 hours
Total = 8 hours and that's with a conservative time estimate on down time because we probably leave an entire run group worth of time sitting on the table.

Start: 8:15
+ 8 hours track
+ 1 hour lunch which is what the volunteers need.
= 5:15 conservative ending time.
Lost a run group, we pick up 15+8 + 22+8 or almost one hour in track time that can be tossed among the rest of the run groups.

There are two groups that aren't pulling their weight in terms of the rest of the run groups. They won't combine with anyone else and the NEDIV executive steward won't allow us to combine them. Unless and until we are willing to throw open-wheel out of the life boat, we've got to live with the idea of 37 cars spread across 2 run groups.

It was clear to me that split-starts wouldn't work for A-S-R, so they had to be divorced.

Everyone put together a 9 group weekend splitting A and S, both open-wheel groups and two Miata groups. Here are the numbers (or there about) we worked with:

SM35SSM41F5002FST0FV18CF4CSR0DSR1FA1FB0FC4FE2FF2FM 0FS2S21AS4ASR0BP0GT14GT22GT30GTA4ITE3SPO2ST0T10T20 DP1EP4FP4GP0GTL1GTP6HP4SPU3SRF15IT77SRX717SSB2SSC3 T30ITA18ITR4ITS11ITB21ITC4

[mlytle]

i can about guaranttee the car counts will be lower in two classes..ITS and ITR. there are already a few of us looking for somewhere else to race next summer......:(

[Gregg]

Although I'm a little surpised that this ended up here, Charlie, I'm going to post in its entirety what sent to my ITA drivers immediately after the meeting on October 23rd. You'll notice that it contains quite a bit more detail than what you sent to your drivers and what you provided here. I might add, that for a person who was/is so concerned about the quality of racing for all MARRS drivers, you worked awfully hard this summer to protect the ITB/ITC average of < 20 cars rather than helping to alleviate some of the overcrowding in other run groups.

In addition, while you make it seem as though the SM and SSM reps and I drove this down everybody's throats, the fact of the matter is that SSM averaged over 40 cars this past year and SSM was very close. They were already running at the '09 target density. In fact, the SSM rep was actually one of those to abstain from the vote on groupings.

Remember that two years ago that rather than contracting and removing large formula cars and Sports Racers from the MARRS series so that we could go to eight run groups, we instead expanded to 10. The stated density goal when going to 10 groups was 32-35 cars for the closed-wheel groups. The advantage of going to 10 run groups was that we would have the freedom to juggle combinations to acheive those goals without overly burdening a limited number of drivers.

If you feel that there is something factually incorrect in my description and recollection below, please feel free to correct me.


Originally sent to all MARRS ITA Drivers @ 11pm 10/23/08
Rather than attack run groupings in January as we normally do, we decided to get things done now. Each representative on the Committee was asked to bring their proposed run groups, printed, and would be given three minutes to present their reasoning. Come next season, you all are either going to love me or really hate me. The Committee accepted my plan.

Here's the good news....we're not running with ITS next year.

We're going to have a radical change in the format of the series next year. We've been talking off and on over the past few years about changing the format of the MARRS weekends. We've all discussed qualifying races and many of you heard a proposal at the Open Comp meeting (and here) to make each weekend a Double (w/ qualifying and race each day). Well, in order to do that there's no way we could continue to have 10 run groups, and nine run groups wasn't going to cut it either. My plan was to go to eight run groups. A move to eight run groups allows us to recover a minimum of an hour each day and reallocate that time to the remaining groups, giving us longer on-track sessions. If we go to a qualifying race on Saturday we can make it long enough (approx. 10 laps) to alleviate the fears of carnage as people bash and bang to get a better starting position for the Sunday feature. We can also go to a longer feature race on Sunday (18-20 laps). If we go to double weekends, The same applies--more track time each day.

So what's the downsides? More cars on track across the board. Whereas this year we had some groups (like ours) that averaged about 40 cars, there were closed-wheel groups that barely managed 20 cars. No need to rehash that and our attempts to realign groups mid-season. If we use 2008's participation numbers, most of the run groups would average 35 cars with my plan. Of course, this year we saw a falloff in registrations as the year went on (probably gas price-related) and a lot of us are betting we'll see a 10-20% dropoff due to our economic troubles so we'll probably really be seeing 30-32 car densities at best.

So how'd this play out? I proposed going to eight run groups to facilitate modifying the MARRS weekend format. This was approved 13-7. Once that was done, I presented my proposed run groups. Believe me when I say that contracting to eight run groups gives you a very limited number of options. Some of the combinations aren't exactly optimal, but this time around the pain will be spread across more groups instead of just ITA taking the brunt of it once again. The CRC will be working this winter with our stewards and the N.E. Division Chief Steward to add language to our Supps, calling for either "split starts" or "split grids" for many of our run groups to make some combos more palatable.

There was one other 8-group combination presented on the fly but the framers couldn't make the numbers work. The committee approved my groupings 13-4 with three abstentions. So here's the rundown. 2008 Averages are in parenthesis with the MR2 move to ITB taken into account.

FV / F500 (19)
Big Wings & Things (18)
SM (35)
SSM (41)
Big Bore / ITS / ITR (34)
Small Bore / SRF (38)
ITA / SpecRX7 / T3 (35)
IT7 / ITB / ITC / SSB / SSC (35)

There are some classes that aren't very happy, but I know that since Yip likes using RX7's for brake pads that ITA will do just fine. I think we had one T3 car show up all year, so if we do a split start w/ the Spec7's we'll probably be able to coexist quite well.We are, of course, going to have a huge task ahead of us come January to create a race format that gives our racers the most value for their ever more hard-to-come-by dollar. A point that has been made by one of our Board members is that '09 may be the first year that we may have to fight other organizations for entries. That means making the MARRS series more amenable to racers we have, racers we've lost, and racers who haven't raced with us previously. It means being less exclusive and more inclusive, and it means making sacrifices for the greater good--that means more track time for the $$, that means more racing and less time qualifying or sitting around, that means making things more exciting for our volunteers that come to the track to watch racing (and not qualifying), and maybe even getting everyone home to a family dinner a little earlier on Sunday nights. This new plan means that everybody shares in that burden and not just a few. With everyone working towards this goal, I am confident that we can make a stronger MARRS series.

[JamesB]

Jeff - You generally percieved that many wanted this new format. At the open committee it was mita, some IT and a few of the prod guys thought it was a great idea. Charlie knows I have always been against this format. Though other then the IT7 class I never felt was needed since they already exist in ITA and run competitive lap times. the groupings are what they are. It mayturn charlies race into something else. For me I might have a SS car to deal with but they dont bump and grind as bad as other classes we could have been stuffed with.

Gregg - if you think the changes are going to make MARRS more inclusive you should listen to what people are saying. Its making it more exclusive by mimicing format a lot of racers hate, in order to attract the format a lot of racers like. That does not compute in any way I see it. And if more walk away then we attract it means the region loses money and in the end they have to raise entry fees yet again. So this year I think the goal of the competition comitee should have been to ATTRACT as many drivers as possible not by ticking off a good portion of entrants that run a full season and possibly losing even more.

Marshall - It sucks, but ITR did not belong iwth ITA. It's like how NARRC stuffs ITB with ITS. I think its unfair to the slower class when you can lap all but the top 3 or 4 of the class 2 steps down.

[jjjanos]

Jeff - You generally percieved that many wanted this new format. At the open committee it was mita, some IT and a few of the prod guys thought it was a great idea.

The open competition committee is where the drivers' are suppose to say what they want to continue and what they want to change in the Region's racing program. IMO, the overwhelming consensus was "more racing." If there is/was a silent majority, I guess they learned a lesson about not getting involved in the town meeting.

Seems the peanut gallery complains when the committee listens to them and the peanut gallery complains when the committee ignores their wishes. Guess I'll suggest that we forego the open competition meeting this year since it serves no purpose other than to waste the time of the driver reps.

The news has been out for several months; more than enough time for drivers to complain to their reps. If more track time and a second race nearly as long as what they get now on Sunday isn't what they want, it can be changed.


Charlie knows I have always been against this format.

What format? It hasn't been settled. Think of it as the double without the second qualifying session. More important... if you don't want to actually race on Saturday afternoon... start from the freaking pit lane. You'll have plenty of clear track for a nice drive. Since, I believe, it'll be the best lap time from Saturday that sets Sunday's grid, it's just a longer qualifying session for you. The only people who HAVE to put their cars in harm way are those who WANT to race.

Kee-rist on a pogo-stick, I think we could get 12-lap races in on Saturday and 20 laps on Sunday... the Saturday race is as long as 100% of the racing a few years ago. This is a bad thing?


Its making it more exclusive by mimicing format a lot of racers hate, in order to attract the format a lot of racers like.


Marshall - It sucks, but ITR did not belong iwth ITA. It's like how NARRC stuffs ITB with ITS. I think its unfair to the slower class when you can lap all but the top 3 or 4 of the class 2 steps down.

I've heard ONE voice in opposition to Saturday racing - yours. IMO, Charlie's opposition isn't because of Saturday racing, it's because ITB won't have it's own private playground anymore. Marshall's seems to be because ITR/ITS is racing with Big Bore.

Check the results... ITR didn't lap to the top-5 and only the real dogs lost two laps. Most mult-class groups see their little dog lose a lap to the big dogs in their group (see Prod, See Big Bore, See ITB/ITC). ITR wasn't the problem in that group and keeping ITR with ITA was never raised by anyone.

Giving the slower class "it's" lap "back" is easy - just make that race one lap longer. Of course then we would hear nothing but griping about how ITR gets an extra lap...

[JamesB]

Interesting you call me a peanut. I had already voiced my opinions before the open comp meeting. I would have loved to stay in the rain to comment at the meeting, but I prefered somewhere dry and a little less crowded. Sorry that weather does that to someone who spent the entire day in the weather....but thats how it is.

The format that is being pushed is the one I have never agreed with. It will likely get implimented since I hear more of the drivers reps like SM, SSM, ITA are all in favor of it.

As for classing, again I said it wont effect me so I could care less since the SS guys don't care and the IT7 cars are just a couple of ITA cars with their own playground. ITR being with ITS and ITA is just the same as ITS being grouped with ITB, so I sympathize with the ITA folks wishing ITR out of the group.

[spnkzss]

As for classing, again I said it wont effect me so I could care less since the SS guys don't care and the IT7 cars are just a couple of ITA cars with their own playground. ITR being with ITS and ITA is just the same as ITS being grouped with ITB, so I sympathize with the ITA folks wishing ITR out of the group.

I told myself that I was not going to get into this, but there one thing I will say. I'm pretty sure MOST of the ITA cars are not complaining about ITR. We didn't care. Some of us getting lapped sucked, but ITR was not the problem and we worked well with most of them. What we had problems with was ITS. The mid-pack ITS cars were in teh middle of the ITA battles. I was going to say leaders, but AJ was fighting for the ITS lead. :shrug:

Personally I would have liked to see ITR and ITA together and ITS and ITB together, but that is apparently another $&it storm.

[JamesB]

Groupings are impossible, personally not being in the top of the field I hated it when my race was over while battline for a possition and loosing the lap. But thats me and as a driver I would like the chance to have every lap.

I have no problem with the ITB grouping, but I am sure the pointy end might not have as much fun with the handfull of IT7 cars...but it could be a moot point.

I just dont like the qual, race, race format, which jeff says may not happen, but even Gregg's e-mail said radical change in the format. So I take it he is that sure it will change Jeff, so that is why I am pissed because I have more then once before open comp, and after open comp made it aware to all of ITB and other drivers I don't care for the format and it was why I have never gone to VIR during a 2 day double...its the same format just a little relaxed. It means less entries possible which may be true for 2009 anyway and will gaurentee higher entry fees since you cannot take in more cars even if you wanted to.

[jjjanos]

Interesting you call me a peanut.

A peanut gallery is an audience that heckles the performer.


It will likely get implimented since I hear more of the drivers reps like SM, SSM, ITA are all in favor of it.

You listed 3 reps. The vote was 13-4.


I have no problem with the ITB grouping, but I am sure the pointy end might not have as much fun with the handfull of IT7 cars...but it could be a moot point.

The handful of IT7 cars outnumbers most of the classes we have. With the exception of 1 or 2 cars, they also turn lap times faster than ITB. An IT7/SS grid with a second ITB/ITC gets the two groups apart and, for the most part, keeps them apart. If there's no split grid in the supps, there's no point in doing this as it WILL reduce the quality of track time.


I just dont like the qual, race, race format, which jeff says may not happen, but even Gregg's e-mail said radical change in the format.

Exactly what is the problem with having two races? More carnage? That's why finishing position shouldn't be considered for Sunday's grid, but your best lap time - plus it gets those who don't want to race out of the herd.

If we don't condense, we CAN'T change the format. Fewer cars over the same number of groups equals the same schedule as last year. It isn't the number of cars that determines the amount of track time, but the number of groups.

The ONLY reason to condense is to add more track time for each group. We could increase the length of the meaningless Saturday qualifying PM session, but why do that when we can set up a system where those who want to race can and those who don't still get access to the track?

If Sunday grid is set by best time from Saturday, either qualifying or race, then those who don't want to race, just have to start from the pit lane and it'll be nothing more than a qualifying session and it will be longer.

[erlrich]

Groupings are impossible, personally not being in the top of the field I hated it when my race was over while battline for a possition and loosing the lap. But thats me and as a driver I would like the chance to have every lap.

I agree, it sucks when you loose a lap because you're racing with a considerably faster class, but I think that is one of the realities of club racing that we just have to deal with. And even without getting lapped, how many times do you have one of those "if I only had one more lap I coulda got 'em" races?


I have no problem with the ITB grouping, but I am sure the pointy end might not have as much fun with the handfull of IT7 cars...but it could be a moot point.

I hope it does become a moot point, and we are able to work out the split starts for some of these groups. Of course, that is going to depend heavily on the drivers.


I just dont like the qual, race, race format, which jeff says may not happen, but even Gregg's e-mail said radical change in the format. So I take it he is that sure it will change Jeff, so that is why I am pissed because I have more then once before open comp, and after open comp made it aware to all of ITB and other drivers I don't care for the format and it was why I have never gone to VIR during a 2 day double...its the same format just a little relaxed. It means less entries possible which may be true for 2009 anyway and will gaurentee higher entry fees since you cannot take in more cars even if you wanted to.

I would really like to know how the majority of drivers feel about this one - someone brought up the question in the MARRS ITA group and I thought the overwhelming response was "more racing time", even if everyone couldn't agree on the details. But even then only a very few drivers bothered to respond - which seems to be the case until something happens that pisses them off. Not pointing at you James, because I know better, but it never fails to amaze me how few drivers want to get involved with the decision-making process, even when the decisions affect them directly. The open comp meeting was a great example; if I recall correctly the workers at the meeting outnumbered the drivers by a huge margin...

[mlytle]

Exactly what is the problem with having two races? More carnage? That's why finishing position shouldn't be considered for Sunday's grid, but your best lap time - plus it gets those who don't want to race out of the herd.


If Sunday grid is set by best time from Saturday, either qualifying or race, then those who don't want to race, just have to start from the pit lane and it'll be nothing more than a qualifying session and it will be longer.

bingo! this is the way to have a saturday race, without increasing the qualify-during-the-race carnage that caused marrs to stop using the saturday race format years ago. must detach the saturday race results from the qualifying grid for sunday. take the fastest lap time from either sat morn or afternoon session....just like we have done in recent years. this makes the sat race optional. driver not want to risk car? no problem..just stand on morning qual time for sundays grid. want to go our for fun race? have a ball sat afternoon. think you can better your morning time? start from the pits for the afternoon race and enjoy a couple clear laps. break your car in morning qual? not a big deal, you can work on it all day saturday and your morning time will set you for sunday.

if the sat race is forced to be the qual for the sunday race, all flexibility is taken away. wrong answer!

[mlytle]

Check the results... ITR didn't lap to the top-5 and only the real dogs lost two laps. Most mult-class groups see their little dog lose a lap to the big dogs in their group (see Prod, See Big Bore, See ITB/ITC). ITR wasn't the problem in that group and keeping ITR with ITA was never raised by anyone.


LOL! this is what i thought worked really well with ITR/S/A running together. the lead packs from all three classes were finishing on the same lap, but separated. leaders didn't interfere with each other. subliminal message..if you were getting lapped or messed up by another class....you should be going faster......;)

The fun part of the group was when the other ITR cars weren't bothering me so i could throttle back for the last few laps and enjoy watching some great ITA racing!

[jjjanos]

bingo! this is the way to have a saturday race, without increasing the qualify-during-the-race carnage that caused marrs to stop using the saturday race format years ago.

This is what I'm suggesting:

Saturday races:
1. No MARRS points awarded for finishing position.
2. If we want a championship, let it be a Saturday Cup and we can make it open to everyone running, i.e. no decal.
3. Combined starts for Saturday since the race is "optional." I'm not firm about that.
4. Best time from Saturday sets grid for Sunday aka the MARRS race. Let's see how it works before trying it in the real race.

Sunday races:
1. Split grids written into the supps for those groups asking for it at the start of the season. This CANNOT be something the stewards can take away at a whim.

Only question is whether MARRS points should be awarded in each class for the following:
1. Fastest Sunday race lap?
2. Fastest Saturday morning time?
3. Fastest Saturday afternoon time?

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, I take issue with your claim that my motive is " because ITB won't have it's own private playground anymore." That's a cheap shot.

The racing we had in ITB/ITC last year was race after race the best I have ever experienced in my 16 years with the SCCA. That's strong statement. As ITB driver rep of course I wanted to maintain the quality my race as best I could.

However, My reason for starting this thread was that I feel that great racing is our best avenue to attract drivers to the MARRS series. I feel that the 8 group schedule is going to compromise the quality of racing for quite a few classes and cost us drivers. I don't think an extra couple laps on Sunday is going to attract a single new driver. I think Saturday afternoon racing can take place with a more comfortable 9 group format. This is certainly not the self serving motive that you imply.

I think we made a mistake with our plans for next year and if others feel the same we have time to reconsider.

Regarding Saturday racing, I personally would love to see it. I enjoyed it 10 years ago when we last tried it. However I was surprised at how many ITB drives are don't desire it. It is not a cure all that everybody wants. I think that we should try it in 2009 But be aware that if it's its not implemented properly it could do more harm then good. Look at the reasons we gave up on Saturday races last time around. Make Saturday races their own series with year end championship. Use best time from AM qualifying or PM race to grid for Sunday.


Charlie Broring

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, you keep talking about "split grids" like it's some kind of a solution to an awkward mix of classes. Your dreaming. Stewards will fight it and screw it up if allowed at all. History repeats itself.

[spnkzss]

The fun part of the group was when the other ITR cars weren't bothering me so i could throttle back for the last few laps and enjoy watching some great ITA racing!

I bet you did enjoy watching all 4 of us dumbasses come in a lap early. ;) :lol:

[spnkzss]

The racing we had in ITB/ITC last year was race after race the best I have ever experienced in my 16 years with the SCCA. That's strong statement. As ITB driver rep of course I wanted to maintain the quality my race as best I could.

Charlie Broring

I'm pretty sure ITA racing would have been some of the best racing they had had in years too if they only averaged 19 cars on track instead of the 33 they averaged. :shrug:

I fully understand the frustration and some of the best ITC racing I had was when we were with ITB, but that is because our numbers were low, accross the board. I think now it's more of a we need to spread the pain out equally. When you do that, you piss people off and make some happier (not happy, happier).

[EV]

If Sunday grid is set by best time from Saturday, either qualifying or race, then those who don't want to race, just have to start from the pit lane and it'll be nothing more than a qualifying session and it will be longer.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but what's the point of a "race" on Saturday, if it's nothing more than a qualifying session started with a pace car?

[jjjanos]

However, My reason for starting this thread was that I feel that great racing is our best avenue to attract drivers to the MARRS series. I feel that the 8 group schedule is going to compromise the quality of racing for quite a few classes and cost us drivers. I don't think an extra couple laps on Sunday is going to attract a single new driver. I think Saturday afternoon racing can take place with a more comfortable 9 group format. This is certainly not the self serving motive that you imply

I think we made a mistake with our plans for next year and if others feel the same we have time to reconsider.

Then put together an alternate. Simply saying 8=bad, 9=good is no good. Tell me what the 9 will be. I've run the numbers for groups and out together schedules and, IMO, 9 is a useless contraction. We might as well stay with 10 or let SRF combine with Prod and give them double the track time.

That doesn't solve the ITR/ITS/ITA cluster though. Where are we going to put them?

Attached are the 2008 car counts with the 2008 groupings. Put together a 9-group format that makes sense. I've got a spreadsheet that will automatically do the totals for proposed groupings. Send me a PM with an email and I'll fire it off to any and all who want it. Now put together a 9-group weekend schedule with the following rules:
1. Add 2 minutes to every session for the cool off lap.
2. Leave 10 minutes between sessions for slack.
3. Leave 65 minutes for lunch.
4. Races = 1.5 minutes/lap plus 4 minutes.

Cutting one group gets us a hair over 5 minutes of racing for the 9 remaining groups on Saturday. On Sunday, we can pick up about 5 minutes of track time for the remaining groups.

Cut two run groups, we pick up 12.5 minutes on Saturday, or about an entire qualifying session. On Sunday, we pick up about 10 minutes/group, or about 1/3 of what we each get now.


Jeff, you keep talking about "split grids" like it's some kind of a solution to an awkward mix of classes. Your dreaming. Stewards will fight it and screw it up if allowed at all. History repeats itself.

If it's in the Supps they have to do it. We don't give them option of granting the split grid.

[erlrich]

Attached are the 2008 car counts with the 2008 groupings. Put together a 9-group format that makes sense. I've got a spreadsheet that will automatically do the totals for proposed groupings. Send me a PM with an email and I'll fire it off to any and all who want it. Now put together a 9-group weekend schedule with the following rules:


Geez, must be an accountant thing...I also put together a spreadsheet that does the same thing...except my car counts are different in quite a few of the classes; you must have counted all entrants? I only counted actual starters.

Anyway, here (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UGhJSQ0AdVn3gh70-PpI_L3jKFlzjBP12ph5JzBmdYKjKhU7PIGhtz4CYD9sTphKltc Wdecnr94Mde8Gd0t8U2zMvaI/09%20MARRS%20Groups.xls) is a link to that spreadsheet, if anyone would like to play with the numbers. Please save it to your computer before messing with it, as I didn't go to the trouble of locking any of the cells.

[Charlie Broring]

I'm pretty sure ITA racing would have been some of the best racing they had had in years too if they only averaged 19 cars on track instead of the 33 they averaged. :shrug:

I fully understand the frustration and some of the best ITC racing I had was when we were with ITB, but that is because our numbers were low, accross the board. I think now it's more of a we need to spread the pain out equally. When you do that, you piss people off and make some happier (not happy, happier).

I don't think you get my point. Currently MARRS ITB is enjoying the same thing discussed elsewhere in this Board. There were a lot of different ITB cars that could win any given race. Often half the field were "front runners" If there were 33 or 43 or what eve, and there was the same high ratio of potential winners running together for the win, the racing would only be better still. Currently SM and SSM races are near the ideal in my mind with many cars of similar capability in only one class. This is one of the big attractions of Miata's. The ability of class to race together without being impeded by slow cars in other classes makes for good racing.

Conversely, when there are many classes a race group the the off pace cars in faster classes can really impact on the quality of racing for the slower classes. The 2007 VIR ITA/ITB/ITC/SRX7 and whoever else was the worst example of this. And that was the reason we didn't race at VIR this year. That was really bad racing in the opinion of many a MARRS driver.

My issue is not so much with the number of cars in the groups but rather the number of classes and the way the classes will interact. I sure wouldn't want to run my ITS car along side GT1 as we voted to do next year.

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, You are playing with numbers and not considering what makes good racing. Great racing is what attracts me and many other to the MARRS series.

If more time is needed to run a 9 group schedule with Saturday PM races we can take 1 or 2 minuets (one lap) from each Saturday morning qualifying session. With uncrowded groups and less fighting for open track we don't need much time to qualify. I don't think I personally ran a qualifying session from flag to flag last year as the fastest laps came early before the car gets hot. One or even more less laps in qualifying is a small price to pay for Saturday racing, if it's good racing. If big groups like SSM complain we could give groups with more then 40 cars the 1 or2 minuets back.

We voted for 8 race groups without a plan that defined how much time we needed.

I had hoped we would build from last years generally well accepted format and make adjustments to address it's shortcomings. That, and a clear view of our needs would have been a sensible approach. But at the meeting we gave little consideration to last years grouping problems and just jammed most of the closed wheel classes into 4 groups. And apparently some are not happy with the results.

If there are enough concerns about the negative impact of our proposed schedule, we should reconsider it. I don't think we did a good job in planning and I was wondering how many others felt the same.

[jjjanos]

Geez, must be an accountant thing...I also put together a spreadsheet that does the same thing...except my car counts are different in quite a few of the classes; you must have counted all entrants? I only counted actual starters.

Two sources for the difference -
First - I used the "official" class count. Can't vouch whether actual starters or the one I used is more accurate.
Second - we moved some cars for known car adjustments, i.e. MR2 to ITB, some ITC cars converting to ITB.



Conversely, when there are many classes a race group the the off pace cars in faster classes can really impact on the quality of racing for the slower classes. The 2007 VIR ITA/ITB/ITC/SRX7 and whoever else was the worst example of this. And that was the reason we didn't race at VIR this year. That was really bad racing in the opinion of many a MARRS driver.

Only 4 classes have enjoyed the luxury of not having another class fubar the class race - SSM, SM, SRF and ITB. In the past, every other class has had to deal with other classes not being considerate. The proposed schedule has everyone other than SSM and SM suffering equally. I'd be more than happy to suggest a proposal to combine someone with SM since there's room, but frankly, I can't think of another class that I dislike that much and there's no room in SSM.

As for VIR - I find it somewhat hypocritical that you were in favor of returning for the same exact format as 2007 and yet criticize something at Summit that is no where near an alphabet soup mix of classes. Seven classes with 80+ cars at the end of a 3-5 hour tour is acceptable, but the proposed 2009 groupings will produce terrible racing?


My issue is not so much with the number of cars in the groups but rather the number of classes and the way the classes will interact. I sure wouldn't want to run my ITS car along side GT1 as we voted to do next year.

And where do you suggest we put ITS? It's pretty clear to me that ITS/ITA is screwing up both races and, worse yet, ITA cars make up 2 of the top-5 ITS finishing positions.


Jeff, You are playing with numbers and not considering what makes good racing. Great racing is what attracts me and many other to the MARRS series.

I've considered the impact on the racing and I don't see where having what is essentially an ITB-only group is the ultimate in racing experiences. Please explain why you think that adding SS and IT7 is going to cause the tragic demise to good racing.

I see the addition of other classes as BENEFITING the racing since it not only adds another element of racing (traffic management) and it also gives our drivers experience in learning traffic management for when they go to places like VIR and have to deal with dog slow Fieros that rip past them on the start and park their car everywhere else.


If more time is needed to run a 9 group schedule with Saturday PM races we can take 1 or 2 minuets (one lap) from each Saturday morning qualifying session. With uncrowded groups and less fighting for open track we don't need much time to qualify. I don't think I personally ran a qualifying session from flag to flag last year as the fastest laps came early before the car gets hot. One or even more less laps in qualifying is a small price to pay for Saturday racing, if it's good racing. If big groups like SSM complain we could give groups with more then 40 cars the 1 or2 minuets back.

Some of us actually enjoy driving our cars. Personally, I'm indifferent to racing on Saturday. More track time, though, is appealing. Also, one lap is 90 seconds to the stewards.

9 Groups:
13 minute AM + 10 lap races: Finish time after 5PM on Saturday. My understanding is we attempt to avoid that. That means 9 lap races.
12 minute AM + 10 lap races: Finish just before 5PM

8 Groups:
15 minutes AM + 12 lap races and still finish earlier than than we would with 9 groups.



We voted for 8 race groups without a plan that defined how much time we needed.


At the meeting I tossed out the approximate time gained from cutting one and two groups.


If there are enough concerns about the negative impact of our proposed schedule, we should reconsider it. I don't think we did a good job in planning and I was wondering how many others felt the same.

I'm not denying your right to raise this issue. What I'm saying is that you should do something other than complaining about it. You've suggested 9 race groups and seem to indicate that there are many people unhappy about it. Either you or those for whom you speak should put together format and weekend schedule. I'm more than willing to listen to proposals that are equitable.

[kbailey]

Wow- there is a lot of bitterness flying around considering this is what we do for fun. We have not turned a single lap with the new MARRS groups yet. It sounds like it is a done deal so lets give it a shot. I will concede the lap time difference between the front of the ITR/ITS and the front of the big bore group seems pretty big so I understand Marshall's concern there. I don't however see a problem with IT7 & ITB.

James- you might not have meant to be offensive, but your dismissive comments on IT7 are coming across that way to me. FWIW I looked back at some race results and I am the only IT7 driver running within 1 second of the front of the ITB group (faster or slower). I for one don't think this is going to be a problem. I am keenly aware that there are other class races out there and don't expect to be screwing you up much. I hope to get the same courtesy from you guys. We are all going to be out there competing and are obviously not going to park and let the other by whenever they get close so we just have figure it out. We make speed in different places- we'll just have to use that to our advantage. Lets get together at M1 and meet so we can make the best of this.

Currently the only way a class gets the track to itself is to get it's numbers up to where SM and SSM are. I really don't see how we can imply they have an agenda....they have the numbers for their own group plain and simple. Good for them- they choose spec classes with newer cars and get their own homegenous group. I chose to build and race a dinosaur and will always be sharing the track with other classes- so be it. I like my dinosaur just fine.

Thank you to all the reps for trying your best to make the MARRS series as good as it can be!!!.

I truly wish we could all be happy, but I for one will settle with happy enough and look forward to the 2009 season! Happy Holidays everyone! See you at the banquet or M1.

Kevin Bailey
WDCR IT7 #95

[mlytle]

geez kevin, nice buzz kill. here we had everyone all worked up and dissin' each other and you have to go and say something NICE.....the audacity! :)

happy holidays!

marshall

[dj10]

So the groups are set??????? This is the best you guys can come up with? I haven't heard anything from the our dead beat ITS/ ITR rep on his thoughts!!!??? ;) Is he satisified with us getting grouped in with the Big Bore??????? If I remember right there were many incidents 2 years ago when we were with big bore, has anyone forgot? I know I didn't and ML's 2 tone blue BMW remembers also.:)

I ran to the window threw open the sash, slipped on a beer can and fell on my ass.:cool:
Happy Hoildays All

[JamesB]

Kevin. I have no bitterness to the groupings other then a class that was using competitivness in ITA as the justification for the new class...yet the front runners are running competitive ITA times. So why do we need the class then? If the front of IT7 is running top 5 ITA times it is competitive...end of story and one less class to worry about.

I am not against the grouping as other are, I just think half the problem is too many classes for cars that already have a place to play. You dont see me asking for ITGolf since the 2002s dominate ITB with lap times that are well ahead of what I and my car is capable of.

What I am against is the format that is percieved to be the winner yet everyone I spoke to hated the SARRC format at VIR with the 2 day double. So someone proposed a hybrid in hopes of having one more race during their weekend. Well fine, we will see how that goes and see if people actually like it. I have done the 2 day double format, I did not like it because if you had a problem, you had no time to fix it. So why would I like the 1.5 races over a 2 day weekend instead?

Again, sorry for making you feel as if I dont want you to race...that was never the case...I just never saw the justification for your class....and I probably never will. I have the same views on SS and T. Why do we have SS when we have T. It's no longer needed.

[erlrich]

I have no bitterness to the groupings other then a class that was using competitivness in ITA as the justification for the new class...yet the front runners are running competitive ITA times. So why do we need the class then? If the front of IT7 is running top 5 ITA times it is competitive...end of story and one less class to worry about.

James - not to start an argument, but I don't agree that the IT7s are running top-5 times in ITA; not when the top ITA cars show up anyway. Owen set the new IT7 lap record this year with a 29.1xx, and I can name at least 1/2 dozen ITA cars that would be a good second faster on any given day (and another 1/2 dozen that would be right around those times). And now that AJ has shown us what a 10/10s ITA car and driver can do at Summit (26.8!!!), I know a lot of ITA drivers who used to think a 28 flat was fast are now re-thinking their programs. When you compare the top cars in each class they aren't even close.

I could see the argument that there aren't enough IT7s to justify the class - I think they averaged <7 cars a weekend this year, but that is still more than ITC or ITR, and not far behind ITS. Unlike some I do think they race well with ITA, but then they also did just fine with SRX7 too.


I haven't heard anything from the our dead beat ITS/ ITR rep on his thoughts!!!??? ;) Is he satisified with us getting grouped in with the Big Bore???????

Dan - I think I can safely say that the ITR/ITS rep is just thrilled about racing with big bore next year, but if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth you should call him; just make sure your phone's volume is set on the lowest setting first :D Oh, and be sure to address him as "Mr. Director".

[Jim]

James,

You made a few points that I would like to address separately below. I added one topic at the end!

IT7 Group - In addition to increasing participation (a good thing) the IT7 actually gives more flexiblity in arranging groupings. Imagine if we had 100 entrants in Spec Pinata (not too hard to imagine). We would have no way to group all of those cars into one group. Conversely, if we had 10 classes of 10 cars, we could group them in a number of ways.

IT7 Class Size - We have been running a reasonable number of cars in the class and are actively working to bring that number up. For example the IT7 group gets free breakfast at MARRS weekends! We have a core of people that have taken it upon themselves to encourage the group to get bigger. We have taken that a bit literally and make food for the group, but the intent is to continue to make a welcome environment for our fellow IT7 racers. We have even passed out flyers to IT7 drivers at non-MARRS events to encourage participation in MARRS events. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread that IT7 is running more cars than 30 other classes at a typical MARRS weekend.

IT7 Speed - I know what lap Owen set that record on, I was running with him in my IT7 car and the two of us were drafting around the track at a good clip. While Owen and I are not perfect drivers in perfect cars, we have been running and developing these two cars for a combined 17 years of racing / track time. I know faster lap times are possible than the 1:29.1XX, I do not see a path to get anywhere near 1:26.8XX. IT7 exists along the entire east coast (SEDIV to NEDIV) and I suspect that folks feel the IT7 can not get to the front of ITA at most tracks in most cases.

Run Groups - If you stipulate that the goal is 8 run groups to allow more track time per MARRS weekend, then the grouping becomes a challenge. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the 8 run groups. I prefer the IT7 / SRX7 group we had in 08. The old grouping worked well since our cars (all rotary) had the same mighty 8 to 12 foot-pounds of torque. I think the IT7/B/C group can work, we will all have to be aware of who we are racing and take it from there. I also think that running a sprint race (12 laps or so) and a longer race in one weekend does add to the fun of a typical MARRS weekend.

Beer - Perhaps I could buy you a beer at the MARRS banquet and we can discuss more?

Have a Merry Christmas!

Jim Hess
IT7 Class Rep

[mlytle]

So the groups are set??????? This is the best you guys can come up with? I haven't heard anything from the our dead beat ITS/ ITR rep on his thoughts!!!??? ;) Is he satisified with us getting grouped in with the Big Bore??????? If I remember right there were many incidents 2 years ago when we were with big bore, has anyone forgot? I know I didn't and ML's 2 tone blue BMW remembers also.

I ran to the window threw open the sash, slipped on a beer can and fell on my ass.
Happy Hoildays All


yo dan! sounds like someone doesn't read their email....i sent out the bad news, along with my editorial comments, to the itr/s list two months ago....;)

currently in negotiations with the big bore and ITE driver's reps in an attempt to keep the carnage in check.

but i have to be nice now that i am on the region's board of directors. between racing, the comp committee, the ITAC and the BOD, i may be seeing a shrink soon for multiple personality disorder....:)

[dj10]

yo dan! sounds like someone doesn't read their email....i sent out the bad news, along with my editorial comments, to the itr/s list two months ago....;)

currently in negotiations with the big bore and ITE driver's reps in an attempt to keep the carnage in check.

but i have to be nice now that i am on the region's board of directors. between racing, the comp committee, the ITAC and the BOD, i may be seeing a shrink soon for multiple personality disorder....:)

i remember reading the bad news but not your comments.:shrug: how the hell is a meeting with the reps going to control the carnage????? as you know from being up front and personal....it's the AS group I'm worried about. Ohhhh BoD....congrats.:)
I think you can count me out of the 1st race @ summit until until i get a sit rep of the race.

[mlytle]

the big bore rep is an AS driver, and the AS class shrank big time last year....plus as ITR we are faster than the AS cars. it is the ITS folks i am worried about.....

my sitrep may be from the sidelines, not positive i will be running marrs next year.

[kbailey]

James- thanks for the response. Your point is much more clear to me now. I think Jim has spoken well for the IT7 class so I won't go down that road. We certainly don't have to agree on everything for the groupings to work out.

Given the group sizes based on last year's numbers and the expected drop due to the economy I think we'll have plenty of room to manuever out there and have a good time (not like an 83 car start at VIR). Let's just make sure we talk and make the most of it!

Kevin

[dave parker]

Hi Group
I have been watching this thread for over a week now. I wanted to wait and see how things "played out" but, I will add my thoughts.

1. I think that the "qualifying race" format is a bad idea, brought to us by people who have been drinking the NASA kool aid (Saturday-practice, qualifying, race Sunday-practice, qualifying, race). But it is also fomented by the " I don't want to sit around all day Saturday waiting to qualify, I am a racer- I want to race" mindset.

2. I think that the annual "group shuffle" is inevitable. It usually occurs as soon as a race group of mixed classes has finally learned how to race together.

3. People will always be upset about change, regardless of how necessary or beneficial it may be. There will always be an element of fear about any sort of change.

I think that the only way to avoid any of the issues that have been raised in this thread is to either race a Miata (SM or SSM) or a formula car (in the wings 'n things or formula yawn (FV)) group as these seem to be "protected".

cheers
Dave Parker

[jjjanos]

Hi Group
2. I think that the annual "group shuffle" is inevitable. It usually occurs as soon as a race group of mixed classes has finally learned how to race together.

Dave,

IMO, the shuffle was caused by two things -
1. Low car counts in the SRF group. For 2 races last year, they were combined with other groups. The single class SRF group couldn't be justified. We could have put them with either of the OW groups or a sedan group. Neither SRF or OW wanted a shotgun wedding and, when the music stopped, Prod didn't have a chair. There were other places they could gone, but it would have meant even more shuffling then we have now.

2. ITS/ITA not working as a combo. ITS had to go somewhere and combining S with B a/o C had been tried before. It darn near killed ITC and many of the problems that were there for the A/S combo were there when S was with the slower IT classes.

IMO, consolidation was caused by the demand for "more" and a belief that, regardless of the groupings, car counts are going to be down. Whether that's track time or racing, I don't know. We spend a huge part of the weekend sitting on our butts waiting to go out and it didn't make sense to me (at least) to be sitting around for a bunch of 18 car groups. I'd rather be in my car then in the paddock. If it were up to me, we would have consolidated the OW groups too.

I'll say it again, if someone puts together a 9-group schedule that both works and is worth the pain of consolidation, then let's discuss it. I just don't see it working and at that point, we might as well go back to 10 groups and have a picnic in the paddock.