2009 MARRS Format - speak up now or live with it

[jjjanos]

For 2009, the current proposed run groups are (2008 avg car count):
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 changes from 2008 are:
ITS/ITR with Big Bore
SRF running with Prod
RX7/SS group dissolved and split among the ITA and ITB/ITC groups

Key proposed and actual changes
- Groups wanting split starts for Sunday will have that in the supps
- Saturday racing and longer races on Sunday, i.e. more track time both days
- You will be racing with new classes and drivers. Most groups will have more classes on track potentially FUBARING a class race.

Current proposed schedules:
15 min AM qualifying setting grid for Saturday race
9 to 12 lap races on Saturday
20 lap races on Sunday with grid set by fastest TIME from Saturday

Question:
Is this schedule worth condensing down to 8 run groups?

Two things to consider if proposing adding groups:
1. A ninth group translates to 7-lap races on Saturday and 18-lap races on Sunday.
2. Shorter races encourage stupidity, and low-percentage moves.

We meet on Saturday to make the final decision. If you have an opinion, you need to let your reps know - both for and against. If you don't, you'll have only yourself to blame for what gets decided.

[JamesB]

I just dont see the need to add sat afternoon of a 9 lap race (yes it will be 9 not 12 for all groups) which will just add more work to the cleanup crews and more work on the cars. I dont understand why split It7 and srx7 to put them with A and B, why not just put ITa/b/c in the same group and call it a day. two less groups to be ticked off. the 7's and SSB will stay together which seemed to work well last year.

[dave parker]

Jeff
As a driver who races in both the Small Bore Prod group and in ITC, I propose (no make that demand) that those groups have split starts or at least split grids.

I also think that the CRB should look very closely at combining the Wings n Things group and the Formula Vee group. The folks driving fendered cars are paying the bills so that these two groups can have their own little playground with low car counts and lots of open track. Meanwhile the majority of the regions racers get to take a bite of the big shit sandwich left from these racers "special needs". Please do not give me the "speed difference is a safety issue" crap arguement either. A perfect example of speed difference is the shown in the Small Bore prod group when you look at the lap times of the SPU cars compared to the H Prod cars.

Otherwise I am ok with the rest of the proposal knowing full well that the Region leadership (whomever "they" are) will do what "they" want not what the racers want.

Thanks for spending the time to get the word out. :)
cheers
dave parker

[Gregg]

Here is what I came up with that I think will go to mollify those who just want to "qualify" on Sunday and did not come to race.
625

[Gregg]

I just dont see the need to add sat afternoon of a 9 lap race (yes it will be 9 not 12 for all groups) which will just add more work to the cleanup crews and more work on the cars.
Given the formula that is used to determine the past years's scheduls and feedback from stewards, a 10-12 lap (+ pace lap) race is very doable and will allow for an earlier Satruday finish than we currently have.


I dont understand why split It7 and srx7 to put them with A and B, why not just put ITa/b/c in the same group and call it a day. two less groups to be ticked off. the 7's and SSB will stay together which seemed to work well last year.
It's really quite simple. Once you join ITA/ITB/ITC together you are at over 50 cars and then you have some VERY undersubscribed tin top groups. It's a balancing act. When we went to 10 run groups two years ago, the target density was 32-35 cars/group. Our projections (which includes add'l drop off from '08) would put us right there with eight run groups in '09. Also, you assume that the 7 classes are ticked off. In speaking with their reps, I would argue that your assumption is invalid. In fact, this new plan gives the opportunity for double-dipping for a bunch of drivers.

The fact of the matter is that most racers come to the track to race, and not to qualify. The worker chiefs have stated that they prefer to watching racing, and not qualifying.

And Dave--Just for argument's sake, I'd like to point out that Small Wings had a larger turnout race after race after race than ITB/ITC last year. In addition, I'm sure you will agree, that two open wheel cars getting together at a high rate of speed has a far greater potential for injury than two tin tops. While *I* looked we looked at having SRF run w/ a group other than Small Bore, all of the effected reps felt that this would be the best combination.

Look everybody, with money tightening up, WDCR will probably need to compete for entries (and $$) in '09, whereas we've never really had to before. That means keeping the status quo just won't work. We need incentives to draw racers and more track time and more racing are just two ways to do it.

[JamesB]

Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed. Which interesting enough for me to wonder why to go through all this trouble again. But opening up the 7's to run their own class plus A or in spec plus IT7 makes all the sense in the world to me. For the few if any double dippers that might open the window for I guess we will just have to bend and sway for. Again SS or IT7 wont effect me since I am not in the front of the field or running lap times around them so I could care less. Though I think split starts with 4 different classes will never happen so our group should just get used to it from the get go so we can avoid possible body damaging melees.

If the format allows me to choose start sat afternoon DFL and avoid the probable starting melee but allow me to keep my Sunday qual position, I am perfectly fine with that. If this format allows people to feel that there is a percieved improvement on their dollars to goto a MARRS race rather then head north or south to another region I can support that. I dont want us to push and progress to the 2 day double format, noone liked it when we ran that with SARRC, why would they like it 2 years later for the entire series?

[Gregg]

Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed.
Not sure I understand what you're saying here. The groupings that Jeff listed are those that were voted on and agreed to in October. Perhaps the problem is that Jeff considers them to be "proposed" while the rest of us (except perhaps the ITB rep) consider them to be voted on, and approved for '09.

I know that Jeff is re-listing them simply because I know that your rep is going to ask at Saturday's meeting that we move back to 9 or ten run groups. I would be remiss to mention that after taking an informal poll of most of your class's drivers, the overwhelming sentiment is to move to eight groups and increase track time.

[spnkzss]

I dont want us to push and progress to the 2 day double format, noone liked it when we ran that with SARRC, why would they like it 2 years later for the entire series?

Most of us didn't like it because of 90 cars on the track at one time, not so much the double format. Personally I like it. I actually like the NASA format even better with a Practice, a Qualifying session, and a race EACH day. SCCA won't ever see that due to the pure number of cars and can't fit it in one day, which I understand completely.

[JamesB]

I went back and checked, your right and my memory had me thinking spec7 was in another group. My bad for mixing that up, I guess having more going on then racing this winter, I thought that was a change. Either way, it won't fix the overall too many classes problem we already have and that is nothing WDCR can fix on its own. And agian it wont effect me until I can get away from the pointy end of ITC which is enough of a problem for me.

However, this is the real first of any confirmed written rules to be voted on about the saturday format change that I have seen. And again, I dont care as long as I can do my qualifying without the worry of getting stuck in a gravel trap for the rest of the session (has not happen to me but I know it can) or needing to pull off early because a belt decided to let go (has happend to me before) and ruining my position for the points race on Sunday. If Saturday is to be a points counted race, then just push the SARRC double format already since it will defintly change my plans to trying to push a full season through this year. I know money is tight all over, its not flowing out of my pockets this year and the more I think about the changes the more I am thinking about taking a wait and see approach since I really cannot afford to rebuild a car this year.

[JamesB]

Most of us didn't like it because of 90 cars on the track at one time, not so much the double format. Personally I like it. I actually like the NASA format even better with a Practice, a Qualifying session, and a race EACH day. SCCA won't ever see that due to the pure number of cars and can't fit it in one day, which I understand completely.


For you it was car count, for others it was the lack of time to fix their car after either the car count or an overlooked piece of prep (and maybe a few didnt prep at all) left them flailing to get the car fixed in time. I heard many of stories after that weekend and many more where unfavorable then favorable. Also to do a 2 day double format with good races we will have to further push the groups together and you are looking at averaging 45 cars a group.

[jjjanos]

I just dont see the need to add sat afternoon of a 9 lap race (yes it will be 9 not 12 for all groups) which will just add more work to the cleanup crews and more work on the cars.

Because drivers wanted more track time? Because drivers wanted more racing?


As a driver who races in both the Small Bore Prod group and in ITC, I propose (no make that demand) that those groups have split starts or at least split grids.

As your ITC Rep, I will ask for a split start for the IT7/B/C/SS group. ITB/ITC on field and the newcomers a second. The decision, however, will need to be a group one. Small Bore/SRF is the responsibility of someone else. I will, however, let them know what you think.


I also think that the CRB should look very closely at combining the Wings n Things group and the Formula Vee group.

One thing to consider is that after last year's "issue," the open-wheel DRs worked very hard at raising their participation levels. Their numbers were up in 2008 and, IMO, it would be unfair to undercut that effort as long as they show progress.

In addition, I believe that decision is out of the CRC's hands. After last year's fiasco, it is unlikely the Region's BoD would allow it. We also need the Division Executive Steward to approve our supps and I do not know if he would allow us to combine them.


Otherwise I am ok with the rest of the proposal knowing full well that the Region leadership (whomever "they" are) will do what "they" want not what the racers want.

"WE/I" are trying to find out what the races want so that "we/I" can do what the racers want. When 2 drivers give their opinions out of 20 and 3 of those are indifferent, it pretty much guarantees that the DRs will do what "they" think is best or want.


Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed. Which interesting enough for me to wonder why to go through all this trouble again.

I believe that some DRs will ask that 8-groups be reconsidered. If it's to be reconsidered, the drivers should have some input.


Though I think split starts with 4 different classes will never happen so our group should just get used to it from the get go so we can avoid possible body damaging melees.

Well, I've seen NASA do 4 split starts with one of them standing, so I'm confident we could do it if we wanted. What I was thinking, however, was a maximum of 2 start groups per run group to seperate the newcomers from the oldtimers in the groups.


Not sure I understand what you're saying here. The groupings that Jeff listed are those that were voted on and agreed to in October. Perhaps the problem is that Jeff considers them to be "proposed" while the rest of us (except perhaps the ITB rep) consider them to be voted on, and approved for '09.

Until we get our supps approved, it can be undone. If people are happy with what the CRC decided, they should let their reps know that. If they want changes, there still is time to revise our plans. In addition, there was an understanding that we would get split starts for the new run groups and until that is in the supps, I'm not considering this a done deal. There are several layers to getting supps approved and some of those have a bias against split starts a/o split grids.

[spnkzss]

For you it was car count, for others it was the lack of time to fix their car after either the car count or an overlooked piece of prep (and maybe a few didnt prep at all) left them flailing to get the car fixed in time. I heard many of stories after that weekend and many more where unfavorable then favorable. Also to do a 2 day double format with good races we will have to further push the groups together and you are looking at averaging 45 cars a group.

While I understand a lack of time to fix something that happened on track, I can't give ANY sympathy for lack of prep. That's part of the game. :shrug:


We've (WDCR) I think is rather spoiled. I like it, but we are.

[JamesB]

Yes I am well aware of the NASA splits and they do a great job of it. The standing starts they have scare me as you have 2 more groups comming up the line if things going horribly bad. But WDCR has never done a split with multiple pace cars which is why people get a sore spot when it comes to the start.

Eh, I like the MARRS format the way it was. Changing it just pushes me away, if it brings 2 others into the fold then great the comp comittee or whatever they are called has made the correct decisions. If it doesnt improve at all, then how do you undo what has been done for 2010?

[erlrich]

As an ITA driver I'm fine with the 8 groups, the composition of the groups, and the weekend race format that has been proposed. As a MARRS driver I'm not too keen on IT cars in big bore, but I don't know any way to fix that short of adding another group, which really defeats the purpose of the exercise. There are some really slow ITS cars in our series though... guess they will just have to learn to watch their mirrors. I do also think there is the potential for the same kind of problems we had in ITA/S/R last year in other groups, but I think until we try it and give it a chance we aren't going to know for sure. I do believe the split starts are going to be a big factor in making the groups work, and if we can't get the stewards/chiefs on board, as well as the drivers behaving themselves, the whole thing doesn't have much of a chance of working.

On your proposal Gregg; I like it with the exception of the Labor Day weekend. I would really love to have two back to back 20-lap races on Sunday and Monday, and get the qualifying out of the way Saturday. But that's a minor difference, and not a deal breaker for me whichever way it goes.

I did have one thought/question on the Labor Day event - is it legal (per SCCA) to require a driver to document that they have completed at least one race in the current calendar year, as a prerequisite to entering an event? If so, that might be a solution to the issue of holding those two races under a single sanction.

[dj10]

Count me out of any racing at summit point if we have to race with big bore. I had 3k worth of damage from some asswipe in a gt1 car last race @ Mid Ohio and had a few very bad experiences at summit when running with big bore a couple of years ago. I won't subject my car to these increased risks. It's bad enought to run with big bore at the glen or mid ohio where the track is wider but on a narrow track.......well it's not if..........it's when.

[JamesB]

Earl, Just keep laborday under a single sanction. The format, eh, I have read in enough times that ill think about it before I shell out my money. I am already missing M1 due to a friends wedding, so I will get to hear about how the event went in the weeks that pass before the next event under the new format a few months later. VIR is still up in the air for me right now due to our national security confrence is generally around the mothers day weekend and I need them to announce the week so I know if I can make it down there. No way am I going to fly in Fri eve and then tow down to VIR.

[Gregg]

On your proposal Gregg; I like it with the exception of the Labor Day weekend. I would really love to have two back to back 20-lap races on Sunday and Monday, and get the qualifying out of the way Saturday. But that's a minor difference, and not a deal breaker for me whichever way it goes.
For some reason I didn't see the clearest answer in the wee hours when I was finishing up the proposal. I like your idea better and it works just as well. Time for proposal #2.

And Dan, sorry that you feel that bad about those increased risks. Unfortunately many times it doesn't matter what types or classes of cars you race with but who you race with. Many of us have incurred substantial damage to our cars over the years, much of it being from dumb luck to dumb driving. That's one of the risks of being out there. Given what I saw of Big Bore this year, I'm not too sure all of your fears are justified, but I can definitely sympathize.

[Dave Gomberg]

.... But WDCR has never done a split with multiple pace cars which is why people get a sore spot when it comes to the start.
I don't think you've been around long enough (or your memory is failing), but the DC region has done split starts with two pace cars. It has been quite a while, however.

Dave

[mlytle]

Count me out of any racing at summit point if we have to race with big bore. I had 3k worth of damage from some asswipe in a gt1 car last race @ Mid Ohio and had a few very bad experiences at summit when running with big bore a couple of years ago. I won't subject my car to these increased risks. It's bad enought to run with big bore at the glen or mid ohio where the track is wider but on a narrow track.......well it's not if..........it's when.

i am probably out of the marrs series, and most racing this year for reasons other than big bore and economy, and i am afraid the big bore mix with its/itr has a significant number of other its racers staying home or going to other venues. it is unfortunate that jamming its in with big bore will kill the resurgence the class has experienced over the last two years. same thing happened last time its was with big bore. we don't learn from history.

[mlytle]

Here is what I came up with that I think will go to mollify those who just want to "qualify" on Sunday and did not come to race.
625

competely disagree withh the points system. way too complicated. there should be no points for pole or the sat race. feature races should be equal marrs races. if there is a desire to make the saturday race count for "something"...make the sat summit races a separate washington dc series...away from marrs.

[Gregg]

competely disagree withh the points system. way too complicated. there should be no points for pole or the sat race. feature races should be equal marrs races. if there is a desire to make the saturday race count for "something"...make the sat summit races a separate washington dc series...away from marrs.
I completely agree that it's complicated and would hope that it's a conversation starter for combination with other ideas. I will be more than happy to expand on my reasons for not having a separate championship at Saturday's meeting.

As when we met in October, there were a lot of people present, not a lot of ideas. Judging by the number of proposals submitted, it's looking like that might be the case once again. Hopefully it isn't.

[Charlie Broring]

I think we need to reassess some of the plans we made made last fall. We didn't come up with this format by by evaluating the deficiencies and building on last years successful program. Rather, made some wholesale changes in a successful program that please some members but alienate others.

Think abut this. With 11 races, 3 tows out of region and almost twice the number of racing laps per weekend it is the most ambitious and expensive MARRS series ever proposed. This while we are in the worst recession in over 50 years. Yes more race laps is nice but they are also more expensive then qualifying or practice on old tires. For me personally it's just too expensive to consider running the while series this year. I am forced to race less.

I think The MARRS series will lose far more racers who are displeased by this new program then it will gain in new racers attracted by this format.

Now, I don't disagree with everything in this planned program. I think 11 races can work if MARRS allows points drops for 3 races. This would help keep competitors who cannot afford to tow to 3 expensive away races.

I also think Saturday races in the second qualifying session could work if we don't compromise the other aspects of our program to do so. I think 8 run groups is a big compromise. The Miata's and Open Wheel have it pretty good but the remaking 25 classes are squeezed into 4 race groups. Consider that 2 years ago overcrowded race groups were such an important issue that we expanded to 10 groups and stopped going to VIR. Yet now we no longer are concerned about crowded groups.

And we need to make the Saturday race meaningful.

In the mid 1990's we had qualifying races for one season. We also had longer races for one season. Neither were successful and we returned to the format used through last year. We should learn from the past mistakes.

I hope we reconsider the current plans for 2009, but I'm afraid that it's going to be hard to change these ill considered plans at this late date.

Charlie Broring

[evanwebb]

Take ITS out of the Big Bore group and put it somewhere else. ITR is more or less as fast as AS so that makes some sense, but there are a bunch of ITS cars running slower than 1:30 and they shouldn't be in with Big Bore.

[evanwebb]

Go back to 9 groups and un-screwup this grouping. 18 lap races on Sunday is plenty long enough. Get SRF away from small bore. Get ITS (probably ITR) out of the group with Big Bore. You could probably figure out a way to break the IT/SS/SRX7 etc. classes into three groups with ITR the fastest in one group, ITS the fastest inthe second group, and ITA the fastest in the third group.

[jjjanos]

The Miata's and Open Wheel have it pretty good but the remaking 25 classes are squeezed into 4 race groups Consider that 2 years ago overcrowded race groups were such an important issue that we expanded to 10 groups and stopped going to VIR. Yet now we no longer are concerned about crowded groups. .

OK - crowded groups are bad. OK - an alphabet soup of classes is bad. That means the only group that has it "good" is FV/F5. They have a 2 class group and only 19 cars on average.

Spec Miata doesn't have it good, it might be a single-class group, but it has crowding equal to or greater than all groups other than SSM and Small Bore. SSM doesn't have it good, they are the most crowded. Fast formula doesn't have it good, they have 11 classes on-track at once.

Lesson - Anything can be made to look bad with the correct spin.


In the mid 1990's we had qualifying races for one season. We also had longer races for one season. Neither were successful and we returned to the format used through last year. We should learn from the past mistakes.

We had 5-lap qualifying races. The same thing happens at WGI when a 10-lap feature race works out to 5 laps under the green. Lesson - very short races equals stupidity.

We shortened our races because we ADDED groups. Not because the races were unpopular. If you've got a fixed amount of track time and you go from 8 to 9 groups, it means that Mohel's Law has to be applied and everyone loses 12% off the top.


Take ITS out of the Big Bore group and put it somewhere else. ITR is more or less as fast as AS so that makes some sense, but there are a bunch of ITS cars running slower than 1:30 and they shouldn't be in with Big Bore.

Go back to 9 groups and un-screwup this grouping. 18 lap races on Sunday is plenty long enough. Get SRF away from small bore. Get ITS (probably ITR) out of the group with Big Bore. You could probably figure out a way to break the IT/SS/SRX7 etc. classes into three groups with ITR the fastest in one group, ITS the fastest inthe second group, and ITA the fastest in the third group.

We should be able to combine ITS with either ITA and not have problems. We cannot combined the MARRS ITS with ITA without creating problems. The number of S cars we lose by combining them with Big Bore is far smaller than the number of A and B cars we will lose if those two classes are forced to race with them.

I didn't see why ITR couldn't stay with ITA and I was surprised that the Rep didn't suggest it.

ITS and ITA aren't don't work together. The only class IT class we can combine with them is ITB. An ITR/ITS group is too damn small. You want an ITB/ITS group? I sure don't want to be on track with them.

If people want 9 run groups, put together a grouping and don't just magically wave your hands and say "presto! 9 run groups!". I'll send you the car counts we used.

[evanwebb]

Yes, ITB and ITS together works fine. They are pretty well separated by speed, and it has been done before. Its no different than EP and HP running together. However, a GT1 car running 1:20 on slicks has no place running with a 1:30+ ITS car on DOT radials. 8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

[evanwebb]

Please post the car counts, and how they were calculated.

[lateapex911]

You want an ITB/ITS group? I sure don't want to be on track with them.

.

Why not??

Generally speaking the difference in lap times means each group is left to themselves. A split start helps a LOT. MUCH better than running A and S together.

[dave parker]

Why not??

Generally speaking the difference in lap times means each group is left to themselves. A split start helps a LOT. MUCH better than running A and S together.

Jake
We tried this several years ago, it had mixed results. The down side was that a lot of ITB drivers got the crap scared out of them by a couple of uber fast e36 BMW's that were well driven (ie. lots of go). Another downside was the front eight of the ITB field got fucked by some ITS cars that were poorly driven or not well sorted. We lost several ITB cars in those events. We also had some very upset ITS drivers who felt wronged after they held up ITB cars turn after turn only to be beat on on track or brow beat in the paddock later.
The upside was that it was fun making an ITS car look like a chump with my ITB Golf GTi.
There was no split grid or split start which meant that if you weren't in with the front of the ITB field you had no chance of catching them because you had to race through the ITS backmarkers.
cheers
dave parker

[dazzlesa]

personally when i am in my A car, the S cars are fine to race with. the experience level and speeds are closer. when i am in my B car, i hate to run with the S cars. we end up running with the slower or less experienced cars

[erlrich]

Please post the car counts, and how they were calculated.

Below is a listing of the average cars per class for '08 for the seven MARRS races at Summit, based on the number of starters for each race. The two out-of-region races at Nelson Ledges were not included. Also, here (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wJaMSRQjTYa6tEocGwB77zCblpRhY2La_XVPPxTzeIXX6M2vau F16OGcQe8l-vCHl1-FurnCeuZOeq0USLW4Wsxr0L8/09%20MARRS%20Groups.xls) is a link to a spreadsheet where you can try different groupings and see the car counts based on '08 actuals. Use the "Proposed 09 Groups" tab to make up the groups.

Class OA Average
1 SSM 40.86
2 SM 34.71
3 ITA 21.43
4 SRX7 17.29
5 FV 17.14
6 ITB 15.00
7 SRF 14.71
8 ITS 11.14
9 IT7 6.57
10 GTP 5.57
11 ITC 4.86
12 EP 4.43
13 CF 4.29
14 FC 4.29
15 AS 4.00
16 GTA 4.00
17 HP 3.86
18 GT1 3.57
19 ITR 3.43
20 SPU 3.29
21 FP 3.14
22 ITE 3.14
23 SSC 2.71
24 SSB 2.14
25 F500 1.71
26 FE 1.71
27 FF 1.71
28 GT2 1.57
29 SPO 1.29
30 DSR 1.00
31 FS 0.86
32 S2000 0.86
33 DP 0.71
34 GTL 0.57
35 FA 0.43
36 FM 0.43
37 FB 0.29
38 GP 0.29
39 CSR 0.14
40 T1 0.14
41 T3 0.14
249.43

[jjjanos]

Yes, ITB and ITS together works fine. They are pretty well separated by speed, and it has been done before. Its no different than EP and HP running together. However, a GT1 car running 1:20 on slicks has no place running with a 1:30+ ITS car on DOT radials. 8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

1. It was done with a different group of ITS drivers.
2. GT1 cars currently run with DOT cars - AS cars. (see page 470 - http://cms.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/09%20GCR/ASCS.pdf )According to mylaps.com, the differential is in the area of 10-14 seconds compared to the 11-18 seconds that should be the difference between GT1 and ITS.
3. EP and HP work together because drivers in both classes are aware of what is going on around them. I am also confident that ITB drivers would be aware.
4. The tail third of the ITS field is lapping 6 to 9 seconds off the ITB pace and it isn't straightline speed that accounts for that difference. I run mid-pack ITB and my lap times are faster than over one-half of the ITS field. It isn't horsepower - it's cornering speeds. ITS will motor away from an ITB car on the straights and hold them up from 5 to the bridge. You'll be hitting ITS ass with your nose coming out of T1. You'll be beating out ITS dents from the side-to-side contact in the carousel. You'll foul your plugs in the esses. You'll be picking your car off the tires in the chute. You'll soil your driving suit as you close up on an ITS car between turn-in and the apex at T10 and you'll do it because you won't be expecting to come on a "faster" car that quickly and you'll have to do it because if you don't, you just FUBARED your race.
5. I spent 3 years in ITC trying to get past tail-end Charlies (2 years SRX7 and 1 ITB.) with more HP and less cornering speed then the Titanic. There's a reason I went out and bought a B car. The only one thing that's remotely close to watching your race vanish in the distance while you are held up behind a HP-rich/corner-poor car and that's spending 2 laps setting him up for the pass and having him not have the good graces or common sense to not roar past you on the straight.
6. Our leaders will be on the back 25% of the ITS field in about 4 laps and the ITB race will be completely and totally screwed. The ITS cars will walk away in a straight line, park in the corners holding up the leaders and will do what they did in the ITA/ITR/ITS group. Unless these guys have gotten a hell of alot faster over the winter, ITS has to be with cars that have the HP to motor past them. ITB isn't that class.
7. IT7 and the two SS classes run lap times right around ours, not slower. With a split start, we'll never see them.


8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

Are you in favor of more track time? Do you want more racing? If you answer yes, then there is a point and it is required. The quick solution is combining the two open-wheel groups, but that won't happen and nobody wants to open that fecal canister after last year.

[Charlie Broring]

So you wanted lotsa track time...

The 2009 MARRS 22 Race Championship Series: (Sponsored by Master Card)

The Summit race format will be Saturday AM 15 minute qualifying. Saturday PM 10 lap races paying up to 100 points. 20 Lap Sunday races for 300 points.

Labor day is the old traditional two sanction number double race format with 2 qualifying sessions on Saturday and 20 lap 400 point races on Sunday and Monday.

Two race weekends at New Jersey, probably same format as a Summit point race.

A race at VIR details TBD.

8 race groups.
ITR and ITS with Big Bore.
ITA with SRX7.
ITB ITC IT7 SSB SSC together.

[spnkzss]

Can't wait!!:eclipsee_steering:

[JamesB]

Jeff, your funny. But I can gaurentee you that, we will not have split starts now that there are 4 classes in the ITB run group. Just like everyone else, you will have to deal with the starts. I am not happy that Saturday is now a points race. Did they at least double the drops? Or you only get 2 still?

[erlrich]

Jeff, your funny. But I can gaurentee you that, we will not have split starts now that there are 4 classes in the ITB run group. Just like everyone else, you will have to deal with the starts. I am not happy that Saturday is now a points race. Did they at least double the drops? Or you only get 2 still?

As I understand it, the number of drops won't double - and the exact number is still uncertain until the VIR event is finalized. Here's how it was explained to us:

"Both races count toward your MARRS points, but you cannot drop a single day. When time comes to calculate your drops, it will be an entire sanction/event that gets dropped, not just a specific Saturday or a specific Sunday."

As to the split starts, I'm just guessing but they will probably do something like with ITA - classes will be combined and then split for the start. In our case, ITA and T3 would make up one "mini-group", with SRX7 making up the second. Of those two groups, the one with the fastest qual time would get the first flag.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, your funny. But I can gaurentee you that, we will not have split starts now that there are 4 classes in the ITB run group. Just like everyone else, you will have to deal with the starts.

James,

The stewards were very accomodating towards split starts for Sunday races. I believe that every group whose DRs asked for split starts was told they would get them. Ask your DR whether your group got a split start.


I am not happy that Saturday is now a points race. Did they at least double the drops? Or you only get 2 still?

No. One less than the out-of-region MARRS sanctions.

A great deal of discussion about making Saturday award points. Almost of of it was centered around cost versus intent on track. Some folks wanted a Saturday Championship.

The majority of those present apparently felt that, given the opportunity to race w/o points and enough points to "make it matter", a large % of drivers would simply use the session as a qualifing session and wouldn't "be in the game." That, if Saturday's finishing order didn't count towards the MARRS championship, a significant number of drivers wouldn't be racing. There was concern of "racers" and "qualifiers" impeding each other.

I'm not in that group and given the opportunity to race, I'm going to race, study my competitors and practice racecraft. It doesn't matter to me whether I'm earning points for MARRS or not.

[JamesB]

Jeff, well good luck on that request for 4 split starts. Personally, I vote no. We managed last year with ITC, we can manage this year that we have more classes in the group. But hey that is how the cookie crumbles.

So to try and force people to race the powers that be chose to make it a points counting race. You realize there is much more potential in that causing more of a rift as those that WANT the championship and those that are just there to get a couple of clean laps in will only get worse.

I only wish they increased the drops if they where going to put points on the Sat race. I will have used up my drops as of M1 due to a schedule conflict keeping me from the first race of the season.

[JamesB]

I don't think you've been around long enough (or your memory is failing), but the DC region has done split starts with two pace cars. It has been quite a while, however.

Dave


Dave,

I have not been around long enough then. At least since 2003 I have never seen a race with a true split start using multiple pace cars. Only the situation of the pole sitter flagging the start, which I never thought was a great idea as someone will always have an issue with that.

[Gregg]

These are not the "split grids" that ITC/SRX7 and ITC/ITB ran in '06 and part of '07.

Split starts for '09 will have not more than two "mini-groups" of classes. We may have two pace cars if drivers/cars are available, but the second mini-group will always get a pace car.

As was mentioned, some groups have already provided how these "mini-groups" will be broken out and they will be written into the supps. For your run group I would recommend splitting them as (IT7/SSB/SSC) + (ITB/ITC) but that's for the different reps in that group to decide.

For a much more detailed report on what our '09 format than what Charlie provided, see what I sent my drivers on Saturday night.

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/MARRS-ITA/message/1833

If it's important for you to know what the vote breakdowns were, I can certainly provide that information as well.

[erlrich]

Jeff, well good luck on that request for 4 split starts. Personally, I vote no. We managed last year with ITC, we can manage this year that we have more classes in the group. But hey that is how the cookie crumbles.

So to try and force people to race the powers that be chose to make it a points counting race. You realize there is much more potential in that causing more of a rift as those that WANT the championship and those that are just there to get a couple of clean laps in will only get worse.

James, I might be wrong but I think the most you are going to get in any race is one split start (2 groups). At least that's how I understood it.

As far as racing on Sat. - I don't see why anyone who isn't worried about racing for the MARRS championship couldn't still go to the back of the group and treat the session as a qualifying session. Since (I assume) there will be a pace lap, it should actually be easier IMO to lay back at the start and get a couple of clean laps. And if you are running flat out you still shouldn't have to worry about the leaders for at least 3-4 laps. But then, I'm with Jeff on this one, I would want to race even if there were no points involved.

[spnkzss]

I'm finding it very interesting that "racers" are concerned with more racing? :shrug:

[jjjanos]

Jeff, well good luck on that request for 4 split starts.

I do not believe that anyone suggested that each class receive its own start. The idea that newcomers be split from oldtimers in each group is what I think people are suggesting. E.g. SRF from the rest of Prod. ITA from SRX7, etc.


Personally, I vote no. We managed last year with ITC, we can manage this year that we have more classes in the group. But hey that is how the cookie crumbles.

IT7/ITB/ITC/SS are doing a single start.


I only wish they increased the drops if they where going to put points on the Sat race. I will have used up my drops as of M1 due to a schedule conflict keeping me from the first race of the season.

I believe there is some confusion how the drops work.
Assuming VIR is a double, the 2009 MARRS championship is 11 sanction events. You drop 3 complete sanctions. If you do not go to MARRS1, that is 1 (one) of your drops. You still have 2 more drops.

[JamesB]

Rob - I have a limited budget. I always have and probably will until I manage to find a way to significantly increase my income or reduce my costs of living. Both of which I been trying to do with little help from the state, county, or BGE. So yes, I am very concerned as a driver about the burn rate of consumables in my car and the additional abuse I seem to take from time to time on race starts. I also don't believe the format does add anything additional to the program, instead it detracts from the program as a whole.

Jeff - The splits make more sense to me now if they are going to be true split starts not split grids like in any of my known past wth MARRS. However, if you think about it, the split grid situation was all that existed in recent history.

The drop system makes a little more sense, though I still don't agree with making the Sat race a MARRS points race.

[erlrich]

I do not believe that anyone suggested that each class receive its own start. The idea that newcomers be split from oldtimers in each group is what I think people are suggesting. E.g. SRF from the rest of Prod. ITA from SRX7, etc.

IT7/ITB/ITC/SS are doing a single start.


Jeff - I sincerely hope the decision not to split this group was based on driver's input, and was not something done purely out of spite. It seems to me splitting IT7/SSB from ITB/ITC/SSC would have been an easy decision, and would have kept the front-runners in the first group from ever seeing the front-runners in the second. The top 3-4 IT7 cars (out of the 5-6 that usually run) consistently run as fast or faster than the top ITB cars; and SSB actually should be the fastest class in that group. And with the small number of IT7/SSB entries we usually get that would have meant the ITB drivers would have had to contend with only a very few, well-spaced backmarkers from the first group - essentially giving them their own race. But, that's just my take.

[jjjanos]

Jeff - I sincerely hope the decision not to split this group was based on driver's input, and was not something done purely out of spite.

AFAIK, we did the same thing all of the DRs did. We had a short break-out session and made a decision whether it was needed.

I don't know which groups specifically requested split starts. I just know IT7/ITB/ITC/SS did not request it.

[Charlie Broring]

In regards to split starts, initially each group was asked to decide what they wanted for the upcoming season. Some groups knew what they wanted. Some were rather undecided. Some classes within groups disagreed. I suggested that the sups be phrased "Split Starts to be used as needed" and I believe this is what Gayle accepted.

There was no need to lock ourselves into or out of Split Starts at this point, as long as the stewards are accommodating. I believe a suitable understanding with the stewards was reached.

I really don't think that the ITB, IT7 etc group will need one, but I'm going to let your next driver rep work that out.

Charlie