Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: '07 MARRS IT Run Groups

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    It's looking like for '07 the MARRS race groups will been revised and ITA will be running with ITS/ITR (in '06 we were with ITB/IT7). ITB/ITC will now be together, and IT7 will race with SRX7/SSB/SSC. It concerns me that if some well built ITR cars show up we my be facing a situation where the great majority of the ITA cars (who typically outnumber ITS cars by more than 2X), possibly even those racing for a podium spot, will be in danger of getting lapped by the front of the ITR field. I know how the MARRS ITA drivers feel about this, but was just wondering what those of you outside the region, especially those who were involved with the ITR initiative, feel about this grouping. Keep in mind that at Summit Point a lap time differential of somewhere between 5 and 6 seconds should be the point at which IT cars will be getting lapped.

    On another note, it looks like (keep in mind nothing is 100% right now, as I understand it) they have also come up with a novel idea for dealing with the undersubscribed groups. For those who hadn&#39;t heard, there was a big debate about how to deal with the large disparity in group size (<10 for some groups v. almost 50 in others); the original solution was to make the MARRS races restricted, with the faster open-wheeled cars (wings-n-things) being excluded. Apparently the region&#39;s board didn&#39;t care much for that solution (along with many of the members as I understand - including yours truly), and asked the comp committee to come up with something better. So the decision has been made to add another run group (going from 9 to 10) for &#39;07, but also to go with the caveat that any group with less than 16 cars qualifying will have their races shortened to a number of laps equal to the number of qualifiers. My first reaction to that was "what a great idea", but after some thought I can&#39;t help but wonder if this won&#39;t have the effect of eventually eliminating some classes (how long are the FV drivers going to be willing to pay $200 for a 7 - 8 lap race?). Just wondering if this has been tried in any other regions, and what you guys think of the idea.

    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Lots of groups at lots of tracks have cars getting lapped by the overall leaders. I think it&#39;s a great luxury to be able to run an entire sprint race without having to deal with out-of-class traffic, but it isn&#39;t an inalienable right.

    K

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    alexandria, va
    Posts
    851

    Default

    It&#39;s looking like for &#39;07 the MARRS race groups will been revised and ITA will be running with ITS/ITR (in &#39;06 we were with ITB/IT7). ITB/ITC will now be together, and IT7 will race with SRX7/SSB/SSC. It concerns me that if some well built ITR cars show up we my be facing a situation where the great majority of the ITA cars (who typically outnumber ITS cars by more than 2X), possibly even those racing for a podium spot, will be in danger of getting lapped by the front of the ITR field. I know how the MARRS ITA drivers feel about this, but was just wondering what those of you outside the region, especially those who were involved with the ITR initiative, feel about this grouping. Keep in mind that at Summit Point a lap time differential of somewhere between 5 and 6 seconds should be the point at which IT cars will be getting lapped.

    On another note, it looks like (keep in mind nothing is 100% right now, as I understand it) they have also come up with a novel idea for dealing with the undersubscribed groups. For those who hadn&#39;t heard, there was a big debate about how to deal with the large disparity in group size (<10 for some groups v. almost 50 in others); the original solution was to make the MARRS races restricted, with the faster open-wheeled cars (wings-n-things) being excluded. Apparently the region&#39;s board didn&#39;t care much for that solution (along with many of the members as I understand - including yours truly), and asked the comp committee to come up with something better. So the decision has been made to add another run group (going from 9 to 10) for &#39;07, but also to go with the caveat that any group with less than 16 cars qualifying will have their races shortened to a number of laps equal to the number of qualifiers. My first reaction to that was "what a great idea", but after some thought I can&#39;t help but wonder if this won&#39;t have the effect of eventually eliminating some classes (how long are the FV drivers going to be willing to pay $200 for a 7 - 8 lap race?). Just wondering if this has been tried in any other regions, and what you guys think of the idea.
    [/b]
    run groups are set for 07 as you described. it was finalized on thursday.

    its had run with ita before (2-3 years ago). i doubt the itr cars will be much faster the first year than ed york was running back then in its. if itr is running 5 sec&#39;s a lap faster, they won&#39;t lap the ita leaders.

    marshall
    its/itr comp committe rep

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default

    Well if I understand it the ITS used to run with Big Bore so I bet they lost a lap now and then. The R cars don’t bother me much. When a guy can get by you easy it does not slow you down. It is the slow ITS cars that I find frustrating but that’s life.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    Well if I understand it the ITS used to run with Big Bore so I bet they lost a lap now and then. The R cars don&#39;t bother me much. When a guy can get by you easy it does not slow you down. It is the slow ITS cars that I find frustrating but that&#39;s life. [/b]
    Yeah, I&#39;m sure the ITS guys are thrilled to be getting out of Big Bore; I can&#39;t understand the logic in putting them there to start with - in the few opportunities I got to watch BB last year, the closing speed between the GT1s and ITS cars at the end of the front straight looked pretty damn scary.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ligonier, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,676

    Default


    run groups are set for 07 as you described. it was finalized on thursday.

    its had run with ita before (2-3 years ago). i doubt the itr cars will be much faster the first year than ed york was running back then in its. if itr is running 5 sec&#39;s a lap faster, they won&#39;t lap the ita leaders.

    marshall
    its/itr comp committe rep [/b]
    After last year, I can live with this . You may see me more at Summit in 07.


  7. #7

    Default

    I guess no grouping is ever perfect for everyone. This grouping is a lot better than the ITS / Big Bore group last year. That was scary at times. And yes, the ITS competitors routinely lost at least a lap in every race last year.
    Mark Lapos
    ITS RX7 #23
    www.rpperformanceracing.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Every Region has it&#39;s issues but I would think that it would be very easy to lump ITR/ITS together until ITR gains the numbers to warrant a move. Heck, you may only see 1-2 cars at every race for the first year in ITR...I bet more but you never know.



    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Exactly. I don&#39;t anticipate there being many R cars the first six months of 07 -- probably only BMW 325s -- and I would think that R/S/A is probably a great run group.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Eand I would think that R/S/A is probably a great run group. [/b]
    Well THAT is track dependent...I am a firm beliver that there should be at least two classes seperating run groups. Enough speed differential but not much lapping potential. S and B, A and C. R could go with A when it gets big enough...

    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    This grouping is a lot better than the ITS / Big Bore group last year.[/b]
    Agreed 100%. And just for the record I have no qualms whatsoever about racing with ITS - I think it will be interesting to see the ITA frontrunners having to deal with traffic from the get go next year . And as you guys have pointed out the ITR thing may not even be an issue for some time. It&#39;s just that I know we had some ITS Bimmers running in the 24&#39;s or 25&#39;s a couple of years ago, and with them loosing weight (what is it, 100 lbs?) in ITR, and with a good chance there will be some even better cars once the fast guys figure it all out...I&#39;m envisioning the ITR leaders running 23&#39;s, even 22&#39;s, in a year or two. I guess we&#39;ll just have to watch and see what happens.
    Edit: for reference, fast ITA cars are running in the 28&#39;s at Summit.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Well THAT is track dependent...I am a firm beliver that there should be at least two classes seperating run groups. Enough speed differential but not much lapping potential. S and B, A and C. R could go with A when it gets big enough...
    [/b]
    Right now, ITS/A/7 in the SEDiv is a great run group. Yes, the fast A cars run with the midpack (and sometimes the fast) S cars. But the speed differential is not too great, which keeps everyone together and usually prevents lapped traffic from deciding anything.

    I think the most dangerous run groups are the ones with significant speed differential. S and B cars running together at most tracks in the SE would result in the S cars catching the Bs as little as 1/2 through the race.

    S/A/7 really works well for us down here. Adding R to the top and dropping 7 to SM/B/C seems like a good not too radical change.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I posted this note in the MARRS Yahoo Group earlier,
    but I for one am disappointed that we will no longer be running with the
    ITB crowd. I found myself duking it out with several ITB racers and
    having a lot of fun actually RACING, and making new friends as well.
    Since my MR2, a solid mid-packer in ITA, has been the subject of being moved to ITB
    for years without success, I was also able to gauge the "what if"
    question in the back of my head. I fear I&#39;ll be out there turning laps by myself looking for the leaders in my
    mirrors this coming year. I also worry about our friends at the back of the grid. We&#39;re talking 15 seconds per lap in some cases, which means getting lapped TWICE! We&#39;ll just have to wait and see.
    AJ
    Art Jaso
    Former 1989 Toyota MR2 #55 ITB
    DC Region SCCA
    DC Region Board of Directors
    Coordinator of Racers Helping Racers Fund
    http://www.racershelpingracers.com/
    PDX/TT Committee Member
    PDX Co-Chief of Grid
    PDX Chief Technical Inspector
    SCCA Pit Marshall
    SCCA Pace Car
    SCCA F & C
    Producer of "Racing Summit Point" Video
    http://vimeo.com/67177646

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    alexandria, va
    Posts
    851

    Default

    Well THAT is track dependent...I am a firm beliver that there should be at least two classes seperating run groups. Enough speed differential but not much lapping potential. S and B, A and C. R could go with A when it gets big enough...
    [/b]
    i agree. it is a bit better to have a little more time diff between the classes to minimize the inter-species conflicts. downside is the slower class gets less race laps due to more lapping.

    i plan on talking with the its/itr group to remind them about playing nice. the mid/back packers need to be aware of the lead ita battles happening around them. everyone is racing, but we gotta share the track.

    with its in big bore last year, the gt1 cars weren&#39;t that bad. blink an eye and they were gone. the challenges to fun were the as cars. as and its cars ran the same lap times but were just too different in where they got the time from. frustrating in a big way.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Just as an example, if ITS and ITB ran Road Atlanta, the math works out to about a 20 minute race before the ITS leaders lap the ITB leaders, based on ITS turning 1:40s and ITB turning 1:48s. (over 12 laps)
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    1,191

    Default

    I do find it interesting how perspectives seem to change as you get closer to the front. Marshall, Andy, and I&#39;m sure the majority of the front-running drivers think separation between the classes is a good thing, so there is less interference between the different class leaders. AJ, I, and I&#39;m sure many of the mid-pack drivers welcome the inter-class racing; we would much rather have someone to race with, regardless of the class they&#39;re in, than be out there running laps alone. I&#39;m sure the differing mindsets have a big impact on how you view the topic of this thread.
    Earl R.
    240SX
    ITA/ST5

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Agreed.

    More problematic is when IT is classed with SS, for example. I remember qualifying pretty well at the Glen in my lowly RX-7 once. I had a shot (ok, a longshot, LOL) at a trophy, actually. Welll, not so fast. My lap times were better, but a SS car got by me after the start down the long back straight. It took me many laps of nearly rubbing his bumper everywhere EXCEPT the straights until I could get by, and by then the leaders in my class were long gone.

    He was winning SS, and had negative interest (blocking) in letting me by.

    So keeping cars that have similar characteristics (as much as possible) together, but at significantly different speeds, makes sense. (ITS and ITB for example), where possible.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    I agree too Earl - one thing I have yet to wrap my arms around is how a &#39;big&#39; track effects this. My experience is mostly limited to tracks like NHIS and LRP where you are talking 1.5 miles and 38-40 cars max. Just one look at the ITS/ITA proposed combo at the ARRC - and the immediate response - is where I am coming from.

    Having said that, even though I love the ITS/ITB and ITA/ITC groupings - because I have been in ITS and ITA. I watch the top ITB guys try and race through mid-ITS guys and I know they get frustrated. Same goes for the fast ITC guys and the Mid-A guys. I just feel the power differential between 2 classes makes for better racing.

    FWIW, in a track like LRP - in a 15-20 lap race - ITS is just about to lap the ITB leaders when the checkered flies...
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Concord, NH 03301
    Posts
    700

    Default

    Having run a lot of enduros both in cars that were near the front & ones at the back, I find this kind of discussion odd. Traffic is a huge part of racing, always will be.

    Bitching that traffic caused a problem for you is like blaming it on the fact that your tire pressures changed when the they warmed up. Its part of what goes on out there, another factor that you can count on happening, but have very little control over.

    There are lots of clubs that offer time trial events.





  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    MD, US
    Posts
    1,333

    Default



    Its funny cuz I didnt mind being in the ITA/ITB setup. Not that I raced may A cars cuz im mid B field but if I was holding solid 1:36 or better lap times with a decent qualifing position I never got lapped, it was when I was turning way off the pace in M4 after I blew the head that I got lapped significantly by the field.

    The seasoned B drivers are happy to be back with C, and C has requested a split start so they dont have to deal with us B mid pack cars and im OK with that.

    As far as ITR with ITA, I dont know. I can only say wait and see what happens, if a full tilt ITR car shows up then we might get an idea, but until then I just don&#39;t know.
    --
    James Brostek
    MARRS #28 ITB Golf
    PMF Motorsports
    Racing and OEM parts from Bildon Motorsport, Hoosier Tires from Radial Tires

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •