NARRC Rule changes?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where are all of the english majors?
In my opinion Tim has this correct. Others have tried to add words, commas, or brackets to make the sentance read differently.

...a driver must qualify or race at NARRC races at Lime Rock... means that he must either qualify or race at each of the listed events. The addition of the word qualify allows for an accident, error, or car breakage that would not allow the competitor to race at that event to still qualify for double points at the runoffs. [/b]

Ed is correct. To qualify for the NARRC Runoffs, you have to race or qual at one of the specific races. The NARRC Runoffs is held by New York Region - so it IS NOT an eligible event for 'qualification' for 'itself'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What makes up a championship?

Should it be a requirement that a NARRC championship goes to a driver that has raced at one of each sponsoring regions events? In that case you must race at the Mo-Hud May 19 and NYR Narrc-offs. Miss the Mo-Hud race and all you lose is a shot at the double points at the Narrc-offs. You still get the regular points.

Should it be a requirement that a NARRC championship goes to a driver that has raced at each of the Narrc region's tracks? Then you must get yourself to Pocono. We already have an incentive for this in the 4+4+12=20 bonus points for running three tracks. Note that the Glen is our 'out of region' event and does not add to the 4/20 point kicker for a Narrc region track.

So we either have the best or worst of both worlds. Each region wants their races to be financially successful. To win the championship you do not need to run a race at every track, nor do you need to run at every region's race. Your benefit in the rules are track bonus points and a double points race at the end of the year.

You do not have to do anything different to win the championship other than show up and race. The points kickers are nothing but crutches that support the series sponors. Not necessarily a bad thing.

So the philosophy this year is to encourage participation at each regions races. Given the enmity between regions that I saw, based on their representaitves beliefs of what was best for the series and their region, this is the result.

So it goes.... (RIP Kurt)

Dave Zaslow [/b]

I wanted to make sure evenyone read this again. Excellent comments.

And to your question about what is a Championship? For me, the NARRC is a multi-Regional thing. To ME, it carries more prestige if you win. You have beaten the 'travelling team' from the Northeast. I think it should include the 3 tracks and a manditory start at the Runoffs. I also think the runoffs should rotate tracks...but many do not consider NHIS or Pocono to be 'worthy' of such an event -and I pretty much agree.

When I sent my thoughts to the NARRC Committee twice this off-season on the first cut of the rules (of which many of you didn't catch), I offered to head up a drivers rep group for the NARRC committee. Heard nothing. I see no reason we couldn't pull Doug and Serge aside at NHIS and learn, and then provide input. That is the next productive step I believe.

[RSTPerformance]

I wanted to make sure evenyone read this again. Excellent comments.

And to your question about what is a Championship? For me, the NARRC is a multi-Regional thing. To ME, it carries more prestige if you win. You have beaten the 'travelling team' from the Northeast. I think it should include the 3 tracks and a manditory start at the Runoffs. I also think the runoffs should rotate tracks...but many do not consider NHIS or Pocono to be 'worthy' of such an event -and I pretty much agree.

When I sent my thoughts to the NARRC Committee twice this off-season on the first cut of the rules (of which many of you didn't catch), I offered to head up a drivers rep group for the NARRC committee. Heard nothing. I see no reason we couldn't pull Doug and Serge aside at NHIS and learn, and then provide input. That is the next productive step I believe.
[/b]

I do want to second Andy's comments.. Dave I think you do make some good points (lol). However I do worry at the thought that the series is becoming more influenced by its ability to create a financial gain rather than an intent to provide a good series for the drivers/teams that are compeating in the series.

I also questin that one of the issues may be that the people running the regions are the people running the series, thus a conflict of interests. Maybe we need to find more volunteers... some whom are not involved at the top level of the individual reagions the series runs through.

Andy, if you do get a meeting set up, I would love to know about incase I have time to attend.

Raymond

[RSTPerformance]

oh and BTW... I only added the "OR" options for fun, and to bring back what I think the rules should be

Hope all is well...

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

I do want to second Andy's comments.. Dave I think you do make some good points (lol). However I do worry at the thought that the series is becoming more influenced by its ability to create a financial gain rather than an intent to provide a good series for the drivers/teams that are compeating in the series.

I also questin that one of the issues may be that the people running the regions are the people running the series, thus a conflict of interests. Maybe we need to find more volunteers... some whom are not involved at the top level of the individual reagions the series runs through.

Andy, if you do get a meeting set up, I would love to know about incase I have time to attend.

Raymond [/b]

I think we all have to understand that 'for finacial gain' and 'financially viable' can be two different things. Some Regions can't take a multi-thousand dollar hit when a race is undersubscibed. The Series has to make sense for BOTH the racers AND the Regions. There is no two ways about it. We just all have to come to a happy middle ground.

[JLawton]

Have we really had any under subscribed events at any LRP event??

[dickita15]

Have we really had any under subscribed events at any LRP event??
[/b]

under subscribed events takes on a different meaning when the track rent is $53,000. the regions whose racing program is closely tied to LRP are nervous.

[Dave Zaslow]

I have mis-read and mis-spoken.

To be eligible for double points at the NARRC Runoffs, a driver must qualify or race at NARRC races at Lime Rock presented by Mo-Hud AND Northern New Jersey, AND one of the New England races.

As many times as I have read that paragraph I missed the requirement that the NNJ race at LRP was required for double points, not just any NNJ race.

Was it the NARRC committee's intent to make the choice of 'any' NER race be one of the two they are running at LRP or to also include one of the six they are running at NHIS? The language does not specifically state that it must be at LRP.

Dave Z

[RSTPerformance]

I think that the intent is that you must race a total of 3 races at Lime Rock to be eligable. One event has to be presented by Mo-Hud, one by Northern New Jersey, and one by New England Region.

[RSTPerformance]

I saw Serge Lentz at NHIS tonight and he said that you do not have to attend races at Lime rock, you only need to attend 1 race hosted by each region... I have not looked at the schedule, but he said that those regions hosted races at other tracks.

I don't see how the rules represent what he said... I think I will try to print it out and present it to him and ask him to explain this weekend. I hope others ask questions especialy if they don't like the new rules.

Another suggestion that I herd (before tonight) was that the NARRC runoffs would NOT be double points no matter what, and that this was a compromise. I also don't like that line of thinking for multiple reasons.

In the poll I put up it looks like it is split, half the people seem to like it and half don't. interesting...

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

I saw Serge Lentz at NHIS tonight and he said that you do not have to attend races at Lime rock, you only need to attend 1 race hosted by each region... I have not looked at the schedule, but he said that those regions hosted races at other tracks.

I don't see how the rules represent what he said... I think I will try to print it out and present it to him and ask him to explain this weekend. I hope others ask questions especialy if they don't like the new rules.

Another suggestion that I herd (before tonight) was that the NARRC runoffs would NOT be double points no matter what, and that this was a compromise. I also don't like that line of thinking for multiple reasons.

In the poll I put up it looks like it is split, half the people seem to like it and half don't. interesting...

Raymond [/b]

MoHud and NNJ have only one LRP race on the NARRC schedule so I fail to see how you can miss those and become eligible for double points. The only grey area to me is whether or not the 'one NER' event you must attend is one of their 2 LRP events of one of their NHIS events.

[Dave Zaslow]

I have another question.

The MoHud double is listed as a single NARRC race. Is this correct? If so which one? If not, the calendar needs to show 15 eligible races rather than 14.

Dave Z

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have another question.

The MoHud double is listed as a single NARRC race. Is this correct? If so which one? If not, the calendar needs to show 15 eligible races rather than 14.

Dave Z [/b]

Take a quick look at the supps. While it's a Double event, the points flow as follows:

Q1 and R1 - John Stim Memorial: NARRC and NYSRRC points

Q2 and R2 - Dave Riggi Memorial: Just NYSRRC

So it's a double event, with single NARRC points and Double NYSRRC points.

[Bill Miller]

Given that the LRP entry fees are almost $400 this year, it's my guess that the agenda behind all this is to coerce the drivers into running the LRP events. You may be less inclined to pass on that $400 entry fee if they hold the double points at the NARRC over your head. Otherwise, why not make it a requirement that you just have to run one race hosted by each Region, and let the drivers pick which race to run?

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a very tough situation. On one hand, many of us would love to tell LRP to pound sand but on the other, one of the best tracks in the Northeast is at stake.

It's a lose-lose. Region's can't continue to hold races that lose money. Entry fees have to reflect true costs and with weekend costs like these, race weekend aren't cheap. The threshold for what races will pay is getting tested in a big way.

LRP only allows a finite amount of unmuffled days per year. They come at a premium.

So what is the solution? There is no good one. If we 'boycott' races, the Regions lose money and refuse to hold one in subsiquent years. Then we have no more races at LRP. Word is they want us out like Dick says. Word is that there are plenty of marque clubs that are ready to take the dates should the SCCA drop them.

It would be nice if we can get a laymans breakdown of the expenses vs. revenues to get a better idea of why $400 per enrty is needed. 225 cars is about what the June event did last year...that's $90K in registration fees.

The bottom line is that the racers need to do what is best for them. If the costs are too much, the interest will dwindle. But don't boycott - it won't do ANYTHING as this situation is out of our control. Prayers for Palmer!

[RKramden]

It would be nice if we can get a laymans breakdown of the expenses vs. revenues to get a better idea of why $400 per enrty is needed. 225 cars is about what the June event did last year...that's $90K in registration fees.

The bottom line is that the racers need to do what is best for them. If the costs are too much, the interest will dwindle. But don't boycott - it won't do ANYTHING as this situation is out of our control. Prayers for Palmer!
[/b]

For NER, there ain't no secrets (that I know of )

Go to any regional Comp Board Meeting (all dates and places announced in January for the entire year as well as on the NER web site) and the first order of business at just about any meeting is the comptrollers report, wherein Ms. Ames presents a very detailed rundown of all the expenses and income for road racing, including breakdowns BY EVENT, and by specialty or area for overhead that is not event assignable, like equipment purchase, training, etc.

Also, track rental isn't the only way the track takes money from the regions. For example, they require that we deal with their on site food service and pay the outrageous fees for worker lunches and the Friday night racers party. It seems that the food just keeps getting worse every year while the prices keep going up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think we are all aware that the info is available at a meeting. It would just be nice for someone 'in the know' to give us some round figures so we can all understand what it costs to put an event on at LRP.

It may help people decide to spend a little extra and support the Regions and enjoy the venue, shut 'er down altogether or something inbetween...

[RKramden]

I think we are all aware that the info is available at a meeting. It would just be nice for someone 'in the know' to give us some round figures so we can all understand what it costs to put an event on at LRP.

It may help people decide to spend a little extra and support the Regions and enjoy the venue, shut 'er down altogether or something inbetween...
[/b]

I went down stairs, picked up one of Ms. Ames balance sheets and sent Andy a PM.
(At the same time he was typing his reply...)

Another viewpoint on the size of the entry fee:

Back when I started racing, the entry fee I paid was just about 2 Formula Ford rears or one GT1 car tire (take your pick.) That was 20 years ago.

Today, FF rears (any compound) are about $195 each, and the GT1 tires (depending on front or rear) are just under or over $400.

Seems like not all that much has changed.

[WillM]

I think we are all aware that the info is available at a meeting. It would just be nice for someone 'in the know' to give us some round figures so we can all understand what it costs to put an event on at LRP.
[/b]

Agreed! How about publishing it in the FastTrack?

[Andy Bettencourt]

So it appears that it will cost about (and this is a BIG 'about&#39 $75K to put on this event. It being a Double (two sanction fees) and a full two days of on-track lends itself to big money. Some cost centers are:

- Track rental
- Equipment rental, printing, misc
- Insurance
- Worker lunches and evening party
- Sanction fees
- Trophies (alomst 90 of them)
- Operations

An estimate using last years numbers and this years track fees @ $400 for the double has us at 188 cars to break even. Going to $350 brings that number to 215. Having 3 back-to-back Doubles on the NARRC May schedule will not help ANY event but remember, tracks tell US when we can race.

Wasn't one of the NHIS Doubles last year $310 for both days? The Pocono Double next weekend is $310. I know money is tight but is the extra $89 gonna wreck evenyones racing budget for the year? I hate it as much as the next guy but a boycott isn't the way to go. Let's let the Regions back out on their own terms instead of forcing them too by not supporting them. If you want to go, and it fits your yearly plan, go.