Split Starts

[MMiskoe]

In the northeast, ITS and ITB usually run together. Usually the group is about 12-18 ITS cars, 8-12 ITB cars (others jump in if I am wrong here, but I don't gather it matters). There has been some low level grumblings about the two classes having to run together. Unfortunately, I think its a fact of life, based on car counts & track availabilty but that doesn't mean we can't try to improve on it.

The grumbles revolve (mostly) around fast B cars feeling the slower S cars get in the way. Having been 'that guy' I am curious how a split start would help or hurt this. From what I have experienced, its easy to tell that the car that has spent the last two laps reeling you in is faster & deserves to get by. But on a start, is that B car faster than you or are you together because of circumstance? This was especially true this past weekend w/ a wet qualifier & mostly dry race.

Split starts will not solve the problem of what to do when two slow S cars are going at it and two fast B cars catch up. But nothing is perfect, we will just have to play together & hope for the best.

I've only seen split starts used once or twice, when SM first started they ran SM and ITA together giving the ITA cars a half a lap head start via a second pace car. Problems I can see is that once the front group goes green, there is no ability to do a wave off if the second group starts running over each other.

Do other regions use split starts on a regular basis & if so what is the outcome?

Matt

[zracre]

i am a believer in split starts...it gives the lead pack and the trailing pack time to sort their race out...if you are caught by the trailing pack you have more time to see em coming. if shenanigans ensue in the trailing pack it is easy to cure the offending driver with a black flag and a conversation on pit road with an official

[gran racing]

I have mixed emotions. Overall, I have no problem running a mixed start. (As an average, I consider myself to be a top 1/3 in IT

The grumbles revolve (mostly) around fast B cars feeling the slower S cars get in the way.[/b]

Do I ever have difficulties with some of the ITS cars? Sure. While it can be frustrating at times, it's also a part of racing. I do think this conversation depends upon the track being raced at. For example, at LRP a front running ITB car should be mid or towards the front of the ITS pack. In this case, I do not believe a split start is necessary. In fact if there was a split start, the top ITB cars would be up on the back ITS cars pretty quickly. Some would argue that it is better to let the back markers have some time to get space between themselves before cars work their way through the field. (For the record, I am not in the belief that just because someone runs towards the rear of the pack means they are necessarily a poor driver. There are many circumstances which play a role in things.)

Drivers that are racing close to one another have to negotiate with the same cars. Sometimes it will work for you, other times it will work against you. Hopefully you've done your planning, use traffic to your advantage and things work out for the best most of the time.

[85itccivic]

In the MARRS series ITC has had a split grid from the SRX7s and now the ITB cars. This works a bit different than a split start. We are lined up split from the other class and roll off just like a normal grid. On the pace lap the ITC pole sitter leaves a roughly 50 to 80 yard gap the the last of the lead class. Here is where class unity comes into play . The C pole sitter puts his left hand out the window. The lead class takes the green . The C field stays in line and maintains speed until the pole sitter reaches the end of the pit wall. At this time the C leader drops his hand and the C race begins.

This has worked very well at eliminating a lot of first lap chaos as the two classes vie for positions . It also is enough gap to allow the second group to check up if the first group has issues at turn one . Yes the C leaders catch the back of the other class but it is easier to deal with them . we have found by race end we usually have caught up to about where we would have qualified in a normal grid . It has also allowed for much better racing amongst the C group .

I think this system works very well , however , If the entire class is not on board with the agreed start point it does not work and creates a mess.

[spnkzss]

In the MARRS series ITC has had a split grid from the SRX7s and now the ITB cars. This works a bit different than a split start. We are lined up split from the other class and roll off just like a normal grid. On the pace lap the ITC pole sitter leaves a roughly 50 to 80 yard gap the the last of the lead class. Here is where class unity comes into play . The C pole sitter puts his left hand out the window. The lead class takes the green . The C field stays in line and maintains speed until the pole sitter reaches the end of the pit wall. At this time the C leader drops his hand and the C race begins.

This has worked very well at eliminating a lot of first lap chaos as the two classes vie for positions . It also is enough gap to allow the second group to check up if the first group has issues at turn one . Yes the C leaders catch the back of the other class but it is easier to deal with them . we have found by race end we usually have caught up to about where we would have qualified in a normal grid . It has also allowed for much better racing amongst the C group .

I think this system works very well , however , If the entire class is not on board with the agreed start point it does not work and creates a mess.
[/b]

I agree (since I am also one of those MARRS ITCers), but want to put emphasis on the ENTIRE class has to be on board (or willing to at least play nice) for this to work. Once the green flag drops there is nothing preventing a back marker to jump it. The track IS green.

The past two years in ITC have been some of the closest well fought races and I love the split grid.

YMMV

[charrbq]

Classes getting mixed up at different speeds on track is a fact of life. I've seen the "split grid" type start at the ARRC once between B and C. It worked fine, but the chief steward didn't like what she saw and threatened to disqualify the front row cars after the race. As it was, she denied them a victory lap and a post race interview. It can be confusing to the uninitiated.

Almost always, the second class gets the green if the first group does, but I've seen it not happen. Usually, offenders are covered with black flags, but I've seen when the second group screwed up and got a "Black Flag All" rather than a green. The pace car would roll to catch the first group under a full course yellow until the second group cleared the course for a question and answer period in the pits. Meanwhile, the race laps would be counted by the class remaining on course.

Pretty nasty punishment, but they paid attention and didn't screw around.

[Knestis]

Split starts are stoopid - completely contrary to the basic assumptions of mixed-class group racing. They don't eliminate problems, they just move them around. We all have to race on the same track, with the same chances of issue while negotiating the same traffic. Coping with it is one skill set that the discipline requires.

Most of the arguments I've heard for split starts are predicated on a just a few me-oriented arguments.

** If there's a conflict, the guy in the other class is at fault - but of course!

** I don't want MY race messed up by other people's races - but I have no qualms about imposing my needs on others

** He's holding me up where I'm fast - but I'm NOT holding him up where HE's fast, y'know?

One purist's perspective...

K

[944-spec#94]

I have run with and without split starts.


The best thing about split starts is that it allows you race class time to sort it self out before traffic begins to play a role. In mixed start if the group lap times similar you have an awful time with non-class cars in the mix with class cars. If both are running similar lap times it can create traffic the entire race. This can be fun, but also frustrating.

A split start is nice because it will create gap such that for at least a few laps one class has time to sort things out. Usally the first 2-3 laps quite busy and then the field strings out a bit making traffic a little easier to deal with. The biggest problem on split starts is making sure the 2nd field is the right distance back. There have been times were the 2nd field was too close. This does not cause safety issues so much as horrible traffic. There are then often times slower less experience drivers being rapidly apprached by faster better drivers from the "front" of the slower class. If this happens in first lap things get very tough.


Overall I like split starts especially if there two classes of similar speeds in the same run group. If however you have fast cars and slower cars then the value of split start is less bacause the field naturally seperates quickly.

[shwah]

We sometimes have 8-10 classes in our run group. I am fine with one start and all playing on the same 'field'.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Being in an ITS car that is in the front row of the ITB cars and was in the races that Matt is talking about, I can tell you that I am frustrated and I am POSITIVE Ritchie and Erik (sp?) are very frusturated with me. I am still slow in ITS terms, but getting faster each race I go to. I can get past all of the ITB cars once we go to single file, but damn when its packed in I am fast in MUCH different places than they are. I personally would like to see a split start. I hate having to worry about messing up the ITB race for the front runners and I also wish I would qualify fast enough to see the ITS cars and stay with them instead of fighting through the ITB traffic. This would also help me continue to get faster.

[tnord]

Split starts are stoopid - completely contrary to the basic assumptions of mixed-class group racing. They don't eliminate problems, they just move them around. We all have to race on the same track, with the same chances of issue while negotiating the same traffic. Coping with it is one skill set that the discipline requires.

Most of the arguments I've heard for split starts are predicated on a just a few me-oriented arguments.

** If there's a conflict, the guy in the other class is at fault - but of course!

** I don't want MY race messed up by other people's races - but I have no qualms about imposing my needs on others

** He's holding me up where I'm fast - but I'm NOT holding him up where HE's fast, y'know?

One purist's perspective...

K
[/b]

i'm majorly in favor of split starts.

if you ask me, there's a major bias against momentum cars at the start when the classes are mixed. I can't think of the last time i didn't get shuffled back a few spots in the first lap, and not because i got a crappy start personally.

i've qualified multiple seconds in front of ITS/ITR cars before, only to have them destroy me on the start and park it in the first corner. i'm seriously screwed here, as the other ITA guy who has motor but no braking or handling has already blown by me on pure HP alone and stayed in front of the S/R guys. after about half a lap of me being held up by out of class cars my ITA competitors are gone, I end up attempting a risky pass, give the out of class car a bump coming out of the corner to say "get on it or move over," or just plain having my race all fubar'd up.

this has been the scenario for just about every one of my races for the past two years.

attached is a pic of this exact scenario playing out. that's me behind the BMW trying to go around the outside into T8/9 at topeka....which locals will know takes more than a little cooperation from the other car to make work.

[joeg]

Everyone can have an opinion on this.

A true split start requires a longer track. I would not think it works that great at Lime Rock or a Beaverun. The Summit deal does not sound like a true split start, but it is nice to see people cooperating.

Of course, even if you have a long course--like at the Glen--a no star, full course yellow or black flag all messes things up again.

There is no correct answer, but with multiple classes and disappearing track time, the split start may not survive.

[Knestis]

...There are then often times slower less experience drivers being rapidly apprached by faster better drivers from the "front" of the slower class. If this happens in first lap things get very tough. ...[/b]

GREAT example of changing the problems rather than eliminating them. There was a huge flap over a NASA race where the "faster" US Touring Cars got put in front of the Honda Challenge cars (all classes), because it "made sense." It assured that cars capable of a 2:15 were in back of cars capable of only 2:20s or 2:25s.

K

[tnord]

GREAT example of changing the problems rather than eliminating them. There was a huge flap over a NASA race where the "faster" US Touring Cars got put in front of the Honda Challenge cars (all classes), because it "made sense." It assured that cars capable of a 2:15 were in back of cars capable of only 2:20s or 2:25s.

K
[/b]

iirc...not quite a fair example Kirk. the race in question had a standing start, and had HC cars multiple seconds/lap faster than the USTC gridded immediately behind. In all the split starts i've witnessed with SCCA, the groups do rolling starts and take the green practically a half a lap apart. this basically ensures that you don't encounter any traffic for a few laps.

[charrbq]

If given a choice, I'd rather have a split start than a mixed grid. I got caught at the back of a mixed field recently due to brake problems in qualifying. Even though my start was good, and I passed a bunch of cars at the strart, I soon got caught up in a production race and couldn't get shed of them. I stayed close to the other C cars for a while, but had to give up or risk crashing into cars I wasn't racing with. I've also seen where one car got a tow in qualifying off a faster classed car which put him about 10 cars up from the other C cars in the group. He was pretty tickled, but the other cars in his class were too excited about it. It pretty well guaranteed his win.

[dazzlesa]

runnig with the S cars is the biggest reason i have not embraced running my B car. i think the split start should be tried. i would rather try to pass a back marker S car then run with a mid pack S car that is running similar times.

[Knestis]

iirc...not quite a fair example Kirk. the race in question had a standing start, and had HC cars multiple seconds/lap faster than the USTC gridded immediately behind. In all the split starts i've witnessed with SCCA, the groups do rolling starts and take the green practically a half a lap apart. this basically ensures that you don't encounter any traffic for a few laps.
[/b]

True enough but my real point was about the logic behind the decision. A "real" split start like you describe still assures that the front of the second pack WILL encounter slower traffic - that is NOT being lapped - at some point during a typical race.

K

[charrbq]

That's true, Kirk, but slower traffic is a part of racing. Until we get class counts large enough to justify seperate race groups and long weekends, it will always be. Split starts just give us a little while longer to race those in our own class before the slower stuff pops up.

I'd rather not see them, but only when we have enough to have our own classes.

[grjones1]

I'm in complete agreement wiith Knestis (and please don't hold him guilty by association). As part of the MARRS contingent, I've found the "split grid" starts at Summit to be less than appealing (and of course I have expressed my disenchantment.) But we'll do it again.

First if we are qualifying as a mixed group, in our case ITB and C, we should race as a group with cars gridded by qualifying times as God meant for road racing to start. If you are faster than a higher classed car and you out qualify him, for the most part you are rid of him at the start and don't need to deal with him later in the race (usually in the middle of a dice with someone in your own class.)

Second, the split grid business gives the C polesitter a definite advantage because he or she is the only driver who can see the start marker (i.e., the end of the pit out wall) so he or she inherits a jump simply by the set up. He or she can easily accelerate and then wave his or her hand so the rest of us get to go and of course only the car directly beside or behind the polesitter can see the hand wave. That's why they put the starter stand in the air - so more drivers can see the race start and accelerate together (as God meant for road races to start.)

And regardless, the B drivers in MARRS are as good as any, fun to race with and most of the time show excellent judgement. I personnally enjoy being mixed with them, and really don't like the extraordinary measures imposed on our group. It's not road racing as I've known it for 30 years, and I would add that if drivers don't like mixed traffic perhaps they should try Solo 1.

G Jones

[jjjanos]

Split starts are stoopid - completely contrary to the basic assumptions of mixed-class group racing.[/b]

Ahhhh, but we don't do mixed-class groups because we want to do it. We do it because time constraints force us to do it. In a perfect world, we'd all be putting 50 cars in a single class out there for every group and class.

They don't eliminate problems, they just move them around. We all have to race on the same track, with the same chances of issue while negotiating the same traffic. Coping with it is one skill set that the discipline requires.[/b]

It does eliminate some of them and it changes many of the remaining.

With a combined start, cars not in your class who have better acceleration may get in front of you. He might park it in corners, but he's got a rocket attached to the back. Saw this at Kershaw with a Baby Grand - took off like a rocket on rails and kept moving backwards like a chicane after that.

Coping skills don't help you when people in the other class either see the red mist for the first two laps or when they have the philosophy "I'm in a spec class. You've got to bump to get past someone." Fine - but I'm not in your class. We had a string of MARRS events where drivers in a spec class took out cars in the non-spec class and it was all caused by first lap red mist. Stevie Spec might still be a chowder head when you catch him on lap 5, but by that point the rush has worn off and his special needs driving skill has left him out of contact with the next car in his class. (On the first lap, Stevie Spec most likely still is in contact with that car and is driving even more over his head than he normally does.)

** I don't want MY race messed up by other people's races - but I have no qualms about imposing my needs on others[/b]

Some might take this view, but when the leaders of the faster class are set to lap me, I consider whether the chances of me passing the car in front of me are high enough to screw up their race. So far, I've left my low odds chances sitting on the pavement and let the other class leaders through. It's called common courtesy and while I could hold my line and pace, it would really fubar their race.

** He's holding me up where I'm fast - but I'm NOT holding him up where HE's fast, y'know?[/b]

Hmmm, usually the issue is between fast in a straight line versus fast in the twisty bits. If the latter is holding the former up, it's called blocking. If its the former holding up the latter, it's called not knowing how to drive.