VIR SARRC/MARRS Proposal

[erlrich]

More than happy to run this by open wheelers, just don't know any. Thoughts? Any ideas? [/b]

Well, the past two years the fast formula cars ran with the sports racers, so that is certainly an option. Were there any complaints from those drivers? And even then there were some pretty fast cars running with the Vees; F5s, FFs, CFs, all capable of sub-2:10s while the Vees are running in the 2:23s.

[Gregg]

Well, the past two years the fast formula cars ran with the sports racers, so that is certainly an option. Were there any complaints from those drivers? And even then there were some pretty fast cars running with the Vees; F5s, FFs, CFs, all capable of sub-2:10s while the Vees are running in the 2:23s.
[/b]

Not uncommon as the FF's and CF's don't have wings. They're faster, just not FASTER

Understood. We considered it and our thinking was this:

1. Those are the smallest run groups, so the grouping creates the "least" amount of pain.

2. Also, if the open wheel guys "boycott" as a result, lesser chance of affecting overall numbers.

More than happy to run this by open wheelers, just don't know any. Thoughts? Any ideas?[/b]

Given past experience, I can say with all certainty that #1 is false while #2 is definitey true. I think we should be looking at contingencies to avoid a boycot (isn't what this thread was about anyhow?). I'd definitely start with the MARRS FV/F500 rep, Bob Tupper. I never like posting contact info in an open forum, but you can find his email and phone here:

http://wdcr-scca.org/ContactUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx

I don't even know where you'd start on the NCR/SARRC side.

[jjjanos]

A couple of things to consider in putting together groupings, etc.

1. While it is true that the DC schedule would again be front-loaded with the addition of this event, the basic fact remains - this isn't a DC event. The primary concern for "our" scheduling is whether "our" workers will foregoe a DC-hosted event to make room for this event.

2. Bona fide, GCR compliant Split Starts. You know, two pace cars, etc. SRFs and small formula could have utilized this easily. There would have been some lapping, but it would have been deep into the race when the field was strung out.

3. Given that NCR splits out the MARRS classes from the SARRC classes, the possible groupings grows considerably. For example ITC runs in group 4, but MITC runs in group 6, etc.

[Ron Earp]

3. Given that NCR splits out the MARRS classes from the SARRC classes, the possible groupings grows considerably. For example ITC runs in group 4, but MITC runs in group 6, etc.
[/b]

I didn't think this was the case although I've only attended one of these events. How can we run a weekend with two ITC groups? I'm pretty sure there is only one run group for each class of cars, regardless if you are running for MARRS or SARRC points.

[JeffYoung]

Gregg, what I meant about open wheelers was you probably have 2-3 Altantics, 2-3 Continentals, 2-3 SCCA E cars, 2-3 f500s, etc. The only ones that seem to have any numbers are FV and FF.

[Gregg]

Jeff-

I know exactly what you meant, and that's why I made my comment about #1 being false. If you've got some time to kill I'll simply direct you here for a little background... Certainly the least amount of pain number wise, not so much on the frustration for organizers side.

As to the other Jeff's suggestion about splitting MARRS & SARRC classes into different run groups (mITC vs. sITC), I'm not so sure that would make the groupings any easier to construct and would definitely take away from the "Challenge" aspect of the weekend. I've always thought that we should get rid of "two races within a run group" aspect of the event. If regions are so worried about profit, imagine how much they'd save by eliminating half of the "$4 pieces of wood."

[Charlie Broring]

3. Given that NCR splits out the MARRS classes from the SARRC classes,
[/b]

I always thought this was bogus.

Back to the subject at hand...

How are the decisions about the race schedule made in the NC Region? Is there there much input from the membership? Is the desire for the crowded 2 day format held by the majority or a vocal minority?

Trying to squeeze this big event into 2 days last year resulted in too may compromises in the quality of racing. In previous years as a 3 day event it went well. In fact the 3 day format had become the norm for this race. It seems to me that returning to the 2 day format was a step backwards.

Yes by rearranging the 2 day format things can be improved upon. However, as you see by juggling the possible class groupings you are trying to force cars together that don't fit well in an effort to control run group size. And there still will be some big groups. It's like trying to pour 5 quarts into a gallon jug, you are going to spill some. I still thing that a Great and Big race like this deserves the 3 days it takes to do it right.

Charlie

[JeffYoung]

Charlie, yes, we actually do have input into scheduling. We have good REs.

This is mostly speculation, but I would guess the following. I think if push came to shove most of us, I would anyway, would obviously go to a 3 day race if the choice was that or nothing.

I think that a large part of the concern though is workers. Its another full day off for them, and that's tough.

I've stridently said that it was my opinion SARRC would not consider a 3 day. That may not be the case after getting some further info from our RE. But it would help if the first day was optional, and if we could do something to ease the burden on workers.

Gregg, gotcha now on the open wheelers, sorry. Honestly though? My belief is that this is a regional weekend and the focus needs to be to make it work for regional drivers.

And, I forgot:

MANY THANKS TO EARL RICHARDS. He on his own did what I was too lazy to do, which was put together a spreadsheet with data from car counts from previous SARRC/MARRS. Invaluable to figuring this situation out.

Thanks Earl. If they event comes off in 09, you will be primarily responsible.

[Gregg]

I think that a large part of the concern though is workers. Its another full day off for them, and that's tough.
[/b]

How would that be different when NCR responsible for the "optional" Friday practice and qualifying. Suddenly you're no longer worried about staffing registration and tech in the afternoon, but need to have tech around all day to man scales, need to have T&S folks, need to have corner workers. An optional day for drivers is a mandatory day for volunteers.

]
Gregg, gotcha now on the open wheelers, sorry. Honestly though? My belief is that this is a regional weekend and the focus needs to be to make it work for regional drivers.[/b]

Agreed. I wanted you to have a little background when dealing w/ a regional issue (such as what kind of uproar there might be when drivers feel disenfranchised at a at a regional event or series). We found that dealing with those same people/cars can cause a large s*** storm that can quickly move from being just a local issue to being a national one. If the same people feel like their toes are being stepped on again there might be more pushback than expected.

[JeffYoung]

Understood on the last point -- thanks for the background actually.

On the first, my optional Friday doesn't help, I agree -- just trying to give you guys some background on why SARRC went to the two day format. Probably as much workers as drivers is what I am hearing -- but that is second hand and not gospel.


What I was trying to say was SARRC would be much easier to work with I think if Friday was optional and there was some way to lower the burden on volunteer workers on Friday. Maybe pay for workers using the track's staff for Friday only??

[jjjanos]

I always thought this was bogus.[/b]

I believe it was done for two reasons -

1. SARRC rules award points based on actual finishing position as opposed to MARRS rules which award points based on finishing position among MARRS cars. I'm not commenting on which system is better.

2. To reduce the amount of carnage between MARRS and SARRC cars in the "same" class. I present the ITA crash as evidence of the success of this aspect of the policy.

from rlearpI didn't think this was the case although I've only attended one of these events. How can we run a weekend with two ITC groups? I'm pretty sure there is only one run group for each class of cars, regardless if you are running for MARRS or SARRC points.[/b]

For the last 3(?) years, all cars in class X run in the same GROUP, but those NOT running for SARRC points get put into a special class mx and those running for SARRC points are in class x.

[spnkzss]

I think that a large part of the concern though is workers. Its another full day off for them, and that's tough.

[/b]

I know that a lot of MARRS workers come down and haven't heard much from them? They may be complaining, just silently. They are quietly planning our demise

2. To reduce the amount of carnage between MARRS and SARRC cars in the "same" class. I present the ITA crash as evidence of the success of this aspect of the policy.

[/b]

Personally, points or not, half of the fun of racing out of region is racing AGAINST other cars in your class. I want to know how slow my ITC/ITA car is against people in other regioins :P

[erlrich]

Jeff - thanks, but it was no big deal really. Amazing what you can find to do when you're stuck at home with the flu, and the only thing on SPEED is re-runs of the MX-5 Cup.

As for the splitting of the classes between SARRC and MARRS, I never really understood that either, I mean would it really be that hard for the pointskeepers to segregate the SARRC finishers from the others? But I guess if them's the rules, them's the rules. My attitude has always been I'm racing the next guy in front of me, I don't care what his car says on the side.

As for the Friday sessions, I'm of the opinion that IF the club is going to have to pay for the track for an extra day, and bring in workers, including T&S, EMS, tech, stewards, etc, we should probably take full advantage of it and get the qualifying done on Friday, leaving Sat. and Sun. for racing. I can't imagine that many drivers would pass up this event because they had to spend an extra day at the track. On the other hand, if it is that big a deal and we absolutely need to have Sat. qualifying, then let's make it a 2-day event, and pull out all the stops to make it as good as it can be in those two days. It will take a lot of cooperation and compromise, which haven't been terribly abundant so far, but I think if everyone involved really wants it to happen it can be made to work. Again, JMHO.

[jjjanos]

I've stridently said that it was my opinion SARRC would not consider a 3 day. That may not be the case after getting some further info from our RE. But it would help if the first day was optional, and if we could do something to ease the burden on workers.[/b]

Jeff,

It was a 3-day event at least one year and paid SARRC points. The volunteer officials would bear the brunt of the hardship for the extra day. Minimum staffing of 2 flaggers/staffed station with stations 1,3,4,5,6a,9,10,11, BF, 14, 15, 17 (This map) gives 24 flaggers, plus S/F. tech, pit, grid, EV is a track function (correct?), T&S, Registration, Stewards... guestimate 50 vols total.

Heck, I'd take a flagger out to dinner if they were there on Friday.

I think Charlie has a point - this is a big event. Keeping it to two days is like trying to cram a 190lb women into a size 6 dress. Everything squeezes into it, but god help us if a seam lets go. With a 3-day event, things are little.... roomier.

[Charlie Broring]

It was a 3 day event in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. It has accommodated as many as 9 run groups in that 3 day format.

Now that's a big enough dress for even me to fit into.

Charlie