Proposed 2009 MARRS

[jjjanos]

bingo! this is the way to have a saturday race, without increasing the qualify-during-the-race carnage that caused marrs to stop using the saturday race format years ago.

This is what I'm suggesting:

Saturday races:
1. No MARRS points awarded for finishing position.
2. If we want a championship, let it be a Saturday Cup and we can make it open to everyone running, i.e. no decal.
3. Combined starts for Saturday since the race is "optional." I'm not firm about that.
4. Best time from Saturday sets grid for Sunday aka the MARRS race. Let's see how it works before trying it in the real race.

Sunday races:
1. Split grids written into the supps for those groups asking for it at the start of the season. This CANNOT be something the stewards can take away at a whim.

Only question is whether MARRS points should be awarded in each class for the following:
1. Fastest Sunday race lap?
2. Fastest Saturday morning time?
3. Fastest Saturday afternoon time?

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, I take issue with your claim that my motive is " because ITB won't have it's own private playground anymore." That's a cheap shot.

The racing we had in ITB/ITC last year was race after race the best I have ever experienced in my 16 years with the SCCA. That's strong statement. As ITB driver rep of course I wanted to maintain the quality my race as best I could.

However, My reason for starting this thread was that I feel that great racing is our best avenue to attract drivers to the MARRS series. I feel that the 8 group schedule is going to compromise the quality of racing for quite a few classes and cost us drivers. I don't think an extra couple laps on Sunday is going to attract a single new driver. I think Saturday afternoon racing can take place with a more comfortable 9 group format. This is certainly not the self serving motive that you imply.

I think we made a mistake with our plans for next year and if others feel the same we have time to reconsider.

Regarding Saturday racing, I personally would love to see it. I enjoyed it 10 years ago when we last tried it. However I was surprised at how many ITB drives are don't desire it. It is not a cure all that everybody wants. I think that we should try it in 2009 But be aware that if it's its not implemented properly it could do more harm then good. Look at the reasons we gave up on Saturday races last time around. Make Saturday races their own series with year end championship. Use best time from AM qualifying or PM race to grid for Sunday.


Charlie Broring

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, you keep talking about "split grids" like it's some kind of a solution to an awkward mix of classes. Your dreaming. Stewards will fight it and screw it up if allowed at all. History repeats itself.

[spnkzss]

The fun part of the group was when the other ITR cars weren't bothering me so i could throttle back for the last few laps and enjoy watching some great ITA racing!

I bet you did enjoy watching all 4 of us dumbasses come in a lap early.

[spnkzss]

The racing we had in ITB/ITC last year was race after race the best I have ever experienced in my 16 years with the SCCA. That's strong statement. As ITB driver rep of course I wanted to maintain the quality my race as best I could.

Charlie Broring

I'm pretty sure ITA racing would have been some of the best racing they had had in years too if they only averaged 19 cars on track instead of the 33 they averaged.

I fully understand the frustration and some of the best ITC racing I had was when we were with ITB, but that is because our numbers were low, accross the board. I think now it's more of a we need to spread the pain out equally. When you do that, you piss people off and make some happier (not happy, happier).

[EV]

If Sunday grid is set by best time from Saturday, either qualifying or race, then those who don't want to race, just have to start from the pit lane and it'll be nothing more than a qualifying session and it will be longer.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but what's the point of a "race" on Saturday, if it's nothing more than a qualifying session started with a pace car?

[jjjanos]

However, My reason for starting this thread was that I feel that great racing is our best avenue to attract drivers to the MARRS series. I feel that the 8 group schedule is going to compromise the quality of racing for quite a few classes and cost us drivers. I don't think an extra couple laps on Sunday is going to attract a single new driver. I think Saturday afternoon racing can take place with a more comfortable 9 group format. This is certainly not the self serving motive that you imply

I think we made a mistake with our plans for next year and if others feel the same we have time to reconsider.

Then put together an alternate. Simply saying 8=bad, 9=good is no good. Tell me what the 9 will be. I've run the numbers for groups and out together schedules and, IMO, 9 is a useless contraction. We might as well stay with 10 or let SRF combine with Prod and give them double the track time.

That doesn't solve the ITR/ITS/ITA cluster though. Where are we going to put them?

Attached are the 2008 car counts with the 2008 groupings. Put together a 9-group format that makes sense. I've got a spreadsheet that will automatically do the totals for proposed groupings. Send me a PM with an email and I'll fire it off to any and all who want it. Now put together a 9-group weekend schedule with the following rules:
1. Add 2 minutes to every session for the cool off lap.
2. Leave 10 minutes between sessions for slack.
3. Leave 65 minutes for lunch.
4. Races = 1.5 minutes/lap plus 4 minutes.

Cutting one group gets us a hair over 5 minutes of racing for the 9 remaining groups on Saturday. On Sunday, we can pick up about 5 minutes of track time for the remaining groups.

Cut two run groups, we pick up 12.5 minutes on Saturday, or about an entire qualifying session. On Sunday, we pick up about 10 minutes/group, or about 1/3 of what we each get now.

Jeff, you keep talking about "split grids" like it's some kind of a solution to an awkward mix of classes. Your dreaming. Stewards will fight it and screw it up if allowed at all. History repeats itself.

If it's in the Supps they have to do it. We don't give them option of granting the split grid.

[erlrich]

Attached are the 2008 car counts with the 2008 groupings. Put together a 9-group format that makes sense. I've got a spreadsheet that will automatically do the totals for proposed groupings. Send me a PM with an email and I'll fire it off to any and all who want it. Now put together a 9-group weekend schedule with the following rules:

Geez, must be an accountant thing...I also put together a spreadsheet that does the same thing...except my car counts are different in quite a few of the classes; you must have counted all entrants? I only counted actual starters.

Anyway, here is a link to that spreadsheet, if anyone would like to play with the numbers. Please save it to your computer before messing with it, as I didn't go to the trouble of locking any of the cells.

[Charlie Broring]

I'm pretty sure ITA racing would have been some of the best racing they had had in years too if they only averaged 19 cars on track instead of the 33 they averaged.

I fully understand the frustration and some of the best ITC racing I had was when we were with ITB, but that is because our numbers were low, accross the board. I think now it's more of a we need to spread the pain out equally. When you do that, you piss people off and make some happier (not happy, happier).

I don't think you get my point. Currently MARRS ITB is enjoying the same thing discussed elsewhere in this Board. There were a lot of different ITB cars that could win any given race. Often half the field were "front runners" If there were 33 or 43 or what eve, and there was the same high ratio of potential winners running together for the win, the racing would only be better still. Currently SM and SSM races are near the ideal in my mind with many cars of similar capability in only one class. This is one of the big attractions of Miata's. The ability of class to race together without being impeded by slow cars in other classes makes for good racing.

Conversely, when there are many classes a race group the the off pace cars in faster classes can really impact on the quality of racing for the slower classes. The 2007 VIR ITA/ITB/ITC/SRX7 and whoever else was the worst example of this. And that was the reason we didn't race at VIR this year. That was really bad racing in the opinion of many a MARRS driver.

My issue is not so much with the number of cars in the groups but rather the number of classes and the way the classes will interact. I sure wouldn't want to run my ITS car along side GT1 as we voted to do next year.

[Charlie Broring]

Jeff, You are playing with numbers and not considering what makes good racing. Great racing is what attracts me and many other to the MARRS series.

If more time is needed to run a 9 group schedule with Saturday PM races we can take 1 or 2 minuets (one lap) from each Saturday morning qualifying session. With uncrowded groups and less fighting for open track we don't need much time to qualify. I don't think I personally ran a qualifying session from flag to flag last year as the fastest laps came early before the car gets hot. One or even more less laps in qualifying is a small price to pay for Saturday racing, if it's good racing. If big groups like SSM complain we could give groups with more then 40 cars the 1 or2 minuets back.

We voted for 8 race groups without a plan that defined how much time we needed.

I had hoped we would build from last years generally well accepted format and make adjustments to address it's shortcomings. That, and a clear view of our needs would have been a sensible approach. But at the meeting we gave little consideration to last years grouping problems and just jammed most of the closed wheel classes into 4 groups. And apparently some are not happy with the results.

If there are enough concerns about the negative impact of our proposed schedule, we should reconsider it. I don't think we did a good job in planning and I was wondering how many others felt the same.

[jjjanos]

Geez, must be an accountant thing...I also put together a spreadsheet that does the same thing...except my car counts are different in quite a few of the classes; you must have counted all entrants? I only counted actual starters.

Two sources for the difference -
First - I used the "official" class count. Can't vouch whether actual starters or the one I used is more accurate.
Second - we moved some cars for known car adjustments, i.e. MR2 to ITB, some ITC cars converting to ITB.

Conversely, when there are many classes a race group the the off pace cars in faster classes can really impact on the quality of racing for the slower classes. The 2007 VIR ITA/ITB/ITC/SRX7 and whoever else was the worst example of this. And that was the reason we didn't race at VIR this year. That was really bad racing in the opinion of many a MARRS driver.

Only 4 classes have enjoyed the luxury of not having another class fubar the class race - SSM, SM, SRF and ITB. In the past, every other class has had to deal with other classes not being considerate. The proposed schedule has everyone other than SSM and SM suffering equally. I'd be more than happy to suggest a proposal to combine someone with SM since there's room, but frankly, I can't think of another class that I dislike that much and there's no room in SSM.

As for VIR - I find it somewhat hypocritical that you were in favor of returning for the same exact format as 2007 and yet criticize something at Summit that is no where near an alphabet soup mix of classes. Seven classes with 80+ cars at the end of a 3-5 hour tour is acceptable, but the proposed 2009 groupings will produce terrible racing?

My issue is not so much with the number of cars in the groups but rather the number of classes and the way the classes will interact. I sure wouldn't want to run my ITS car along side GT1 as we voted to do next year.

And where do you suggest we put ITS? It's pretty clear to me that ITS/ITA is screwing up both races and, worse yet, ITA cars make up 2 of the top-5 ITS finishing positions.

Jeff, You are playing with numbers and not considering what makes good racing. Great racing is what attracts me and many other to the MARRS series.

I've considered the impact on the racing and I don't see where having what is essentially an ITB-only group is the ultimate in racing experiences. Please explain why you think that adding SS and IT7 is going to cause the tragic demise to good racing.

I see the addition of other classes as BENEFITING the racing since it not only adds another element of racing (traffic management) and it also gives our drivers experience in learning traffic management for when they go to places like VIR and have to deal with dog slow Fieros that rip past them on the start and park their car everywhere else.

If more time is needed to run a 9 group schedule with Saturday PM races we can take 1 or 2 minuets (one lap) from each Saturday morning qualifying session. With uncrowded groups and less fighting for open track we don't need much time to qualify. I don't think I personally ran a qualifying session from flag to flag last year as the fastest laps came early before the car gets hot. One or even more less laps in qualifying is a small price to pay for Saturday racing, if it's good racing. If big groups like SSM complain we could give groups with more then 40 cars the 1 or2 minuets back.

Some of us actually enjoy driving our cars. Personally, I'm indifferent to racing on Saturday. More track time, though, is appealing. Also, one lap is 90 seconds to the stewards.

9 Groups:
13 minute AM + 10 lap races: Finish time after 5PM on Saturday. My understanding is we attempt to avoid that. That means 9 lap races.
12 minute AM + 10 lap races: Finish just before 5PM

8 Groups:
15 minutes AM + 12 lap races and still finish earlier than than we would with 9 groups.

We voted for 8 race groups without a plan that defined how much time we needed.

At the meeting I tossed out the approximate time gained from cutting one and two groups.

If there are enough concerns about the negative impact of our proposed schedule, we should reconsider it. I don't think we did a good job in planning and I was wondering how many others felt the same.

I'm not denying your right to raise this issue. What I'm saying is that you should do something other than complaining about it. You've suggested 9 race groups and seem to indicate that there are many people unhappy about it. Either you or those for whom you speak should put together format and weekend schedule. I'm more than willing to listen to proposals that are equitable.

[kbailey]

Wow- there is a lot of bitterness flying around considering this is what we do for fun. We have not turned a single lap with the new MARRS groups yet. It sounds like it is a done deal so lets give it a shot. I will concede the lap time difference between the front of the ITR/ITS and the front of the big bore group seems pretty big so I understand Marshall's concern there. I don't however see a problem with IT7 & ITB.

James- you might not have meant to be offensive, but your dismissive comments on IT7 are coming across that way to me. FWIW I looked back at some race results and I am the only IT7 driver running within 1 second of the front of the ITB group (faster or slower). I for one don't think this is going to be a problem. I am keenly aware that there are other class races out there and don't expect to be screwing you up much. I hope to get the same courtesy from you guys. We are all going to be out there competing and are obviously not going to park and let the other by whenever they get close so we just have figure it out. We make speed in different places- we'll just have to use that to our advantage. Lets get together at M1 and meet so we can make the best of this.

Currently the only way a class gets the track to itself is to get it's numbers up to where SM and SSM are. I really don't see how we can imply they have an agenda....they have the numbers for their own group plain and simple. Good for them- they choose spec classes with newer cars and get their own homegenous group. I chose to build and race a dinosaur and will always be sharing the track with other classes- so be it. I like my dinosaur just fine.

Thank you to all the reps for trying your best to make the MARRS series as good as it can be!!!.

I truly wish we could all be happy, but I for one will settle with happy enough and look forward to the 2009 season! Happy Holidays everyone! See you at the banquet or M1.

Kevin Bailey
WDCR IT7 #95

[mlytle]

geez kevin, nice buzz kill. here we had everyone all worked up and dissin' each other and you have to go and say something NICE.....the audacity!

happy holidays!

marshall

[dj10]

So the groups are set??????? This is the best you guys can come up with? I haven't heard anything from the our dead beat ITS/ ITR rep on his thoughts!!!??? Is he satisified with us getting grouped in with the Big Bore??????? If I remember right there were many incidents 2 years ago when we were with big bore, has anyone forgot? I know I didn't and ML's 2 tone blue BMW remembers also.

I ran to the window threw open the sash, slipped on a beer can and fell on my ass.:cool:
Happy Hoildays All

[JamesB]

Kevin. I have no bitterness to the groupings other then a class that was using competitivness in ITA as the justification for the new class...yet the front runners are running competitive ITA times. So why do we need the class then? If the front of IT7 is running top 5 ITA times it is competitive...end of story and one less class to worry about.

I am not against the grouping as other are, I just think half the problem is too many classes for cars that already have a place to play. You dont see me asking for ITGolf since the 2002s dominate ITB with lap times that are well ahead of what I and my car is capable of.

What I am against is the format that is percieved to be the winner yet everyone I spoke to hated the SARRC format at VIR with the 2 day double. So someone proposed a hybrid in hopes of having one more race during their weekend. Well fine, we will see how that goes and see if people actually like it. I have done the 2 day double format, I did not like it because if you had a problem, you had no time to fix it. So why would I like the 1.5 races over a 2 day weekend instead?

Again, sorry for making you feel as if I dont want you to race...that was never the case...I just never saw the justification for your class....and I probably never will. I have the same views on SS and T. Why do we have SS when we have T. It's no longer needed.

[erlrich]

I have no bitterness to the groupings other then a class that was using competitivness in ITA as the justification for the new class...yet the front runners are running competitive ITA times. So why do we need the class then? If the front of IT7 is running top 5 ITA times it is competitive...end of story and one less class to worry about.

James - not to start an argument, but I don't agree that the IT7s are running top-5 times in ITA; not when the top ITA cars show up anyway. Owen set the new IT7 lap record this year with a 29.1xx, and I can name at least 1/2 dozen ITA cars that would be a good second faster on any given day (and another 1/2 dozen that would be right around those times). And now that AJ has shown us what a 10/10s ITA car and driver can do at Summit (26.8!!!), I know a lot of ITA drivers who used to think a 28 flat was fast are now re-thinking their programs. When you compare the top cars in each class they aren't even close.

I could see the argument that there aren't enough IT7s to justify the class - I think they averaged <7 cars a weekend this year, but that is still more than ITC or ITR, and not far behind ITS. Unlike some I do think they race well with ITA, but then they also did just fine with SRX7 too.

I haven't heard anything from the our dead beat ITS/ ITR rep on his thoughts!!!??? Is he satisified with us getting grouped in with the Big Bore???????

Dan - I think I can safely say that the ITR/ITS rep is just thrilled about racing with big bore next year, but if you want to hear it from the horse's mouth you should call him; just make sure your phone's volume is set on the lowest setting first Oh, and be sure to address him as "Mr. Director".

[Jim]

James,

You made a few points that I would like to address separately below. I added one topic at the end!

IT7 Group - In addition to increasing participation (a good thing) the IT7 actually gives more flexiblity in arranging groupings. Imagine if we had 100 entrants in Spec Pinata (not too hard to imagine). We would have no way to group all of those cars into one group. Conversely, if we had 10 classes of 10 cars, we could group them in a number of ways.

IT7 Class Size - We have been running a reasonable number of cars in the class and are actively working to bring that number up. For example the IT7 group gets free breakfast at MARRS weekends! We have a core of people that have taken it upon themselves to encourage the group to get bigger. We have taken that a bit literally and make food for the group, but the intent is to continue to make a welcome environment for our fellow IT7 racers. We have even passed out flyers to IT7 drivers at non-MARRS events to encourage participation in MARRS events. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread that IT7 is running more cars than 30 other classes at a typical MARRS weekend.

IT7 Speed - I know what lap Owen set that record on, I was running with him in my IT7 car and the two of us were drafting around the track at a good clip. While Owen and I are not perfect drivers in perfect cars, we have been running and developing these two cars for a combined 17 years of racing / track time. I know faster lap times are possible than the 1:29.1XX, I do not see a path to get anywhere near 1:26.8XX. IT7 exists along the entire east coast (SEDIV to NEDIV) and I suspect that folks feel the IT7 can not get to the front of ITA at most tracks in most cases.

Run Groups - If you stipulate that the goal is 8 run groups to allow more track time per MARRS weekend, then the grouping becomes a challenge. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the 8 run groups. I prefer the IT7 / SRX7 group we had in 08. The old grouping worked well since our cars (all rotary) had the same mighty 8 to 12 foot-pounds of torque. I think the IT7/B/C group can work, we will all have to be aware of who we are racing and take it from there. I also think that running a sprint race (12 laps or so) and a longer race in one weekend does add to the fun of a typical MARRS weekend.

Beer - Perhaps I could buy you a beer at the MARRS banquet and we can discuss more?

Have a Merry Christmas!

Jim Hess
IT7 Class Rep

[mlytle]

So the groups are set??????? This is the best you guys can come up with? I haven't heard anything from the our dead beat ITS/ ITR rep on his thoughts!!!??? Is he satisified with us getting grouped in with the Big Bore??????? If I remember right there were many incidents 2 years ago when we were with big bore, has anyone forgot? I know I didn't and ML's 2 tone blue BMW remembers also.

I ran to the window threw open the sash, slipped on a beer can and fell on my ass.
Happy Hoildays All

yo dan! sounds like someone doesn't read their email....i sent out the bad news, along with my editorial comments, to the itr/s list two months ago....

currently in negotiations with the big bore and ITE driver's reps in an attempt to keep the carnage in check.

but i have to be nice now that i am on the region's board of directors. between racing, the comp committee, the ITAC and the BOD, i may be seeing a shrink soon for multiple personality disorder....

[dj10]

yo dan! sounds like someone doesn't read their email....i sent out the bad news, along with my editorial comments, to the itr/s list two months ago....

currently in negotiations with the big bore and ITE driver's reps in an attempt to keep the carnage in check.

but i have to be nice now that i am on the region's board of directors. between racing, the comp committee, the ITAC and the BOD, i may be seeing a shrink soon for multiple personality disorder....

i remember reading the bad news but not your comments. how the hell is a meeting with the reps going to control the carnage????? as you know from being up front and personal....it's the AS group I'm worried about. Ohhhh BoD....congrats.
I think you can count me out of the 1st race @ summit until until i get a sit rep of the race.

[mlytle]

the big bore rep is an AS driver, and the AS class shrank big time last year....plus as ITR we are faster than the AS cars. it is the ITS folks i am worried about.....

my sitrep may be from the sidelines, not positive i will be running marrs next year.