2009 MARRS Format - speak up now or live with it

[erlrich]

Jeff, well good luck on that request for 4 split starts. Personally, I vote no. We managed last year with ITC, we can manage this year that we have more classes in the group. But hey that is how the cookie crumbles.

So to try and force people to race the powers that be chose to make it a points counting race. You realize there is much more potential in that causing more of a rift as those that WANT the championship and those that are just there to get a couple of clean laps in will only get worse.

James, I might be wrong but I think the most you are going to get in any race is one split start (2 groups). At least that's how I understood it.

As far as racing on Sat. - I don't see why anyone who isn't worried about racing for the MARRS championship couldn't still go to the back of the group and treat the session as a qualifying session. Since (I assume) there will be a pace lap, it should actually be easier IMO to lay back at the start and get a couple of clean laps. And if you are running flat out you still shouldn't have to worry about the leaders for at least 3-4 laps. But then, I'm with Jeff on this one, I would want to race even if there were no points involved.

[spnkzss]

I'm finding it very interesting that "racers" are concerned with more racing?

[jjjanos]

Jeff, well good luck on that request for 4 split starts.

I do not believe that anyone suggested that each class receive its own start. The idea that newcomers be split from oldtimers in each group is what I think people are suggesting. E.g. SRF from the rest of Prod. ITA from SRX7, etc.

Personally, I vote no. We managed last year with ITC, we can manage this year that we have more classes in the group. But hey that is how the cookie crumbles.

IT7/ITB/ITC/SS are doing a single start.

I only wish they increased the drops if they where going to put points on the Sat race. I will have used up my drops as of M1 due to a schedule conflict keeping me from the first race of the season.

I believe there is some confusion how the drops work.
Assuming VIR is a double, the 2009 MARRS championship is 11 sanction events. You drop 3 complete sanctions. If you do not go to MARRS1, that is 1 (one) of your drops. You still have 2 more drops.

[JamesB]

Rob - I have a limited budget. I always have and probably will until I manage to find a way to significantly increase my income or reduce my costs of living. Both of which I been trying to do with little help from the state, county, or BGE. So yes, I am very concerned as a driver about the burn rate of consumables in my car and the additional abuse I seem to take from time to time on race starts. I also don't believe the format does add anything additional to the program, instead it detracts from the program as a whole.

Jeff - The splits make more sense to me now if they are going to be true split starts not split grids like in any of my known past wth MARRS. However, if you think about it, the split grid situation was all that existed in recent history.

The drop system makes a little more sense, though I still don't agree with making the Sat race a MARRS points race.

[erlrich]

I do not believe that anyone suggested that each class receive its own start. The idea that newcomers be split from oldtimers in each group is what I think people are suggesting. E.g. SRF from the rest of Prod. ITA from SRX7, etc.

IT7/ITB/ITC/SS are doing a single start.

Jeff - I sincerely hope the decision not to split this group was based on driver's input, and was not something done purely out of spite. It seems to me splitting IT7/SSB from ITB/ITC/SSC would have been an easy decision, and would have kept the front-runners in the first group from ever seeing the front-runners in the second. The top 3-4 IT7 cars (out of the 5-6 that usually run) consistently run as fast or faster than the top ITB cars; and SSB actually should be the fastest class in that group. And with the small number of IT7/SSB entries we usually get that would have meant the ITB drivers would have had to contend with only a very few, well-spaced backmarkers from the first group - essentially giving them their own race. But, that's just my take.

[jjjanos]

Jeff - I sincerely hope the decision not to split this group was based on driver's input, and was not something done purely out of spite.

AFAIK, we did the same thing all of the DRs did. We had a short break-out session and made a decision whether it was needed.

I don't know which groups specifically requested split starts. I just know IT7/ITB/ITC/SS did not request it.

[Charlie Broring]

In regards to split starts, initially each group was asked to decide what they wanted for the upcoming season. Some groups knew what they wanted. Some were rather undecided. Some classes within groups disagreed. I suggested that the sups be phrased "Split Starts to be used as needed" and I believe this is what Gayle accepted.

There was no need to lock ourselves into or out of Split Starts at this point, as long as the stewards are accommodating. I believe a suitable understanding with the stewards was reached.

I really don't think that the ITB, IT7 etc group will need one, but I'm going to let your next driver rep work that out.

Charlie