2009 MARRS Format - speak up now or live with it

[jjjanos]

For 2009, the current proposed run groups are (2008 avg car count):
FV / F500 (19)
Big Wings & Things (18)
SM (35)
SSM (41)
Big Bore / ITS / ITR (34)
Small Bore / SRF (38)
ITA / SpecRX7 / T3 (35)
IT7 / ITB / ITC / SSB / SSC (35)

The changes from 2008 are:
ITS/ITR with Big Bore
SRF running with Prod
RX7/SS group dissolved and split among the ITA and ITB/ITC groups

Key proposed and actual changes
- Groups wanting split starts for Sunday will have that in the supps
- Saturday racing and longer races on Sunday, i.e. more track time both days
- You will be racing with new classes and drivers. Most groups will have more classes on track potentially FUBARING a class race.

Current proposed schedules:
15 min AM qualifying setting grid for Saturday race
9 to 12 lap races on Saturday
20 lap races on Sunday with grid set by fastest TIME from Saturday

Question:
Is this schedule worth condensing down to 8 run groups?

Two things to consider if proposing adding groups:
1. A ninth group translates to 7-lap races on Saturday and 18-lap races on Sunday.
2. Shorter races encourage stupidity, and low-percentage moves.

We meet on Saturday to make the final decision. If you have an opinion, you need to let your reps know - both for and against. If you don't, you'll have only yourself to blame for what gets decided.

[JamesB]

I just dont see the need to add sat afternoon of a 9 lap race (yes it will be 9 not 12 for all groups) which will just add more work to the cleanup crews and more work on the cars. I dont understand why split It7 and srx7 to put them with A and B, why not just put ITa/b/c in the same group and call it a day. two less groups to be ticked off. the 7's and SSB will stay together which seemed to work well last year.

[Gregg]

I just dont see the need to add sat afternoon of a 9 lap race (yes it will be 9 not 12 for all groups) which will just add more work to the cleanup crews and more work on the cars.

Given the formula that is used to determine the past years's scheduls and feedback from stewards, a 10-12 lap (+ pace lap) race is very doable and will allow for an earlier Satruday finish than we currently have.

I dont understand why split It7 and srx7 to put them with A and B, why not just put ITa/b/c in the same group and call it a day. two less groups to be ticked off. the 7's and SSB will stay together which seemed to work well last year.

It's really quite simple. Once you join ITA/ITB/ITC together you are at over 50 cars and then you have some VERY undersubscribed tin top groups. It's a balancing act. When we went to 10 run groups two years ago, the target density was 32-35 cars/group. Our projections (which includes add'l drop off from '08) would put us right there with eight run groups in '09. Also, you assume that the 7 classes are ticked off. In speaking with their reps, I would argue that your assumption is invalid. In fact, this new plan gives the opportunity for double-dipping for a bunch of drivers.

The fact of the matter is that most racers come to the track to race, and not to qualify. The worker chiefs have stated that they prefer to watching racing, and not qualifying.

And Dave--Just for argument's sake, I'd like to point out that Small Wings had a larger turnout race after race after race than ITB/ITC last year. In addition, I'm sure you will agree, that two open wheel cars getting together at a high rate of speed has a far greater potential for injury than two tin tops. While *I* looked we looked at having SRF run w/ a group other than Small Bore, all of the effected reps felt that this would be the best combination.

Look everybody, with money tightening up, WDCR will probably need to compete for entries (and $$) in '09, whereas we've never really had to before. That means keeping the status quo just won't work. We need incentives to draw racers and more track time and more racing are just two ways to do it.

[JamesB]

Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed. Which interesting enough for me to wonder why to go through all this trouble again. But opening up the 7's to run their own class plus A or in spec plus IT7 makes all the sense in the world to me. For the few if any double dippers that might open the window for I guess we will just have to bend and sway for. Again SS or IT7 wont effect me since I am not in the front of the field or running lap times around them so I could care less. Though I think split starts with 4 different classes will never happen so our group should just get used to it from the get go so we can avoid possible body damaging melees.

If the format allows me to choose start sat afternoon DFL and avoid the probable starting melee but allow me to keep my Sunday qual position, I am perfectly fine with that. If this format allows people to feel that there is a percieved improvement on their dollars to goto a MARRS race rather then head north or south to another region I can support that. I dont want us to push and progress to the 2 day double format, noone liked it when we ran that with SARRC, why would they like it 2 years later for the entire series?

[Gregg]

Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed.

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. The groupings that Jeff listed are those that were voted on and agreed to in October. Perhaps the problem is that Jeff considers them to be "proposed" while the rest of us (except perhaps the ITB rep) consider them to be voted on, and approved for '09.

I know that Jeff is re-listing them simply because I know that your rep is going to ask at Saturday's meeting that we move back to 9 or ten run groups. I would be remiss to mention that after taking an informal poll of most of your class's drivers, the overwhelming sentiment is to move to eight groups and increase track time.

[JamesB]

I went back and checked, your right and my memory had me thinking spec7 was in another group. My bad for mixing that up, I guess having more going on then racing this winter, I thought that was a change. Either way, it won't fix the overall too many classes problem we already have and that is nothing WDCR can fix on its own. And agian it wont effect me until I can get away from the pointy end of ITC which is enough of a problem for me.

However, this is the real first of any confirmed written rules to be voted on about the saturday format change that I have seen. And again, I dont care as long as I can do my qualifying without the worry of getting stuck in a gravel trap for the rest of the session (has not happen to me but I know it can) or needing to pull off early because a belt decided to let go (has happend to me before) and ruining my position for the points race on Sunday. If Saturday is to be a points counted race, then just push the SARRC double format already since it will defintly change my plans to trying to push a full season through this year. I know money is tight all over, its not flowing out of my pockets this year and the more I think about the changes the more I am thinking about taking a wait and see approach since I really cannot afford to rebuild a car this year.

[jjjanos]

I just dont see the need to add sat afternoon of a 9 lap race (yes it will be 9 not 12 for all groups) which will just add more work to the cleanup crews and more work on the cars.

Because drivers wanted more track time? Because drivers wanted more racing?

As a driver who races in both the Small Bore Prod group and in ITC, I propose (no make that demand) that those groups have split starts or at least split grids.

As your ITC Rep, I will ask for a split start for the IT7/B/C/SS group. ITB/ITC on field and the newcomers a second. The decision, however, will need to be a group one. Small Bore/SRF is the responsibility of someone else. I will, however, let them know what you think.

I also think that the CRB should look very closely at combining the Wings n Things group and the Formula Vee group.

One thing to consider is that after last year's "issue," the open-wheel DRs worked very hard at raising their participation levels. Their numbers were up in 2008 and, IMO, it would be unfair to undercut that effort as long as they show progress.

In addition, I believe that decision is out of the CRC's hands. After last year's fiasco, it is unlikely the Region's BoD would allow it. We also need the Division Executive Steward to approve our supps and I do not know if he would allow us to combine them.

Otherwise I am ok with the rest of the proposal knowing full well that the Region leadership (whomever "they" are) will do what "they" want not what the racers want.

"WE/I" are trying to find out what the races want so that "we/I" can do what the racers want. When 2 drivers give their opinions out of 20 and 3 of those are indifferent, it pretty much guarantees that the DRs will do what "they" think is best or want.

Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed. Which interesting enough for me to wonder why to go through all this trouble again.

I believe that some DRs will ask that 8-groups be reconsidered. If it's to be reconsidered, the drivers should have some input.

Though I think split starts with 4 different classes will never happen so our group should just get used to it from the get go so we can avoid possible body damaging melees.

Well, I've seen NASA do 4 split starts with one of them standing, so I'm confident we could do it if we wanted. What I was thinking, however, was a maximum of 2 start groups per run group to seperate the newcomers from the oldtimers in the groups.

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. The groupings that Jeff listed are those that were voted on and agreed to in October. Perhaps the problem is that Jeff considers them to be "proposed" while the rest of us (except perhaps the ITB rep) consider them to be voted on, and approved for '09.

Until we get our supps approved, it can be undone. If people are happy with what the CRC decided, they should let their reps know that. If they want changes, there still is time to revise our plans. In addition, there was an understanding that we would get split starts for the new run groups and until that is in the supps, I'm not considering this a done deal. There are several layers to getting supps approved and some of those have a bias against split starts a/o split grids.

[spnkzss]

I dont want us to push and progress to the 2 day double format, noone liked it when we ran that with SARRC, why would they like it 2 years later for the entire series?

Most of us didn't like it because of 90 cars on the track at one time, not so much the double format. Personally I like it. I actually like the NASA format even better with a Practice, a Qualifying session, and a race EACH day. SCCA won't ever see that due to the pure number of cars and can't fit it in one day, which I understand completely.

[JamesB]

Most of us didn't like it because of 90 cars on the track at one time, not so much the double format. Personally I like it. I actually like the NASA format even better with a Practice, a Qualifying session, and a race EACH day. SCCA won't ever see that due to the pure number of cars and can't fit it in one day, which I understand completely.

For you it was car count, for others it was the lack of time to fix their car after either the car count or an overlooked piece of prep (and maybe a few didnt prep at all) left them flailing to get the car fixed in time. I heard many of stories after that weekend and many more where unfavorable then favorable. Also to do a 2 day double format with good races we will have to further push the groups together and you are looking at averaging 45 cars a group.

[dave parker]

Jeff
As a driver who races in both the Small Bore Prod group and in ITC, I propose (no make that demand) that those groups have split starts or at least split grids.

I also think that the CRB should look very closely at combining the Wings n Things group and the Formula Vee group. The folks driving fendered cars are paying the bills so that these two groups can have their own little playground with low car counts and lots of open track. Meanwhile the majority of the regions racers get to take a bite of the big shit sandwich left from these racers "special needs". Please do not give me the "speed difference is a safety issue" crap arguement either. A perfect example of speed difference is the shown in the Small Bore prod group when you look at the lap times of the SPU cars compared to the H Prod cars.

Otherwise I am ok with the rest of the proposal knowing full well that the Region leadership (whomever "they" are) will do what "they" want not what the racers want.

Thanks for spending the time to get the word out.
cheers
dave parker

[Gregg]

Here is what I came up with that I think will go to mollify those who just want to "qualify" on Sunday and did not come to race.
GSG09FormatProposal-1.pdf

[mlytle]

Here is what I came up with that I think will go to mollify those who just want to "qualify" on Sunday and did not come to race.
GSG09FormatProposal-1.pdf

competely disagree withh the points system. way too complicated. there should be no points for pole or the sat race. feature races should be equal marrs races. if there is a desire to make the saturday race count for "something"...make the sat summit races a separate washington dc series...away from marrs.

[Gregg]

competely disagree withh the points system. way too complicated. there should be no points for pole or the sat race. feature races should be equal marrs races. if there is a desire to make the saturday race count for "something"...make the sat summit races a separate washington dc series...away from marrs.

I completely agree that it's complicated and would hope that it's a conversation starter for combination with other ideas. I will be more than happy to expand on my reasons for not having a separate championship at Saturday's meeting.

As when we met in October, there were a lot of people present, not a lot of ideas. Judging by the number of proposals submitted, it's looking like that might be the case once again. Hopefully it isn't.

[Charlie Broring]

I think we need to reassess some of the plans we made made last fall. We didn't come up with this format by by evaluating the deficiencies and building on last years successful program. Rather, made some wholesale changes in a successful program that please some members but alienate others.

Think abut this. With 11 races, 3 tows out of region and almost twice the number of racing laps per weekend it is the most ambitious and expensive MARRS series ever proposed. This while we are in the worst recession in over 50 years. Yes more race laps is nice but they are also more expensive then qualifying or practice on old tires. For me personally it's just too expensive to consider running the while series this year. I am forced to race less.

I think The MARRS series will lose far more racers who are displeased by this new program then it will gain in new racers attracted by this format.

Now, I don't disagree with everything in this planned program. I think 11 races can work if MARRS allows points drops for 3 races. This would help keep competitors who cannot afford to tow to 3 expensive away races.

I also think Saturday races in the second qualifying session could work if we don't compromise the other aspects of our program to do so. I think 8 run groups is a big compromise. The Miata's and Open Wheel have it pretty good but the remaking 25 classes are squeezed into 4 race groups. Consider that 2 years ago overcrowded race groups were such an important issue that we expanded to 10 groups and stopped going to VIR. Yet now we no longer are concerned about crowded groups.

And we need to make the Saturday race meaningful.

In the mid 1990's we had qualifying races for one season. We also had longer races for one season. Neither were successful and we returned to the format used through last year. We should learn from the past mistakes.

I hope we reconsider the current plans for 2009, but I'm afraid that it's going to be hard to change these ill considered plans at this late date.

Charlie Broring

[evanwebb]

Take ITS out of the Big Bore group and put it somewhere else. ITR is more or less as fast as AS so that makes some sense, but there are a bunch of ITS cars running slower than 1:30 and they shouldn't be in with Big Bore.

[evanwebb]

Go back to 9 groups and un-screwup this grouping. 18 lap races on Sunday is plenty long enough. Get SRF away from small bore. Get ITS (probably ITR) out of the group with Big Bore. You could probably figure out a way to break the IT/SS/SRX7 etc. classes into three groups with ITR the fastest in one group, ITS the fastest inthe second group, and ITA the fastest in the third group.

[jjjanos]

The Miata's and Open Wheel have it pretty good but the remaking 25 classes are squeezed into 4 race groups Consider that 2 years ago overcrowded race groups were such an important issue that we expanded to 10 groups and stopped going to VIR. Yet now we no longer are concerned about crowded groups. .

OK - crowded groups are bad. OK - an alphabet soup of classes is bad. That means the only group that has it "good" is FV/F5. They have a 2 class group and only 19 cars on average.

Spec Miata doesn't have it good, it might be a single-class group, but it has crowding equal to or greater than all groups other than SSM and Small Bore. SSM doesn't have it good, they are the most crowded. Fast formula doesn't have it good, they have 11 classes on-track at once.

Lesson - Anything can be made to look bad with the correct spin.

In the mid 1990's we had qualifying races for one season. We also had longer races for one season. Neither were successful and we returned to the format used through last year. We should learn from the past mistakes.

We had 5-lap qualifying races. The same thing happens at WGI when a 10-lap feature race works out to 5 laps under the green. Lesson - very short races equals stupidity.

We shortened our races because we ADDED groups. Not because the races were unpopular. If you've got a fixed amount of track time and you go from 8 to 9 groups, it means that Mohel's Law has to be applied and everyone loses 12% off the top.

Take ITS out of the Big Bore group and put it somewhere else. ITR is more or less as fast as AS so that makes some sense, but there are a bunch of ITS cars running slower than 1:30 and they shouldn't be in with Big Bore.

Go back to 9 groups and un-screwup this grouping. 18 lap races on Sunday is plenty long enough. Get SRF away from small bore. Get ITS (probably ITR) out of the group with Big Bore. You could probably figure out a way to break the IT/SS/SRX7 etc. classes into three groups with ITR the fastest in one group, ITS the fastest inthe second group, and ITA the fastest in the third group.

We should be able to combine ITS with either ITA and not have problems. We cannot combined the MARRS ITS with ITA without creating problems. The number of S cars we lose by combining them with Big Bore is far smaller than the number of A and B cars we will lose if those two classes are forced to race with them.

I didn't see why ITR couldn't stay with ITA and I was surprised that the Rep didn't suggest it.

ITS and ITA aren't don't work together. The only class IT class we can combine with them is ITB. An ITR/ITS group is too damn small. You want an ITB/ITS group? I sure don't want to be on track with them.

If people want 9 run groups, put together a grouping and don't just magically wave your hands and say "presto! 9 run groups!". I'll send you the car counts we used.

[evanwebb]

Yes, ITB and ITS together works fine. They are pretty well separated by speed, and it has been done before. Its no different than EP and HP running together. However, a GT1 car running 1:20 on slicks has no place running with a 1:30+ ITS car on DOT radials. 8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

[evanwebb]

Please post the car counts, and how they were calculated.

[erlrich]

Please post the car counts, and how they were calculated.

Below is a listing of the average cars per class for '08 for the seven MARRS races at Summit, based on the number of starters for each race. The two out-of-region races at Nelson Ledges were not included. Also, here is a link to a spreadsheet where you can try different groupings and see the car counts based on '08 actuals. Use the "Proposed 09 Groups" tab to make up the groups.

Class OA Average
1 SSM 40.86
2 SM 34.71
3 ITA 21.43
4 SRX7 17.29
5 FV 17.14
6 ITB 15.00
7 SRF 14.71
8 ITS 11.14
9 IT7 6.57
10 GTP 5.57
11 ITC 4.86
12 EP 4.43
13 CF 4.29
14 FC 4.29
15 AS 4.00
16 GTA 4.00
17 HP 3.86
18 GT1 3.57
19 ITR 3.43
20 SPU 3.29
21 FP 3.14
22 ITE 3.14
23 SSC 2.71
24 SSB 2.14
25 F500 1.71
26 FE 1.71
27 FF 1.71
28 GT2 1.57
29 SPO 1.29
30 DSR 1.00
31 FS 0.86
32 S2000 0.86
33 DP 0.71
34 GTL 0.57
35 FA 0.43
36 FM 0.43
37 FB 0.29
38 GP 0.29
39 CSR 0.14
40 T1 0.14
41 T3 0.14
249.43