2009 MARRS Format - speak up now or live with it

J

jjjanos

New member
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
JamesB said:
Gregg, it is just a change from the last groupings proposed.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
spnkzss said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

dave parker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

dave parker said:
I also think that the CRB should look very closely at combining the Wings n Things group and the Formula Vee group.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

"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.

JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.

Gregg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JamesB said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I understand a lack of time to fix something that happened on track, I can't give ANY sympathy for lack of prep. That's part of the game. :shrug:


We've (WDCR) I think is rather spoiled. I like it, but we are.
 
Yes I am well aware of the NASA splits and they do a great job of it. The standing starts they have scare me as you have 2 more groups comming up the line if things going horribly bad. But WDCR has never done a split with multiple pace cars which is why people get a sore spot when it comes to the start.

Eh, I like the MARRS format the way it was. Changing it just pushes me away, if it brings 2 others into the fold then great the comp comittee or whatever they are called has made the correct decisions. If it doesnt improve at all, then how do you undo what has been done for 2010?
 
As an ITA driver I'm fine with the 8 groups, the composition of the groups, and the weekend race format that has been proposed. As a MARRS driver I'm not too keen on IT cars in big bore, but I don't know any way to fix that short of adding another group, which really defeats the purpose of the exercise. There are some really slow ITS cars in our series though... guess they will just have to learn to watch their mirrors. I do also think there is the potential for the same kind of problems we had in ITA/S/R last year in other groups, but I think until we try it and give it a chance we aren't going to know for sure. I do believe the split starts are going to be a big factor in making the groups work, and if we can't get the stewards/chiefs on board, as well as the drivers behaving themselves, the whole thing doesn't have much of a chance of working.

On your proposal Gregg; I like it with the exception of the Labor Day weekend. I would really love to have two back to back 20-lap races on Sunday and Monday, and get the qualifying out of the way Saturday. But that's a minor difference, and not a deal breaker for me whichever way it goes.

I did have one thought/question on the Labor Day event - is it legal (per SCCA) to require a driver to document that they have completed at least one race in the current calendar year, as a prerequisite to entering an event? If so, that might be a solution to the issue of holding those two races under a single sanction.
 
Count me out of any racing at summit point if we have to race with big bore. I had 3k worth of damage from some asswipe in a gt1 car last race @ Mid Ohio and had a few very bad experiences at summit when running with big bore a couple of years ago. I won't subject my car to these increased risks. It's bad enought to run with big bore at the glen or mid ohio where the track is wider but on a narrow track.......well it's not if..........it's when.
 
Earl, Just keep laborday under a single sanction. The format, eh, I have read in enough times that ill think about it before I shell out my money. I am already missing M1 due to a friends wedding, so I will get to hear about how the event went in the weeks that pass before the next event under the new format a few months later. VIR is still up in the air for me right now due to our national security confrence is generally around the mothers day weekend and I need them to announce the week so I know if I can make it down there. No way am I going to fly in Fri eve and then tow down to VIR.
 
erlrich said:
On your proposal Gregg; I like it with the exception of the Labor Day weekend. I would really love to have two back to back 20-lap races on Sunday and Monday, and get the qualifying out of the way Saturday. But that's a minor difference, and not a deal breaker for me whichever way it goes.
Click to expand...
For some reason I didn't see the clearest answer in the wee hours when I was finishing up the proposal. I like your idea better and it works just as well. Time for proposal #2.

And Dan, sorry that you feel that bad about those increased risks. Unfortunately many times it doesn't matter what types or classes of cars you race with but who you race with. Many of us have incurred substantial damage to our cars over the years, much of it being from dumb luck to dumb driving. That's one of the risks of being out there. Given what I saw of Big Bore this year, I'm not too sure all of your fears are justified, but I can definitely sympathize.
 
JamesB said:
.... But WDCR has never done a split with multiple pace cars which is why people get a sore spot when it comes to the start.
Click to expand...
I don't think you've been around long enough (or your memory is failing), but the DC region has done split starts with two pace cars. It has been quite a while, however.

Dave
 
dj10 said:
Count me out of any racing at summit point if we have to race with big bore. I had 3k worth of damage from some asswipe in a gt1 car last race @ Mid Ohio and had a few very bad experiences at summit when running with big bore a couple of years ago. I won't subject my car to these increased risks. It's bad enought to run with big bore at the glen or mid ohio where the track is wider but on a narrow track.......well it's not if..........it's when.
Click to expand...

i am probably out of the marrs series, and most racing this year for reasons other than big bore and economy, and i am afraid the big bore mix with its/itr has a significant number of other its racers staying home or going to other venues. it is unfortunate that jamming its in with big bore will kill the resurgence the class has experienced over the last two years. same thing happened last time its was with big bore. we don't learn from history.
 
Gregg said:
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.
View attachment 625
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top