TeamDI Pro IT - 2010 Season

dtanthon

dtanthon

New member
That time again..... the rules for the New Jersey Road Racing Series Pro IT state that we need to ask our customers what they want, we would do this anyway..... the schedule is set at the Mini-Con in Pittsburgh in early November.

1.5 ​
​
​
​
​
The Pro IT Manager will solicit input from Pro IT Series participants on the management of the series. All rule changes are subject to the approval of the JRB.

What worked in 2009?
What didn't work in 2009?
What do you want in 2010?

To kick it off I heard 3 things as improvements.....
1.) Reduce classes from 6 groups to 4:
Combine ITB & ITC
Combine ITA & SM / SSM
2.) Invert the top 'x' cars on the grid. I say 6.
3.) Points is weighted toward the group with the most entries, if you beat a lot of cars then you get a lot of points and prize. Reformulate the points structure.​

​
​
​
​
​
​

 
Hey Darrell, 2009 has been fantastic! thanks for all of your hard work. Im from Jersey so Im biased but I would cut out the NHMS weekend and keep plenty of events at NJMP. Just such a great facility. Also Glen is fantastic, was great having that on the schedule this year.

Previously suggested:

1) Reduce classes by combining... I thought it was great to bring the spec E30 guys in as they did not toast real ITS cars and fit the rules nicely. I dont think we should merge actual IT classes like ITB and ITC unless we really are seeing no entries from one of those classes.

2.) Invert the top 'x' cars on the grid. I say 6.

Is this suggesting we take the top 6 qualifiers, then switch them so that the pole sitter starts 6th, p2 starts 5th, etc? I think that would be a terrible idea! frankly with the speed differentials in Pro IT T1 gets hairy enough as it is... also it just undermines the purpose of qualifying. If this is a "pro series" lets stay professional

3) I think the point structure makes perfect sense except for the "overall drivers championship" as of course the best driver could be stuck in a class with half the entries and never have a shot. I wouldent mind if we just dropped the overall drivers championship. However for each individual class its perfect. It allows winners of big field races to be rewarded better than those with small fields which is cool.

However we change things up, excellent job so far, Im hooked!:happy204:








 
1. and it is the most important suggestion, MAKE SURE ERIN IS AT EVERY RACE NEXT YEAR and see if she has any friends she wants to bring. :D

2.Year end points should be for overall in class the way it is set up now sucks. :(

3. Inverting the first 5-6 of the field if BTTC and WC does it why not. The first 6 cars should be with in a few tenths of each other any way.

4. I don't think SM would appreciate being rolled into an IT class although it will make the IT classes larger. Maybe just stick SSM in with SM thier all miatas anyway. :blink:
 
Year end points should be for overall in class the way it is set up now sucks.
Click to expand...
Last year we had top 3 in each class and the top 3 overall. Which part sucks?

The 3 things I mentioned were communicated to me at the BBQ at NJMP. All suggestions get put forth to the JRB for consideration. But before the rules get changed (or not) we will let the Pro IT drivers what is up.

Remember we have a hard limit of 48 on Lightning, enter early.
 
dtanthon said:
Last year we had top 3 in each class and the top 3 overall. Which part sucks?
Click to expand...

Ok if it is top 3 in class and top 3 overall it doesn't suck. The way it reads in the rules doesn't say that. No reference to class and over all postions. Maybe it's just the way i'm reading into it. :shrug:

moz-screenshot-1.png
moz-screenshot-2.png
6.3.9 YEAR END PRIZE FUND
Payout for the end of the year will be as follows:
1st Place 28%
2nd Place 22%
3rd Place 15%
4th Place 9%
5th Place 8%
6th Place 7%
7th Place 6%
8th Place 5%
 
I would echo many of the sentiments already expressed. The grid inversion is a cool idea but I like the idea of a random grid inversion meaning it could be 6 or 4 or whatever. Pick it out of a hat kind of thing.

I feel strongly that the Pro-IT series should be IT. Meaning I like the idea of SM running in ITS/ITA. I have seen some dumb things happening on track recently and it's coming from the midpack SM guys. I'm not sure if they know what goes into a top notch ITR/S car but it definitely puts the value of these IT cars pretty high relative to a Miata. If they have to stay in their own class how about a split- start so they can just hammer one another? It seems the thought that some drivers in SM share is that contact is allowable under the guise of momentum or bump drafting. What I've observed now is that that very philosophy is tranferring across the classes. I was hit twice last race in the rain by SM's, once almost wrecking me. I think it's a mistake to not inforce on track contact heavily. If we want to keep the series professional we have to enforce a "modicum of decency toward one another". It'll tighten up the racing without increasing the repair bills.

Driver's champ should be a per class thing. ITC/ ITR has no chance given current car counts.

R
 
I think the grid inversion that WC has is silly, kinda like a gimmick. Can I sandbag into P6 so I start P1? Rewarding the slower?

In other racing I have been involved/organized with we tried to weight points based on total finishers with the advantage to those with larger fields. The overriding complaint we heard about that system is that it benefits racers who attend tracks which draw well or have enough room on the track for a larger field. In effect it punishes those with the smaller tracks or fields. The long term effect was that those smaller tracks or fields dwindled to nearly nothing since there was no/less benefit to participate.
 
OK, it's a pro series, and Pro seiries are are fan oriented, hence the grid inversion. So.......

Inversion is good. But, it's bad if it allows sandbagging. Here's how to do it, IMO

1 - Award qualifying points to the raw, un- nverted posions. Adjust finishing points to reflect the ratio of importance between finishing and qualifying.
2 - Then invite the top 4 qualifiers, assuming there are 4 guys in the class, to a little meeting. The pole guy draws a number out of a hat (1, 2, 3 or 4), and that determines the scope of the inversion.
3 - Then, lets say the number pulled is 3. Each of the top 3 guys draw straws for his start position. In this case it could be 1st, 2nd or 3rd. Nobody will sandbag, as nobody knows IF there will be an inversion, the scope of it, or the actual positions that could occur. So there is no set pattern. Win win.
 
Last edited:
.

What I have seen is a coin toss for grid inversion...

The top 5 went to the podium, and the polesitter called
heads or tails....heads NO inversion, tails YES inversion
of the top 5....

therefore you have a 50% chance of no inversion, so why
sandbang?

.
 
Joe,

I'll add clarifying verbiage in section 6.3.9.
For the 6 classes (R/S/A/B/C/SM) the top 8 get year end prize money if they complete 50% or more of the events. We started with 8 rounds this year so you need to enter 4 rounds, we actually had 9 rounds since the ARCA event morphed into 2 rounds.

Year end prize fund will have over $20,000 this year.
 
We can make an ITM class, save the $10 fee

This is what Atlanta has in their rules -
2.4 The Atlanta Region IT Miata (ITM); cars must conform to SMCS C.6.c.2. Regional Competition. A spec tire is not required. Showroom Spec Miata (SSM) conforming to the Atlanta Region SSM rules may compete in
ITM; ARRC SM (ASM) may compete in ITM; ASM must conform to ARRC rules for ASM.​

I also heard the comment to keep Pro IT pure, drop SM/SSM all together. Make them run ITA or ITS.​
 
I have no idea as to how "possible" this is, but I like the idea of running at different tracks, not the same track mutlitple times. So my recommendation is to get the series to as many different tracks as we can in 2010. Even saying that, we need to be careful about long distance hauls and the costs involved.

Tracks that I would like to see on the schedule in order of priority:

Watkins Glen
LRP
NJMP - thunderbolt
VIR
Mid Ohio
Pocoono
NHMS

Again, don't know if it is possible, but this way there is no "home" track for anyone, and we could expose the series from Virginia to Ohio - which is another important point for our sponsors, and for promoting the series as a REAL series.

And once again -- 2009 has been excellent --- big thanks to Bob and Darrel for putting it all together!

Tim M
 
From a business perspective (IMHO) we need the SM name to be a profitable and viable series in the current market place for our sponsors. SM and SSM attract newbies, entries, and attention, and we need to partner with them. I really feel strongly that a Pro-IT and PRO-SM combined race series with split starts would bring our series to a new level for all that are involved. We want the attention that SM brings and our sponsors will want that same attention. I personally will not run without split starts in the future but I feel as though I may be by myself on that idea.

I think the points payouts are great the way it is designed... rewards more for greater competition and IMHO gets drivers to try and get other drivers to run.

Running with Nationals probably supports the regions more but I honestly have no idea on the inside $$ info.

DO NOT RUN the same weekend as a regional at another venue.

Keep the awesome winners stickers

Create a consistant trophy for the series that compliment eachother on the shelf at the end of the season.

I love the tracks Tim mentioned and would dislike to travel to NJ 3 times again next year. 1 double race at NJ using both tracks would be AWESOME!

Keep up the positive attitude!

Stephen
 
Worthwhile to think about Prot IT - with the lead start.......... and split start behind that is Pro Miata. You have a Pro Miata series running alongside Pro IT and the fans can see all the Miatas start together? Great format...
 
Just make it PRO SM and you have no problem with full fields and the ITR guys will stop complaining about SM drivers. :)
 
No complaints Jerry!!

It's just that if I decide to "tap" a Miata then I "tap" with 130+ more HP and 500+ lbs more weight. I guaran-damn-tee you'll know it when I bump you.

Us ITR guys can get a lot of attention if we play by "those" rules. My guess is then you'd see some real complaining if we started moving Miata's. Facts being facts the GCR does not allow for contact.

Good for the Goose... blah blah blah.

R
 
Two points Rob,
1) I've been passed by some poorly driven ITR cars and had to work hard in order to not hit them!
2) Miatas, can't live with them and can't live without them!
;)
 
PRO-IT and Pro-SM split start is the best suggestion so far. I love running with a lot of the SM cars, but the mix doesn't work well. We mess their race up and they mess up our body pannels!!! lol It is true though the classes don't mix very well.

The Pro-SM name will bring in more entries, and the split start will give both IT classes and the SM class more individual attention...

I also vote for less races at NJMP... I have to ask (Not trying to be rude but...) is the series priority interest in making NJMP races successful or is it a priority to help all regions and all races across the northeast?

Summit would be cool (and that is a Team DI location isn't it?) and VIR would be cool. Nelson Ledges and Beaver Run would also probably enjoy a visit from Erin and the rest of us!

I probably wouldn't be able to make the commute however if it does go to Mid Ohio it would have to be during the IT fest weekend...

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