Proposed 2009 MARRS

[erlrich]

One year after we voted not to return to VIR due to the crowded race groupings with too many classes mixed together, we vote in crowded in crowded groupings of too many classes. In my mind this is a 180 degree reversal in our priorities.

Coming from one of the three race groups that averaged 35+ cars last year, I don't really see how the proposed groups (all but SSM are < 40 cars) could possibly be considered overcrowded. As far as the quality of the racing, yes you can argue that but that was one of the major complaints of the ITA drivers last year.

Saturday racing can easily take place with a 9 group schedule and didn't in itself justify this 8. group schedule.

I won't argue that point; I don't know why the same schedule couldn't be run with 9 groups, but I was under the impression some of the race specialties thought that might be too much?

ITS/ITR also received a very undesirable place to race. The SRX7/IT7 was quite content with what they had, shame they were broken up. And the quality of my race (ITb) will certainly suffer. The little open wheel groups got a bye.

I think ITR/ITS probably got the worst of the whole deal IMO - maybe that could be taken care of with 9 groups? What I do know, is that ITS & ITA did not play well together last year. I personally had no issue with ITR running in our group; I think the problems others had with ITR were with one specific driver, and not the group in general.

I run a small business. The first rule for success is don't piss off your customers. In this schedule, Miata's and ITA were winners, but there were too many losers. Was this a good move when our racing is also facing the stress of the slow economy?

But by that philosophy wouldn't you want to please the majority of your customers? By the numbers, 3 classes (out of 41 that ran in the MARRS series) made up almost 40% of the entries last year. Those were SSM, SM, and ITA. Add in #4 (SRX7) and #5 (FV) and you're well over 50% of the entries. With the exception of maybe SRX7 I don't see where any of those would have a complaint with the new schedule. Of course, it could be that ITA was the only class that had anything to bitch about last year, so maybe this is all about us.

[jjjanos]

I won't argue that point; I don't know why the same schedule couldn't be run with 9 groups, but I was under the impression some of the race specialties thought that might be too much?

The chiefs were OK with anything that didn't make the day longer.

9 run groups with 15 minute sessions + 8 minutes "down" time = about 3.5 hours qualifying.

8 lap race = 22 minutes (including pace/cool) + 8 min down = 30minutes or 4.5 hours
Total = 8 hours and that's with a conservative time estimate on down time because we probably leave an entire run group worth of time sitting on the table.

Start: 8:15
+ 8 hours track
+ 1 hour lunch which is what the volunteers need.
= 5:15 conservative ending time.
Lost a run group, we pick up 15+8 + 22+8 or almost one hour in track time that can be tossed among the rest of the run groups.

There are two groups that aren't pulling their weight in terms of the rest of the run groups. They won't combine with anyone else and the NEDIV executive steward won't allow us to combine them. Unless and until we are willing to throw open-wheel out of the life boat, we've got to live with the idea of 37 cars spread across 2 run groups.

It was clear to me that split-starts wouldn't work for A-S-R, so they had to be divorced.

Everyone put together a 9 group weekend splitting A and S, both open-wheel groups and two Miata groups. Here are the numbers (or there about) we worked with:

SM35SSM41F5002FST0FV18CF4CSR0DSR1FA1FB0FC4FE2FF2FM0FS2S21AS4ASR0BP0GT14GT22GT30GTA4ITE3SPO2ST0T10T20DP1EP4FP4GP0GTL1GTP6HP4SPU3SRF15IT77SRX717SSB2SSC3T30ITA18ITR4ITS11ITB21ITC4

[mlytle]

i can about guaranttee the car counts will be lower in two classes..ITS and ITR. there are already a few of us looking for somewhere else to race next summer......

[Gregg]

Although I'm a little surpised that this ended up here, Charlie, I'm going to post in its entirety what sent to my ITA drivers immediately after the meeting on October 23rd. You'll notice that it contains quite a bit more detail than what you sent to your drivers and what you provided here. I might add, that for a person who was/is so concerned about the quality of racing for all MARRS drivers, you worked awfully hard this summer to protect the ITB/ITC average of < 20 cars rather than helping to alleviate some of the overcrowding in other run groups.

In addition, while you make it seem as though the SM and SSM reps and I drove this down everybody's throats, the fact of the matter is that SSM averaged over 40 cars this past year and SSM was very close. They were already running at the '09 target density. In fact, the SSM rep was actually one of those to abstain from the vote on groupings.

Remember that two years ago that rather than contracting and removing large formula cars and Sports Racers from the MARRS series so that we could go to eight run groups, we instead expanded to 10. The stated density goal when going to 10 groups was 32-35 cars for the closed-wheel groups. The advantage of going to 10 run groups was that we would have the freedom to juggle combinations to acheive those goals without overly burdening a limited number of drivers.

If you feel that there is something factually incorrect in my description and recollection below, please feel free to correct me.

Originally sent to all MARRS ITA Drivers @ 11pm 10/23/08
Rather than attack run groupings in January as we normally do, we decided to get things done now. Each representative on the Committee was asked to bring their proposed run groups, printed, and would be given three minutes to present their reasoning. Come next season, you all are either going to love me or really hate me. The Committee accepted my plan.

Here's the good news....we're not running with ITS next year.

We're going to have a radical change in the format of the series next year. We've been talking off and on over the past few years about changing the format of the MARRS weekends. We've all discussed qualifying races and many of you heard a proposal at the Open Comp meeting (and here) to make each weekend a Double (w/ qualifying and race each day). Well, in order to do that there's no way we could continue to have 10 run groups, and nine run groups wasn't going to cut it either. My plan was to go to eight run groups. A move to eight run groups allows us to recover a minimum of an hour each day and reallocate that time to the remaining groups, giving us longer on-track sessions. If we go to a qualifying race on Saturday we can make it long enough (approx. 10 laps) to alleviate the fears of carnage as people bash and bang to get a better starting position for the Sunday feature. We can also go to a longer feature race on Sunday (18-20 laps). If we go to double weekends, The same applies--more track time each day.

So what's the downsides? More cars on track across the board. Whereas this year we had some groups (like ours) that averaged about 40 cars, there were closed-wheel groups that barely managed 20 cars. No need to rehash that and our attempts to realign groups mid-season. If we use 2008's participation numbers, most of the run groups would average 35 cars with my plan. Of course, this year we saw a falloff in registrations as the year went on (probably gas price-related) and a lot of us are betting we'll see a 10-20% dropoff due to our economic troubles so we'll probably really be seeing 30-32 car densities at best.

So how'd this play out? I proposed going to eight run groups to facilitate modifying the MARRS weekend format. This was approved 13-7. Once that was done, I presented my proposed run groups. Believe me when I say that contracting to eight run groups gives you a very limited number of options. Some of the combinations aren't exactly optimal, but this time around the pain will be spread across more groups instead of just ITA taking the brunt of it once again. The CRC will be working this winter with our stewards and the N.E. Division Chief Steward to add language to our Supps, calling for either "split starts" or "split grids" for many of our run groups to make some combos more palatable.

There was one other 8-group combination presented on the fly but the framers couldn't make the numbers work. The committee approved my groupings 13-4 with three abstentions. So here's the rundown. 2008 Averages are in parenthesis with the MR2 move to ITB taken into account.

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)

There are some classes that aren't very happy, but I know that since Yip likes using RX7's for brake pads that ITA will do just fine. I think we had one T3 car show up all year, so if we do a split start w/ the Spec7's we'll probably be able to coexist quite well.

We are, of course, going to have a huge task ahead of us come January to create a race format that gives our racers the most value for their ever more hard-to-come-by dollar. A point that has been made by one of our Board members is that '09 may be the first year that we may have to fight other organizations for entries. That means making the MARRS series more amenable to racers we have, racers we've lost, and racers who haven't raced with us previously. It means being less exclusive and more inclusive, and it means making sacrifices for the greater good--that means more track time for the $$, that means more racing and less time qualifying or sitting around, that means making things more exciting for our volunteers that come to the track to watch racing (and not qualifying), and maybe even getting everyone home to a family dinner a little earlier on Sunday nights. This new plan means that everybody shares in that burden and not just a few. With everyone working towards this goal, I am confident that we can make a stronger MARRS series.

[JamesB]

Jeff - You generally percieved that many wanted this new format. At the open committee it was mita, some IT and a few of the prod guys thought it was a great idea. Charlie knows I have always been against this format. Though other then the IT7 class I never felt was needed since they already exist in ITA and run competitive lap times. the groupings are what they are. It mayturn charlies race into something else. For me I might have a SS car to deal with but they dont bump and grind as bad as other classes we could have been stuffed with.

Gregg - if you think the changes are going to make MARRS more inclusive you should listen to what people are saying. Its making it more exclusive by mimicing format a lot of racers hate, in order to attract the format a lot of racers like. That does not compute in any way I see it. And if more walk away then we attract it means the region loses money and in the end they have to raise entry fees yet again. So this year I think the goal of the competition comitee should have been to ATTRACT as many drivers as possible not by ticking off a good portion of entrants that run a full season and possibly losing even more.

Marshall - It sucks, but ITR did not belong iwth ITA. It's like how NARRC stuffs ITB with ITS. I think its unfair to the slower class when you can lap all but the top 3 or 4 of the class 2 steps down.

[jjjanos]

Jeff - You generally percieved that many wanted this new format. At the open committee it was mita, some IT and a few of the prod guys thought it was a great idea.

The open competition committee is where the drivers' are suppose to say what they want to continue and what they want to change in the Region's racing program. IMO, the overwhelming consensus was "more racing." If there is/was a silent majority, I guess they learned a lesson about not getting involved in the town meeting.

Seems the peanut gallery complains when the committee listens to them and the peanut gallery complains when the committee ignores their wishes. Guess I'll suggest that we forego the open competition meeting this year since it serves no purpose other than to waste the time of the driver reps.

The news has been out for several months; more than enough time for drivers to complain to their reps. If more track time and a second race nearly as long as what they get now on Sunday isn't what they want, it can be changed.

Charlie knows I have always been against this format.

What format? It hasn't been settled. Think of it as the double without the second qualifying session. More important... if you don't want to actually race on Saturday afternoon... start from the freaking pit lane. You'll have plenty of clear track for a nice drive. Since, I believe, it'll be the best lap time from Saturday that sets Sunday's grid, it's just a longer qualifying session for you. The only people who HAVE to put their cars in harm way are those who WANT to race.

Kee-rist on a pogo-stick, I think we could get 12-lap races in on Saturday and 20 laps on Sunday... the Saturday race is as long as 100% of the racing a few years ago. This is a bad thing?

Its making it more exclusive by mimicing format a lot of racers hate, in order to attract the format a lot of racers like.

Marshall - It sucks, but ITR did not belong iwth ITA. It's like how NARRC stuffs ITB with ITS. I think its unfair to the slower class when you can lap all but the top 3 or 4 of the class 2 steps down.

I've heard ONE voice in opposition to Saturday racing - yours. IMO, Charlie's opposition isn't because of Saturday racing, it's because ITB won't have it's own private playground anymore. Marshall's seems to be because ITR/ITS is racing with Big Bore.

Check the results... ITR didn't lap to the top-5 and only the real dogs lost two laps. Most mult-class groups see their little dog lose a lap to the big dogs in their group (see Prod, See Big Bore, See ITB/ITC). ITR wasn't the problem in that group and keeping ITR with ITA was never raised by anyone.

Giving the slower class "it's" lap "back" is easy - just make that race one lap longer. Of course then we would hear nothing but griping about how ITR gets an extra lap...

[JamesB]

Interesting you call me a peanut. I had already voiced my opinions before the open comp meeting. I would have loved to stay in the rain to comment at the meeting, but I prefered somewhere dry and a little less crowded. Sorry that weather does that to someone who spent the entire day in the weather....but thats how it is.

The format that is being pushed is the one I have never agreed with. It will likely get implimented since I hear more of the drivers reps like SM, SSM, ITA are all in favor of it.

As for classing, again I said it wont effect me so I could care less since the SS guys don't care and the IT7 cars are just a couple of ITA cars with their own playground. ITR being with ITS and ITA is just the same as ITS being grouped with ITB, so I sympathize with the ITA folks wishing ITR out of the group.

[mlytle]

Check the results... ITR didn't lap to the top-5 and only the real dogs lost two laps. Most mult-class groups see their little dog lose a lap to the big dogs in their group (see Prod, See Big Bore, See ITB/ITC). ITR wasn't the problem in that group and keeping ITR with ITA was never raised by anyone.

LOL! this is what i thought worked really well with ITR/S/A running together. the lead packs from all three classes were finishing on the same lap, but separated. leaders didn't interfere with each other. subliminal message..if you were getting lapped or messed up by another class....you should be going faster......

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!