2010 race groups for the I.T.SPEC*tacular

[TAC]

Damn Todd, can't you stick AS somewhere else? Who can read my mind right now?

Nothings in stone yet. Any suggestions to a better mix with ITR, ITE, STO and STU?

[dhardison]

Nothings in stone yet. Any suggestions to a better mix with ITR, ITE, STO and STU?

How about:

ITS, ITB, ITR, STU
ITE, STO, AS

[spnkzss]

How about some of the non IT groups race between the IT groups. I'd love to watch ITB after I get out of ITA.

[jumbojimbo]

Hold on cowboy. "( * not actual race group order!)"

I think he just put the groups in order of quality for now...

[spnkzss]

Hold on cowboy. "( * not actual race group order!)"

I think he just put the groups in order of quality for now...

DOH!!

[R2 Racing]

How about some of the non IT groups race between the IT groups. I'd love to watch ITB after I get out of ITA.

Right now I'm looking at ( * not actual race group order!)

Rob, we're not getting into scheduling arguements quite yet.

To refresh everyone's memory, last year there was 6 run groups too, but with these pairings:
1 - ITA, IT7
2 - SRF, EP, FP, HP
3 - ITS, ITB
4 - AS, GTA, ITE, STO
5 - ITR, ITC, STU
6 - SM, SSM

I think everyone was pretty happy with that. I for one thought those groupings worked out great. Now with removing GTA, and adding in a winged group, I'm having a hard time coming up with anything I like. I'd consider putting AS/ITE/STO/STU together and ITR/ITS/ITB together, but I just don't see the ITR & ITS guys not screwing up eachothers races. Then of course the STU guys will want to be in a slower class too. Either way, we need to ensure good racing that isn't being overly screwed with by overlap between classes, effectively dorking up both classes race. That lessens the quality of the event, and the allure it has for people to attend it. Start doing that, and it slowly just turns back into any regular old regional as more classes get added and more overlap in run groups happen. I think adding a wing group is already too much a step in that direction for me to be comfortable with. I'll have to think on it to see if I can come up with anything better.


edit: Todd - Can you refresh my memory on a couple of things? What was the length of each of the four sessions per group? I can't find last years supps to look it up. I believe it was something like 20 minute qualifying, 20 lap race, 10 lap race, & 20 lap race. Is that correct? Also, can you tell me about when the last checkered flag flew each day? Thanks.

[Greg Amy]

Now with removing GTA, and adding in a winged group...

Therein lies the rub. It's actually pretty simple: by adding in a winged/Formula group that did not exist before, you've added a whole race group. There's just no way around that.

So with this action the only way you can do it is to take last year's groups, remove GTA, maybe pull out SRF if they'll run with Wingy-Dingies, and find a way to fit last year's six groups into only five. Or, find a way to schedule seven groups total.

No matter how you slice it...

GA

[TAC]

Rob, we're not getting into scheduling arguements quite yet.

To refresh everyone's memory, last year there was 6 run groups too, but with these pairings:
1 - ITA, IT7
2 - SRF, EP, FP, HP
3 - ITS, ITB
4 - AS, GTA, ITE, STO
5 - ITR, ITC, STU
6 - SM, SSM

I think everyone was pretty happy with that. I for one thought those groupings worked out great. Now with removing GTA, and adding in a winged group, I'm having a hard time coming up with anything I like. I'd consider putting AS/ITE/STO/STU together and ITR/ITS/ITB together, but I just don't see the ITR & ITS guys not screwing up eachothers races. Then of course the STU guys will want to be in a slower class too. Either way, we need to ensure good racing that isn't being overly screwed with by overlap between classes, effectively dorking up both classes race. That lessens the quality of the event, and the allure it has for people to attend it. Start doing that, and it slowly just turns back into any regular old regional as more classes get added and more overlap in run groups happen. I think adding a wing group is already too much a step in that direction for me to be comfortable with. I'll have to think on it to see if I can come up with anything better.


edit: Todd - Can you refresh my memory on a couple of things? What was the length of each of the four sessions per group? I can't find last years supps to look it up. I believe it was something like 20 minute qualifying, 20 lap race, 10 lap race, & 20 lap race. Is that correct? Also, can you tell me about when the last checkered flag flew each day? Thanks.

Stepping back to the 2008 event:

Group 1 ITB, ITS
Group 2 SRF
Group 3 ITA, IT7, ITC
Group 4 SM, SSM
Group 5 ITR, ITE, TCC, AS
Group 6 FF, CFF, FC, CFC

Group 5 had (6) ITR, (8) ITE, (7) TCC and (1) AS. No incidents and no complaints from what I remember. The reason we moved classes around last year was because of the GTA class. Without them I moved things back the way they were in 2008. Example of one race:
...................TCC 1:36.804
.................. ITE 1:39.396,
...................ITR 1:44.104,
................... AS 1:49.197.

example one race 2009
STU 1.39.882
STO 1:34.999

Naturally since STU and STO are national classes we could remove them and add TCC back in the mix.

And yes Kevin you are correct in your sessions and laps. Checker flag was around 4:35 pm each day with O.T. kicking in at 5:00 pm.

Todd

[RedMisted]

I'd be comfortable with either the 2008 or 2009 grouping for ITR. I thought both years we had good separation, little to no intermingling of the various categories.

I'm really not enamored with the idea of running ITR with ITS.

[R2 Racing]

So the idea is to basically do the same thing as 2008, but add E/F/HP in with SRF (like 2009), and make the "big bore" group ITR/ITE/TCC/AS. I was going to ask about removing STO & STU since they're both now Runoffs eligable, but didn't know if it mattered much. If someone has one of those cars, and wants to run that weekend, they can pretty easily run ITE (or TCC if eligable) just the same. Either way, they'll still be in the same run group.

I guess I don't have a big problem with that, but then again my class wouldn't be getting affected much (if I run ITA).