07 Rules New Topics being discussed per the ROC mailer

[PaulV]

Per the CCS/ASRA ROC mailer
"Among the topics being discussed this year are:
Changing Formula 40 into GTO/GRU/GTL classes to allow 1000cc machines to participate. (problem being track time, does the schedule have room for another race? What about contingency numbers, would it make matters better or worse?)

Thoughts or ideas....?  :)

Paul
Polar-Optics

[Sobottka]

more classes? am i the only one who thinks there are too many now? imo they need to cut some out before adding any new ones. how bout a few less classes and 9-10 lap sprints!!

[Clay]

I would be up for cutting out the GTO and extending the sprints some.  The GTO just seems kinda worthless since CCS made it a non-purse paying race and added Unlim Superbike. 

[Sobottka]

maybe ditch superbike for gp only???

[smoke]

Why add a a new class for F40?  Why not keep it the way it is but let the F40 ride 1000s?  That would be a simple solution

[PaulV]

Yeah,

not sure that adding another class is in the schedule unless something else is dropped.  Smoke has an interesting idea, would probably be feasable and competitive with possible exceptions at the hp venues ie; Road America and Daytona.
Overall, I find it impressive that CCS/ASRA have this on the agenda for discussion and possible change.  It has been an issue of general discussion for some time and shows interest on their part to listen and improve. BRAVO!
With the move for Superbike and Superstock to 1000's, the popularity of them on the street, the limited choices of current 750cc machinery and aftermarket suppliers who support them, I think this should be a topic of discussion.

Just my 2 cents

Paul
Polar-Optics

[Team-G]

Yeah, let the 1k bikes in F40.  The fast guys will be fast anyway, regardless of what they ride.  On the other had, I can't ride a 750 yet, now I can ride a 1000?  Oh well, if I'm gonna ass-pack somebody, why not do it faster 

[phillip]

more classes? am i the only one who thinks there are too many now? imo they need to cut some out before adding any new ones. how bout a few less classes and 9-10 lap sprints!!

What he said.

[Super Dave]

maybe ditch superbike for gp only???

Well, the other way would be better...GP machines still exist...

Eliminate superbike.



Then have more purse paying classes in the expert ranks...ULGP, MWSS, Thunderbike...and more?

[kwracer]

I would be up for cutting out the GTO and extending the sprints some.  The GTO just seems kinda worthless since CCS made it a non-purse paying race and added Unlim Superbike. 

I'd actually rather see them re-instate the GT purses... and if they can't do that then as already (kind of) said, drop all the GT races and extend the Sprints.

[Jeff]

if they were to add another F40 class, they would likely combine the races as there wouldn't be enough riders to warrant a separate race.  The big question would be whether there are actually enough 1k geezers to warrant the class itself!  Or would it simply be better to make the F40 class 1000 eligible.

Removing the GT races would be stupid IMHO.  As would putting a purse on them...  I believe the grids have beefed up substantially due to the REMOVAL of the purse on these classes and dropping the entry fees.

Everyone bitches about the price of racing.  That being the case, keep the cost small by removing as many purse classes as possible. 

Likewise, everyone wants longer sprint races...  So why cut the one class that IS  longer than the current sprint race???

[kwracer]

Everyone bitches about the price of racing.  That being the case, keep the cost small by removing as many purse classes as possible. 

Spoken like a white plate "expert"!  lol.... j/k   ;)

But for us, other than the post-weekend Dunlop contingency check the most money we take home every weekend is the check from the purse race.  Without that there'd be no money at all going back into our pockets each week...  I think most Am's would vote for more not less purse races, don't know for sure, but that's "MHO."   Maybe it's a separate issue for Am's and Ex's, I'm sure each group sees it differently.

For me the one and only purpose that the GT races serve is practice for the Sprints, so for my money you can drop the GT's and provide an extra round of practice.

;)

[Jeff]

AM's should be voting for LESS purses because they're typically the ones getting the most financial shock out of racing.

Additionally, "voting" is different than registering/running.

I don't know it for fact, but it sure appears to me that the GT classes are substantially larger in 2006 than they were in previous years when there was purse payout.  I'm very confident that CCS will be reviewing this in their consideration of what they do for 2007.

[kwracer]

Additionally, "voting" is different than registering/running.

I don't know it for fact, but it sure appears to me that the GT classes are substantially larger in 2006 than they were in previous years when there was purse payout.  I'm very confident that CCS will be reviewing this in their consideration of what they do for 2007.

I know we register/run in them all... mainly like I said for practice and I know that every Am we've talked to about it says the same.

I wonder, were there more or less practice rounds in previous years?  Because I know that if there were at least 3 or 4 practice rounds (usually there is only 1 or 2) then alot of us would save the money by not signing up for the GT races.

[kwracer]

I just talked to some of the other guys again, they're all pretty much in agreement it's these two things:

1.  They started signing up for GT's this year because they're much cheaper now (because there's no purse, the price is the same as for other races)

2.  They mainly run them for the extra practice time for the Sprints.

So I guess in some sense we're both right.  I guess if I have to pay for extra practice time I'd rather pay as little as possible.

But, lacking the big contingency bucks of the Experts,  I'd still rather race for a purse!