2003 Top 10- new rule

[Bender]

 >:(

OK, based on the mailer which CCS just sent out, the points accrual policy will change for 2003.  Essentially the rule removes anyone that doesn't run a 600 or 750cc from contention for a Top 10 plate.

To the CCS officials that monitor this board-  Exactly how is this fair for racers like me that compete in classes with an SV650??  I work my butt off just as hard in the classes I race in as any 600 or 750cc Expert.  This is by far the most biased rule I've ever heard of...

Mike Bender
Millennium Racing
CCS Ex#216

[Mongrel]

I don't see the SV being knocked out of a chance to get a top 10 finish.  LWSB, LWSS, LWGP, GTLights are all still eligible for points towards a top 10 plate.  The only one that the SV fits in that won't get points is HW Sportsman and Formula 40.

[CCS]

That's right, the only classes excluded from Top Ten and Track Championships are the classes that traditionally have very speciallized equipment, or place an undue restriction on general participation (Formula 40) and that is all. As a matter of fact, the SV 650 has more classes to run in for the Top Ten than any other, 14 total.

Good luck and Happy Holidays all!   ;D

[Eric Kelcher]

Personal opionion here but I think there should be a cap on number of races one racer can earn points for top 10 in. Say 4 races total. That way the racer with the most money (bikes) doesn't automatically win. The SVrider was shoe in to win in most ragions.  I think its much more fair now than before.  I hope the system works to reward the most talented, dedicated racer in each region.

[Ex_CCS_Racer]

Maybe compare the number of classes each can run and use the lowest number. Then base it off the best finishes in those. I know it's a little more paperwork but it'd be fair. :-*

[Mahly]

 >:(
All this talk about "Specialized" equipement is horse hockey!!!
You can run a '89 GS500 and win races........try that in 600 or 750ss!!! In those classes, you need a NEW bike every 2-3 years!!!!!!!
I guess they concider inexpensive "specialized"

[Ex_CCS_Racer]

I know what you mean. My "new" F4 is already a little dated.

[G 97]

Bender and Mahlendorf causing trouble again.  You both got new bikes so whats the concern.  See you at the show.   :P :P

[roadracer68]

 ::)

This is something that never seems to change, If you have the most money you will win the #1 plate. I am not trying to take anything away from M.M. or S.P. but hey these guys race 8 races a weekend have mutiple bike's, and have other people pay for the tires, fuel, and etc. How can I possibly compete with them. We must get it limited to your number of races per weekend, So even if you run 8 races you can only take top four finishes for overall point's.

A good example of how bad it is a "RIDER" who had a big sponser early in 2001 season entered 8-9 races everyweekend , then the bottom fell out mid season , he stopped racing missing 5 events still finished 3 rd in points overall. and we all know the rider in south east region who ran the ex500 for 2 years and was #1 plate holder for 2 years straight.

We the riders should be the strong hold of the CCS with out us they are all looking for new jobs. If we speak loud enough they will listen.

regards
Patrick Weekley        

[Dave_Alexander]

What I don't understand is why the Supertwins class wasn't excluded for top ten contention?  CCS maintains that most of the classes were removed because they required "specialized equipment".  Why would Supersingles be excluded but not Supertwins?

For example, let's say two guys are competing head to head for the championship.  One rides an RC51 and the other a GSXR750.  The guy on the RC51 should win the title even if he finishes behind the GSXR most of the time because he can run an extra race each weekend in Supertwins.  Since Supertwins isn't a heavily attended race he should pick up at least 50 more points every time out.

At first I couldn't understand why Sportsman was excluded, but now I believe it's to balance the number of available races for a given bike.  The LW guys had the advantage of being eligible for 1 to 3 extra races in a weekend in addition to the traditional SS, SB, GP, and GT classes.

If the intent of the rule was to level out the number of available races per bike then I think we should also exclude the points earned while riding a smaller bike in a higher class.  In other words, if I ride an SV650 in LWSS and MWSS I should only get top-ten points for the LWSS class.  However, if I only run MWSS then those points should count.

[Rich Denman]

As a new member of CCS and aware that I am replying to a fairly old thread, I would like to know how this logic relates to 250 GP riders. If I am correct, we can only participate in LWGP, MWGP, and GTU. If this is the case, aren't we at a distinct disadvantage if this is the only bike we compete on?

Rich Denman

[Eric Kelcher]

250 GP legal in LWGP,MWGP,GTU,UGP,GTO

[Bob Robbins]

There is no way to make it work without someone feeling they were outspent. If you require the top ten to have finished the season in the top 3 for the points to count it will reduce points chasing by lower finishers, and will actually reflect the rider more than the present system. In the Northeast, they do not acknowledge points overall. I had the most points by far, competing in 5 classes, finishing the season in all classes in first through third, and I would not have felt that I was the no. 1 guy there. You need to remember, when people see a no. 1 plate, they assume you're fast and will target you. At Loudon, you can wear the no. 1 in the class you won only, so you change numbers for everything else.

[Sean Wyatt]

I think there should be a #1 plate for each weight-class (ex. #1 ULW/Super Single, #1 LW, #1 MW, #1HW, #1Unltd.)  This may seem like a lot of #1 plates, but it will definitely illuminate whom are the dominate people in a particular weight-class.  Of course this makes the corner worker's job a lot harder, but I think the recognition from being seen and known as the #1 in particular weight-class would mean more to the racers and make watching the races more enjoyable.  It can also be an added sponsorship seeking tool.

If you compete in more than one weight-class, add letters to signify where the number applies.  Even better, have different colored number plates for the different weight classes.  I'm tired of seeing Europeans and Australians with all different colors number plates.  I can see it now, red number plate with 629 emblazoned across it.

[Super Dave]

Letters attached to number ones is how AHRMA does it for each class champion.  Does make it a bit confusing during a practice session.

I feel that the championship now is based on how much money one has to spend.  How many bikes, how many races.  Indeed, there are riders that are fast that do win championships, but it isn't a race to a championship, it's a matter of money.  Often times, good riders don't chase the championship because they can't compete at the "money" level.

Would it be easier to compete with fewer races counting toward the championship?  I believe so, but it would be cumbersome for CCS to do this.  But would it now as Sportsman racing does not count toward the overall points championship?

Here's a new idea....  But maybe it has been thought of before.

Take a rider's number of points and mulitply it by the performance index.  An index of 1000 would be 1, an index of 500 would be .5 (we're talking percentages here.)

So, rider Billy Bo has 27,000 points, but has a performance index of 50.  Adjusted points are 1350.  Meanwhile, Sally Rotten Crotch has 2,000 points with a peformance index of 850,  Her adjusted points are 1700.

Any thoughts?

New bikes every couple of years?  That's what we call marketing, folks.  Last year at Blackhawk, there were several of us doing 1:13's on 600's.  In 1993, while riding CBR600F2's at Blackhawk, there were several of us doing 1:15's.  Two seconds in ten years?  The change is not as big as one thinks it is.  Tires change, the bikes become more powerful, but a fast rider on a well set up bike will go fast.  The HP does not make that much difference.  If it did, 750's and 1000's would be killing 600's.

[Dawn]

Sally Rotten Crotch

Gosh Dave...

I'm glad my name is not Sally!   :o

Dawn  :)

[Super Dave]

She got that name from her husband, Billy Bo.  

You can see that she's cleaning the house with him at the track.  Makes for interesting dinner converstations.

[gpconcepts]

Why not just allow combined point totals from a limitted number of classes. Say each rider combines point totals from the three classes where he or she has the highest point totals. Are there any bikes that connot compete in at least three classes?

Rich

[Super Dave]

CCS riders enter an average of 4.7 classes.  If you limit the number of entries that count toward the "championship", CCS would loose money from riders entering fewer races.  

I agree with the idea, limiting the number that "qualify" toward overall championships.  It would level the playing field a bit, and maybe more would vie for the overall championship.  

Apparently, it would be hard to do from a software stand point for CCS.  I've made the case for several years.

[Sean Wyatt]

I still like the colored number plates and weight-class championships, of course with limited races counting towards the championship, is the way to go..  

I think weight-class championships are more indicative of the true track champions.  Allow I believe the weight-class champions could probably change weight classes and still do well, but they may not have the same success.  I also think it could generate more participation in each of the weight classes because you are not penalizing the racers who can't afford to race in 10 races/weekend.  If I race only in LW races, I should have a legitimate chance at winning a #1 plate, and not just be grouped with everyone else.  

This should reward racers even more come sponsorship solicitation time.  My idea is that I can crunch the numbers and prove that I am the #1 LW racer and state that in my sponsorship solicitation package, but a bright and shiny #1 on my bike says it all, especially if Jack takes plenty of pictures of me and bike.

One major issue is that it may be possible to win more than one weight-class championship.  Although it probably won't happen much from LW to MW/HW/Unltd.  Maybe in that case you pick one color, or extend the range of colors to include this possibility.  Maybe it's not in the color of the number plate itself, but the number plate border/background.

[Super Dave]

Your idea has some merit.   ;D

I think the hardest would be spectators identifying different nubmer 1's.  How about number 2's?  Where do we stop?

At best, CCS is sportsman racing;  it is racing that is intended for the consumption of the racers, not really the spectators.  FUSA with CCS in 2000 was for spectators.  Everything else has not been up to that standard.

If were talking about sponsorship, first and foremost, teams (read as riders) must bring their programs up.  Press releases, uniforms (a t-shirt would be good), whatever.  NASCAR did not grow over night.  Neither did AMA Pro Racing.  That has changed substantially from ten years ago.

Indeed, the problem with all that is that the riders that are fast for their riding sake sometimes become overlooked in the wake of a decent rider that has money or a big sponsor.  It's happening now in the AMA.  Watch what happens in FUSA.

Ok, so you have LW, MW, HW, UL categories.  Four number one's, four number 2's?  Thoughts?

[Sean Wyatt]

Definitely a lot of numbers, but the emphasis is on who's the best in a particular class, not just who is the best amatuer.  Not to take any thing away from Michael Chachere because he is definitely a top 3 or better rider who deserves to hold the #1 plate, but what about other fast amatuers is classes Michael doesn't participate in they deserve the honor as well.

Basically, I think it is an absolute necessity that there be weight-class #1 plate holders.  CCS and it's competitors need to make it happen.

I think it will only raise the bar of the competition in all of CCS.  Rich Oliver and Chuck Sorenson are talented riders that have tried their craft in other classes, but they'll probably always be known as 250GP riders, for which they have honorably carried the #1 plate.  I want the same opportunity if I choose to race lightweight only.

About the team presentations, I agree.  It may be the responsibility of the more experienced racers to put there arms around newer racers, and collectively advance our marketability.  If everyone just wants to race for themselves only, it probably won't happen.  I think it may even be up to CCS to promote and encourage.  Provide racers with sample solicitation packages, resource to get pit crew wear a reasonable prices.  I think it nice to see all of the VRS and LCR t-shirts and race leathers.  I think W3 Racing and Moon Supercycle are definitely things in the right places.

Obviously I have a lot of idea, I just need to sit down for a while a write them out.

[Super Dave]

A lot of people put the responsibility of promotion in the lap of the racing organization. It really doesn't work that way.

A good friend of mine works for a company that does work for many CART teams.  The organization CART is cr@p.  They don't do anything.  The only reason there is anything happening there is because of the teams.  The teams took the responsibility to up their programs.

As for what we have happening by us...

I have to rent the track with my money, pay my insurance, supply my cornerworkers, and pay for everyone's lunch.  I have a lot more to loose, and I will always have much less to gain financially.  I can offer more track time, set up work, and RIDING instruction.  CCS's school program offers a quick hitting safety course during race day.  I've taught that program myself for CCS.  Good money too, but no personal satisfaction.

[sdiver68]

Super_Dave...

Granted lap times ahven't changed as much as the marketing would have you beleive (though I question 1:13's???), but bigger bikes or more powerful bikes give a big advantage in passing even on smaller tracks like BHF, and really stretch their legs on bigger tracks like RA .

[Super Dave]

Granted lap times ahven't changed as much as the marketing would have you beleive (though I question 1:13's???), but bigger bikes or more powerful bikes give a big advantage in passing even on smaller tracks like BHF, and really stretch their legs on bigger tracks like RA .

What's there to question, I'm confused?  Mine came July of 2001, I know Larry Denning did some in May of this year.  When I did mine, Purk and Ebben were chasing me.  Conrad, others too, I'm sure.

Bigger more powerful bikes have an advantage in a straight line, but have to stop that speed.  Unless they have a different or unique stopping mechaninism, they will have to slow down earlier.  Just about anyone can light the switch on the throttle, but slowing down a bike with a basically similar set up faster than another one that is going faster just requires more space.

Look at 600 and 750 lap times from Supersport races and there isn't that big of a difference.  Sure, in Superbike or Formula Extreme, but they can slow down faster (Brakes, calipers, forks, 200HP), but they should be substaintially better times.

[sdiver68]

When I clocked the leading experts at BHF on 600's, I was getting consistent high 1:14's and low :15's.  I probably timed 30 laps.

Granted, there were lots of people missing in late August that you mentioned.  So, I was questioning what the consistent expert times are on a 600 to be podium competitive in Expert at BHF.  

My point about power was that power gives you more opportunities to pass then you would have on equal bikes.  Take a 115 HP 600 versus a 100 HP 600.  Given near equal riders, the one on the 115 HP bike has several more opportunites to pass per lap than  the guy on the less powerful bike.  They can both pass under braking or with cornerspeed, but the 115 HP guy also has the option to pass under power.

Yeah, they are both running the same lap times if the slower guy is all over the other guys tail, but who cares about lap times when there is another bike in front of you at the finish line?

[Super Dave]

Toward August, the heat goes away from the track surface at Blackhawk.  Yes, the times go up a bit at that time.  Best times seem to come in July when the track has some good heat built up into it and into the ground.

As for competitive lap times for 600's and up...

Yes, 14's would be good.  15's are a bit outside what you need.  Shawn Conrad ran a 1:12.9 on his new R1 at the last race in September.  In a money race for Yamaha or Suzuki money, probably need to be prepared to do 13's.  I know that Larry Denning did 1:13.6 in Mid May for Yamaha money.  For the Team Challenge, I ran 15's and 16's.

Ed Key, and I know Mike Riebe, have gotten into the 1:17's on their SV's for reference.

Now you start to talk about horsepower...

Ok, when I did my 13 last year, my engine was stock, with a HMF pipe with a broken #1 header pipe, Power Mist engine oil, Power Mist TO137 racing fuel.  I've never used a Power Commander, and I was using a stock filter.  Depending upon who's dyno you believe, it made 104 to 102HP.  I didn't have any special power in the bike that gave me the time.  Could I have gone faster riding an R1 with 136 to 145 HP?  Maybe only a tiny bit.  Would it have helped?  Only a little bit.

Does HP give more opportunities to pass?  If the riders are absolutely equal, riding the same lines, yes, the bike with the most HP should win.  But racing is an art.  Riding is just a matter of lighting the switch.  A rider with a slower bike might be able to maximize his entry speed by 0.1MPH vs the faster bike.  The bike hooks up better, less spin, does a faster lap time.

Let's look at this another way, this year, my bike made 106HP.  Ed Key's bike makes 73HP. My bike has 45% more HP, a substantial amount.  This year,   I turned some 1:14's due to a balance problem that has beaten me up all year, Ed 1:18's all day long.  That's a whopping 5% difference in lap time even though I have a huge HP advantage.  We have not figured in weight, but that's another issue that is related to power.

The real issue is suspension set up.  That will make lap times go down consistently without riding in terror.  

You seem to be seeking HP, or are at least noting it as a huge factor, when in reality it is the set up and the rider that are the greatest factors in lap times.  The bike's HP is next.

It is for that reason that teams seek out good riders and good knowledgeable crew chiefs and suspension tuners.  Then good tuners for good bikes.  It is a package, but if the rider wasn't as important, anyone could ride.

[Eddie#200]

Dave... that means I kicked ass this year!

[the_weggie_man]

OK, the 2002 rule book already has restrictions on experts for the top ten plates. Supersport, Superbike, GT, Supertwins, Lt Wt - MW - Unltd GP are the only classes that count toward the EXPERT top ten.  Nowhere in the rule book, that I can find in the points section, does it say anything about restricted points accumulation for amateur top ten overall. As far as I can tell, all classes count in the top ten amateur championship.

Anyone else read the rule book the same or ??  Just checking because the kid I sponsor would move up a bunch of places if all classes are counted.

[Eric Kelcher]

Hmm amatuers do not run for 1-10 only experts. Any work on that, I would think, would be Tiffiney just running the program through for AM to get a gauge for themselves.

[TiffineyIngram]

For the amateur division, I do the combined points total the same as how I do it for the experts.  Sportsman, GP Singles, Super Singles and Formula 40 classes do not count towards the overall standings.

[the_weggie_man]

I understand amateurs are not running for a number plate but that does not change the rule book that says all classes are combined for a total point championship. The only excluded classes are for experts.  

To me that says all classes count. So in the total am point total my rider is missing points which is not right.  With all points counted it moves him from 18th place to 11th. Granted, not top ten but close enough for a kid that only ran half the season and it sure would look nice on a resume  for sponsors.

I realize it may be more work to run am and ex different but that's what the rule book says. The riders are expected to abide by the rule book, why not the organization?

[Eric Kelcher]

Where does it say that? rule book that says all classes are combined for a total point championship.
The only thing Am run combined points for is track championship which would be section 10.3 which lists the same classes as expert series championship (which is what program Tiffiney to give riders a guage ) and says Expert AND Amatuer.

[the_weggie_man]

OK, I guess the overall amateur points is not an announced championship. I still think all classes should be counted.  Isn't that why you race?  If nobody wins, why keep score?

The rule book does say (8.1) Points will be awarded based upon the final results of each class run at each race using the following scale. Re., each class at each race. That does not say specific classes at  each race. I'm not talking experts or track championships. I refer to amateur overall points. If you consider it a guage as to their performance I think all point would matter.

[Super Dave]

Historically, what happened was that there were riders trying to get championships.  At the end, they were putting together loads of bikes to ride in all kinds of classes.  Additionally, guys that were over 40 could do a race that riders under 40 could not do.

So, the rules were changed so that only the classes that "did not require specialized equipment" would be counted.

I still think it's kind of bogus.  The overall championship should be limited to a certain number of races per rider, or something.  At least give some a fair shot.

I can't afford nine classes a weekend.  Anymore, you buy your number one plate.  

[sdiver68]

 With all points counted it moves him from 18th place to 11th. Granted, not top ten but close enough for a kid that only ran half the season and it sure would look nice on a resume  for sponsors.

List him as 11th on the resume, maybe use the words Amateur Total Points.  In the 1 in million chance a potential sponsor ever questions the difference, explain it.

Problem solved.

[the_weggie_man]

We have agreed to disagree. CCS explained their position, I don't agree with it but I can't change it at this point.

I will be putting in a rule change suggestion for next year.  At least make it clear about what classes count for amateurs and give the top ten amateurs some kind of recognition. Maybe not a top ten number for track use but at least some kind of award for their efforts. They spend just as much money as the experts and should get something in return as the experts do for the numbers.

My case rests.