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
more classes? :err: 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!!
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.
maybe ditch superbike for gp only???
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
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
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 :boink:
Quote from: robsob on August 17, 2006, 05:43:23 PM
more classes? :err: 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.
Quote from: robsob on August 17, 2006, 07:28:51 PM
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?
Quote from: Clay on August 17, 2006, 05:51:06 PM
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.
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???
Quote from: Jeff on August 18, 2006, 09:58:10 AM
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.
;)
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.
Quote from: Jeff on August 18, 2006, 12:10:25 PM
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.
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!
:cheers:
big contingency bucks.... Dude, I just shot diet pepsi out my nose. Now my sinuses hurt...
Bottom line, the only way you'll make a small fortune in club racing is to start out with a large fortune.
Quote from: Jeff on August 18, 2006, 01:52:41 PM
big contingency bucks.... Dude, I just shot diet pepsi out my nose. Now my sinuses hurt...
Bottom line, the only way you'll make a small fortune in club racing is to start out with a large fortune.
I just spit out my cola too... I'm not saying "get rich quick"... but are you going to stand there and say the (overall) contingency money for experts isn't orders of magnitude higher than for Am's? Plus Experts have access to monies that the Am's can't touch.
Get rich, no, have a better chance of getting somewhere close to even (if you're good enough), I think so. If a weekend cost me around two G's then Manufacturer contingencies alone are enough to cover that if I just keep finishing around top 5. If the weekend costs me 4G's or more then you're right, I probably lost out all around.
And that first part's not even my opinion, that's what people on the boards keep telling me.... "go Expert, you can make most of your money back!"
:lmao:
Well then, I think you just answered your own question. Just go expert and start raking in the big bucks.
Good luck actually winning the big dollar manufacturer contingencies though. Look at the last Suzuki day at Summit point with the other organization - Tray Batey and Robert Jensen spent the entire day pulling the lap record down almost every single lap. At any of the dates that serious money is being paid the "professional" contingency chasers come out and even the "fast" local guys have their A## handed to them.
George
No doubt George. And I think I hinted that I didn't necessarily think otherwise, or tried to (damn emoticons). The original point got lost somewhere along the way which was simply that I would prefer to see GT races go back to a purse or just dropped in favor of an extra practice round or two.... that's all. And I know not everyone will agree with that. It's all good.
Quote from: smoke on August 17, 2006, 07:36:35 PM
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
You may lose as many riders or more than you gain! I know that in the midwest there are alot of older riders intimidated by the speed of the F40 front runners. I don`t think bringing in 1000cc bikes for the fast guys to ride will make any of the already worried 600cc old timers happy. They may just go do track days!!
With the continued fragmentation of races into continually shorter and shorter races with less and less practice time...add to that grids based on purchasing event entries months in advance to get a better starting position rather than using points, heats, or qualifying...
AMA racing is looking more attractive.
back to the original post- I think splitting up up f-40 into 3 divisions would make each too small. 2 divisions is enough. How about allowing 1000s to run under SS rules and the rest under SB or GP rules.
As far as the purses go, I don't think Amateur classes should have purses, that is why it is called amateur. There really isn't much more money to win for the average expert than AM, except at a handfull of Manufacture dates. actually it is harder to win contingency as an expert. I won more contingency as an amateur and rode much slower.
Quote from: kwracer on August 18, 2006, 02:20:48 PM
And that first part's not even my opinion, that's what people on the boards keep telling me.... "go Expert, you can make most of your money back!"
:lmao:
Those are just people who want you to come expert to add 1 rider to the field and bump up their performance index. LOL...
How about making the expert races a lap longer, and the amateur races a lap shorter. that would motivate people to move up and stop sandbagging.
Quote from: xseal on August 21, 2006, 08:24:35 PM
How about making the expert races a lap longer, and the amateur races a lap shorter. that would motivate people to move up and stop sandbagging.
Well will the entry fees for amateurs be lower then?
Great thread Paul!!
Regarding the F40 race and the allowance for litre bikes I have one point to make. I suggest that only racers that are 40 or will be 40 years old in '07 should be allowed to petition for a rule change. If the competitors would like to see litre bikes allowed then have at it.
Super Dave made a point regarding grid positions. Why is it that grid positions for most races are determined by entry time? I was aware of this before the season started and pre-entered for all of the races that I planned to do and ended up at the front of the grid. I would rather see the grid determined by overall points for any race that doesn't have a qualifing session. This would leave the guys running for the championship to do their thing. I'm sure this has been discussed before and that there is a reason why it has been done this way all of these years. (The first issue that comes to mind is how to grid the first race of the year. That could easily be first come first served.)
How many people on this board have been running the Great Plains series and is there any structure there that CCS can use to improve race weekends?
That's all I've got for now.
My understanding was that it was a computer issue that limited CCS in developing grids based on points. This was after conversations with Kevin Elliott in around 2001 or 2002. I believe that there was supposed to be a new computer in 2003, and that was going to allow CCS to do that.
Honestly, I don't have the funds to toss up hundreds and thousands of dollars to enter races months and months in advance. Because of that, it has curtailed my desire to enter additional races and events that I don't have planned. Not sure if anyone else feels this way, but I do.
They grid Daytona ROC by points, this is 2006 how can you not have a computer program capable of gridding by points. Gridding by pre-entry is also less safe than gridding by points as it allows people to grid up front that shouldn't be there.
Yeah, ROC has been by points since I can remember. As for everything else, I don't have any answers.
Slight problem is, the program they use (at least here) is no longer supported sicne the programmer DIED. Thats what I was told.
i think that the grids should be on points and for the first race of the year it should be first come first serve, it is alot of money to pre enter for the whole year and i dont like it, and for the gt races i think they should stay they are the closest thing to a real race distance, the sprint races r to short and not enough time to make up for a mistake
my other comment is that the experts should not be on the track at the same time as the amateurs, not so much in the sprint races but in the gt races, its a problom and it is very dangerous, and i agree with i think dave said maybe get rid of unlimited superbike and just have unlimited gp,
lets get some things changed
There is more than one programmer in this world, you know :biggrin:
In reply to the original idea of this thread, the only way 1000cc will be allowed in F40 is the addition of the third class.
Right now, as it has been in the past, 50% of the entries in F40 are 600's. Go to any of the Unlimited classes and you will see that number drop to 20% or less. If every rider on a 1000 was old enough for F40 this would be easy, but since they are not, we have to figure out how to not screw those riders who have supported the class just on the "promise" a few more 40 plus riders would enter on 1000's.
Welcome to the Rule Committee's hell..... :banghead:
Quote from: xseal on August 21, 2006, 08:24:35 PM
How about making the expert races a lap longer, and the amateur races a lap shorter. that would motivate people to move up and stop sandbagging.
Or heck, let's go all the way and force people to move up based on lap times (maybe a percentage of pole like with qulifying)! Then us sandbaggers would really waste our time being forced to go slow or risk being moved up! And bonus! there'd be fewer "slow" experts! lol.
I kjnow, i know, I'm gonna get a beatin for that one. :spank:
:biggrin:
Quote from: CCS on August 28, 2006, 08:55:16 AM
In reply to the original idea of this thread, the only way 1000cc will be allowed in F40 is the addition of the third class.
Why? Why? WHY??! What is the Official reasoning behind this?
EVERYBODY that has chimed in seems to agree that there are some tracks where 1000s will have an advantage just because of HP. Road Atlanta and Daytona are examples that come to mind. This would *seem* to have the obvious corollary that other tracks will give an advantage to 600s. So, what is wrong with a class where some bikes have an advantage at some tracks and other bikes have an advantage at other tracks?
Most people also seem to agree that "fast guys will go fast" whether they're on 750s or 1000s. So why keep the guys (like me) who can only afford one race bike, and it happens to be a 1000, from entering F40?
We don't have to speculate all that much about what would happen if 1000s were allowed in F40. WERA had the same rules that CCS does now, and they changed them to allow 1000 Supersport (aka Superstock) bikes. If somebody thinks something bad will happen by allowing 1000s in F40, why not check with WERA to see if anything bad actually DID happen when they started allowing them? Mongo? Can you comment, please?!
F40 is supposed to be a class where us old guys can come out and have fun and not have to worry about the typical testosterone-buzzed 20-something out there in his first (or second or third) season on a 600, that is more concerned with winning a $3 piece of wood than whether the guy next to him has to go to work on Monday. Why is there so much angst about allowing 1000s in the class alongside the 750s?? It's a class for old farts. Let the old farts race!
Quote from: StuartV666 on September 01, 2006, 01:50:14 PM
Why is there so much angst about allowing 1000s in the class alongside the 750s?? It's a class for old farts. Let the old farts race!
Because the 750's are already allowed to race alongside the 600's.
I've always been of the opinion that if you're gonna race, buy a bike to race, not try to make a bike fit into a new class or change everything for unique conditions.
That has resulted in more and more and more classes for the concerns of a few individuals. AHRMA has this problem, and I believe most racing organizations have this problem.
If testosterone is a problem, because I've seen older riders do goofy things in their first (or second or third) season of racing, then track days might be a better option. Racing IS about competition still. When I'm tired of that, then I'll stay home and mow the lawn. Less testosterone.
My opionion. Your terms and conditions may apply... :)
Quote from: Super Dave on August 26, 2006, 11:06:14 AM
Racing organizations maintain their operations through racers continually entering races.
This is true BUT only because raceroad organazation have grown custom to putting ALL financial burden on the racers. Ever notice that at every single type of sporting event has advertisements of all shapes and sizing. CCS could sent out a promoter to sell the idea of advertising banners for around the race track, stickers and whatever else they can think of. There's a good chance that there is one RV dealership , one Trailer dealership, one Motocycle dealer, one Truck Accessory shop, one whatever local shop near each raceway that would be willing to pay for advertisement and even set up a booth, bring some new RVs to show off.
This new revenue could be the purse money, used to reduse entry fees or whatever.
GRIDDING- I like the idea of gridding based on lap times from practise. If someone is racing both a 500cc and a 1000cc bike, there laps times from the 500 will come from the lightweight practise while there lap times from the 1000 will come from there unlimited practise. Its a little more work and you'd probably not want the last prastice group be the first race, not that any of us would want that anyway.
NEW CLASSES- One class I really belive should start up again is the 250GP! There has been atless FOUR 250gp bikes at every CCS weekend(midwest) which is more than can be said for the ultra lightweight class. Plus, the class will grow quickly because some many people have them but refuse to race with CCS because to the lack of the class so they drive farther to go do an ahrma or wera event. On top of that there's people like myself that would love to race a 250gp bike but doesn't buy one because of the lack of the class.
Having the 25min GT races is great because is something different.
F40 races, you guys rock! It just as fast as the normal races.
Ok, work backwards from this...
The AMA doesn't promote their event. Race tracks start by paying the AMA about a half million to show up, then they, the promoter - not the AMA, spend more money on advertising and putting up those banners. Then the people show up to see the show.
Burden on racers?
I still pay an entry fee for my AMA event, and i still pay the promoter a good sum for practice. Oh, and the purse money for an AMA event is an utter joke. Ever wonder why you don't see a guy like Robbie Jensen racing a lot of AMA events? He can make more money racing club level contingency races.
Going out and getting sponsors to adorn the track with banners would cost money. And getting people to see the banners would take advertising dollars that would increase costs. And look around the local club paddock. Is it up to par?
Even then, I would prefer that spectators come to see me, not a banner. I'm sure that spectators at Road Atlanta were there to see Mat Mladin, not Makita banners.
250 GP already exists in lightweight grand Prix.
Quote from: Super Dave on September 05, 2006, 08:00:39 AM
250 GP already exists in lightweight grand Prix.
You should probably get out and ride a GP machine because its NO! fun what so ever racing against bikes that 10mph slower than you in the corners then 20mph faster than you in the straight. they gap you just enough so you can't get them on the braking, if you do make up the difference then you usually catch them by the apex, losing all corner speed, try the outside, they move over on you, go to the inside and they out motor you coming off the corner. The last LWGP race I spent the entire race stuck behind some 3-4sec slower squid because he kept moving across the track under brakes, or I'd be completely next him and him just turn in on top of me making me slam on the brakes. I show up every weekend for just one race 125GP, the ONLY race there isn't big heavy slow cornering designed for pubic highway motorcycles.
I used to own and race a 250 GP bike.
As for speed differentials, etc...
That's classically known as racing.
A 250GP bike should be competitive against 600's. Enter Middleweight Grand Prix.
Quote from: Racingxtc7 on September 05, 2006, 10:03:06 AM
You should probably get out and ride a GP machine because its NO! fun what so ever racing against bikes that 10mph slower than you in the corners then 20mph faster than you in the straight. they gap you just enough so you can't get them on the braking, if you do make up the difference then you usually catch them by the apex, losing all corner speed, try the outside, they move over on you, go to the inside and they out motor you coming off the corner. The last LWGP race I spent the entire race stuck behind some 3-4sec slower squid because he kept moving across the track under brakes, or I'd be completely next him and him just turn in on top of me making me slam on the brakes. I show up every weekend for just one race 125GP, the ONLY race there isn't big heavy slow cornering designed for pubic highway motorcycles.
Someone should tell STEVE WENNER he is not supposed to win all those GP races on his 250 and he is usually in the top 5 in GT Lights and that is on a 125. If the motorcycles you race against now are big heavy slow motorcycles designed for public highway roads you want those replaced with faster more agile 250 bikes so you can be more competitive?
250GP class would make many of the "REGULAR" racers who are at "EVERY" race weekend happy. HHHMMMM, wasn't there someone who was just saying how its important to keep the racers who attend every event HAPPY because they are the ones that support CCS. Not too mention that would be one more class that the 125gp bikes would be legal for and I'm sure most would sign up for.
Whats the problem?
Don't like more revenue?
Too much pager work?
Is it against the Flagger's Union too wave the flag one more time?
Quote from: Super Dave on September 04, 2006, 04:32:58 PM
Because the 750's are already allowed to race alongside the 600's.
Don't you mean 600s are allowed in this 750 class?
Quote from: Super Dave on September 04, 2006, 04:32:58 PM
I've always been of the opinion that if you're gonna race, buy a bike to race, not try to make a bike fit into a new class or change everything for unique conditions.
[snip]
If testosterone is a problem, because I've seen older riders do goofy things in their first (or second or third) season of racing, then track days might be a better option. Racing IS about competition still. When I'm tired of that, then I'll stay home and mow the lawn. Less testosterone.
It seems to me that this logic yields the inevitable conclusion that there shouldn't a F40 class at all. If you don't follow that, then please explain to me what the purpose is in having a F40 class when there is already a class with the same rules, but no age restriction.
Quote from: Racingxtc7 on September 06, 2006, 05:07:49 PM
250GP class would make many of the "REGULAR" racers who are at "EVERY" race weekend happy. HHHMMMM, wasn't there someone who was just saying how its important to keep the racers who attend every event HAPPY because they are the ones that support CCS. Not too mention that would be one more class that the 125gp bikes would be legal for and I'm sure most would sign up for.
Whats the problem?
Don't like more revenue?
Too much pager work?
Is it against the Flagger's Union too wave the flag one more time?
I guess I'm trying to understand why you'd add a 250GP class when there is already a lightweight grand prix class.
It's basically the same as adding a 600 Supersport class when there is already a middleweight supersport class.
And adding classes? I say eliminate all superbike classes, period, so that there is more valuable race time. Races were longer at one time. There was more practice too.
Quote from: StuartV666 on September 06, 2006, 05:12:30 PM
Don't you mean 600s are allowed in this 750 class?
No, I mean that F40 is still predominately entered by guys over 40 on 600's. And the 750's are allowed. Add the 1000's and the class structure and entry habits become different in that format, 600 to 1000 production fours.
Quote from: StuartV666 on September 06, 2006, 05:12:30 PM
It seems to me that this logic yields the inevitable conclusion that there shouldn't a F40 class at all. If you don't follow that, then please explain to me what the purpose is in having a F40 class when there is already a class with the same rules, but no age restriction.
I'll agree with that.
Why not have a powder puff class for the ladies? A class for riders that are far sighted? Over 50? Develop a class. Your birthday is in November? Here's a class.
I think the current development of new classes to...
I'm not sure what it does. Formula 40 is for older riders that want another class to compete in? I suppose. To get away from the guys with all the test? Well, then the F40 riders wouldn't be in other races then, I guess. So, it takes time from the whole program. Again, reducing practice time, shortening races.
I love motorcycle racing. But it's painful to wade through all the tons and tons of classes. AHRMA has done the same thing. I don't see them building things up because of that.
Quote from: Team-G on August 17, 2006, 08:56:03 PM
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 :boink:
Amen Brother. :biggrin:
Quote from: Super Dave on September 06, 2006, 09:28:27 PM
I guess I'm trying to understand why you'd add a 250GP class when there is already a lightweight grand prix class.
For the same reasons there is a world 250GP, a USGPRU 250GP, use to be a AMA 250GP. World 250GP bikes and world 600 supersport run the same lap times but do you see them combining the classes? NO. Why? because its about having bike of the same ability (handling,weight,power) all together in there own race.
If you wanted to eliminate classes, what about unlimited GP? when was the last time you seen a MotoGP bike as a CCS event?
Definition to GP motorcycle- Limited quantity or custom designed only for race purpose.
Quote from: Racingxtc7 on September 07, 2006, 07:24:16 PM
For the same reasons there is a world 250GP, a USGPRU 250GP, use to be a AMA 250GP. World 250GP bikes and world 600 supersport run the same lap times but do you see them combining the classes? NO. Why? because its about having bike of the same ability (handling,weight,power) all together in there own race.
Intesting idea, but the reality is that the rights to each of those classes is owned by different companies. It's about entertainment. When the 250cc GP motors go away, apparently they are to be replaced by production based 600 motors in aftermarket chassis.
But this is club racing.
Quote from: Racingxtc7 on September 07, 2006, 07:24:16 PM
If you wanted to eliminate classes, what about unlimited GP? when was the last time you seen a MotoGP bike as a CCS event?
I think that last time I saw one was in the late 90's or the early 00's. ROC Yamaha. But the reason why it was Unlimited Grand Prix was that it allowed those guys on 250 GP bikes someplace to race...which is what your looking for, right?
I'd eliminate Unlimted Superbike. It's a new class anyway. But that's a whole separate topic.
Quote from: Racingxtc7 on September 07, 2006, 07:24:16 PM
Definition to GP motorcycle- Limited quantity or custom designed only for race purpose.
And anything below.
Formula 1 was still raced in the AMA until 1986, and 500cc two stroke GP bikes raced against some production based superbikes.
Again, Grand Prix just means that there are no rules for production based machines. They don't have to be street bikes. Superbike is production street bike Grand Prix. So, eliminate the Superbike races in CCS, move it all into Grand Prix, and race the 250 like it's supposed to be raced...going as fast as a production 600 Supersport bike as you even recognize.
Quote from: smoke on August 17, 2006, 07:36:35 PM
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
+1 Keep it simple...
Quote from: Jeff on August 18, 2006, 12:10:25 PM
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.
More AMs run the GTs now for more track time. There seems to be a huge # this year coming from the glut of trackday orgs.. They want 25 minutes, not just 12. (Nothing like stating the obvious.)
I'd like to see the "exclusive" tag taken off of the SuperTwins class and allow those points acquired to be used for advancement from AM to EX. Edmonson's Moto ST is for Experts/Pros only. If you want much CCS representation in the ST series please make this easier for SuperTwins riders to access. Thank You.
I did say at the "World" level where 250's make 20-30 or more HP with 120-150lbs riders.
world- 220lbs bike+ 130lbs rider/ 110hp= 3.18lbs per HP
average- 250lbs bike+ 180lbs rider/ 80hp=5.375lbs per HP
(Thats 180lbs ave with gear Mark, Brian, Tom, Aaron)
Quote from: 251am on September 07, 2006, 08:35:15 PM
I'd like to see the "exclusive" tag taken off of the SuperTwins class and allow those points acquired to be used for advancement from AM to EX. Edmonson's Moto ST is for Experts/Pros only. If you want much CCS representation in the ST series please make this easier for SuperTwins riders to access. Thank You.
Actually from the rules
"(4.) Any Amateur Rider who scores 400 points within a 12 month period."
Says nothing about only applies to specific classes.
Correct, Rob. You're reading the rules. Points related to Supertwins don't apply to overall championships, because of the bike's exclusivity, just like Formula 40 points don't apply to the overall championships because of the age exclusivity.
Quote from: Super Dave on September 08, 2006, 07:49:17 AM
Correct, Rob. You're reading the rules. Points related to Supertwins don't apply to overall championships, because of the bike's exclusivity, just like Formula 40 points don't apply to the overall championships because of the age exclusivity.
I know Dave. Back in 03 when it was 750 points, I had well over 1000 when you combined what I got in thunderbike (non championship points) with the points from the supersport classes. But yet they said "thunderbike" didnt count towards expert. Same back in 02 was said. They only counted the "selected classes" towards expert.
Quote from: Woofentino Pugrossi on September 08, 2006, 08:01:12 AM
I know Dave. Back in 03 when it was 750 points, I had well over 1000 when you combined what I got in thunderbike (non championship points) with the points from the supersport classes. But yet they said "thunderbike" didnt count towards expert. Same back in 02 was said. They only counted the "selected classes" towards expert.
I gave my '06 book to a friend who's setting up a machine for next year. ST points are only excluded from the regional (MW, for example) championships, but not from advancement? From the thread that someone started earlier in the year I got the gist that those points only counted towards figuring standings within SuperTwins results, and nothing else.
So, the 400 pts; Are those overall combined points, or the points total configured with the PI formula? Gotta get me another rulebook this weekend.
It may not say it in the rulebook, but unless they changed something they don't count F-40 or Thunderbike for advancement. They just use the points calculated from the overall points, no PI. In order to count those classes they would have to go through each person individually and add them in since they don't track advancement seperately.
Quote from: 251am on September 08, 2006, 08:42:08 AM
I gave my '06 book to a friend who's setting up a machine for next year. ST points are only excluded from the regional (MW, for example) championships, but not from advancement? From the thread that someone started earlier in the year I got the gist that those points only counted towards figuring standings within SuperTwins results, and nothing else.
So, the 400 pts; Are those overall combined points, or the points total configured with the PI formula? Gotta get me another rulebook this weekend.
the rulebook is online
Rulebook is here (http://www.ccsracing.us/forms/2006/2006%20Rulebook.pdf)
Yep, keep it simple. Allow 1000's to compete in the existing F40 class. Adding a new class is a bad idea, it would shorten time available for the entire day.
Quote from: Racingxtc7 on September 04, 2006, 09:06:36 PM
This is true BUT only because raceroad organazation have grown custom to putting ALL financial burden on the racers. Ever notice that at every single type of sporting event has advertisements of all shapes and sizing. CCS could sent out a promoter to sell the idea of advertising banners for around the race track, stickers and whatever else they can think of. There's a good chance that there is one RV dealership , one Trailer dealership, one Motocycle dealer, one Truck Accessory shop, one whatever local shop near each raceway that would be willing to pay for advertisement and even set up a booth, bring some new RVs to show off.
Go for it, I'd be willing to bet that CCS would even cut you in for a percentage.
Make sure they don't conflict with a track sponsor, oh yeah make sure you know how much of a cut the track wants too.
Racers are a club sanctioning bodies customer, the customers in ANY business pay the bills. Just because you're racing doesn't change that one iota.
I would say let the 1k bikes race in F40. I will sometimes run in the LW F40 myself when funds allow. No need for another class, both groups run on the track at the same time anyway. Kind of fun sometimes when I can actually catch some of the larger bikes (keep them in sight and not be lapped by them). I am slow compared to most of the folks out there but I ride a consistent race line and when someone comes up on me from behind I am predictable (easy to pass). I am out there doing the best I can and enjoying the time spent on the track, I say the more the merrier.
CCS AM#777 Florida Region
As it is 600's (4cyc LiqCool) machines have 11 opportunities to race compared to 1000's which only have 4 opportunities (Formula 40 included). Taking away unlimited superbike just make matters even worse for those that like running 1000's. If you want to take something away take away a few 600 classes since the entire day is littered with 600 opportunites already. I know already people are going to disagree but it just my 2 cents. Here's the skinny taken from the rule book.
Middleweight SuperSport - 600
Heavyweight SuperSport - 600
Unlimited SuperSport - 600, 1000
Middleweight Superbike - 600
Heavyweight Superbike - 600
Unlimited Superbike - 600, 1000
Middleweight Grandprix - 600
Unlimited Grandprix - 600, 1000
GTO - 600, 1000
GTU - 600
Formula 40 - 600
+1 :thumb:
Quote from: jryer on September 22, 2006, 12:50:24 PM
As it is 600's (4cyc LiqCool) machines have 11 opportunities to race compared to 1000's which only have 4 opportunities (Formula 40 included). Taking away unlimited superbike just make matters even worse for those that like running 1000's. If you want to take something away take away a few 600 classes since the entire day is littered with 600 opportunites already. I know already people are going to disagree but it just my 2 cents. Here's the skinny taken from the rule book.
Middleweight SuperSport - 600
Heavyweight SuperSport - 600
Unlimited SuperSport - 600, 1000
Middleweight Superbike - 600
Heavyweight Superbike - 600
Unlimited Superbike - 600, 1000
Middleweight Grandprix - 600
Unlimited Grandprix - 600, 1000
GTO - 600, 1000
GTU - 600
Formula 40 - 600
What's your point? Should a person that races an exclusive bike, a 1000 inline four, be entitled to more classes than a more popular racing bike? Classes that can't be filled? Classes that need to be filled by smaller displacement bikes to make them viable?
Enough of the "exclusive bike" crap. If you race, you race. The "exclusive" idea should be tossed right out the fucking window. :sleeping2: at the wheel. The only true exclusive classes are Formula 40 where age is the excluding factor.
jryer- There's a small contingent here in CCS who believe I-4 liter bikes are too big, tracks are not big enough for them, and you don't know how to ride one anyway. I'm not one of them. Unfortunately, this small contingent directs Ft. Worth. However, I agree that most MW tracks are better suited for 600s, it just aint right that I-4 1000s only have about 4 classes to run which are also more expensive classes.
Back to the original IDEA that I-4 1000s be added to a current class. Was that idea lost? I hope not. I am willing to bet that in the next 5 years the 40+yo demographic will be growing, in the paddock anyway and not just in their middle sections, and that another reason for them to stick around a little longer might be such an option.
What's your point?
i thought it was clear, but to re-iterate the point: 600cc bikes have more opportunities
to race than 1000cc bikes so eliminate some 600s.
Should a person that races an exclusive bike, a 1000 inline four, be entitled to more classes than a more popular racing bike?
"exclusive" is of course an opinion that not everybody shares.
i never said the 1000cc bikes should be entitled to more classes.
i did say don't eliminate the existing Unlimited Superbike because there are only 4
opportunities compared to 11 for the 600s. the math is simple:
600s have nearly 3 times the opportunity to race on race day than 1000s.
listen i like 600s also, but don't take away what little
opportunities currently exist for 1000s. i see a lot of redundancy on race day
in middleweight & heavyweight supersport and especially in middleweight & heavyweight
superbike. with some well thought ingenuity we could eliminate/combine either
the middleweights or heavyweights and still keep everybody happy.
maybe in heavyweight supersport move the twin cylinder liquid cooled 1000cc
to unlimited supersport. move the 4 cylinder liquid cooled 775cc to middleweight
supersport and do away with heavyweight. do the same thing in superbike.
at the moment i don't have the solution really worked out but it's possible.
Classes that can't be filled?
this is irrelevant because i never suggested additional classes for 1000's
Classes that need to be filled by smaller displacement bikes to make them viable?
this is also irrelevant because i never suggested additional classes for 1000's
(but since you mentioned it. the heavyweight class is filled mostly with 600s.
according to you that class is being made viable by smaller displacement bikes.
so i assume you'd approve of eliminating heavyweight then, yes?)
Do you have a suggestion?
As for CCS listening to me...
I've made two rules proposals. One was to get a vintage bike to fit in a particular class. That class eventuall changed. The other was to change the fuel rules as the way the previous rules were written, gasoline as purchased from a gas station was not legal.
[/quote]
Quote from: Super Dave on September 25, 2006, 08:58:53 PM
Do you have a suggestion?
Yeah, the guy was simply thinking out loud, making a suggestion to Ft. Worth, displaying a pretty good point about the 600 class options (11) heavily outweigh the 1000 I-4 options (4). Most of us here pretty much know YOU will NEVER race an inline 4 1000cc bike. That is YOUR choice. However, there are OTHER PEOPLE who would like to and they are 40 years old, or older. Leave the guy alone is my suggestion!!
Quote from: 251am on September 25, 2006, 09:41:20 PM
Most of us here pretty much know YOU will NEVER race an inline 4 1000cc bike. That is YOUR choice. However, there are OTHER PEOPLE who would like to and they are 40 years old, or older. Leave the guy alone is my suggestion!!
Well, I have had the disucussion about racing a 1000 cc four vocally, so I don't know how you're qualified to know what I'd do at all.
As for forty...it's coming close to me, so, it's relavant.
Exclusivity. There are more 600's sold than 1000's. 1000's cost more than 750's, 600's, and most other bikes.
One must also recognize a few things about what has happened nationally in club racing for a long time. First, 600 riders have made up a huge number of entries. For years, amateurs were not even allowed to ride 1000 or 1100 cc four cylinder motorcycles.
Eleven opportunities to race a 600? Yeah, it's a lot. Is it too many? In the context that I believe there are too many classes? Completely.
Rules suggestions? Eliminate classes, lengthen races, increase costs to cover the lengthened distance, and eliminate the "double bump"...double bump being a 600 running in the unlimited class.
This was the topic of discussion over the weekend. Thoughts?
My suggestion is:
- eliminate MW Superbike. With MW GP, why do we need MW Superbike?
- eliminate UL Superbike. Again, with UL GP and UL SS, what is the point of this class?
- change F40 to allow the following classes: MW GP, HW Superbike, UL Supersport, SuperTwins
Naturally, since I currently have a 1000 to race, it would be nice for me, personally, to keep UL Superbike. And it could be argued that since everybody from 600s on up can race in it, keeping it has the most beneft because it gives the most people an additional opportunity to race. However, I also realize that I have a bias, so I would be more than willing to sacrifiice that in the interest of getting a reasonable schedule with few enough races to afford quality practice time, and to get a chance to race with the rest of the (non-LW) 40-year olds.
Oh, and I see no reason to not allow 600s in UL classes. What's the point in that? It's demonstrated every race weekend that they can do it competitively and safely, so why not allow it?
Quote from: Super Dave on September 26, 2006, 07:57:01 AM
Well, I have had the disucussion about racing a 1000 cc four vocally, so I don't know how you're qualified to know what I'd do at all.
As for forty...it's coming close to me, so, it's relavant.
Exclusivity. There are more 600's sold than 1000's. 1000's cost more than 750's, 600's, and most other bikes.
One must also recognize a few things about what has happened nationally in club racing for a long time. First, 600 riders have made up a huge number of entries. For years, amateurs were not even allowed to ride 1000 or 1100 cc four cylinder motorcycles.
Eleven opportunities to race a 600? Yeah, it's a lot. Is it too many? In the context that I believe there are too many classes? Completely.
Rules suggestions? Eliminate classes, lengthen races, increase costs to cover the lengthened distance, and eliminate the "double bump"...double bump being a 600 running in the unlimited class.
This was the topic of discussion over the weekend. Thoughts?
I only qualify myself as having read your other posts on I-4 1000s, that's it. I remember you saying it was a consideration for this last bike purchased, but you chose another 600. That's fine. It is your decision. I just remember our first crossing here when it first came known I was going from a BMW R1100GS to a GSXR 1000 and the proverbial dogs were sicked on me! :lmao:
Eliminating classes to lengthen races would be great, but who would hold the knife to make the cuts and what considerations would be made fo the suddenly excluded?
This is an interesting time. It could be a crossroads for a better series. I understand where you stand in the past rules and regs about amateurs per not being able to run 1000/1100s, but that is momentarily relevant and irrelevant at the same time. There are so many damn tangents to look at it is a maze. Unfortunately, it is also a business.
The business aspect must be looked at 1st and foremost to try and secure the future and integrity of the sport, but must also create a return for the owners. So, secondly, the integrity of the sport must be upheld in some fashion that also upholds point #1. I have looked over A LOT of the results from the different series' publishings in RRW and the array of different formats is boggling. How does CMRA fit a 4 hour endurance race into a sprint weeeknd? And on and on...
1000s in F40 HW or an UNL format? Why not? Until there's a meeting of many racers' minds with Kevin in some sort of a weekend meeting, pack in another!!
666 -
I like the GP structure (it doesn't have heavyweights). Keep both
Unlimited Superbike and F40. Make the supersport and superbike same as the
Grand Prix structure (no heavyweights). The bikes in heavyweight class can
go to middleweight or unlimited depending on the bike. What you think?
Quote from: StuartV666 on September 26, 2006, 03:03:37 PM
My suggestion is:
- eliminate MW Superbike. With MW GP, why do we need MW Superbike?
- eliminate UL Superbike. Again, with UL GP and UL SS, what is the point of this class?
- change F40 to allow the following classes: MW GP, HW Superbike, UL Supersport, SuperTwins
Agreed on the first two.
The third, I struggle with.
If you allow big bikes, the larger number of entries will be reduced in F40, so I have been told. Seems reasonable too. What about making another class of F40 of bigger bikes that run with that same class? F40 with MWSS, HWSS and a F40 Ultra with MWGP, HWSB, and all Unlimiteds?
Quote from: Super Dave on September 26, 2006, 07:57:01 AM
Rules suggestions? Eliminate classes, lengthen races, increase costs to cover the lengthened distance, and eliminate the "double bump"...double bump being a 600 running in the unlimited class.
This was the topic of discussion over the weekend. Thoughts?
If you can be competitive on a 600 in Unlimited GP why shouldn't 600's be allowed? Why do we need to eliminate the double bump?
I can sorta buy into the elimination of a class or two to allow a bit more practice for the guys that can't make it out friday but to be honest I think the current schedule works pretty well.
Quote from: Super Dave on September 27, 2006, 10:03:26 AM
If you allow big bikes, the larger number of entries will be reduced in F40, so I have been told. Seems reasonable too.
Why would bigger bikes reduce the number of entries? I must have missed that post/reasoning.
Quote from: Super Dave on September 27, 2006, 10:03:26 AMWhat about making another class of F40 of bigger bikes that run with that same class? F40 with MWSS, HWSS and a F40 Ultra with MWGP, HWSB, and all Unlimiteds?
I really don't believe we need to segment that class any further. Here's the thing - and when you turn 40 and start running this class you'll probably be in agreement - This class is for guys who love to race, the majority aren't willing or don't want to take the kind of risks they have in the past to be ultra competitive, so most are just happy to race with guys who are at their pace and they can trust to ride clean. The majority are also very much "into" their machinery - they're racing bikes they love. It's almost like a run what you brung type deal so let the guys who want to ride vintage ride and let the guys who want to ride modern 1000's ride. I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about 1000's killing this class, the class is not just about who wins it's about who is out there still kick'n ass and having a blast after 40!
Quote from: Team_Serpent on September 27, 2006, 05:15:31 PM
If you can be competitive on a 600 in Unlimited GP why shouldn't 600's be allowed? Why do we need to eliminate the double bump?
I can sorta buy into the elimination of a class or two to allow a bit more practice for the guys that can't make it out friday but to be honest I think the current schedule works pretty well.
Someone raised the issue at the track Saturday. I didn't originate the idea.
Quote from: Team_Serpent on September 27, 2006, 05:42:46 PM
Why would bigger bikes reduce the number of entries? I must have missed that post/reasoning.
There have been some vocal F40 riders that have said that they didn't want bigger bikes in the race as they feel fine racing 600's against 1000's. This is what I have been told. If the 1000's are allowed to be in it, which would likely be a minority, an amount of smaller bikes would most likely leave reducing entry numbers.
Quote
I really don't believe we need to segment that class any further. Here's the thing - and when you turn 40 and start running this class you'll probably be in agreement - This class is for guys who love to race, the majority aren't willing or don't want to take the kind of risks they have in the past to be ultra competitive, so most are just happy to race with guys who are at their pace and they can trust to ride clean. The majority are also very much "into" their machinery - they're racing bikes they love. It's almost like a run what you brung type deal so let the guys who want to ride vintage ride and let the guys who want to ride modern 1000's ride. I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about 1000's killing this class, the class is not just about who wins it's about who is out there still kick'n ass and having a blast after 40!
I don't know if I'll want to race in F40. Maybe it's just me, but I like to focus on some classes and race against the fastest guys at the track. Sometimes, yes, some of those guys are in F40.
[/quote]
Quote from: Super Dave on September 28, 2006, 02:40:52 PM
There have been some vocal F40 riders that have said that they didn't want bigger bikes in the race as they feel fine racing 600's against 1000's.
Huh? I've read this a couple of times and still don't understand what you're trying to say. They are vocal about bigger bikes being in but feel fine about racing 600's against 1000's?
Quote from: Super Dave on September 28, 2006, 02:40:52 PMI don't know if I'll want to race in F40. Maybe it's just me, but I like to focus on some classes and race against the fastest guys at the track. Sometimes, yes, some of those guys are in F40.
Whatever :rollseyes:
How about the viable suggestion of making an actual FORMULA out of the "F" in F-40? Bike age + rider age = 40, you're good. So if I, being 35, wanted to race an 2001 F4I in F40, it would be acceptable. Don't some race orgs do that?
I don't believe adding 1000s will reduce the numbers in F-40, since CCS already has a LW F-40 for the small bikes. WERA allows 1000s under SS rules and everything else under SB rules. I had a 1000 last year and was all for it, I don't have a 1000 now and I am still for adding them because it will only add a couple more riders , but sometimes we are that close to contingency numbers.
Quote from: Super Dave on September 27, 2006, 10:03:26 AM
If you allow big bikes, the larger number of entries will be reduced in F40, so I have been told.
I've heard that, too. But not from anybody who actually runs in the class. My friends that run it do so on 600s and they will keep doing it if 1000s are allowed. I have always raced 600s, until I got this latest bike, and I have looked forward to running in F40, and I would do so whether I was on a 600 or not. I ran Unlimited classes on my 600s before, lots of times.
In fact, I'd say the only reason there aren't already way more 600s in the current Unlimited classes is simply because there are SO many other classes they can run in. I think somebody posted that there are 11 classes a 600 Supersport bike can run in(?). Yeah, no big surprise most 600 guys run less than 8 or 9 races a weekend and so you don't see them in any Unlimited classes.
So, how about some actual empirical data to back up that statement (from whoever made it - since you have just been "told" it)?
I wasn't at VIR, so I have just been "told" what transpired on this subject and the gist of what I got was that Kevin's answer was that he'd allow 1000s "if you can get all the current riders to say that they'll keep running it, even with 1000s allowed". Is that a fair translation? (Does being "told" it make it true?) If so, is that really the job of the riders? To go and get input and consensus from the other riders?
And, as I have said before, why do we really need to spend a bunch of time doing what my dad calls mental masturbation on this anyway? WERA used to have basically the same formula and they have now added 1000 Superstock (equivalent to CCS Supersport) to the class. Mongo has, so far, not responded to my questions about how that actually affected the class, but maybe somebody else can say? I mean, why do we need to do a bunch of what-ifs when we have hard data we can look at?
I'll bet WERA didn't suffer any significant drop in class size when they added 1000s to their F40, and I bet CCS won't either.
Quote from: StuartV666 on September 29, 2006, 03:02:39 PM
I'll bet WERA didn't suffer any significant drop in class size when they added 1000s to their F40, and I bet CCS won't either.
this is an excellent point. 1000s are NOT going to hurt F40, but do exactly the opposite. WERA has already prove it!
hhmmmm. unlimited, middlewieght and light +40 all ran at the sametime, gridded in that order, scored seperately. all the +40 racers on the track at the same time, pick your poisen.
lightwieght supersport
middlewieght supersport
unlimited supersport
lightwieght superbike
middlewieght superbike
unlimited superbike
lightwieght GP
middlewieght GP
unlimited GP
lightwieght +40
middlewieght +40
unlimited +40
GTL
GTO
GTU
125GP
250GP
vinatge/ultralightwieght
classes for everyone
Quote from: jryer on October 01, 2006, 11:57:54 PM
this is an excellent point. 1000s are NOT going to hurt F40, but do exactly the opposite. WERA has already prove it!
Is this why Mongo has not responded to my questions about that? It would make sense that he would not want to encourage CCS to do anything that would increase participation or grid sizes in CCS.
Hum. I got into F40 LW because I felt that it was probably the safest way for me to start. The main problem with letting 1k's into it will be more lapped riders and more opportunities for wrecks. In sailboat racing, the fastest boats start latter. Why not start the 1k's half a lap after the LW bikes to minimize the opportunity to lap? The LW 40 AM class is probably the smallest - 6 riders @ BHF - we need to do something to boost the participation.
Regarding purse money for the GT races - it a fairly simple situation - back riders like me who have no real chance of winning will find the race too expensive. The purses only benefit the 1-3 riders who finish upfront most of the time (or the guys that delude themselves) at the expense (frankly) of the slow guys like me.
I'm a little disapointed to hear (as a new racer) that the guys who finish upfront even in LW are shelling out big bucks for tires. It comes down to who has the biggest wallet or capacity for dept vs outright skill.
Quote from: SVR6#231 on October 02, 2006, 04:43:34 PM
The main problem with letting 1k's into it will be more lapped riders and more opportunities for wrecks. In sailboat racing, the fastest boats start latter. Why not start the 1k's half a lap after the LW bikes to minimize the opportunity to lap?
The differance between lap times of a well riden 750 and a 1000 is probably no more than a second or so at most tracks so the 1000's will probably not be lapping many more riders than the current 750's running in F40.
If you start the 1000's or 750's (whichever is allowed next year) a half lap behind the LW bikes then they will be coming around you twice. Once during the first couple of laps and then again toward the end of the race. Right now they just come by once - ussually around lap 4 or 5.
The numbers prove it, don't run Heavyweight Superbike as a separate class.
It's wasted time and space.
And here's the solution that will work great.
This reduces 600s from 11 races to 9 (still plenty)
and don't complain because the 600s still have
middleweight superbike
1. Do not allow 600s to race in heavyweight superbike
2. Do not allow 600s to race in unlimited superbike
3. Put heavyweight superbike with unlimited superbike
(600s make up 64% of heavyweight superbike)
Set 1st wave as unlimited superbike and 2nd wave as heavyweight superbike.
This way the grid is filled with true big bikes and
the number of bikes on the grid are the same as they are now. With the waves
I don't see too many unlimiteds catching heavyweights in 6 laps.
| Size (cc) | Raced | % |
| 100 | 3 | 1 |
| 125 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 600 | 133 | 64 |
| 636 | 3 | 1 |
| 650 | 3 | 1 |
| 748 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 749 | 4 | 2 |
| 750 | 37 | 18 |
| 853 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 916 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 954 | 1 | 0.5 |
| 996 | 7 | 3 |
| 999 | 13 | 6 |
| 1000 | 1 | 0.5 |
CCS Heavyweight Superbike statistics. Florida & SW combined, 2006 season through August
Correction : "Don't run Heavyweight Superbike as a separate RACE"
If you exclude 600's from heavyweight superbike (especially if your example is correct at 64% of entries) or any other heavyweight/unlimited class it would reduce the total number of entries for the weekend - I don't think CCS wants to reduce income, especially with the rising costs of track rental and insurance.
If the objective is to reduce the number of classes and replace it with more practice (or something along that line) then you'll probably need a sulution that includes retaining the lost income of a deleted/restricted class.
Charging for practice comes to mind......but then again - I just forgot I said that :lmao:
Quote from: Team_Serpent on October 03, 2006, 03:50:22 PM
If you exclude 600's from heavyweight superbike (especially if your example is correct at 64% of entries) or any other heavyweight/unlimited class it would reduce the total number of entries for the weekend - I don't think CCS wants to reduce income, especially with the rising costs of track rental and insurance.
If the objective is to reduce the number of classes and replace it with more practice (or something along that line) then you'll probably need a sulution that includes retaining the lost income of a deleted/restricted class.
Charging for practice comes to mind......but then again - I just forgot I said that :lmao:
Sorry mate, but the numbers say otherwise.
I don't know CCS's financial standings nor will I speculate.
What I do know is the preliminary numbers show
600s are not making full use of other classes available to them.
So why allow 600s to run in nearly every class
created when they aren't making full use of other classes?
So what's going to happen when 600s race in 9 instead of 11 classes?
They will better fill the other classes. It doesn't reduce revenue
and it will not reduce the number entries for the weekend either.
But it will reduce the rush to squeeze in a ridiculous amount
of classes before sunset and finally better fill half empty classes that
I see every month. Heavyweight Supersport is an excellent candidate for
showing a class poorly utilized and prime for more 600s participation.
Talk is cheap but numbers don't lie.
Average # of 600s on grid in Amateur Heavyweight Supersport is 8.
Average # of 600s on grid in Expert Heavyweight Supersport is 6.
You got only 6 guys lapping together in the 1st wave and it ain't
much better in the 2nd wave with 8. The overall average for 600s
in this class is (yep you guessed it) 7.
Let's take the revenue from 600s out of heavyweight and unlimited superbike
and put it in classes meant for them (like Heavyweight Supersport). Some
guys skip Heavyweight Supersport and race in heavyweight or unlimited superbike. Then surprise surpise we have too many classes. It's because
we are under-utilizing the existing classes. The words heavyweight and
unlimited are obviously not for 600s.
(Data taken from the 1st four races of the florida season)
Didn't mean to put you on the defensive, just trying to add perspective to the discussion. I race a 600 and sometimes do race in Heavyweight Supersport. Sometimes the schedule puts it back to back with another class I like to run - so depending on points, contingency, how many set of tires I've gone through, ect. I may decide to skip that class on any given weekend. Maybe the schedule is why more of the 600's in your region are running other classes their bike allows them to run. I don't know your region as well as you nor do I know how a rule change would affect one region vs. another. Just trying to add food for thought on the topic.
If you take a typical weekend schedule from your region and make the changes you're proposing will people have to run more back to back races? That might discourage some and reduce the total number of event entries.
The reason I made the comments around income is because it's the first thing that came to mind when considering eliminating/restricting classes. You have some good points and I've taken them into consideration during my thought process on this topic - keep it coming :cheers:
I just looked at the first three or four Florida regoinal schedules. No wonder your looking for change - that's not a weekend of racing that's a Sunday of racing! Personally I really don't like that type of schedule - give me some races on Saturday and spread it out a bit. That Sunday schedule you have down there is to much to fit into one day IMHO.
WERA's Senior Superbike averages 7 Experts and 7 Amateurs (Novice or whatever) (for 37 Sportsman events)
CCS F40 LW is 9 Experts and 6 Amateurs (for 50 events)
CCS F40 is 11 Experts and 9 Amateurs (for 50 events) 60% of entries are 600's
We eliminated 6 classes 2 or 3 years ago, lengthened the races by 2 laps and the riders voted at the first two events to shorten the races back to 8 laps....can't win..... :banghead:
Two questions for you (especially you Super Dave)
1. Are you willing to spend $150 per class to race if we eliminate SuperBike or GP?
2. Are you willing to promise me you'll enter both classes that are left and that all the other riders will?
We won't start on the purses for every class until later...that will be another eye opener.
We, as CCS, must make enough to break even just to stay in business. At this level, this is a rider's hobby, not his lively-hood and there can be no reasonable expectation that the purse we pay and the "normal" contingency money will cover your expenses. What you can be assured of is that we will bring enough staff, the trophies, the insurance and all the other items to the track and make sure the bills are paid so we can continue to participate in this great sport. So before you start advocating we eliminate classes, think where the lost income will have to come from to continue or we won't be around for long. Believe me, we want to continue to go forward and to make as many of you happy as we can, but sometimes we have to balance the wishes of one group with another and in the case of a tie, the largest numbers of entries will win. (I don't want to have to get a real job!)
Back to the real question at hand, how many 40+ will have 1000's and how many 600cc riders will drop out if 1000's come into F40? are there 6 more 40+ riders in every region that own 1000's who will take the place of the 600's? If I could just find that crystal ball..... :cheers:
Quote from: CCS on October 05, 2006, 03:03:40 PM
Back to the real question at hand, how many 40+ will have 1000's and how many 600cc riders will drop out if 1000's come into F40? are there 6 more 40+ riders in every region that own 1000's who will take the place of the 600's? If I could just find that crystal ball..... :cheers:
Kevin, the truth is, no one can honestly know if we'll get 6 more 40+ riders on 1000s in every region. As you know we're trying to plan now for 2007, engine mods alone require advanced time and money. I believe there's enough consensus that 1000 classes are desired. So if we have to keep what we got now, that's fine. We just don't want the few existing 1000 classes eliminated because then we're stuck with a 600 only club.
why not just have a 1000 cc wave and a 600 cc wave for the f 40?
Kevin,
Just bump the HW class limit from 775 to 1000cc's in F40, do a trial of 3 or 4 weekends, if the # of 600 entries are not offset by the increase in 1k entries, revert back.
Just my 2c
Paul
Polar-Optics
MW #90
Quote from: PaulV on October 07, 2006, 10:24:59 PM
Kevin,
Just bump the HW class limit from 775 to 1000cc's in F40, do a trail of 3 or 4 weekends, if the # of 600 entries are not offset by the increase in 1k entries, revert back.
This sounds like it might work and it would hopefully have minimal impact on revenue. KEVIN is this something that sounds do-able to you?
Quote from: SVR6#231 on October 02, 2006, 04:43:34 PM
Hum. I got into F40 LW because I felt that it was probably the safest way for me to start.
I'm a little disapointed to hear (as a new racer) that the guys who finish upfront even in LW are shelling out big bucks for tires. It comes down to who has the biggest wallet or capacity for dept vs outright skill.
Steve,
Not everyone spends an arm and a leg to race in LW F40. I do race the Florida region and I have calculated the cost of my weekend. For Saturday practice(all day) and two Sunday races I spend a total of $500.
Mark
Quote from: Team_Serpent on October 04, 2006, 04:15:56 PM
I just looked at the first three or four Florida regoinal schedules. No wonder your looking for change - that's not a weekend of racing that's a Sunday of racing! Personally I really don't like that type of schedule - give me some races on Saturday and spread it out a bit. That Sunday schedule you have down there is to much to fit into one day IMHO.
Maybe the schedule is hectic for the classes that you run but it suits me just fine. It does allow a newer rider in the amateur ranks to get some good track time during Saturday practice.
It can be hectic for other racers as they sometime will run up to nine races in one day.
Mark
Quote from: roadracer162 on October 09, 2006, 11:52:19 PM
Maybe the schedule is hectic for the classes that you run but it suits me just fine. It does allow a newer rider in the amateur ranks to get some good track time during Saturday practice.
It can be hectic for other racers as they sometime will run up to nine races in one day.
Mark
I hear ya, kinda just goes to show that what one person likes the other might not. That's the great thing about America - freedom of choice.
While I might prefer one schedule over another one thing for sure is I'm shown up either way.
Sir, I just want to ride! :biggrin:
Can we just add a Fomula 30 class and Kawasaki 600 class and be done with it. If there is not enough time in the day can we create that as well. If thats not possible we should just give up lunch. Who eats lunch anyway that was cool in the late eighties. Get with the times people, faster - faster - faster, and if you have back to back races you should be able to continue lapping the track and let all of those sorry souls catch up from pit lane. It's their own fault for not entering more races. It's all about seat time and not sitting in the pits waiting for your turn. Now if you really want to get creative how about 2-way transponders that allow control to alert you when your next race is, no more missed calls.
Allowing 1000's in F40 would be okay, and allowing all twins to run (SBK/GP spec) slicks would be nice too!
i will race f40 on my 600, (or 636) wheather or not there are 1000 cc bikes out there, there are 750 cc zukes with 145 hp out there now, and i can deal with them, most 1000 will only have 160 hp any way, you ever try to deal with 160 hp in a corner? not easy, only the best can do it well
it will suck at Daytona, but at least i am not riding an sv against N8,
Quote from: Team_Serpent on October 04, 2006, 04:15:56 PM
I just looked at the first three or four Florida regoinal schedules. No wonder your looking for change - that's not a weekend of racing that's a Sunday of racing! Personally I really don't like that type of schedule - give me some races on Saturday and spread it out a bit. That Sunday schedule you have down there is to much to fit into one day IMHO.
That's what I've been trying to tell them for 7 years now.
Quote from: CCS on October 05, 2006, 03:03:40 PM
Two questions for you (especially you Super Dave)
1. Are you willing to spend $150 per class to race if we eliminate SuperBike or GP?
2. Are you willing to promise me you'll enter both classes that are left and that all the other riders will?
We won't start on the purses for every class until later...that will be another eye opener.
$150 per class? I ways, yes, I see value.
I'd like to see at least a reduced number of expert classes with a purse and an increased entry fee. Will everyone enter? No, but as it is, riders go away every two to three years, so the same philosophies of years and years and years of club racing have not changed what happens: riders move to expert, or are threatened with becoming experts, and then some move on.
Kevin, I like the new ASRA purse structure based on entries. It's a start, and it doesn't put you at so much risk. I'd like a sponsor, for real, for the program. Actually, I'd like class sponsors for each region. CMRA has put together small packages with "Pace American Trailer Middleweight Lunatic" or stuff like that. Those kind of sponsorships could be used to increase entries into classes that might not be receiving the entries that they could .