Motorcycle Racing Forum

I am curious if I am the only one that thinks gridding should be by points instead of by entry date or at least by points for the pre-entered riders.

Only took until August for the yearly post to come out. :biggrin:

this is the time when CCS is requesting proposals for rule changes for 07.

I would love to see some kind of grid by points system implemented. I believe this would make for safer starts into T1.

I know this would never happen because there are too many races and not enough time in a weekend. But Qualifing is the best way. If you are fast, you grid towards the front. I like how in Flat Track racing they do heats. You win or place good in your heat, you move on to the semi's, you get a first or second in a semi , you go to the main event. That kicks ass! You lose out you pack up.

I vote to keep the pre entry type of gridding. That way a guy like me who doesn't race every weekend can pre enter for a race and get a good/better grid position. What's the point of pre registering if it doesn't get you a better position on the grid?

Pre-entry saves you money. If they did it like Daytona where only the pre-entered riders are gridded by points, you would still get a pretty good grid position if you had any points and pre-entered.

I like the fact that pre-entry saves you money but I also think that as far as grid spots go, it should be by qualifying, in my opinion.  Obviously we cant qualify for every race but I wonder why we couldnt be gridded by our practice times.  I dont know if that could be a easy solution or not but its just a thought. 

Quote from: Jamie951 on August 24, 2006, 01:15:42 PM
I like the fact that pre-entry saves you money but I also think that as far as grid spots go, it should be by qualifying, in my opinion.  Obviously we cant qualify for every race but I wonder why we couldnt be gridded by our practice times. 

+1

Quote from: Jamie951 on August 24, 2006, 01:15:42 PM
I like the fact that pre-entry saves you money but I also think that as far as grid spots go, it should be by qualifying, in my opinion.  Obviously we cant qualify for every race but I wonder why we couldnt be gridded by our practice times.  I dont know if that could be a easy solution or not but its just a thought. 

Reason given is that not all practice sessions have the same density of riders. Could be quite dangerous having people trying to turn fast laps in a crowded practice session.

While I would love to see a program rather than a slew of races like we have now...

Qualifying for every race is impractical for the current system of so many differeent classes.

Grid pre entered riders by points, then post entered riders by order of entry.  +1

And how many people go to every race but are slow, so you want them up front? I can start  from the 5th and 6th row and still be in the top 5 by turn one. Try practicing your starts...LOL

But there are guys that go to all the races that are fast too.  And the ones that go to all the races that score more points should be rewarded for their commitment to the series and for scoring points.

I think it should be a raffle! They pull the numbers out of a hat and grid accordingly!  :ass:

No system will satisfy everyone. The ringers will bitch that it's dangerous to be in the back when gridded by points, the regulars will bitch that they should be rewarded for being regulars, the people who register early will say they should be gridded up front due to their early commitment, etc.

Whatever you do if anything will just piss some people off. JUst leave it alone.

Lets do it like they used to where you have to start off the bike, race to it then get it started.

I'm up  for the lemans start who else is in? All you guys whinning aboout nate will have an edge now LOL.. Can you see him trying to push start that beast..

Specially with a shaft drive! That should be a decent equalizer!

Quote from: badmonkey on August 25, 2006, 07:03:23 PM
I'm up  for the lemans start who else is in? All you guys whinning aboout nate will have an edge now LOL.. Can you see him trying to push start that beast..

Interesting that only 14% like the current system....

You have to take in consideration how many people actually access site and this thread.

Do you?

It's a poll.  Not a scientific one.

Here's the bottom line...

Motorcycle road racing is expensive.  I've done this for twenty seasons, and the money that I have put through tire vendors, time away from home, travel gas, and so on is substantial.

Racing organizations rely on racers for revenue. 

Racing is competitive.

Racing organizations maintain their operations through racers continually entering races.  So, the racers that race in an attempt to get points are the best investment for the organizations.  Making them the show piece for the event by allowing them to be gridded based on the riders' points is a reasonable reward.

Safety?  Road race starts suck, period.  Want safer starts?  Drag racing might be an alternative.  There always be a miriad of starting abilities on the grid.  Can't be controlled for.

your right, racing orgs make there money by having racers enter races. But they also chase away racers with some of the choices they make. I've been racing 6 seasons now and see no purpose in chasing championships. I just race for fun, I dont care where you grid me I will get up front no matter what. If you can't handle the chaos of a start then as SD has stated try drag racing. :whine:

Quote from: badmonkey on August 26, 2006, 02:10:40 PM
your right, racing orgs make there money by having racers enter races. But they also chase away racers with some of the choices they make. I've been racing 6 seasons now and see no purpose in chasing championships.

Agreed.  There is no huge reward.  The previous points system was rewarding to those who could show up for all the races vs those that couldn't hit all the races but finished well.  Now, well, finishing well is at a higher premium.  That's not something that drives riders away.

Formula 40 opened up an avenue for new "older" racers.  Additionally, with the racer demographic becoming older, it made sense.

I can't say I recognize a whole number of things that organizations have done that chase racers away.  Costs?  Yeah, those have increased, and if anything chases anyone away, that might be it, but organizations can't control the immediate costs of liability and medial insurance and the cost of renting race tracks and getting individuals to execute tasks.  Additionally, those staff members that are necessary need to be billeted and fed.  Those costs have gone up too.

Quote from: Super Dave on August 26, 2006, 11:06:14 AMRacing organizations maintain their operations through racers continually entering races.  So, the racers that race in an attempt to get points are the best investment for the organizations.  Making them the show piece for the event by allowing them to be gridded based on the riders' points is a reasonable reward.

+1.

Hello Super Dave,

in response to your comment of fewer races/more purses, are you willing to pay $200 per class to race? Right now, to break even on a typical Blackhawk event, to have just SuperSport and GP Classes, that would be your entry fee to order to offer $1000 purse in every class and pay the overhead for staff, track rent, insurance, trophies...etc. with just those 16 classes. (And that is only if the entry numbers remained the same, any drop and the fee would be higher.)

How many are willing to pay that price? (it would also get you qualifying races on Saturday, finals on Sunday.)

Absolutely terrific point but I think you were looking for this thread:
http://www.ccsforum.com/index.php/topic,14575.0.html (http://www.ccsforum.com/index.php/topic,14575.0.html)

Quote from: CCS on August 28, 2006, 09:10:41 AM
Hello Super Dave,

in response to your comment of fewer races/more purses, are you willing to pay $200 per class to race? Right now, to break even on a typical Blackhawk event, to have just SuperSport and GP Classes, that would be your entry fee to order to offer $1000 purse in every class and pay the overhead for staff, track rent, insurance, trophies...etc. with just those 16 classes. (And that is only if the entry numbers remained the same, any drop and the fee would be higher.)

How many are willing to pay that price? (it would also get you qualifying races on Saturday, finals on Sunday.)

I would be interested in that.  I'm sure not everyone would.  In that spirit, I feel like having a few more purse paying events during a CCS regional weekend would be good for those that invest the time in coming to more events.

Currently, we have Unlimited GP.  We used to have Sportbike, which I thought should have just been placed into Middleweight Supersport.  Thunderbike would be another great canidate for a purse class.

I don't have perfect answers myself, Kevin.  I wish I did, 'cause I'd like to see the local stuff remain strong, if not be stronger.

If we wanna talk Blackhawk...

I know the entries are decent there, and that's important for the region.  But we have no recognition with any press there.  Now that we're past the CCS of Roger, the CCS of CCE, can we have someone that writes about what happens?  I know I get the opportunity to read what Lisa Theobald writes about stuff in the SE, and the WSMC stuff gets written about quite often.  Yeah, I'll tell riders that they should invest in doing their own press releases, but anything that is written about what happens at Blackhawk is important to the riders and their sponsors, no matter how minor they are.  But this is all a separate issue.

Back to the task at hand...

I would like to see grids based on points for pre-entered riders.  I think Brian Hall forwarded the idea of setting up the first race by order of entry, but I would say by points from the previous season.  I don't have a great idea of how to integrate the new experts that have no expert points or standing into the new season, but that could be figured out.

Grid at least the top 10 in a class by points standings...if they pre-reg

if they post reg then they're thrown in the mix with everyone else. 

Just my $.02 but the current system of gridding sucks imo - I'm not proposing anything really I just like the way I've seen it done other places.....

I started the '02 season racing exclusively WERA. Gridding by points ended up being the main reason I switched to CCS mid-season. I went to every race in my region, from the beginning of the season, and after about 4 rounds, still didn't even have any points! I started out gridded way back and just went further as the season progressed. And I don't think it was because I was slow. I switched to CCS and immediately started finishing consistently in the top 3, and won several regional championships the next season.

Gridding by points gives TOO much advantage to the series regulars. A fast guy who shows up for one race all year should have equal opportunity to win as a series regular. The current system of gridding by order of entry is not ideal, but it comes much closer to realizing that goal than gridding by points.

The fact is, people keep whining about not being able to afford to pre-enter for the whole season at the beginning of the year, and using that as justification for changing to gridding by points. But, my experience is that, if you just pre-enter about a month before each race, you will pretty much always have a grid spot on the first 3 rows or so. And I think that is MORE than good enough. At least, it's way better than giving series regulars a big (unfair) advantage over the occasional racer who is still fast.

All that said, I think lap times (I didn't say qualifying) should determine grids. Everybody out there has a transponder. All the lap times are recorded, for the whole weekend. So, why not just take each rider's best time prior to the race and use that to determine his spot on the grid?

What are the potential downsides that people are going to immediately whine about?

- You can't keep track of which lap times go with which bikes for guys with multiple bikes. And it's not fair to grid somebody in a 600 Supersport race based on their laptimes on their 1000 Superbike.

Response: Who cares? If somebody is fast on their 1000, they're probably going to be nearly as fast on their 600. And the point of this way of gridding is to get the fast guys up front. The grid order isn't deciding the final results of the race. It doesn't have to be absolutely perfect. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to run the race at all. If a guy ends up on the front row because he was gridded based on his 1000 times, when he would have been gridded on the 2nd row, if he was gridded based on his 600 times, well, okay. That's better than gridding him in the last row because he post-entered, or because it's his only CCS race of the season and he has no points. The point is to get the grid in some reasonable semblance of order from fastest to slowest. That is both SAFER and more fair.

- A guy who is racing an EX500 and a 1000 shouldn't be gridded for his 500 race based on his 1000 times. That is too much of an advantage.

Response: I agree. Practice is broken up into groups based on bike size. Bikes of comparable speed are out on the track together. I think lap times for each rider should be tracked by what group he was practicing in. The time used for determing grid spots would be the best time in the practice group applicable to that class. I.e. his grids for his races on his 1000 would be based on his best time from the 1000cc practice sessions. Grids for his 500 races would be based on his best time from the Lightweights practice sessions.

- It would be dangerous to have everybody out there thinking they are "trying to qualify" all the time.

Response: I don't know about you, but all my racer friends always go out for practice trying to turn the best times that they can. I don't see how this would make any difference to anybody. If there were only certain sessions that counted, then yes, I could see some people making a special effort in those sessions. But, when every lap of every session is recorded and counts, then no lap of any session is "special".

- What happens when there's a malfunction and you end up with no lap times from practice for a particular rider (or maybe even all the riders)?

Response: For all the entries without a logged practice time that applies to a class he or she is entered in, grid by order of entry. If there's a total failure and nobody has any lap times, everbody is gridded by order of entry.

Also, everybody should keep in mind that there is business reason for CCS to keep things as they are. It gets more money into CCS' hands and sooner. There ARE people who will send in a bunch of entries really early, just to secure those good grid positions. That money is interest earned for CCS.

Plus, I suspect that they get more entries than they might otherwise by virtue of people who enter early and then later can't make it. Or maybe it's a case where they entered early and then stuff happens later where, if they weren't already entered, they wouldn't enter at all. But since the entry is already paid for, they go ahead and go to the race.

Not to mention the people who only do one or two races a year who wouldn't bother entering at all if they knew they were going to be gridded at the back because they have no points.

Any way you slice it, gridding by order of entry is more of a money-maker for CCS than gridding by points would be. My proposal above somewhat preserves this advantage for CCS.

As I said a couple years ago. Best way. IMO would be 1st 2 rows by points for the region and the rest by entry as usual.

But theres been posts on this before saying they should have qualifying friday. Well alot of people have to work fridays and cant get off work. Then you get the people saying "too bad then". Well guess there will be alot less racers then. Fees then go up.

Then the make satuday qualifying and race sunday. SAme thing. What about people who can only get sat or sunday off?

Then theres the less classes. As Kevin said, fees are gonna go up since more people will probably drop out then.  CCS is CHEAP compared to other racing. IF this got to the point racing bikes costed close to what it was when I raced cars, then I'd just would had went back to racing cars.

Isnt any change thats gonna please everyone but for the majority its better. And as Dave said in other topics, most people only stay 2-3 yrs before quitting anyways.

Quote from: StuartV666 on September 01, 2006, 02:04:43 PMAt least, it's way better than giving series regulars a big (unfair) advantage over the occasional racer who is still fast.

If anyone should be rewarded, it NEEDS to be the regulars, as they finance CCS.

Quote from: StuartV666 on September 01, 2006, 02:04:43 PMAny way you slice it, gridding by order of entry is more of a money-maker for CCS than gridding by points would be.

And there would still be the ability for CCS to continue making money through preentries for grids based on pre entries.


Simple basis for better sportsman type racing is this, my point of view:  keep the organization financed and reward those that commit to showing up.  Qualifying for certain races is good and adds to the show, but it would be cumbersome to do it for all twelve hundred classes.

I`ve read some interesting points from several different people. Some I hadn`t even considered. Some are completely stupid. Without getting into my opinion on who`s totally f-ing stupid I`ll place my vote for whatever financially benefits CCS. I`m gonna go out on a limb and guess that`s probably the current system. There are rumors of too many weekends running at low/no profits right now for ccs to make a change without careful examination of the bottom line. I believe most racers think all racing organizations/promoters are rolling in the cash. Some are.......some are not. Better profits/better staffing/better customer service = a better racing experience.       

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 other 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/or even setup a booth.

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.

Looking at the poll it is currently about 80% for gridding by points in some way and only 20% keeping the same system. CCS are you reading this? If a system is used that more riders prefer it will increase participation.

I'll agree with Tommy that it's important for CCS to be healthy. 

I also feel that riders that race regularly help keep CCS healthy.  Keep them happier, and maybe they will decide to stay around longer than two or three years and enter five races rather than two.

Quote from: StuartV666 on September 01, 2006, 02:04:43 PM
I started the '02 season racing exclusively WERA. Gridding by points ended up being the main reason I switched to CCS mid-season. I went to every race in my region, from the beginning of the season, and after about 4 rounds, still didn't even have any points! I started out gridded way back and just went further as the season progressed. And I don't think it was because I was slow. I switched to CCS and immediately started finishing consistently in the top 3, and won several regional championships the next season.

First of all WERA only gives points back to 15th where CCS gives points back to around 25th or so. If you can't get to the top 25 or even the top 15 by the end of the race before you have points then you probably shouldn't be gridded up front anyway just because you got your pre-entry in early. I find it hard to believe that if you were fast enough to finish top 3 that you couldn't even crack the top 15 even if you were in the back of a 40+ grid.
 

Quote from: ahastings on September 05, 2006, 09:43:24 AM
I find it hard to believe that if you were fast enough to finish top 3 that you couldn't even crack the top 15 even if you were in the back of a 40+ grid.

Heh. :-) Let's see you start somewhere in the middle or back of the 2nd wave on a grid of 40+ riders and get to the top 15 in 6 (or less) laps.

I'm not sure which part you don't believe. You can (probably) check WERA race results from the beginning of '02 for FL region races. I had a couple of 17ths as my best in the 600 SS class. And you can check the CCS records from '03. I won the SE Region Overall Amateur championship (plus a couple of class championships and the Roebling track championship). And I was riding the same '00 R6, with the same motor and suspension, the whole time.

Quote from: Super Dave on September 04, 2006, 02:08:30 PM
If anyone should be rewarded, it NEEDS to be the regulars, as they finance CCS.

That is EXACTLY the attitude that has bothered me so much in dealing with so many WERA regulars over the years. "This is OUR club and we should get preferential treatment."

I think that's a bunch of BS. Every racer should be treated equally. Every racer should (ideally) be able to finish the race in the position that truly reflects how fast they were compared to other people in that race. The, for example, 3rd fastest guy on the track should not be put in a position by the organizers where they can't realistically finish higher than 15th, just because they are not a regular. Rules like that REDUCE the number of entries, not increase them.

Imagine you're a "regular" in a series that grids by points and you start the season finishing well. You're getting good grid spots. Then May rolls around and you crash and break your arm and now you're out until August. August rolls around and you're ready to ride. But now you're so far down in points that you know you're going to be gridded probably in the 2nd wave of any race you enter. How appealing is that? I'd say there's a pretty good chance you might decide to skip some rounds, or maybe the whole rest of the season and, instead, focus on getting ready, physically, logistically, and finanically, for next season.

Now, in contrast, imagine you're a "regular" in CCS (with current gridding rules) and you start the season by pre-entering each race weekend 5 weeks ahead. In my experience with CCS, pre-entering just 4 weeks before has always gotten me a grid spot in the first 3 rows. So, you're still finishing well, just like in the other series. Now, May rolls around, you break your arm, and you're out until August. August rolls around and you're ready to ride. Now, you can still pre-enter 4 or 5 weeks ahead and still have a decent grid spot. How appealing is that?

A series that rewards "regulars" is a series that has decreasing appeal all through the year to the non-regulars. A series that treats everybody equally is, at least to me, a far more appealing one to participate in.

The 2nd scenario seems to me to be much more likely to keep people coming back.

+1

LOL! :ass:

Quote from: StuartV666 on September 06, 2006, 05:01:07 PM
A series that rewards "regulars" is a series that has decreasing appeal all through the year to the non-regulars. A series that treats everybody equally is, at least to me, a far more appealing one to participate in.

The 2nd scenario seems to me to be much more likely to keep people coming back.

Seems like your opinion is from someone that isn't sure what series they go to regularly.

Equality?  When has that existed on a race track?  Ability?  Machinery?  Finances?

If a business shouldn't reward loyalty of it's best customers, then I'm betting the business isn't so healthy.

"666" by your logic I suppose the Daytona ROC shouldn't be gridded by points either. Why should the people running the series all year have an advantage in the grid.
   With CCS points structure, and if they only grid the pre-entries by points, anybody with some points that pre-enters is going to be gridded reasonably near the front.

1. Lap times - determine grid.
2. Points - determine championship.
3. Money - enables the vision.

I know we aren't MotoGP, AMA, or FIM, but each of these organizations
basically follow this structure (leaving politics out of it).
CCS is a great organization and I'm grateful it exists. Obviously this
is not MotoGP, AMA, or FIM, but one of the things they all have in
common is lap times determine gridding position. We all agree that a
qualifing session is not possible (too many classes). However,
lap times recorded during practice sessions is an intriguing idea and
is worthy of consideration. In fact the last MotoGP gridding in Malaysia
(2006) was determined by this method (heavy rains prevented the
qualifing session). This encourages bike setup, which creates
a team mentality and places emphasizes on the need for sponsors.
Sponsors bring the much needed money (a healthy CCS). There are
logistic issues to iron out even with the recorded lap times during
practice, but it can work. The system I like least is pay first play first.
Money should not directly determine grid (indirectly of course it does).
Points is a little better but as StuartV666 has already stated, it doesn't
determine who's fastest on that day, and that's really the whole point
of running a bunch of bikes around a track (who's the quickest).
Lap times during practice gets my vote.

Screw it lets grid up by alphabetical order. Even races z-a, odd races a-z. Then switch to even race a-z and odd races z-a the next weekend.

Or maybe lets grid up by height.

Quote from: Woofentino Pugrossi on September 13, 2006, 03:34:01 PM
Screw it lets grid up by alphabetical order. Even races z-a, odd races a-z. Then switch to even race a-z and odd races z-a the next weekend.

Or maybe lets grid up by height.

But then I ALWAYS grid in the middle! WAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!
8)

So wouldnt I.:biggrin:

Hey Stuart - you still looking for that $2???  ;)

I'll put money on Arnie being gridded at the back of a second wave and making it into the top 15. 

I know many of you may not of thought of this but many people like myself don't chase points.  I run the tracks I like and skip the rest. I race about 6-8 weekends a year. I choose to pre-enter to get a decent grid position, if the gridding goes by points there is no point in me pre-registering correct? So if that weekend roles around and it looks like it may rain would you drive 4-7 hours to race if not pre-registered. Probably not ,you would be more apt to blow it off. See my point? Either way I will still have fun. Oh Arnie the motor is in the bike...MUHAHAHAHAHA

BadMonkey you right. That's all the more reason to grid by lap times recorded during practice. This way regardless of points or who pre-entered first, everybody has a fair shake at making it to the front of the grid.

Quote from: Super Dave on September 06, 2006, 09:45:49 PM
Seems like your opinion is from someone that isn't sure what series they go to regularly.

No, actually, I'm quite sure. Generally (2003 being the exception), I'm not pursuing a Regional championship. So, I'm quite sure I will go to the races that are convenient and at tracks I like. Whether it's CCS or WERA. Though I'm not pursuing a points championship, I do want to win the individual races that I'm in, or as close as possible. That's the point of racing, isn't it? Naturally, when picking and choosing which races I'm going to go to, how I think I can finish factors into the decision. Thus, if I know I can go to a CCS race and get a decent grid spot that will sway me towards CCS over going to a WERA race which is probably going to have me gridded much further back.

Quote from: Super Dave on September 06, 2006, 09:45:49 PM
Equality?  When has that existed on a race track?  Ability?  Machinery?  Finances?

If you don't favor having the sanctioning body provide and promote equality of opportunity for all racers, then I don't think I have anything more to say to you. Personally, I want the same rules for everybody and, to me, the ideal racing series would be one where the winner is purely decided by rider ability. Differences should be in what the riders bring to the table, not what opportunities the sanctioning body gives them. If the riders show up to the track and the organizer says "I'm going to give you a good grid spot because you've been coming to my races often, and I'm going to give you other rider a grid spot at the back because I've never seen you before", that is not giving all the riders equal opportunity in that race.

Quote from: Super Dave on September 06, 2006, 09:45:49 PM
If a business shouldn't reward loyalty of it's best customers, then I'm betting the business isn't so healthy.

Would you go back to a restaurant if you went in for the first time and had to wait for 2 hours because they were full and every time a table opened up, a "regular" who had just walked in got it? I don't know how you run your business, but I do not run mine by rewarding one person's loyalty at the expense of another's. Rewarding loyalty is fine - just not at the expense of another customer.

If CCS actually wants to reward loyalty, I'd suggest track fee discounts for people who race a lot, or reduced license renewal fees after so many years, etc.. There are lots of ways to reward loyalty that don't give one customer an advantage on the track over another.

Quote from: ahastings on September 06, 2006, 09:48:45 PM
"666" by your logic I suppose the Daytona ROC shouldn't be gridded by points either. Why should the people running the series all year have an advantage in the grid.

Ummm, no. The express purpose of the ROC is to award National Championships in each class. It's not awarding points towards some championship. It's awarding the championship itself.

I think it's obvious to everybody that the ROC is fundamentally different in purpose than a regional event, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it further.

Quote from: Mongo on September 14, 2006, 03:36:44 PM
Hey Stuart - you still looking for that $2???  ;)

Well, I'd take it. Not only did I not get a refund from WERA for the race that was declared complete after 2 one-lap redflagged starts (and in which, on neither lap did the entire field pass Start/Finish before the red flag was thrown), I didn't get a refund for the other classes I was entered in that day that never ran at all. Despite the fact that I called the WERA office and asked for them.

Quote from: badmonkey on September 14, 2006, 08:44:57 PM
I know many of you may not of thought of this but many people like myself don't chase points. ...

+1 What he said!

Quote from: StuartV666 on September 19, 2006, 02:14:39 PM
Well, I'd take it. Not only did I not get a refund from WERA for the race that was declared complete after 2 one-lap redflagged starts (and in which, on neither lap did the entire field pass Start/Finish before the red flag was thrown), I didn't get a refund for the other classes I was entered in that day that never ran at all. Despite the fact that I called the WERA office and asked for them.

Nope you didn't, we wanted to be positive you'd become someone elses problem.   

Sometimes people wonder why I say there are some "racers"  I'd love to never have run with us again - then all I need to do is introduce them to people like you.

Quote from: StuartV666 on September 19, 2006, 02:10:37 PM
Ummm, no. The express purpose of the ROC is to award National Championships in each class. It's not awarding points towards some championship. It's awarding the championship itself.

I think it's obvious to everybody that the ROC is fundamentally different in purpose than a regional event, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it further.

So what your saying is the only reason for awarding points at all in the regional series is for ROC grid position since regional championships are irrelevant .
      After you run one round in a series you will have points, and if they grid only the pre-entries by points then you will still get a good grid postion if you pre-enter. Why should someone that can't even crack the top 20 in a race be gridded on the front row because he sends in his entry first, he becomes a hazzard to himself and others around him on the start, I have seen it many times.

Quote from: ahastings on September 19, 2006, 05:51:57 PMWhy should someone that can't even crack the top 20 in a race be gridded on the front row because he sends in his entry first, he becomes a hazzard to himself and others around him on the start, I have seen it many times.

Amen brother.

A few times this season, I've seen a racer who is at least 10 seconds off the pace pre-register early enough that he's on the front row, effectively bumping back other racers who need to get to the first turn with the leaders in order to challenge for the win. I always wonder, why does he do that?? It's an accident waiting to happen. His finish will not be affected by his grid position. For others, it matters.

+1

I never pre-register cause I know I'm not fast enough yet. So I'm just happy to get out and do what I love to do race. :thumb: When I get faster and even faster then that then I'll pre-register but until then I hit my marks stay on my
line and enjoy the race 8).

Why should someone who can't afford to make it to every event be penalized to the back of the grid because he doesn't have enough points from the events he couldn't attend. Pre-register is even worse because it has nothing to do with skill. I agree points is marginally better than pre-register, but lap times recorded during practice solves the problem, and is equitable for all.

OK now what if one of the fast guys cant get out for practice due to issues beyond their control? Then what? What about people who dont have their transmitter on during practice or its on their other bike? Or what about people with 2 different class bikes that practice is together (ie Thunderbikes and lightweights)?

Seriously do you really want to have people out in practice trying to set record speeds when there may be some people who are trying to sort out an issue with their bike before the race? STart gridding by practice lap times, theres gonna be ALOT of red flags.

what if one of the fast guys can't get out for practice due to issues beyond their control?

if that's happening every race then i said the guy has bigger issues, but the more likely
scenario is it happens to him rarely and then he's placed in the back of the grid because he
has no recorded laptimes, but if he's truly fast then for the remaining classes of that day
(or season) he still has a fair shake at setting quick laps during practice for grid placement.
and is this any different than someone who couldn't come up with the money because of something
beyond their control? seriously now, nobody can predict things beyond their control and even
the best in the world have to deal with it.

What about people who don't have their transmitter on during practice

that's like saying he forgot to put fuel in the bike, the guy either doesn't
care about grid position or as soon he finishes lap one of practice
he's gonna look down for his timer and realize it's time to pull into the pits
and correct the problem. if lap times determine grid this just ain't gonna happen
very often.

(transmitter) on their other bike?
some innovative attachment systems would be solve this one pretty quick.
but i do admit 2 transmitters may be needed and this would be an additional expense.

what about people with 2 different class bikes that practice is together?
(ie Thunderbikes and lightweights)

how hard is it to tell all thunderbike riders to report to a marshall who
receives their best lap time. afterwards (or another marshall) receives the
best lap times for lightweights. as far as being slowed up by different
classes on the track, it's still fair because everybody is riding under the
same conditions. no one in thunderbike gains an advantage over other thunderbike
riders because they all have to deal with the lightweights being on the track.

Seriously do you really want to have people out in practice trying to set
record speeds when there may be some people who are trying to sort out an
issue with their bike before the race?

Whether you agree or not i don't know, but this is already happening.
some on the track are working out setup while others already have
established setup and are working on setting their consistent race pace
(which by the way they are looking at their lap timer to determine this).
all you got to do is watch a AMA or MotoGP practice and you'll see the
same thing happening time and time again. Do some laps, change setup, do
some more laps, near the end of the practice session drop the hammer and
set your best lap times. all over the world this is how it's done. like i
already said before, i know we're not AMA or MotoGP, but we could
definitely borrow from them what works.

Quote from: ahastings on September 19, 2006, 05:51:57 PM
So what your saying is the only reason for awarding points at all in the regional series is for ROC grid position since regional championships are irrelevant .

I have re-read all my posts in this thread and I can't find a single one (of MY posts) that supports this statement. And I happen to completely disagree with it. I think the Regional Championships are MORE meaningful than the ROC. The ROC is one race, at a track that is completely different than pretty much all the other tracks we race at. Winning there is very presitigious, but I don't think it really says as much as the prestige accorded it implies. I mean, almost any reasonably fast guy can win one race. Heck, even I have won a few (unfortunately, not at Daytona). But, in my mind, winning a race at Daytona doesn't automatically make you a faster racer than the guys who won the Regional Championships. You might be, but winning one race at Daytona doesn't prove it (in my mind). Unfortunately, there really is no other way to choose a National Champion of a class that has only been contested through the season in different Regional Series. It's kinda like how the NCAA football championship used to be before the bowl coalition. It was not unusual for the "National Champ" to not be the team that most people thought was really the best that year.

Quote from: Mongo on September 19, 2006, 05:06:32 PM
Nope you didn't, we wanted to be positive you'd become someone elses problem.   

Sometimes people wonder why I say there are some "racers"  I'd love to never have run with us again - then all I need to do is introduce them to people like you.

Ouch! Please tell me what I have done to make you feel that way.

I have posted on your BBS questions and comments that were intended to open a dialog for everyone to participate in or be aware of, and to, hopefully, yield improvements in racetrack proceedings, *especially* regarding rider safety, and fair treatment for all racers. I believe I have avoided stooping to insults or namecalling. I believe I have also always posted true statements, when presenting data of a factual nature, and been clear when I was simply stating my opinion. And even been polite and courteous through it all. I realize that some folks in the WERA community seemed to not like my posting of my observations, or my own suggestions relating to those observations, for some reason, which, honestly, I have never understood.

For example, if you'll recall, I posted several years ago a suggestion to put transponders on all bikes at regional events and use electronic scoring and also to use practice times to establish grids. I suggested this, in part, as I explained at the time, because I think it is crucial to rider safety. Especially when you're talking about WERA-sized grids of 50 - 60 Novices on 600cc bikes. WERA regulars call that one the Meatgrinder Class for a reason. I was virtually crucified on the WERA BBS for this. You yourself (Mongo) responded that it would be too expensive. I think you quoted a cost of around $250K. And said that it was impossible. I think it was the next season that CCS started doing this and the season after that that WERA did it (except for the grid position part). Apparently, it wasn't a bad idea or impossibly expensive after all.

Beyond BBS postings, is there anything I have ever done in person, on the racetrack, on anywhere else, that would prompt you to want me to run me off? I do not mind having my "dirty laundry" aired for all to see. If I have behaved inappropriately, posted false information, or given any other reason to want to "run me off", I don't mind the world knowing about it, and I will be happy to have an opportunity to know about it and to apologize.

So, how about it? Have I done something legitimately asinine? Or is it just my persistence in constructive criticism? I hope it's more than annoyance at my requests for improvements that would cause you to purposely withhold a refund I was due.

My opinion is that you write about racing with a sense of entitlement.  I think that might be similar his feelings, maybe not.


As for a one event championships...

There are lots of them.  Examining a list of winners is interesting. 

What does that mean? "write about racing with a sense of entitlement"

The only things I feel entitled to are spending my money with whatever race sanctioning body I chose to, and treatment in accordance with published policies and rulebooks.

CCS has always treated me fairly and in accordance with policies and the rulebook. I have no beef there.

As to who I choose to spend my money with, as a customer I have two choices. One, I can review the options available to me, pick whatever one is most palatable, and just go. Or, if I find that even the best option still has some aspects that aren't my ideal, I can try to work within the organization and its rules and policies to promote change.

As it happens, I have been racing with CCS. And I mostly like the way things are done and the racing opportunities it affords me. However, I am always interested in improving rider safety when I see a chance. And as a sportsman, I am always interested in participating in the most fair competition I can.

To me, safety and fairness are the two most important things a race sanctioning body can offer its customers. And, I think doing a good job at those two will inevitably lead to a healthy business for the sanctioning body.

Safety and fairness are both very good reasons for gridding riders based on how fast they are. And the most accurate assessment of that available to us (that I know of) is recording of practice times. I've already gone into great detail on this in earlier posts. Including my opinion on questions like "how can you grid him in XYZ class based on his times from practice on his ABC bike," so I won't do it again here.

And I still await a response from Mongo. I would really like to know if I've done something that deserves being run off. If so, if there's anything I can do to make it right. But, not speaking out on behalf of safety and fairness is not an option.

Stuart - you quite simply do nothing more than complain and you do so about the most irrelevant to anyone but you things.  It is much much more than just "constructive criticism" which is the ever so cute fall back of the constant complainer.  That is why most people were giving you grief over the whole $2 thing - you were acting like an idiot who is in his own little world and cannot see anything outside of that narrow view.  It is always about you, not about the group as a whole.  You only promote change that you feel will be good for you because as you've proven in the past you are unable to see what may be better for the organization as a whole. 

The transponder issue was brought up long before you even started racing so it was far from a new idea sorry (again, that's what I'm talking about with regard to not seeing the larger picture).  The $250k pricetage was accurate if we were to give riders transponders, we did not, they have instead paid for them or rented them - another item I'm sure you disagree with.  Gridding via practice times is impractical with combined groups and would make practice a qualifying session increasing the danger not decreasing it. 

I'm so glad you waited for me, as you may have noticed this is the CCS board so I do not read it every day. 

Quote from: Mongo on October 04, 2006, 07:33:31 PM
Stuart - you quite simply do nothing more than complain and you do so about the most irrelevant to anyone but you things.  It is much much more than just "constructive criticism" which is the ever so cute fall back of the constant complainer.

This is from thefreedictionary.com:

"Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one."

I find that to be an acceptable definition of "constructive criticism", and, as such, do not believe that your statement is accurate. I have never just gotten on your BBS and whined. I have always made observations (facts, which you construe as complaints) and proposed alternatives for dealing with the situations that those observations stemmed from. That IS constructive criticism.

When my observations and proposals have been about rider safety, you are absolutely correct about one thing - they ARE about me. I'm the one paying my money and going out there in "the meatgrinder class" (not my term). Discussion of grid positions is all about rider safety. My safety. Not yours.

When my observations and proposals have been about officials standing around drinking coffee on Sunday morning right next to a long line of riders waiting to go through registration, instead of opening a little early, and thereby allowing said riders to actually make their one and only practice session of the weekend, it is, yup, you guessed it, once again about RIDER SAFETY. MY safety. Yup, it's all about me again. Guys who don't get ANY practice (especially Novices at a track for the first time) are not going to be nearly as safe as they could be when they go out for their race.

I'll grant you, I'm not sure my comments about a refund would be properly considered constructive criticism. I mean, I'm not sure what there is constructive to say when being critical of the fact that I didn't get a refund on entry fees for multiple races that never ran (because the organizers figured out that afternoon that their contract with the track required them to be done by 5:00 or something like that). So yeah, that one was all about me whining.

When transponders were discussed, I never said anything about who had to pay for them. I own my own business. I know just as well as you do, that no matter where you put it in the budget, ultimately, the customer (in this case, the racers, generally speaking) will have to pay for it. Which is why I felt like it was a pretty cheap cop-out to throw out a price tag and just say "we can't afford it." It was pablum for the masses, maybe, but not anybody who knows how businesses stay in business. And that's also why I don't have any issue with your policy of people renting or buying them. Your model is that way. CCS' model is different. Either way, the cost is built in to what the racers pay, and that should be obvious to anybody.

You mentioned things like "the larger picture" and "the organization as a whole". It seems to me that what those phrases boil down to are "what makes your organization the money". As in, "we don't want to take steps to make 600 Novice grids a safe size because less entries would mean money out of our pockets." Of course, it's just my opinion, but I think 4 waves of 600 Novices at VIR or Road Atlanta is simply not safe. Especially when you have also tried to jam so much into the schedule that you have to shorten the races to 4 laps each. 600 Novices in a 4 wave, 4 lap race?! And you're worried about how people are going to ride if you tell them their *practice* is timed and will determine grid positions?!?!

When "the larger picture" and the good of "the organization as a whole" mean "collect as many entry fees as possible and let them decide for themselves if it's safe or not - they don't have to race if they don't want to" - I guess those kind of race weekends are simply to be expected. Don't get me wrong. Like I said, I run my own business, too. I would never ask you to lose money on my behalf. I want WERA and CCS to be successful, so I can race with them both. And I know that you have to be making money to do that. What I want is safe, fair racing, and I'll pay the entry fees that it takes to get that. And, based on my racing with CCS, I think safe, fair racing can be provided for entry fees that are around the prices they are now. I haven't seen the CCS books, so I'm just making an assumption here that CCS is at least break-even or close as it has currently been running.

And let me also be the first to say that I haven't raced with your organization since 2002. If things are different now, please say so and, if you don't mind, share some info on what steps your took to effect those changes. I would LOVE to hear that things have improved.

Finally, and to bring this thread back on-topic, does any disagree that gridding by practice times would make the races safer?

If not, then neither Mongo nor anybody else has actually addressed the details I have proposed on how a procedure could be implemented to get practice times and explained WHY it is "impractical". So how about it?

When I started racing with WERA, grids for Sunday were set by having 4-lap heat races on Saturday. If timing practice would result in carnage, I would have thought that those heat races back then would have been even worse. I mean, instead of getting times from all your practice all weekend to get a grid spot, you only had one 4-lap chance to blaze your fastest laps and get a good grid spot. Yet, those heat races were not carnage that I ever saw. In fact, they were less so than the actual races. I mean, if you have to make a dicey pass to win a race, yes, you might do it. But, if the dicey pass is just to get one spot better on the grid for the real race, are you really going to risk throwing your bike away and hurting yourself? No.

So, instead of just throwing out an unsupported opinion, if you want to participate in the discussion on gridding, how about taking a few minutes to actually address the details of how it might be done. Instead of a can't do attitude (for example, "we can't put transponders on everybody's bikes. It would cost $250K and we can't afford it. End of story."), how about a can-do attitude? For example: "Timing practice would possibly result in people getting gridded for a 600 race based on their 1000 times. Is that really a problem, and, if so, how might we address it?"

ps. *I* would say that name calling (for example, calling someone an idiot) is the ever (not-) so cute fallback of somebody who doesn't have facts to support their point of view.

pps. Thank you for responding to my earlier post. You probably think I'm being insincere when I say that, but I'm not. I really appreciate any time you, Mongo (and Kevin and Eric), give to us racers in discussing the problems that the organizations and the racers have and sharing your insights regarding possible solutions. Even though we obviously don't agree on everything, I do realize that you run a successful organization and you've seen a lot more racing and talked to a lot more racers than I have. And I like to think, anyway, that my mind is open enough to change when presented with a sound, logical argument. I just need to have it explained to me when (and why) I'm wrong, that's all. As you know, I'll keep asking "why?", when all I'm told is "it's impractical."

About 80% believe that gridding by points is valuable.

Quote from: badmonkey on August 24, 2006, 10:27:08 PM
And how many people go to every race but are slow, so you want them up front? I can start  from the 5th and 6th row and still be in the top 5 by turn one. Try practicing your starts...LOL

With the current pre-entry you still have that slow guy up front.

Mark

Of the regulars, the riders that get more points will eventually migrate toward the front more so than the slower riders with lower finishes.  Starts are always going to be a bit more dangerous than other times on the track. 

I just feel that regular CCS customers should be rewarded for their loyalty with reasonable grids. 

Grid by pre-entry and performance index. If a racer shows up the day of he is at the back of the pack.

Mark

So, if a rider enters one race and wins...well, they are a shoe in on the pole when they return.

But a rider that is commited to CCS, races seven races, wins six and gets second in the seventh, they will be gridded "behind" the racer that has only done one race. 

That's why I felt that doing it by points was the most reasonable way.

Not sure if it matters or not as CCS has closed the rules proposal period.

It doesn't matter, because they are gonna run their organization they want to anyway. I am just glad I get a place to ride, race and enjoy my hobby afterall this is club-racing.

Mark

Quote from: roadracer162 on October 10, 2006, 09:50:36 AM
It doesn't matter, because they are gonna run their organization they want to anyway. I am just glad I get a place to ride, race and enjoy my hobby afterall this is club-racing.

Mark

:thumb:

Well, they would like to have more riders racing.  And I have personally gotten two rules changed.  If one can give them valid reasons that might help, they do appreciate it.

Whats the point? or points.

Quote from: Super Dave on October 10, 2006, 04:52:08 PM
Well, they would like to have more riders racing.  And I have personally gotten two rules changed.  If one can give them valid reasons that might help, they do appreciate it.

Quote from: Super Dave on October 10, 2006, 04:52:08 PM
Well, they would like to have more riders racing.  And I have personally gotten two rules changed.  If one can give them valid reasons that might help, they do appreciate it.

Dave,

I did try that route last year. I do agree with all the points in your statement. I am just speculating but I would guess that your input (being more known) carries more input than me (a literal nobody to this community).

I cited having more of a mix in the LW classes then I started thinking that the mix is coming in the form of the Ducati. Then more people are more likely to run a Ducati rather than a FZR or even an F2.

It will be LW F40 and Thunderbike for me and my old bike unless I go ahead and run in GTU. Ok go ahead start laughing.

Mark

Quote from: Super Dave on October 10, 2006, 08:16:34 AM
About 80% believe that gridding by points is valuable.

There was only 3 choices to choose from and 2 of them
had points included in the answer. Is that really an equitable balance
among answers? It would of been a lot more balanced and appealing
if "lap times during practice" was included.

i dont see any problem with griding by point with preenterying and then just do order of entry for any oen who doesnt preenter. all though running to the bike would be fun its way to dangerous and is an accident waiting to happen but i like your way of thinking!

They give out the transponders. It would be a little work but I think they should grid by your fastest practice times.

Problems occur when a rider has two or more bikes.  There's no way to effectively regulate a time on one bike being different than a riders other bike. 

oh, i always thought about why they didn't do it that way.

i'd say by points then. the ones with the most points should be up front i would think then. stands to reason anyway.

Quote from: Court Jester on October 18, 2006, 01:17:51 PM
They give out the transponders. It would be a little work but I think they should grid by your fastest practice times.

This has the potential to turn practice into a race. The danger level would go way up. In practice I don't make passes I would make
in a race. People would start to do crazy stuff to get a better starting spot.

Quote from: tzracer on October 20, 2006, 10:31:21 AM
This has the potential to turn practice into a race. The danger level would go way up. In practice I don't make passes I would make
in a race. People would start to do crazy stuff to get a better starting spot.

I keep hearing how much more dangerous lap times during practice is, but CCS decision making based purely on speculation would be bad methodology. WERA and others use this method often without it being more dangerous. Just for those that don't believe it, here it is straight from WERA's rule book Chapter 8 Sub 3:

WERA will have the scoring system RUNNING DURING PRACTICE and WILL PRINT LAP TIMES to allow riders to verify their transponder is working. WERA will have transponders for sale as well as for rent. Rental fees will be $60 for the event, any transponder not returned to WERA at the event will result in a $100 fine

There it is folks in black and white. And yes I WOULD be willing to pay $60 per weekend to make this happen.

Quote from: Super Dave on October 18, 2006, 10:03:41 PM
Problems occur when a rider has two or more bikes.  There's no way to effectively regulate a time on one bike being different than a riders other bike. 

This just isn't true. Two bikes, two transponders. Pretty simple!

Is it?  That could potentially increase the inventory needed for events dramatically to cover multiple bike racers, replace those broken or lost in crashes...and that transponders can be incorrectly placed on a bike.

As for practice.  Practice is the best opportunity to test one's set up.  If you do 1:20's during practice, is it really safe to try and go so much faster without knowing what your bike will do?  In traffic?  In a turn three wide? 

Quote from: jryer on October 20, 2006, 01:54:09 PM
WERA will have the scoring system RUNNING DURING PRACTICE and WILL PRINT LAP TIMES to allow riders to verify their transponder is working. WERA will have transponders for sale as well as for rent. Rental fees will be $60 for the event, any transponder not returned to WERA at the event will result in a $100 fine

There it is folks in black and white. And yes I WOULD be willing to pay $60 per weekend to make this happen.

Well, you have to have a transmitter to race, period.  And CCS, at least where we are, does print out the lap times. 

What do you do when your transmitter dies?  What do you do when the whole system goes down?  Manual timing on a full compliment of bikes would be hard during practice unless you had that kind of system and manpower available.

Quote from: Super Dave on October 20, 2006, 07:14:28 PM
Well, you have to have a transmitter to race, period.  And CCS, at least where we are, does print out the lap times. 

What do you do when your transmitter dies?  What do you do when the whole system goes down?  Manual timing on a full compliment of bikes would be hard during practice unless you had that kind of system and manpower available.

Yeah I know and what if the sky falls? We can always come up with reasons and
excuses for NOT changing. For sure no one can say it's NOT being done, because IT IS being done
and WERA is proof of that. In a nut shell, WE CAN do it if we really want to. If it's decided NO then ok, but just don't say it's not possible, too dangerous or million other excuses that really are already proven invalid by WERA.

LOL!

Well, the sky hasn't fallen.  But the ideas I have given have happened. 

It's really up to Kevin Elliott and the amount of work that would be required, and who would have to be there to do it.


Does WERA grid its club races by practice times?

Quote from: Super Dave on October 20, 2006, 07:11:43 PM
Is it?  That could potentially increase the inventory needed for events dramatically to cover multiple bike racers, replace those broken or lost in crashes...and that transponders can be incorrectly placed on a bike.

As for practice.  Practice is the best opportunity to test one's set up.  If you do 1:20's during practice, is it really safe to try and go so much faster without knowing what your bike will do?  In traffic?  In a turn three wide? 

Listen I know we aren't WERA, but obviously they have already addressed those issues and we could do the same. In fact the same chapter in their rule book covers almost all of what you mentioned.

"... go so much faster without knowing what your bike will do?  In traffic?  In a turn three wide?"
what's up with the extreme scenarios? go fast little by little until the bike lets you know the true limit. pick a less traffic-ed part of a track before you start your runs.

Quote from: Super Dave on October 20, 2006, 08:56:26 PM
LOL!

Well, the sky hasn't fallen.  But the ideas I have given have happened. 

It's really up to Kevin Elliott and the amount of work that would be required, and who would have to be there to do it.


Does WERA grid its club races by practice times?

I don't believe WERA is gridding all its races by practice times and we don't have to neither.

Exactly.  They don't.  And there's a reason for that.  For club racing, it's really impracticle, in my opinion.  And is it necessary?  It's club racing.  Maybe for a club national championship like ASRA or WERA National Challenge, I think it's necessary for making some of that club racing part of a bigger show...and, obviously, the AMA needs timed everything because it is the "big show", and the times are used.  Example is Mid-Ohio where Supersport was gridded by Friday practice times...the only time the Supersport bikes were on track before the Sunday race.

We'll see what is done by CCS if anything.  I didn't submit a rule.  I don't know if anyone did. 

WERA won't grid by practice times - first and foremost because it's practice, not qualifying.  Secondly, the way we have to run practice to get everyone the most time possible we cannot separate the classes out, so we wouldn't be able to tell if a guy is running slicks on a time for a Superstock grid, or if he's on a 1000 putting down times for his 750 class entries.  It would take too much time and manpower to do it properly and it's not feasible for club racing.  Unless of course you all want the orgs to nuke 3/4 of our classes and charge a lot more to pay the bills.  Then we could do it.

Quote from: Mongo on October 21, 2006, 02:37:27 PM
WERA won't grid by practice times - first and foremost because it's practice, not qualifying.  Secondly, the way we have to run practice to get everyone the most time possible we cannot separate the classes out, so we wouldn't be able to tell if a guy is running slicks on a time for a Superstock grid, or if he's on a 1000 putting down times for his 750 class entries.  It would take too much time and manpower to do it properly and it's not feasible for club racing.  Unless of course you all want the orgs to nuke 3/4 of our classes and charge a lot more to pay the bills.  Then we could do it.

Stop talking sense.  :biggrin:

Ever since the orgs decide there had to be a class for every freakin two wheeled conveyance in existence club racing has been screwed up in my little humble opinion.

It has screwed up gridding, practice, race laps, etc. etc. etc. because it limits the time to do things right.

Go ahead and flame away.

No, I won't.  You and I remember a day of heat races at club events to determine final grid positions. 

Was that before the population explosion of lawyers? :biggrin:

Quote from: Super Dave on October 21, 2006, 08:58:44 AM
We'll see what is done by CCS if anything.  I didn't submit a rule.  I don't know if anyone did. 

I submitted a proposal to grid by points or pre-entered riders by points as I have for the last 2 years now along with some other proposals.

Nice job!   :thumb:

From me at least.

Our problem with going back to the good old days is back in the day the expenses were miniscule compared to now.  We can't raise the fees enough to remove classes. 

All of the orgs can give you more track time and do things differently - but you'll have to pay for it.  The bills will actually go up if we have less people through the gate.

Quote from: Mongo on October 23, 2006, 08:46:26 AM


All of the orgs can give you more track time and do things differently - but you'll have to pay for it.  The bills will actually go up if we have less people through the gate.

+1 If it gets close to how much it costs to run cars, I'll go back to racing cars.

Quote from: Super Dave on August 24, 2006, 06:21:42 PM
While I would love to see a program rather than a slew of races like we have now...

Qualifying for every race is impractical for the current system of so many differeent classes.

Grid pre entered riders by points, then post entered riders by order of entry.  +1

+ 1.   POINTS!

Quote from: Super Dave on October 21, 2006, 08:58:44 AM
Exactly.  They don't.  And there's a reason for that.  For club racing, it's really impracticle, in my opinion.  And is it necessary?  It's club racing.  Maybe for a club national championship like ASRA or WERA National Challenge, I think it's necessary for making some of that club racing part of a bigger show...and, obviously, the AMA needs timed everything because it is the "big show", and the times are used.  Example is Mid-Ohio where Supersport was gridded by Friday practice times...the only time the Supersport bikes were on track before the Sunday race.

We'll see what is done by CCS if anything.  I didn't submit a rule.  I don't know if anyone did. 

It would still be nice to have at least of few select races where grid is determined by lap times. At least those that want a fair shot at grid position could have a go at it. Maybe it doesn't have to be every race but at least a few would be cool. Points still leaves anybody who can only afford a few races a year an unfair advantage at the back of the grid.

That's why I do Unlimited Grand Prix and ASRA and AMA events.  Sorry, Mongo, I haven't done a WERA race since 1991, I think.  Just hasn't been one close in a long time...

The wonderful world of high speed computers and we can't change entry input? Maybe a little testing could be done to see if it's possible? Create a race weekend for testing purposes and try it.

I'm sure two people on decent lap tops could grid by points without a problem. Maybe cut entry time a little earlier so there's more time to get it done? Saturday mornings would be the only hectic time. Only Saturdays races need to be done. During the race day Saturday one person could start Sundays entries then all there is to do Sunday is whoever shows up that day which  is normally not  a lot.

I voted for gridding by points on pre-entry. I hate the fact that right now the rich kid can pre-reg for the whole season and get pole the entire year.  :wtf:

This is a very interesting debate and this year was my first year racing and this is my first post on this board......is this really being considered in the smallest bit or are we just pipe dreaming?

my first season i only ran a few race weekends and i wanted to be in the back. this year i ran one race (cause i got bugged up pretty ugly in a wreck that weekend) but i got stuck in the back because i didn't get reg. early and wasn't sure i would make it. i gridded up on the inside of the last row and shot from there up to third by turn one. it's fun as hell to have to fight to get to the front, but i have to admit, passing 12 or 14 people because you've got your chest on the wind screen and your chin as low as you can stretch your neck isn't the safest way for anybody on the track.
it couldn't be that damn hard to pick out the names on race day and line them up by points. it would sure be safer to not have a slew of fast guys gritting their teeth in the back row.

whats up jester, hows life been treatin ya man?

so far so good. i'm alive. beats the alternative.
do i know you? i have a hell of a time with names.

Quote from: Court Jester on November 02, 2006, 01:41:44 PM
this year i ran one race (cause i got bugged up pretty ugly in a wreck that weekend) but i got stuck in the back because i didn't get reg. early and wasn't sure i would make it. i gridded up on the inside of the last row and shot from there up to third by turn one.

  Which weekend were you at?

mid-america in the spring

CCS should get with WSMC there system of gridding by points worked just fine

Quote from: proechel539 on November 11, 2006, 05:51:08 PM
CCS should get with WSMC there system of gridding by points worked just fine

AHRMA also grids by points. The only difference is that neither of these organizations has multiple regions, but CCS already deals with that issue at ROC.

ahrma is no more...

Quote from: badmonkey on November 11, 2006, 10:22:28 PM
ahrma is no more...

Hardly. They filed Chapter 11 to reorganize and get relief from a pretty nasty lawsuit. They plan to run a full schedule next season.

http://www.ahrma.org/whatsnew.htm