Link to changes both approved and denied (http://www.ccsracing.us/forms/2008/rules/2008%20rule%20change%20requests%20determinations%20v2.pdf)
Discuss!
can someone explain this to this dense brain of mine:
Ultra-Light Superbike
Request: Allow 650cc water cooled twins
Action: Approved
The other bikes in this class have come up while the level of the SV650 and Ninja 650s has been
eclipsed by other machines in the Lightweight classes. This places 3 models with 70hp/350lbs
try this thread: http://www.ccsforum.com/index.php/topic,18980.0.html
What kinda crazy crap is this? old inline 4 in Lightweight are just what they have done with watercooled twins in Ultra. Where is that argument that we don't change the rules to make a technically faster or more dominant bike now a smaller class bike?
Dave?
Mark
I think its of the DOESN'T MAKE SENSE variety.
"Request: Change CCS grids to set by points
Action: Denied
The majority of racers prefer grids set by entry date for entry level racing"
How was this measured? "Grid by points" seems to have the popular support of the membership here doesn't it?
Why would you not grid by points? That doesn't make any sense to me.
What's after Ultra Lightweight? Super Duper Really Light, Lightweight? :biggrin:
I'm over on the other thread.
I'm a bit shocked by some of the approved changes.
A similar thing happened in 2003 or so where CCS decided that, because of rider input, that experts would practice first in the morning. That was a big change as experts had always held the opportunity of being late in the rotation. Even some of the amateurs commented that that was one of the nice points of being an expert and what made them want to be experts.
Invariably, squeeky wheels get grease, I guess.
Where's K3 with his low budget ideas?
Quote from: Ridgeway on November 16, 2007, 12:49:15 PM
"Request: Change CCS grids to set by points
Action: Denied
The majority of racers prefer grids set by entry date for entry level racing"
How was this measured? "Grid by points" seems to have the popular support of the membership here doesn't it?
That's what I'm wondering. Did I miss the poll/vote?
Now it's even more certain that I absolutely won't be racing the DR650 anymore. I used to take it out in ULWSB. Even on the tightest of tracks I'll kick my own ass on the DR with my SV, lap times are not even close.
Agreed, I can run 4 seconds faster on my SS SV than my SB Hawk at BHF.
Quote from: Ridgeway on November 16, 2007, 12:49:15 PM
"Request: Change CCS grids to set by points
Action: Denied
The majority of racers prefer grids set by entry date for entry level racing"
How was this measured? "Grid by points" seems to have the popular support of the membership here doesn't it?
Right. WTF. I must have missed the poll too. I thought from what I remember it was overwhelmingly in favor of grid by points. At least they could be honest and make up an excuse that half way sounds good. It has been
like this for as long as I remember, at least since 1990, and will probably
be like this till pigs fly.
:preachon: Could not get the cut and paste to work, but with regards to the
qualifying, under the procedures section. You've got to be freeking kidding
me. Why not just again be honest and say takes too much time and money. People could live with that. I would be ok with that. But to say that the
pressure would be too much is just ridiculous. It is entry level racing but
I don't think it was suggested to qual. for every class. And if the pressure
is just too great than don't race that class. Eventually some people are
going to want to move on and they are going to have to qual. I mean lets get
real why not have a pedicure station right at pit out so if you are too wound
up then you can relax before the big race. That is why we race, competition,
pressure, adrenalin, etc. None of us really have a chance to change any
of the decisions but at least be honest with us. Too much pressure, PFFFT.
Done venting,
Thanks I feel better
Track days are looking a lot better.
Mark
"Request: Weight limits be combined rider and machine
Action: Denied
The addition of weight to a rider is too easy to accomplish through exchange of gear or the
addition of fluids, which the denial of could be considered a safety hazard after a race"
The last part of this made me laugh... I can just see racers loading up on food and drink before the weigh in, only to go and purge themselves afterwards.
Pedicure station at pit out.... Pretty fun for an old man Pallellllllaa.... You freaking sandbagger.
Sv's in UL, wow.
I have a hard time believing that the majority of racers prefer grids based on entry date.
Next thing you know, overall championships will be determined by who enters the most races ..
Oh wait ... :biggrin:
I say they ban beer from their rules meetings..............
"Request: Allow Sparking Knee/Toe Sliders
Action: Denied
The overwhelming consensus from corner marshals and those riders behind others with
"Sparkies" is that they are an unneeded distraction."
That one was a joke right?
From the emails I have received there is some question as to the thoughts behind changes and what the exact wording of the rules will be.
Sorry to have been so brief in the original outline of rules committees outcomes in regard to why some things have been allowed/disallowed and what the actual rule wording would be. Most of the exact rule wording has not been determined but obviously there has been some confusion on displacement limits between classes as I did not list what those would be.
In Ultra-Lightweight SuperBike the displacement limit for a 4 valve water cooled twin would be 650cc (not 700, 750 or 800 cc) Lightweight SuperSport, Grand Prix and SB would have its limit raised to 800cc for a water cooled non-desmo twin.
All of the rule changes were looked at strictly from a fairness aspect, my part of this business is strictly the on-track activities and insuring everyone is treated equal and classes are balanced. The rules' committees fall under this same instruction. While the income obviously plays a part in the continued existence of CCS fair classes and rules are the issue at hand. The rules are fairly static and we try to keep it that way, as new bikes come out that are of the sporting racing type we do try to evaluate what is happening to the classes that they fit into under the current rules and if that seems appropriate to class structure. CCS racing is about current model racing, not vintage or classic, on one hand that would be a lot easier in determining where bikes fit as they have a past history to work form on the other hand vintage racing is a stagnant form of racing while very cool and has its place there are no new innovations for the class.
Which leads us to the notes I have from recommendation to make a shift in allowing the water cooled 650cc twins into Ultra-Lightweight. The current crop of large displacement air cooled twins that were already legal in Lightweight have come up in power and resulted in many comments from the smaller water cooled bike riders that those machines do not belong there. When results were inspected the air cooled large bore twins showed a huge disparity in the overall finish over the once dominant 650 water cooled twin when raced head to head. This has been a gradual shift over the last few years and is not indicative of any one region but the country as a whole as some tracks have not seen the influx of the A/C bikes or they are still in development whereas there are several riders that have multi year development into water cooled machines.
Simple directive was to see if there was an error in race classes or where the lightweight lines are and should they be redrawn. The top level LW bikes were determined to not be close to MW machines, meaning you couldn't move the larger A/C machines up, so the other aspect evaluated was moving some of the lower HP bikes to the next lower class. Spec sheets were inspected for the top hp/ lightest weight bikes in the Ultra-Light class and it showed that there were multiple machines that made more hp than bikes that were excluded from the class ie liquid cooled 4 valve 650 twins. A comparison of lap times of ULSB and LSS was showing a disparity in that ULSB lap times were faster than LSS, this for a class that has theoretically slower machines. Next step was that that there were no current production sport bikes made that fit ultra-lightweight found and the hp numbers of the current production models that are raced. (IE Motard have near similar power output and much lower weight, but generally have a top speed limit due to gearing availability.) So weight-top speed was considered a push at worst, as the design of machines towards factory produced SuperMoto machines will see the street gearing needed installed in these machines in the very near future.
At this point I do not see time to have rules committee reconvene but I personally will take and do reviews of hard evidence that reflects why this should be reexamined, that based on notes was pretty thoroughly examined, should be changed, reversed, delayed, or other action taken.
800cc water cooled non-desmo twin in Lightweight and ThunderBike classes. We do not feel that this machine is out of line or performance with the other machines' capabilities in these fields. This is not an overdog or an underdog and should fit neatly in the middle of this very diverse race environment.
125GP The 250 4 stroke was allowed as that is the direction that other 125GP racing is headed both on a national and international level with these similar output motors in purpose built frames. Currently we are not going to require the purpose built frame in order to compete in the 125GP class but may be changed to a purpose built or street based frame in the future.
Upon review of requests for changes to grid procedure, one theme stood out, that griding by points was rewarding the loyal customer. The flaw with that is if your loyal customer finishes say 15th in 7 races, he scores 70 points, while a "contingency hunter" only races and wins twice has the same 70 points, who deserves to rewarded? The loyal customer or the contingency hunter? Grids by order of entry gives all riders the opportunity to start towards the front.
Also in response to the request to grid by points, a comparison was made to other organizations that do grid by points and everywhere there was head to head competition within that geographical area entry date was preferred, by 45% more entries for entry date to points. Now granted there are differences other than just griding methods that may be reason that CCS sees more entries than other organizations in these areas of head to head competition such as classes, rules enforcement, officials, racers, tracks, pricing, etc but it is just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US road racing.
Other common comment was regarding safety because the "faster" riders may have to start in the back. Excuse me while I toss this out for your consideration, now we need everyone to bring their time slip from the drag strip indicating their reaction time and we grid that way or 60 foot times or ¼ mile times? Absurd, yes, this is not bracket racing, but this would be the only way to accurately judge how quick someone is going to start a race to make it safer. Since all riders start at a dead stop and are on similar machines, the number of points scored are irrelevant to safety.
So then we looked at other options, heat races or qualifying, which would require the reduction of race classes by 1/2 and a double entry fees for the same amount of race time, the increase in entry fees nixed this one. (Mainly because comments from riders about increased fees associated with this for tires and the rush to front in limited time.)
Now granted there are differences other than just gridding methods that may be reason that CCS sees more entries than competition in these areas of head to head competition such as classes, rules enforcement, officials, racers, tracks, pricing, etc but it is just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US roadracing.
The sparking knee/toe sliders was asked to be changed because it provided more excitement for spectators if allowed. The distraction for both safety workers and riders behind was judged to be too significant to justify the specator aspect.
All recomendations submitted were reviewed by the respectve commitee or official that was/is empowered with that function.
Should I take this post to indicate that the change to the LW ULW rules will stand for 2008? I am in the process of building my SV engine and since you have changed preperation rules for both LW and ULW I need to know what the limits will be so that I can build a legal engine without placing myself at a disadvantage.
Paul,
No at the current time it is in limbo, as I indicated in prior post, I am handling the review of that specfic issue personally and intend to have it final by 30 of Nov.
Paul, you're building a superbike. So, your displacement would be the thing currently in question, right? If you go bigger than stock, you won't be able to run UlwSB. If you go to the 650cc displacement higher compression pistions with everything else being superbiked, you can run UlwSB.
Dave, I'm not really interested in running ULW, I really hope they decide to leave ULW alone. I don't want to see the Hawks, FZR400 etc lose their class. What I need to know is am I building a 680cc SB motor or a 780cc SB motor. I think the change in displacement limits for the watercooled twins is more than enough to solve the problem without taking ULW away from the bikes that are there now.
One I proposed got denied- eliminate Am purses and increase expert purses. Then I am reading this months RR World article about CCS Florida on page 114. Quote from Henry DeGouw the owner/promoter "We run 9 lap GP races, we pay a $500 purse to each Expert class. The Unlmtd GP Expert is a $2000 purse with the winner getting $600 and we pay down to 10th place." De Gouw is focused on making sure that there's one big main event on race day. "Ok, here's the thing. I will not pay amateur purses,"DeGouw says. "If they're going to make money, they're going to move into the Expert ranks.".......
I like the way he thinks.
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 21, 2007, 02:19:07 PMCCS racing is about current model racing, not vintage or classic, on one hand that would be a lot easier in determining where bikes fit as they have a past history to work form on the other hand vintage racing is a stagnant form of racing while very cool and has its place there are no new innovations for the class.
Well, Paul, I'd worry about LW then if you're not going to do UlwSB.
Ultimately, the quote from Eric is reasonable in many ways. There are plenty of ways to build a reasonably current racing motorcycle.
I am building an H1, sure. But I don't have huge aspirations to win races in CCS with it, although, I might be able to. Maybe. I can't necessarily expect there to be a class for my classicly inspired machine. Even if I were to update the wheels and forks, it's still a 500cc air cooled, piston port, three cylinder two stroke.
I don't have great answers after that.
I like some of the mix that the midwest has. And it appears that Eric is leaving an opportunity for those that feel strongly to do a couple things. First, it will be necessary to draft a reasonable set of rules now that the direction has been set. Obviously, there's a great separation between current middleweights and some bikes that just fall between what has been known as lightweight and middleweight. In some areas, there aren't many of these bikes, but they are certainly on the horizon. Admittedly, the SV650 was in that position in 1999 when it came out as lightweight bikes were in the 350 to 500 range...RD350/400, CB400/CB550, liquid cooled RZ350's, then liquid cooled four strokes, EX500's, GS500's...
The SV was a change. It certainly wasn't a middleweight bike, and the changes were implemented into the class. I think we're at that impass again, nine seasons later.
Thoughts anyone?
Quote from: ahastings on November 21, 2007, 04:28:34 PM
One I proposed got denied- eliminate Am purses and increase expert purses. Then I am reading this months RR World article about CCS Florida on page 114. Quote from Henry DeGouw the owner/promoter "We run 9 lap GP races, we pay a $500 purse to each Expert class. The Unlmtd GP Expert is a $2000 purse with the winner getting $600 and we pay down to 10th place." De Gouw is focused on making sure that there's one big main event on race day. "Ok, here's the thing. I will not pay amateur purses,"DeGouw says. "If they're going to make money, they're going to move into the Expert ranks.".......
I like the way he thinks.
That's also echoed by others. I agree.
Dave, my point was if the LW rule changes stand then the SB prep limit for Water cooled twins goes to 800cc if it doesn't stand the the limit stays at 700cc. I was just asking Eric when there might be an answer to whether it stands or not. Eric says he hopes to have an answer by Nov 30 so hopefully I can order my pistons and crank on Dec 1.
How do you get 780cc out of an SV 650? A 3mm over is only 700cc, So I guess you then increase the stroke by a fair amount. Sounds like an expensive grenade to me. That would end up being one expensive SV.
Falicon sells 2 different stroker cranks, one gives you 700 with stock pistons and the other 754. The big crank with 2mm over pistons would be 780. I agree the reliabliity will be questionable but I would rather stay in LW and if the rules change per what we have seen posted then building to them is the only way to keep up come Daytona.
pre-entries by points........post entries at the back. :)
just thought i'd beat the dead horse a little more..........
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 21, 2007, 02:19:07 PM
From the emails I have received there is some question as to the thoughts behind changes and what the exact wording of the rules will be.
Sorry to have been so brief in the original outline of rules committees outcomes in regard to why some things have been allowed/disallowed and what the actual rule wording would be. Most of the exact rule wording has not been determined but obviously there has been some confusion on displacement limits between classes as I did not list what those would be.
In Ultra-Lightweight SuperBike the displacement limit for a 4 valve water cooled twin would be 650cc (not 700, 750 or 800 cc) Lightweight SuperSport, Grand Prix and SB would have its limit raised to 800cc for a water cooled non-desmo twin.
All of the rule changes were looked at strictly from a fairness aspect, my part of this business is strictly the on-track activities and insuring everyone is treated equal and classes are balanced. The rules’ committees fall under this same instruction. While the income obviously plays a part in the continued existence of CCS fair classes and rules are the issue at hand. The rules are fairly static and we try to keep it that way, as new bikes come out that are of the sporting racing type we do try to evaluate what is happening to the classes that they fit into under the current rules and if that seems appropriate to class structure. CCS racing is about current model racing, not vintage or classic, on one hand that would be a lot easier in determining where bikes fit as they have a past history to work form on the other hand vintage racing is a stagnant form of racing while very cool and has its place there are no new innovations for the class.
Which leads us to the notes I have from recommendation to make a shift in allowing the water cooled 650cc twins into Ultra-Lightweight. The current crop of large displacement air cooled twins that were already legal in Lightweight have come up in power and resulted in many comments from the smaller water cooled bike riders that those machines do not belong there. When results were inspected the air cooled large bore twins showed a huge disparity in the overall finish over the once dominant 650 water cooled twin when raced head to head. This has been a gradual shift over the last few years and is not indicative of any one region but the country as a whole as some tracks have not seen the influx of the A/C bikes or they are still in development whereas there are several riders that have multi year development into water cooled machines.
Simple directive was to see if there was an error in race classes or where the lightweight lines are and should they be redrawn. The top level LW bikes were determined to not be close to MW machines, meaning you couldn’t move the larger A/C machines up, so the other aspect evaluated was moving some of the lower HP bikes to the next lower class. Spec sheets were inspected for the top hp/ lightest weight bikes in the Ultra-Light class and it showed that there were multiple machines that made more hp than bikes that were excluded from the class ie liquid cooled 4 valve 650 twins. A comparison of lap times of ULSB and LSS was showing a disparity in that ULSB lap times were faster than LSS, this for a class that has theoretically slower machines. Next step was that that there were no current production sport bikes made that fit ultra-lightweight found and the hp numbers of the current production models that are raced. (IE Motard have near similar power output and much lower weight, but generally have a top speed limit due to gearing availability.) So weight-top speed was considered a push at worst, as the design of machines towards factory produced SuperMoto machines will see the street gearing needed installed in these machines in the very near future.
At this point I do not see time to have rules committee reconvene but I personally will take and do reviews of hard evidence that reflects why this should be reexamined, that based on notes was pretty thoroughly examined, should be changed, reversed, delayed, or other action taken.
800cc water cooled non-desmo twin in Lightweight and ThunderBike classes. We do not feel that this machine is out of line or performance with the other machines’ capabilities in these fields. This is not an overdog or an underdog and should fit neatly in the middle of this very diverse race environment.
125GP The 250 4 stroke was allowed as that is the direction that other 125GP racing is headed both on a national and international level with these similar output motors in purpose built frames. Currently we are not going to require the purpose built frame in order to compete in the 125GP class but may be changed to a purpose built or street based frame in the future.
Upon review of requests for changes to grid procedure, one theme stood out, that griding by points was rewarding the loyal customer. The flaw with that is if your loyal customer finishes say 15th in 7 races, he scores 70 points, while a “contingency hunter” only races and wins twice has the same 70 points, who deserves to rewarded? The loyal customer or the contingency hunter? Grids by order of entry gives all riders the opportunity to start towards the front.
Also in response to the request to grid by points, a comparison was made to other organizations that do grid by points and everywhere there was head to head competition within that geographical area entry date was preferred, by 45% more entries for entry date to points. Now granted there are differences other than just griding methods that may be reason that CCS sees more entries than other organizations in these areas of head to head competition such as classes, rules enforcement, officials, racers, tracks, pricing, etc but it is just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US road racing.
Other common comment was regarding safety because the “faster” riders may have to start in the back. Excuse me while I toss this out for your consideration, now we need everyone to bring their time slip from the drag strip indicating their reaction time and we grid that way or 60 foot times or ¼ mile times? Absurd, yes, this is not bracket racing, but this would be the only way to accurately judge how quick someone is going to start a race to make it safer. Since all riders start at a dead stop and are on similar machines, the number of points scored are irrelevant to safety.
So then we looked at other options, heat races or qualifying, which would require the reduction of race classes by 1/2 and a double entry fees for the same amount of race time, the increase in entry fees nixed this one. (Mainly because comments from riders about increased fees associated with this for tires and the rush to front in limited time.)
Now granted there are differences other than just gridding methods that may be reason that CCS sees more entries than competition in these areas of head to head competition such as classes, rules enforcement, officials, racers, tracks, pricing, etc but it is just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US roadracing.
The sparking knee/toe sliders was asked to be changed because it provided more excitement for spectators if allowed. The distraction for both safety workers and riders behind was judged to be too significant to justify the specator aspect.
All recomendations submitted were reviewed by the respectve commitee or official that was/is empowered with that function.
Eric,
If I run an SV in LW Super Sport, will the maximun overbore remain1mm (as the rules are today)? Or will there be some sort of statement allowing the SV to actually have it's displacement increased to 800CC.
Also in ULW will all of the current modification rules apply to SVs, or will they be changed to limit SV modifications?
Guy
so let me get this straight you can run an sv 650 on light weight and then the same bike in ultra light weight?
Yeah, that's right. Lighweight will now be a class up for the SV. You can also do that with a Hawk, can you imagine a Hawk flying by one of those beemers?
Mark
Quote from: Garywc on November 21, 2007, 09:16:35 PM
so let me get this straight you can run an sv 650 on light weight and then the same bike in ultra light weight?
Yes and no, ULW is a superbike class but you cannot run LWSB rules in ULWSB for the SV. The rules have not been completely spelled out yet but from what I have seen the ULWSB rules will limit it to 650cc while the LWSB rules will now allow the SV to go to 800cc. It kind of looks like the SS SV will be allowed to run ULWSB and the LWSB will be a new animal. Again none of this has been finalized yet, Eric is looking at the details and hopefully will give the final word at the end of the month.
To get 750 out of a falicon 68mm stroker crank you need 3mm overbore on pistons. They leave that out on the web site now. Guess I'll be cracking out my BIllet cylinders for the sv next year and build an 800.....LOL
Well, my bad, I didn't actually do the math. I just talked to them on the phone and was told that the 68mm crank with stock bore was 754. Guess I need to start verifying every bodies claims, damn. Oh well back to the drawing board, and I guess it'll have to be my drawing board this time.
i see the ducati 848 is allowed in MW classes...is that including mwss??? or just SB & GP?
looks like all MW
very cool !
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 21, 2007, 02:19:07 PM
Upon review of requests for changes to grid procedure, one theme stood out, that griding by points was rewarding the loyal customer. The flaw with that is if your loyal customer finishes say 15th in 7 races, he scores 70 points, while a “contingency hunter” only races and wins twice has the same 70 points, who deserves to rewarded? The loyal customer or the contingency hunter? Grids by order of entry gives all riders the opportunity to start towards the front.
How is that a flaw? You're rewarding both the loyal customer who runs in 7 races, and you're rewarding the contingency hunter who performed well and entered only 2 races. You're in effect killing two birds with one stone. Now you switch to order of entry, which is simply a poor idea. It all goes with the mentality that CCS exists to make as much money as possible. You're hiding the fact that you want more people pre-entered and committed to races - thus more entry fees money for CCS. And as a business, sure that's fine. But that's the only way what you're doing actually makes sense.
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 21, 2007, 02:19:07 PM
Other common comment was regarding safety because the “faster” riders may have to start in the back. Excuse me while I toss this out for your consideration, now we need everyone to bring their time slip from the drag strip indicating their reaction time and we grid that way or 60 foot times or ¼ mile times? Absurd, yes, this is not bracket racing, but this would be the only way to accurately judge how quick someone is going to start a race to make it safer. Since all riders start at a dead stop and are on similar machines, the number of points scored are irrelevant to safety.
This is so absurd it's laughable. Without a doubt you're upping the risks by placing the "fast" riders in the back. It's a simple fact and the odds go up. Sure it's everyone's responsibility to pass cleanly, but tell that to guys who are racing for $2000 in a contingency race. Heck, ask some of the "slower" guys and many of them will tell you they'd rather start further back until they earn their way to the front (or primarily because they want to reduce *their* risk of an incident when being passed by a "fast" guy). What you're talking about (and the potential safety risks that exist) has very little to do with reaction time off the line. It's about faster riders pushing their way to the front and making sketchy passes early on to get there.
So justifiably, your response would likely be, "well they should pre-register early" - which again, is fine by you as a business because you want to make money. If it suddenly looks like rain for the weekend, you've got your money already in hand by guys that might have decided to not show up in the first place. Perfect for you.
Just call it like it is. That the rule is for you to make more money. Trying to justify it with words like "customer loyalty" and dismissing the issue of safety by comparing roadracing to the drag strip doesn't make any sense.
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 21, 2007, 02:19:07 PM
just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US roadracing.
Define leader. Is that the most events? Or the most riders? Or more importantly, does that mean you offer the best racing product to the end customer?
I do like the idea of taking the purses out of the amateur stuff. That is one good idea I've seen proposed.
SuperSport rules in Supersport classes, Superbike rules in Superbike Classes Grand Prix in Grand Prix classes; no extra modifications allowed or restrictions to certain bikes.
Eddie, grids not sure of your point with regard to grids, grids set by entry date are fair to everyone, noone has advatange over another. And the drag race time slips point was in regard to making the start safer, and very much tongue in cheek and as I said the concept is pretty absurb. The idea was not to line everyone up as they would finish a race; if you could do that then there would not be a race. A rider always has the right to line up in the back of the grid if they feel they may not get off the line safely or prefer to start late.
You do ask a question that was not addressed in my first post and did not think there was any question as to the validilty of the statement. CCS is defined as the leader in all aspects you describe (and has been since at least 2000, 07 numbers listed), with the most events(60), the most riders(3300+), the most total entries (nearly 45% of all road race entries in US are sanctioned by CCCS/ASRA), and the highest average entries per event (601) As to the best racing product ,that is somewhat subjective there are best for several different aspects VIntage, Mini, Grass roots/sportsman racing, Pro, endurance, etc and CCS does not offer oppurtunities in each of those but in those that CCS offers, more people prefer what CCS offers as seen by entries in these comparable classes.
With all those big numbers, how about some bigger purses for experts. CCS Florida can do it, and they are much smaller than CCS as a whole. Their Unlimited GP expert alone pays double what the rest of CCS pays and as much as ASRA's premier class and more then the other 3 ASRA "PRO" classes. Ever wonder why the ASRA grids are so small?
As someone that races in other orgs, I do believe the gridding by points is safer as it tends to sort the faster guys toward the front. It is not perfect, but it is a lot closer than by pre-entry. If it was done like Daytona where only the pre-entered riders were gridded by points CCS would still get the money early, maybe just not as early as the current system.
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 23, 2007, 10:37:21 AM
noone has advatange over another.
Well, actually, it does quite substantially.
I make less money than a lot of other people. Additionally, a larger portion of the money I have has gone to CCS than other people over the past years since I've had a CCS license since 1988.
I cannot enter races as early as some riders. It has a direct influence on my grid, period.
I enter when I can based on my opportunity to do so. That also affects my ability to enter races with CCS by volume.
Over time, I have gone from entering nine races an event weekend to where I, and someone else I knew, were entering one race a weekend in 2006. That was ULGP, and we entered that race because in 2006 grids were equitable in that there was qualifying. I don't believe that that should be the way that all grids should be set up, but it was at least equitable.
If I have to look at entering races six to four months in advance, it affects everything. How many races, how many tires, safety gear, etc. I'm sure it does this even for those that have more income than me to put into this.
If there is no advantage to being able to be up front because of the date of grid purchase, then we could just determine race order by lap times alone.
Giving up time to some riders that get a jump on the field because of the date of grid purchase IS AN ADVANTAGE.
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 23, 2007, 10:37:21 AM
The idea was not to line everyone up as they would finish a race;if you could do that then there would not be a race
Let me make sure I'm clear. So all the series that have qualifying before races, what's that all about? MotoGP, AMA, WSBK, etc. must not know what they're doing. Surely there's been no good racing when they line the grids up in qualifying order. Are you really trying to sell us on that idea? Talk about being absurd. You're again sugar coating the underlying fact that you want more money by doing grids in order of registration. It's extremely transparent to see, really it is.
Quote from: Eric Kelcher on November 23, 2007, 10:37:21 AM
CCS is defined as the leader in all aspects you describe (and has been since at least 2000, 07 numbers listed), with the most events(60), the most riders(3300+), the most total entries (nearly 45% of all road race entries in US are sanctioned by CCCS/ASRA), and the highest average entries per event (601) As to the best racing product ,that is somewhat subjective there are best for several different aspects VIntage, Mini, Grass roots/sportsman racing, Pro, endurance, etc and CCS does not offer oppurtunities in each of those but in those that CCS offers, more people prefer what CCS offers as seen by entries in these comparable classes.
So yes, CCS is all about quantity. That's all you validated with your facts. Quality - well that's more subjective as you said (which is funny, as you didn't list any stats that demonstrate quality). Not to mention the silly overall championship requirements you have (which completely take away the value of it), which contribute to guys running 8-10 races in a weekend, which makes your 45% statistic rather easy to achieve.
Give it a rest, dude. CCS is a business and of course they are in it to make money like every business is and they are fair with what they do.
Fair? It is fair in the regards that everyone has a chance to pre
enter. That is about it. It is a waste of time trying to argue or get
things changed as I stated earlier as I'm with ekraft. Just be
honest with everyone. None of the people I know or have talked
to agree with the pre-entry grid procedure. I must know all of
the minority in ccs racing. CCS is a business which needs to
make money, I got it, just say it to your customers. Same thing
with qualifying. It would be alot easier to say we don't have the
manpower or the extra money to spend on qualifying rather than
say it is too much pressure. I'll still race either way. :biggrin:
Here's a scenario I've talked over with many people who've responded positively.
Move the pre-entry deadline back to 1 month before an event, and grid by points for pre-entries only. Those that post-enter are gridded after the pre-entries by order of entry.
Best of both worlds. Those that wish to can be gridded by points, and CCS is still able to collect entry fees in advance to hedge against weather issues etc.
I would think this would also allow the grids to be partially set before the weekend starts, and would possibly increase the total number of pre-entries because many of us would be more likely to pre-enter if it meant we'd be gridded by points.
To me, this would seem to be a reasonable compromise.
PS, perhaps we could take a quick vote on this at the awards banquet to see which way the population leans on the issue? CCS claims people prefer order-of-entry, lets test that theory.
There is some merit to that.
Let's get this out there though.
A lot of stuff that needs to be done in rules has to be done on a non democratic basis. First, racing isn't democratic. Second, we're racers. We're lucky that we find or asses with our hands.
Championship Cup Series is a business that someone has their house riding on, basically. It's a giant mortgage, and someone needs to cut through some of this at times and make command decisions that keep the business going. The racers' stake in CCS is very limited in its risk for success as a result. If CCS "goes away", hey, your out your cost of a CCS license. Even then, you can use that to get another road racing license, so it still isn't a complete loss.
I still want grids by points. It's just a matter of crafting it in a way that overcomes problems or develops solutions for other problems.
I'd love it if it was just implemented for some classes even as a try out. If that happened, it'd probably be for a class that I don't race anymore...LOL!
Dave - I don't think anyone disagrees that CCS is a business and it needs to be profitable to remain "in business". The issue I have is that it's fairly shady in the manner in which certain rules are being deemed "necessary" by Eric Kelcher. There's really no merit behind it - especially from someone I would assume to be more or less an expert in the field of running a race series and knowing the in's and out's of what goes with that. The reasoning behind the above mentioned is borderline weird.
I've raced with a number of series (CCS as one of them). I assume each organization is in the business of staying afloat and making money. However I've never gotten more of an impression that money is everything (and the end racing product isn't) than I have with CCS. This is solely my opinion based on my experiences.
Smite on. :biggrin:
I don't think that the economic argument makes any kind of sense with respect to the pending rule change for the following reasons:
1. SV riders comprise the largest portion of LW classes - alienating them out of the sport or to another org. is going to cost CCS.
2. The SV route is the lowest cost/entry level way into racing - many of us have gone that route - I probably would not be racing if I hadn't taking my 30K+ SV off the street and slowly converted it to the race stallion that it is (I'm being sarcastic!!). Springing for a $8-9k MW 600 + $2-3K of mods + 2 sets of tires a weekend to say nothing of the meatgrinder aspect of MW AM racing would have disqualified this club racer in a hurry.
3. The alternative is for LW racers to find Duc 1000 CC, reliable Buells and BMW all of which are 2-4 x more expensive than SVs.
My feeling is that SV racers in other regions have complained bitterly about the BMW/s and to a lesser extent the Buells and Ducs beating up on the them every weekend - this has driven the rule change endeavour. Ironically, this may be the SV's death knell as a competitive budget racer.....
Quote from: Super Dave on November 23, 2007, 11:12:09 AM
Giving up time to some riders that get a jump on the field because of the date of grid purchase IS AN ADVANTAGE.
Where the hell is the clapping guy icon?
To keep this in perspective; I'm a mid-pack AM paying for my racing out of my tax refund and whatever I can save during the year. I dont know much about much, but from my point of view, even though I would STILL grid on the 15th row, gridding by points makes SOO much more sense than the way that you guys are currently doing it. Even if it's the hybrid 'grid by points for pre-regs' setup. Honestly, the way you guys are doing it now doesn't benefit anyone but the guy who can pay for all of his races Jan 1st. Me, I'm doing good to make pre-registration at all with the way my finances are setup. But no matter how well I do throughout the year; at the last race, I'm still going to be stuffing my front wheel in on Turn 1 to try to get around the dil-weed who had the $$ to spend on entry fees and wants to grid on the front row, but still runs 10 seconds per lap off the pace.
When I raced motocross, we had no pre-registration, and you got gate pick in order of when you got to the track that morning. If we're going to continue gridding by registration date, can we PLEASE get a gate shack in the middle of the front straight and the backwards-falling-gates? Cause giving Richy Rich a 60-yard head start on me is slightly unnerving. At least then we'd all be the same distance from the finish line. Or... we could get our umbrella girls to hold the bikes up and do a running start (foot-running) like they did at Le Mans in the old days. The only thing that would make that more fun is if we could get some sort of aftermarket kick-starter for all the bikes. I'd sure like to see SD kick over that SV1k after a 50-yard sprint.
All jokes aside; pre-registration is a must from a business standpoint, but from a racing standpoint, it's equal is gridding that is 'performance-based', not 'money-based'. Isn't there ANYTHING that can be done to find some sort of combination?
I'm still trying to find anyone that was actually asked on the topic. I'll probably race some CRA again this year. They won't accept any entries until April, and, since you're at WFO for so long there, at least things shake down pretty quickly for faster riders when compared to slower ones. At least you don't get bottled up giving away our tax refund opportunities.
Grashopr,
I like that Le Mans running start thing. I am all for that.
Quote from: Redbuell on December 17, 2007, 09:04:33 PM
Grashopr,
I like that Le Mans running start thing. I am all for that.
For the fun of it, or just for the Umbrella girls? :D
I had a bad dream last night about this topic. It was utter chaos. :D
Quote from: tomholiday on November 16, 2007, 12:04:16 PM
I think its of the DOESN'T MAKE SENSE variety.
I agree. The SVs are competitive in LW. Now the ULW bikes will get creamed.....
Like another poster in the thread above, I spent a good deal of money improving my bike for 2008. I intended to run ULSB instead of LWSS to get away from the SVs power advantage. Now they show up in UL ? Give us a break.
Maybe the 1000 Ducatis need to go to MW if the SVs can't keep up?
Would having one of the practice sessions double as qualifying work? Even if they can't be run as proper qualifying sessions, what the officials could do is use the fastest times as qualifying times (providing of course that the riders know that their practice times will count for something). The downside of this approach is that the whole notion of "there are not trophies for practice" goes out the window, and people WILL ride more aggressively during practice. Any attempt to mitigate that added risk by doing things like limiting the number of riders qualifying at any one time, etc., would start to look suspiciously like a real qualifying session...
Gridding by points would work also, so long as they're not restricted to region. Logically and in practice, a rider's points will correlate to speed except for the outliers. If there is a concern over a fast rider who hasn't ridden a lot lately, then points used could be a rolling average or total of the last several races only, instead of tracking the whole season. So either only the last 3 events would count, or only the riders' last 3 races (within some reasonable limit, say 6 months) would count.
The other thing that could be done as an alternative to qualifying or points-based-gridding or the status quo is to put all pre-entries in front and post-entries in back by order of entry, as has been suggested by others, but with the following hitch: the pre-entries would be randomized, to eliminate anyone getting an advantage due to financial reasons that allow those people to pre-register very early. It wouldn't solve the faster-riders-in-the-back problem, but neither does the current system either. That way, at least people would still be incentivized to pre-register in order to not have to take their chances at the track, but as long as they make the deadline (which is reasonably close to the event anyway) they wouldn't be penalized for not pre-registering in February for an October event.
it would be cool to "qualify" but for which races? In FL region, we have a BUNCH of races all run on Sunday with 1 practice session on sunday morning. How would you qualify your supersport 600, your superbike 600.. and your unlimited bike?? Not possible. This is "club" racing after all, if you want pro racing with qualifying sessions there is ASRA or WERA nationals or the former AMA. I really don't think guys just getting into racing will have the extra tires for qualifying sessions AND for the races. I saw a comment about "Richy Rich" paying for races up front.. well.. that same guy is gonna put on new tires for both qualifying and race, what about the guy that runs 1 set of tires for all races then practices on them next race weekend?
For CCS racing, with ALL the various classes that have to get squeezed into a weekend there is no way to do qualifying. Perhaps to what Henry D. does in FL region.. you pre enter all your FL region races with POST DATED checks that DO NOT get cashed till Monday after the races. There goes the "Richy rich" argument.
That would help me.
Quote from: MELK-MAN on February 26, 2008, 06:06:06 PM
it would be cool to "qualify" but for which races? In FL region, we have a BUNCH of races all run on Sunday with 1 practice session on sunday morning. How would you qualify your supersport 600, your superbike 600.. and your unlimited bike?? Not possible. This is "club" racing after all, if you want pro racing with qualifying sessions there is ASRA or WERA nationals or the former AMA. I really don't think guys just getting into racing will have the extra tires for qualifying sessions AND for the races. I saw a comment about "Richy Rich" paying for races up front.. well.. that same guy is gonna put on new tires for both qualifying and race, what about the guy that runs 1 set of tires for all races then practices on them next race weekend?
I was thinking that Saturday's practices, which are all day, would count towards qualifying. I agree that it's not really practical to do "true qualifying" because there is no way to really enforce which bike someone is using for which practice without a LOT of extra effort, but as you say it's Club Racing and the goal here is just to try to mitigate the purely FIFO system of pre-entries as they exist. The goal here is to eliminate the advantage of pre-registering early rather than at the wire, and also to put the faster guys up front for safety reasons. Realistically, whatever advantages money brings to the club racer are probably going to hold true in practice and in races. True that amongst the fastest people in any one group it's going to make a difference, but it's still going to put the fast guy who can't afford new qualifying tires well in front of the rest of the pack who might have otherwise been in front of him simply because of the order in which their pre-registrations were received.
Quote from: MELK-MAN on February 26, 2008, 06:06:06 PMFor CCS racing, with ALL the various classes that have to get squeezed into a weekend there is no way to do qualifying. Perhaps to what Henry D. does in FL region.. you pre enter all your FL region races with POST DATED checks that DO NOT get cashed till Monday after the races. There goes the "Richy rich" argument.
This would definitely mitigate the "Richy Rich" phenomenon, but then it would be a race to get your pre-registration in the mail (yes, mail, as Henry doesn't take faxed registrations since he only accepts checks/MO's). How then would order be determined when on the first day of pre-registration, 20 registrations show up in Henry's mailbox? And how about the guy who lives in Florida where the US Mail takes one day vs. the guy who lives several states away with a 5 day mail delay? As long as it's mail-only, I think that such a solution would only partially mitigate the first-come first-serve griding issue. Even in regions where faxes are accepted, or if the reinstitute on-line registration, then it's going to be like buying concert tickets - if you get the busy signal or "Server Busy" screen then you're screwed anyway, through no fault of your own but rather due to the whims of the Ether.
I go back to randomization. If qualifying for Club Racing is deemed impracticable, then that means we have to rely on some kind of points/performance index system for griding people; and people will complain endlessly about that because they will claim that it unfairly favors people who can afford time and money to race more, or that it unfairly favors the people who did or didn't race recently (depending on how it's set up), and so on.
So if there is no equitable way to set the grid based on performance (either qualifying or historical performance based), then the way to do it would be to accept all pre-entries up to the deadline and grid them in front of all post-entries. Then, randomize the order of all pre-entries in the pre-entry section of the grid. The post-entry section could still be first-come first-serve, because those people would have had the option of pre-entering, or, when they do post-enter, they could try to get to registration first-thing on the race weekend if grid position is that important to them.
Okay, some clarifications / questions I had.
1. The BMW HP2 is legal for LWSS,LWSB,LWGP (air cooled 2 cylinders below 1210cc)
2. The BMW HP2 is NOT legal for Thunderbike (it has >3 valves / cyl, and no pushrods)? There is not a rule category for air cooled, 4 valve, non-pushrod in the rules (6.4.3)
So, some clarification on #2 would be useful.
Now, the meat of my post. Given that the HP2 was competitive in the Daytona 200, and thus AMA FX competitive, and #1 above is true, is it REALLY a lightweight bike?!
Quote from: boston-birdman on March 09, 2008, 04:06:28 PM
Now, the meat of my post. Given that the HP2 was competitive in the Daytona 200, and thus AMA FX competitive, and #1 above is true, is it REALLY a lightweight bike?!
No, but if the rules state you can run it in LW, then you can. :biggrin:
Quote from: spyderchick on March 10, 2008, 01:43:01 PM
No, but if the rules state you can run it in LW, then you can. :biggrin:
I have heard that the HP2 is no longer legal for LW
Quote from: EX_#76 on March 11, 2008, 01:33:03 PM
I have heard that the HP2 is no longer legal for LW
I wonder if that's because it's not light weight?
Quote from: Team_Serpent on March 11, 2008, 06:14:30 PM
I wonder if that's because it's not light weight?
Or maybe because it has roughly the same hp stock than most of the 2008 600's and isn't that much heavier?
Quote from: Team_Serpent on March 11, 2008, 06:14:30 PM
I wonder if that's because it's not light weight?
LOL, I heard that
Hell, even when I was Race Director I didn't agree with gridding by pre-registration date. The point system is the only way to go.