Motorcycle Racing Forum

Ok, first a basic history.

Road racing in America has always been a fragmented program.  The AMA program was always originally based around dirt track.  Eventually, bikes specifically designed for road racing came into existance...and racers that were specifically "road racers" began exceling on them.

Club level racing began most noteably in California with the AFM.  WERA soon followed.  Roger Edmonson, now employed by Daytona International Speedway, started CCS in around 1984.

Eventually, he partnered with the AMA, making CCS riders get an AMA card to race, and he pulled motorcycle manufactures into supporting his production based ideas for national competition (Supersport, etc) and regional competition.  Eventually, other contingency sponsors arrived from the aftermarket.

In 1994, the relationship between CCS and the AMA program was shut down.  

All racing organizations continued to show some kind of growth.  

AMA Pro draws its riders from the ranks of AMA Pro Dirt Track racers and various club racing organizations through out the nation.

Club racing has struggled a bit over the past few years as multiple "track day programs" pop up around every track.

With that trend, the population of racers that race has struggled at times.

Potential riders feel the need to "do track days" to become better prepared for racing, although I have some debate as to whether this hurts new riders more than helping.

In the past, the only potential for purse money or contingency was in the expert ranks.  Over the years, amateurs began to get offers for contingency...Yamaha leading the way in the Seca II challenge in 1994...and other aftermarket tire and brake companies following suit.

As actual purse money and purse certificates began to arrive from the racing organizations, some racers refused to move on to the upper club ranks.

At the same time, budgets for AMA Pro racing began to increase in that manufacturers began fielding larger supersport teams, second teams, and support to others.  

This left a field of racers at the club level that had usually moved on to pro racing attempts.

Amateur/novice racing has become a potential feed bag for pretty experienced racers that are far from needing a lot to learn, but some pick opportunities to race for cash and contingency...after having competed as an expert without the same success in the results.  Actual new racers resent the fact that these riders continue to "sandbag", taking cash and contingency that is, rightfully, theirs as a new racer.

Additionally, there are some expert riders that feel that there is no opportunity for them to compete on a reasonable playing field against racers that have had regular AMA Pro, etc. experience.

 to be continued....

Does this make you Dr. Super Dave, or Professor Super Dave?  Probably the latter with the whole VRU thang.

 ;)

Give us more Professor...

LOL!

Given the changes in the market, I would propose that the current two tier structure of licensing be changed to a three tier structure.  The actual names of those tiers could be anything, so I will refer to them as A, B, and C.  A will be the highest tier and C will be the lowest tier.

Entry level racing - Novice?

Class C will be the entry level tier.  The riders will have their own practice.  The riders will have a limited number of classes available to them for racing.  Those classes will be divided by displacement.  Lightweight, Middleweght, Heavyweight, etc.  No trophies, only certificates of accomplishment.  No championships.

A rider would be limited in the time that they could spend in this entry level class.  I would think that you'd want to keep a rider in that status for at least a couple of weekends if they perform admirably, but still allow a rider to stay in that structure for a maximum of about eighteen months. The structure is as such to allow them time to overcome the sensory overload that is associated with beginning racing and to become consistent without the pressure to perform at speed.

Sportsman type racing - Sportsman?

This is the type of racing that many will recognize.  Contingency will be available.  Championships will be offered.  Certain classes would have purses.  Grids based on pre-entry.

Riders in this tier would potentially be made up of some of the current amatuers and current experts.  Racers in this class would be competent and safe.

Upper level racing - Expert or Pro?

This class would be the class for those wanting to really test their skills.  Classes would be limited, the races would be longer, their would need to be a purse for each class, and, as a result, the entry fees would be higher.  As a result, qualifying would be expected.  How about a championship bonus for each class?

How does one become an "A" class rider?  Well, first, one would have to be a "B" class rider.  That shows some amount of compentency to ride.  Then a rider could petition to be moved into the A class.  



So, the A class status wouldn't have to be permanant.  Riders loose confidence at times and also find that they don't have the skills or resources to compete at some levels.  The B class might be the destination for many riders.  

Under the current structure, there are riders that have been amateurs for a few if not several seasons.  There are even some riders that have expert licenses that can run in or around the top ten in a Middleweight race, but that have petitioned to become amateurs...in the sake of making contingency and purse money that, I would argue, is rightfully the property of those entry level riders that the current amateur program is really meant for.

Advantage of such a tiered system:

A longer opportunity for true entry level racers to learn about the sport without the emotional pressure of worrying about being in the way of riders that circulate the track better.

An opportunity for more revenue for the racing community by riders opting to begin in a true entry level racing program rather than spending their money in a non racing track day enviornment.

A regional pro level opportunity for racers to compete at a high level with the potential for fair earning of purse money and contingency.  Many racers at this level cannot financially move up to the next level of racing, currently, because of the extraordinary travel requirements.

Potential marketing opportunities of having pro level racing consistently at multilple events (look at the opportunities that oval tracks have with multiple events at one location...some racers are reconized as successful racers at local tracks without having to move up to ARCA, Busch, ReMax, or Nextel Cup racing).  

A tier of racing for those who like the volume of races and laps under competition without being made to feel as though they are competing against professional racers with professional budgets.

Since this is the voting season.  Can we print up a bunch of fliers and mail them to the membership?  I'll pay for it up to $75.  It was $15 on the other note, but no one seemed to catch on.

Of course we need to also decide which classes we would like in each tier.

Dave,

Not that I disagree with your structure, but here are some of the things that may be a problem:

Issue 1 that I see is the rather low turnout for many events. You need between 8-10 bikes for most contingency. If you turn this into 3 classes, the number of bikes in each field would be lower, which could affect this. Who wants to run a race with 5 people in it?

This would also add a higher number of races/practices to the weekend, which would make it a bit harder to keep on schedule...unless they eliminate some classes, which means less money for CCS so I don't think they would.

I would still see some people who could technically be "A" riders staying as "B" riders just to make the contingency/championships and wins. I don't think that it would stop. A sandbagger will sandbag...It's in their blood. (cough cough, Brian and Paul, cough, cough)   ;D

Edgar,

Good points.  At this though we need to expand the forum of this topic to accurately survey the membership's desire and propensity for change.  Since will require lots of rules changes to properly detail, it's got to begin asap.

Maybe these proposed ideas can be experimented with during the next season at tracks where attendance is much more condusive for the spectacle.  Pick tracks that have track championships.  These structures could be the basis of the track championships.

This way no one is forced to deal with this system for an entire season and at every track if it proves to be too cumbersome.

QuoteDave,

Not that I disagree with your structure, but here are some of the things that may be a problem:

Oh, yeah...well...  LOL!

QuoteIssue 1 that I see is the rather low turnout for many events. You need between 8-10 bikes for most contingency. If you turn this into 3 classes, the number of bikes in each field would be lower, which could affect this. Who wants to run a race with 5 people in it?

This would also add a higher number of races/practices to the weekend, which would make it a bit harder to keep on schedule...unless they eliminate some classes, which means less money for CCS so I don't think they would.

I would envision potentially fewer races during the weekend.  Should free up some time.

Numbers for races.  The C class wouldn't have contingency.  We're trying to get these guys to learn and get them to the B class.  The B class should be big regardless.  Fun with contingency and a couple few paying events.  A class...purses, championship bonus...GLRRA was pretty successful as there was some reasonable amount of reward to the riders.  The number one plates I've won got me bragging rights...and a cheaper cost for number replacement.

[/quote]I would still see some people who could technically be "A" riders staying as "B" riders just to make the contingency/championships and wins. I don't think that it would stop. A sandbagger will sandbag...It's in their blood. (cough cough, Brian and Paul, cough, cough)   ;D
[/quote]

Ok, so would someone rather race for tenth place where they get their money back or more...

Or race for second place where they don't...

There would have to be some kind of risk vs reward to get guys into the A class.  But additionally, there are some that just might not be able to get into the money in the A class...they might not want to spend the money to prep, set up, and commit.  Additionally, their skills might not be up to task.  

Some of those riders do become experts under the current structure and decide that motorcycle road racing doesn't have anything for them.  They quit.  

I think there needs to be a few less classes!!

They should also make the "premier" race more like a "main event"  ULGP is just another sprint race.

A,B,C riders are just like speedway and other series.  The speedway races here get proable 200 spectators.

N,S,E I agree!

Hey that rhymes.  ;D

Well, heck. If you are talking about paying back all the way to 10th place, then maybe people would bump up. But to do that, you would probably have to make all entry fees $70.00 or so, or we have to find some way for CCS to make up that money. I guess it would help if there was a bigger gate.

I know what you are saying about lots of people going expert and quitting. It seems that to a lot of folks, if they don't win, they get bored and stop. Then again, many times the money situation (or crashing) makes them quit before they want to.

So the big question is: What is the right solution?

I'd figure that the races would cost the pro's $80ish.  Less races.  If normal sprints are eight laps, theirs should be twelve.  Payback to AT LEAST tenth, if not back to fifteenth.  Don't have to get your money back at that point, but something is better than nothing.

ULGP usually seems to have 25 guys in it at Blackhawk.
Thats 1750$ in entry fees,  and they payout 1000$ (Sponser by LP still ?)

Bigger trophies for experts !!  not just plaques !

I don't agree with a three tiered structure. I do agree with fewer classes overall and longer races for the experts. 8-10 laps novice, 12 -15 laps expert. And yes, the experts could pay a little bit more for the extra laps and more purse money.

I loved CCS original concept of only superbike, gp and twins classes but that went away when Edmondson tried getting contingencies and the factories would not pay out for those classes. Hence the supersport era arrived. Roger didn't want to run stock classe so he came up with the modified or Supersport idea. the factories liked it and here we are.

I think either superbike or GP classes should be eliminated. Either one allows slicks and pretty much unlimited mods so why have the duplication?  ???

Ideally Superbike, Supersport, Twins, maybe a singles class are all that's needed. True GP bikes? How many are there?  Not enough for a true gp class anymore. :( Sorry.

I'd also love to see a mini series for kids. Maybe 10-12 yrs old and 14-15 yrs old  on YSRs. mini-motards or whatever.  I think it would be a great class, if we could control the soccer dad/mom mentality of the parents.  That's a whole other issue.  Other clubs are doing it and it seems to be a hit where ever they have it.

Just my basic idea. Nothing close to SD's thoughts but I always believed in the K.I.S.S. principle and it seems to work. ;D ;D

Okay few points about increased spectators.

1. Insurance: probably the single biggest expense at a spectator event, ala FUSA, has much higher insurance than a non-spectator event, ala CCS.

2. Rental: venues charge more for a spectator event since they must provide more services, security, restrooms, clean-up, gate personel, seperate gates for spectator/participant, secure area for participants.

3. overcrowding: some venues can hardly handle the racers others are non-spectator venues so with that it means you have a vastly different income scale than other tracks so would you charge different entry fees where spectators are not allowed/cannot be accomadated or do you drop the purses there? other issue insurance is bought in bulk for the year and with limited venues that are non-spectator you would run into paying specator rates for non-spectator events.

I ran some numbers at slightly increasing spectators, more of a direct marketing to the possible future racer, for the return of increasd staff only you would need to spend aprox extra $200 a weekend for every 100 spectators. get much over 1000-2000 people through the gate and you start becoming a spectator event and the venue starts eyeing higher rates, and the increased insurance to cover themselves. so you start running into a brick wall; org gets ~$8 spends $2 for each spectator and if it rains or is blistering hot the expense is still there but no income. OUCH!!! then if you have a specator only gate income may only be ~$5 per spectator doesn't look very appealing if for that potential $3 you still need to pay for the advertising you did to bring that spectator in. (this was when I did some promotion and advertising for the CMRA a then CCS affliate in 2000-2002)

QuoteOkay few points about increased spectators.

1. Insurance: probably the single biggest expense at a spectator event, ala FUSA, has much higher insurance than a non-spectator event, ala CCS.

Ok, how much?  CCE has global insurance.  They put on a lot of spectator events.  So, if anyone gets a deal on it, it's CCE.

It's not going to be a spectator event until it's a spectator event.  It would have to be built first.   Change comes over a period of time.  If the gate were 2000 people at Blackhawk (racers, helpers, family, friends...a handfull of spectators) what would another 2000 people do?  Another $10k in revenue?  That might just pay for the track for one day at Blackhawk.

Quote2. Rental: venues charge more for a spectator event since they must provide more services, security, restrooms, clean-up, gate personel, seperate gates for spectator/participant, secure area for participants.

3. overcrowding: some venues can hardly handle the racers others are non-spectator venues so with that it means you have a vastly different income scale than other tracks so would you charge different entry fees where spectators are not allowed/cannot be accomadated or do you drop the purses there? other issue insurance is bought in bulk for the year and with limited venues that are non-spectator you would run into paying specator rates for non-spectator events.

I ran some numbers at slightly increasing spectators, more of a direct marketing to the possible future racer, for the return of increasd staff only you would need to spend aprox extra $200 a weekend for every 100 spectators. get much over 1000-2000 people through the gate and you start becoming a spectator event and the venue starts eyeing higher rates, and the increased insurance to cover themselves. so you start running into a brick wall; org gets ~$8 spends $2 for each spectator and if it rains or is blistering hot the expense is still there but no income. OUCH!!! then if you have a specator only gate income may only be ~$5 per spectator doesn't look very appealing if for that potential $3 you still need to pay for the advertising you did to bring that spectator in. (this was when I did some promotion and advertising for the CMRA a then CCS affliate in 2000-2002)

Ah, so this is the complete reason why CCE has absolutely no interest in doing anything for CCS racing as a whole.

We are talking risk/reward here.  CCE has an investment.  They could loose money, but they are making better money on CCS that they would, maybe, when compared to putting it in a bank.

Meanwhile, riders risk their opportunites in CCS to do what?  Two or three years then out...debt, etc.  

Guys going for ULGP championships have the most to risk anymore...with no purses at FUSA events (why, I still don't understand) their is no reward for what should be potentially the most exciting class.

Additionally, when Roger formed CCS, experts had a purse for all classes.  That was a good thing.

I'm going to chime in here, but this only my opinion, I'm not an expert in staging events or dealing with the financial end. Anyone with some solid numbers to answer some of this, your input would be greatly appreciated.

First off, I see almost no difference in attendance of the Raod America event as it is held now as an FUSA event as when it was held as a CCS event exclusively. I'm not talking racer/crew/family/friend participation here, but "spectator" numbers. Those not associated in any real form with a "race team", but just for the fun of seeing bikes at speed.

I'm also trying to understand how the FUSA event (using Road America as an example) is a "spectator" event when in the Southeastern Wisconsin area I didn't talk to a single person who had seen any advertising. CCE owns billbaords and broadcast stations in Milwaukee and the surrounding area, so this baffled me.

So this question is: How can an FUSA event be a spectator event, due to the lack of real advertising, and a CCS event is a "club" event with a (perceived) policy of no advertising?

How does this question affect the riders and the rules?

We need a clear definition of who's club level and who is really pro, as well as what constitutes a "spectator" event as opposed to a club event. Finally we need some way to better understand administrative decisions, and have a voice in the process.    

As Dave is pointing out, there is a blur in the lines of who is enrty level/amauer/pro racers. These need to be defined by more than just a regional number and plate color.

I understand what Gordy is saying, and he has been a race director in the past. Dave's got many valid points as well. I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

I think what needs to be established is a set of goals to be implemented over the next serveral years. This is such a complex issue, and I think the racer's voices are left out of the discussion and debate over class structure/rules changes, etc. That's why these questions keep popping up year after year.

"Write a letter to CCS/Kevin Elliott" is not always the answer, answering a small survey on a yearly basis is not the most equitable way of affecting change.

Dave, Gordy and a handful of vocal racers have tried and sometimes succeeded/sometimes failed to make changes. What I would propose is a racer rep from each region/series to be liasion between CCS/FUSA. (I have proposed this to Kevin in the past)

The reps main objective would be to bring issues about anything racing related to the administrative ear, and for this person to get those answers back to the racers. Effective communication is hamstringed by the fact that CCS/FUSA have so few people on staff in the main office. I somehow think that this would be a better way to get anwsers than everyone asking the same questions, but basically getting no where because it's not on a priority list somewhere.

This would probably mean alot of volunteer work for someone, and CCS/FUSA would have to acknowledge the rep as being someone in a position to bring them ideas, issues and questions, and e willing to work with that person to listen, resolve and answer anything the racers might feel is important.

How this rep would be appointed/elected would have to be worked out, but somehow I feel that this would be one giant step towards making the racers feel like they were part of the process and not just a source of revenue.

The floor is open for debate.

The Northeast (LRRS) runs a three tier system that seemed to work well. They had Amateurs, Juniors, and experts. Basically the system was based on a combination of lap times, number of races, and performance index. Amateurs raced by themselves. The experts and juniors were on the track together. The Juniors would leave as a second wave. Juniors only raced against other Juniors.

Next year they are still running a 3 tier system, but it will be Novice, Amateur and Expert. I thought the junior class was a great idea. Too bad the rest of CCS didn't recognize the distinction and made Juniors run as experts anywhere else.

I am familiar with LRRS's system.

The trick with the LRRS system is that it is not perfectly compatible with CCS as it is.  At ROC, Juniors race as experts.

Additionally, there is no system for breeding a little funding for the "pro" racers...something that would breed real local competition in the form of machines, teams, riders, dealerships, pride, etc.

LRRS certainly has a huge history with dealerships being involved in local and national racing for decades.  

Spectators are not drawn by advertising, but by personalities.  You're not going to get much for personalities racing for points...well, you will, but not ones that are there necessarily looking to put in the fastest laps in an attempt to bring home some $$.

And for those not looking to race like that...well, we have the "B" class.  Still fun, still competitive.

Part one
There are a ton of snips of his original concepts here and there are two parts as well. Actually I think that you have hit on a very workable idea. Let me elaborate within your quoted text.
 
>Class C will be the entry level tier.  The riders will have their own practice.  The riders will have a limited number of classes available to them for racing.  Those classes will be divided by displacement.  Lightweight, Middleweight, Heavyweight,. No trophies, only certificates of accomplishment.  No championships. <

I would add, No Unlimited, No slicks, No Superbike with preparation only at the Supersport level
 
>A rider would be limited in the time that they could spend in this entry level class.<

Wouldn't it be better to move riders forward when they accumulated a certain amount of points? Using the current CCS points structure might not be appropriate as that structure hands out points way, way down the list of finishers ( where I usually am ) Maybe 25 for a 1st, 15 for 2nd, and 10 for 3rd. Then move them up when they hit say 100 points accumulated over several seasons. Further I think that moving a rider up mid-season in this class would make a lot of sense.

> but still allow a rider to stay in that structure for a maximum of about eighteen months. <

if done by points this is a self solving problem. A rider that wants to come out maybe once or twice a year can do so without fear on being placed in a race group that might be over their heads a bit.

Also it seems to me that any rider that runs within a certain percentage of the Expert Pole time for their class at the specific event ought to be moved up given that they have demonstrated the ability to ride smoothly and under control. Maybe this is where the more seasoned and experienced Experts could form a committee with the Race personel. They could ride in the Class C practice which would do two things at once:
Give the most experienced guys an incentive to acts as coach/referee, and
Helps to insure that riders moving up are in fact competent as well as fast.
This percentage needs to be in the %120 to %140 but that percentage would need lots of thinking by better riders than I am

 The structure is as such to allow them time to overcome the sensory overload that is associated with beginning racing and to become consistent without the pressure to perform at speed.

And that is exactly the difficulty I have right now. In amateur practice at a track I have never been to before the fast guys literally zoom by mostly within safe considerations, but sometimes not, and the vast majority of the Amateur that are familiar with the track come streaming by. This makes just learning the track extremely dangerous and difficult.
 
Sportsman type racing - Sportsman?
 
> current experts.<

This whole idea makes a great deal of sense as while many riders aspire to qualifying for Expert status, not many of us will be competitive. It seems that there is as much variance in lap times in the expert class as there is any place. However, winning just once, or accumulation of a certain amount of points ought to move a rider up and mid-season makes sense here too.

> Racers in this class would be competent and safe. <

 And I thought that we all had to ride competently and safely! Does this mean that a rider can consistently be  incompetant and unsafe and continue to be allowed to compete ?
 
Upper level racing - Expert or Pro?

>their would need to be a purse for each class, and, as a result, the entry fees would be higher <

And might that not be the basis for some of the purse?  

> As a result, qualifying would be expected. <

This, by itself, seems like an idea who's time has come. The computer program that would compare lap times from all practice sessions and form a grid based on those times is simplistic. My granddaughter could right one. Maybe the riders could be shuffled by the program by every two rows. But whatever, this is an easy thing to accomplish
  

Part two
. Maybe the riders could be shuffled by the program by every two rows. But whatever, this is an easy thing to accomplish
  
> Under the current structure, there are riders that have been amateurs for a few if not several seasons.  There are even some riders that have expert licenses that can run in or around the top ten in a Middleweight race, but that have petitioned to become amateurs...in the sake of making contingency and purse money that, I would argue, is rightfully the property of those entry level riders that the current amateur program is really meant for. <

And you would be arguing successfully!
 
Advantage of such a tiered system:
 
>A longer opportunity for true entry level racers to learn about the sport without the emotional pressure of worrying about being in the way of riders that circulate the track better. <

Just what I personally need and I'm not always last

There are other good ideas here but I have responded just to those few where I might have some reasonable insight. But please remember, I'm dead slow and just learning. I do have extensive experience in cars however and the problems there are ones of who has the most $.
Cars = Driver 10% tops car 90%
Bikes = Rider 90%, bike 10%

i ride in the mid atlantic and have an idea of what it is you are asking for, but why are you asking for the changes? safety, money, too many riders, we as riders need to find out what is the most important thing or problem that we need to change and deal with it one problem at a time. all of you made very good point but what is the # 1 problem that we as riders need fixed and how? for me its safety and sometimes i feel unsafe, ccs is doing a great job with what they have, and we as riders do need to give them CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, write down what it is we want changed, and e-mail or  send it to kevin.I would like the grid to be 3, 2, 3, 2, not 4, 3, 4, 3, turn 1 is scary too many riders to fast, it might help to have longer grids.black flaging slower riders or starting to use blue flags maybe bumping riders down if they are extremly slow, ill be the first to go if needed. ;)

Well, I don't know what to say to you.

Growth is necessary.

There needs to be a place for regular riders to feel welcome where they can be competitive on a reasonable basis.  Fun with rewards.

There needs to be a place for the really fast to feel pressured to do better and to be rewarded for their investment and risk.  Hard competition with reward.

There needs to be a place for honest new riders to have a place to learn a few things.  Opportunity to learn and have fun...get introduced into the racing community.

Safety?  Generally starts on the right hand.  But it also starts at set up.  Can't say that enough.  Even riders that I work with on a regular basis still don't always get that.  We can't make decisions for riders on what they do at a particular moment.

Starts?  They are potentially always the most dangerous time on track.  Sounds like you have some ideas.  I'd say make your proposals.  Usually the gridding is based on space available.  I'd love to have more space on the start...then again, if we raced based only on the fastest lap time, we might have a different winner too...so, our kind of racing is based on competing lap by lap, corner by corner.  

Even if we had the rows set up one by one by one...you'd still have everyone trying to get in on the same piece of real estate.  Agreed?

Blue flags?

Personally, I've only had them cause more problems than help.  Before a faster rider gets to a rider that is so slow that they need a blue flag...well, the faster rider has already changed their line to accomodate the rider.

The blue flag certainly catches the momentary attention of the slower rider...even if it is for a moment...that rider might only move one way or another a little bit, but it might be in the exact place that the faster rider was going...it can be very scary.  Unsafe?

Yeah, blue flags are weird. I was the recipient of them regularly, so I learned to ignore them. I've heard way too many experts complain that after someone gets a blue flag, they change their line or stand it up, causing more problems than it's worth.

If you are a slower rider, you should EXPECT to be passed (Until you become fast), and therefore should be listening and aware of everything around you. (You should be doing that anyhow), but you know what I mean.

I think anything that could eliminate confusion should be the order of the day.

i do agree that we need more riders, growth is very important on the other hand if the new riders dont feel safe they will not come back and i have seen many riders not come back because of that. i do think safety is very important and i really do believe that some very few riders have a switch that turns off when they put helmets on, and thats when the right elbow hits the pavement as soon as the green flag is up with complete disregard to safety. now dont get me wrong i am not the slowest rider out there but not the fastest one, all im saying is that most of us that work the 60 hr. weeks to be able to race on the weekends and like to bring the bike home still in one piece need to have a safer track. if you put less riders in the front , make it a thiner grid, than turn one will be safer, or if we can get the corner workers to use the blue flag correctlly it will get safer (if we dont just ignore it),we as riders need to make the change first. i was at barber and personally walked around the pit area to get people to be more involved in what it is we riders want out of ccs but no one gave me an answer as to how can we change this for the better, and im talking racing as a whole not just grids, or safty, or different classes. we need to write to ccs (kevin elliot) and give them/him solutions on what it is we want changed and HOW. i have spoke with many officials over the years and became close friends with some, they all tell me the same thing write to kevin he really want to help us riders since he is one himself.

Quotei do agree that we need more riders, growth is very important .

Very interesting idea. Growth, or lack there of is what has nearly killed Dirt Track racing. It stopped growing from the bottom up and anyone could see that coming as long ago as 1980. Win a big time major mile event and maybe make @ $ 4,000 ( that is excepting Dave Despains Springfield deal ). Where in the early 70s there would be maybe 130 + riders show up to qualify for a Championship event, Now they are lucky to get a full field of 48.


Absolutely it is the newer riders that will help the sport grow.  

QuoteWin a big time major mile event and maybe make @ $ 4,000 ( that is excepting Dave Despains Springfield deal ). Where in the early 70s there would be maybe 130 + riders show up to qualify for a Championship event, Now they are lucky to get a full field of 48.

In 2003, Mladin's take for the AMA Superbike win was a little over $4000, on a $250,000 machine.  A week later, Larry Denning took home $8000 in Yamaha contingency money at Blackhawk Farms for winning four CCS races.

In 1994, I qualified for the AMA 600 Supersport race.  There were 105 qualifiers for 80 positions.  If they bring 56 to the grid at Daytona, I'd be surprised.

AMA Pro racing is on it's own.  They have their own marketing, etc.  and they have WERA now.  CCS needs to do its own thing.

Tomer, again I'll say that there is no way you can regulate turn one unless you send riders off one at a time for timed laps only.  Go to Loudon on a Suzuki Cup weekend and put Jeff Wood at the back...he'll make it to the front or at least very close.  That's road racing.

Please re read my whole post.  This is about licensing.

Recognize that if you, personally, have a problem with turn one and the fanatical rush forward, mabye my top tiered class is not for you.  Something more sportsman related may be best for you where riders race to have fun and improve.  You can race for all the points you want, you can have a couple of money races, but the brunt of it would be for the top class.

A REAL amateur class would be available.  A guy gets going pretty good in the amateur class?  Well, he isn't getting points, contingency, or any money in that class there...time to move to the next tier.  

Any questions?

so sorry, maybe i didnt get my point across as will as i should have. tiered classes good idea, and maybe i will go to what ever class, but thats not the point im trying to to make, all of you have ideas and like my ideas some will work some will not but untill we write to ccs(kevin), they will not know how to fix the problems we are having on the track.

Quoteall of you have ideas and like my ideas some will work some will not but untill we write to ccs(kevin), they will not know how to fix the problems we are having on the track.

Sorry you didn't follow this on a prior thread.

Yeah, it needs to be written to KE.

But until something I take this up a bit, refine it and all, writing down a half-a$$ed idea doesn't work.  That's what this thread is all about...establishing an idea, refining the concept, and then trying to put it together in a form that might be usable for CCS.  

we had an at length talk about this last year as I recall. I would endorse this tired system as I thought the amatuer class needs to be changed and give the real new riders a place to start.

Offer the most classes in the middle class where most people will fit in. Offer less classes for the beginner, and less/longer classes for pro's.

But the money has to be right for CCS. And the contingency sponsors has to go for it. I am not sure how the companies will like classes they cannot offer contingencies in. New riders are most likely to buy one product over another. By the time you become an Expert, you become molded into your own thinking and opinions when it comes to products. You know what works for you and what not, and contingency will less likely to influence you to buy one product over another (except bikes). New riders will get excited about the $25 vortex cert, where as I don't really care anymore. So would the sponsors go for a no-point, no money, no-contingency amatuer status?

the idea will probably work better for racers. I believe so, and if I were to implement it, I may be able to make it work overall. But does it make enough business sense for CCS to change to this? Are they even able to take on a change with a scope as deep as this (regardless of whether they like the idea or not).

I work in the education industry, have  for a long time including consulting to schools/colleges. I see that the best way to improve the overall performance/level of a school is to improve students. Not the buildings, equiptment, and certainly not the rules.

If racing is to be safer, then the racers has to be of a higher caliber. They need to be educated more and better in how to race, mentally and physically. Know how to ride better. Know how to make better decisions. Know when NOT to do certain things. Rules and flags and etc are not the ultimate answer to safer racing. no matter what we put in place, it is up to the head in that helmet who ultimately decide what to do in any situation. If they can't process the information input better, they will just ignore the rules and guidelines and the flags.

How do we raise the level of racers? Limit participation in major races/classes until they are more qualified to race. So a 3 tier system with a limited entry tier is great. They should not be allowed to race in a money race, race in a highly contended race, race where they can easily go over their head, until they are ready.

But would CCS turn away more immediate income (from the fledging new amateurs) for better/safer racing?

If I have an org that was set up to make the profit margin foremost, I certainly wouldn't.

I certainly know where I would fall in a three tiered system.
I got pretty good as an amateur, but the jump to expert just kicked me in the sack!  At 41 years old and on a budget, I find myself racing against guys wjo have done AMA and FUSA pro events regularly.  These guys put on a new tire for every race, and they ride only the best of equipment.  In both money and talent, they are out of my league.
So where does a guy go if he's not competitive as an expert and can no longer be an amateur?  If you're me, you ride around at the back of the expert pack and hate it.  Most guys just quit.  
I like to RACE people.  But I can't hang with Perk, Ortega, Janich, SD, Tez, ect.  Most other guys with my problem have quit, so I have no one to race with.  How boring to take the green and watch the field leave, only to circle around alone for 8 laps.  That's not racing.
Excuses?  I've got 'em!  I don't have the budget to be a competitive expert.  I haven't got the talent, either.  My average is 6 to 8 seconds off the lap record wherever I go.  
My teammate once suggested that if he and I had new bikes, plenty of spares, fresh tires, race fuel and the budget to do every test day and then ten races a weekend, that we could ride and spend until we were as fast as the best experts.  He may be right.  But since we don't have the money, it's a moot point.  In six years, I've seen many guys more talented than me graduate to expert, get outspent to death, and then just quit.  As an example, Tez was very close to being out of the game when his Jordan deal came through.  This guy can qualify for AMA, but he was just too broke to continue on his own.
The three tiered system could give slower experts like me a reason to stay and keep spending money.  If Clearchannel really is all about the money, then this is a very good idea for both us and them.
Mongo had actually suggested last year that guys like me should just quit and leave it to the "Real" racers.  Problem is that thwere are way more of us than pros.  Drive out all the half-fast guys and CCS won't be able to make track rental.

QuoteHow boring to take the green and watch the field leave, only to circle around alone for 8 laps.  That's not racing.

I still have fun. ;D


But you are right K3, if you are on a limited budget, you are basically screwed. Not all of us can afford to buy new bikes and race them right off the showroom floor. My F2 has been a racebike since 1994. I;m currently making a racebike out of my 97 YZF750R and that bike was considered outdated in 96. Its 106rwhp isnt a match for a 04 GSXR750's 120+rwhp, nor is it as light, but its a bike I love riding. When its done, it may not be the fastest and flashiest high tech bike, but it will be enough to give Kim fits. ;D ;D ;D

Quote...suggested last year that guys like me should just quit and leave it to the "Real" racers.  Problem is that thwere are way more of us than pros.  Drive out all the half-fast guys and CCS won't be able to make track rental.

I agree.

I've seen good friends and friends of friends leave because they didn't have a "place".  Even if they were just entering a race or two, it still would have added to the field.

I think the double edged problem is that they system only continues to look for ways to farm new racers because they know that the "average" racer only lasts about 2.5 years or so.

When I started Visionsports, I wanted to try to give racers some tools that would keep them in longer than that.  Or maybe they would learn enough to stay involved in another kind of way.

Our Midwest race director, Bill, asked me early on this race weekend what I though about fewer races and making them longer....
 ;D  Hey, I was on a roll...I gave him a copy of this thread...so, we have an opportunity to work on some ideas.



On another note...

Let's look at what I think the reality is for Clear Channel Entertainment.

CCS is something that makes a bit more money that keeping the money in the bank.  So, they are not going to spend money on advertising, etc.  Let's just get that up front.

To them, this IS only sportsman type racing where everything is paid by the racers.  I've always contested that the only way to get spectators would be for racers to promote themselves anyway.  If you were operating your "race team" like a business, you'd want people coming to see you anyway.

So, if we could change some of the structure of the racing, it might be beneficial to us, for fun and for $$.  Just by chance it might attract someone to see it.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where I asked CCE to spend money on advertising....they can continue doing the things they do with fliers, etc...that would be great.

K3, I'm in the same boat.  I share your thoughts and feelings pretty much to a T.  Luckily, I have been able to have some great races with guys for, uh, 15th place.  If you are ever in the Mid-Atlantic region, I think we'd be able to give each other a wicked dice for first place in the last third of the field!!

     I am much in the same situation as K3 since I came back after my 2 year break, I am not spending the necessary time, involvement, and money to get back up front.

     An observation I have made is that there has been a very noticable change to regional racing since I started in '96. Those 1st 4 years of racing were good for me and I was able to run in the top 5 often and in the top 10 at almost every event as an expert. I was running 6 classes per event back then, riding a 750, and could usually run competatively on a pair of tires for 1 1/2 to 2 events depending on the tracks.

     After returning to racing I found that things had changed quite a bit, ultimately having the bar raised to a whole new level. Costs for entrys, gate fees, travel costs, and hotels had all gone up quite a bit. What I found was wide spread use of high dollar fuels, multiple sets of wheels per bike, numerous racers running lots of classes per event on different late model bikes, and tires being used for only 1 to 3 classes by many of the leaders in the MW / HW / UL classes. That tire cost alone has risen dramatically due to all the new bikes having so much more horsepower which eats tires quickly. Another thing I have noticed is the 'lines' that numerous leaders are running currently which utilizes much less flowing lines around the track and is much harder on the tires, but is ultimately faster. I agree that set-up is a major factor in going fast, but take away fresh rubber and that set-up is only going to do so much.

     This is where I believe that people like K3 and myself have been kind of left behind in the leaders dust. With a constantly rotating field of some new experts every year willing to spend horendous amounts of money on the previously mentioned items it keeps the expense bar raised to that level, yet doesn't have the return available to the majority of the racers to stay competative. Ultimately you have to spend all that money also in order to get close to running up at the front before you will ever see any kind of return, kind of a double edge sword. I am running a bike that is down a minimum of 20 horsepower from the other MW bikes, I'm still running tires that I ran at the R.O.C. last fall, and I weigh in at 230 lbs! (I'm running about 12-15% off the pace of the leaders with that combination) For me I am just trying to stay in the sport while I build back-up financially, but realistically I know I couldn't run in the front 1/2 of the pack in a MW race with that combination.

     A 3 tier system would probably help to relieve some of this, but I would be willing to bet that their would still be outragous spending even in the middle level. I don't know a way around this other than eliminating tire contingency at that level, but that's not practicle. :-/

Good points guys.

First, I'll hit on some stuff.

Comparing my prices of Michelin Radial Race DOT tires from when I was doing AMA in 1993 to now...the prices have not dramatically changed.  Bike prices went up a good deal.  Entry fees went up.  

Fuel...I can still run a 13 at Blackhawk on an actual street Michelin tire front and rear while running on pump gas.  Put on race DOT's and some Power Mist fuel that I'll run in a race (@ $9 a gallon), I can get into the elevens by the end of the weekend when I've really got my mind into it.

Tires will always be an issue.  That's the cost of admission for going fast.  Old one's don't work like new ones.  What can one's expectations be?  It was like that in 1987 with guys running the Suzuki Cup stuff.  I was always dumbfounded by the fact that they used up a set of tires for A race.  Lasted me longer...but I didn't have the set up, the experience, or the riding to USE them that way.

But still...an older bike with a PROPER SET UP can do well.  The lap times can prove it from over ten years ago...but there are few older bikes being raced that have a "good proper set up".

I think one of the things that happened was that the AMA stuff became a bit more competitive.  Costs there escalated.  So, some guys that might have went that route have stayed more local.

The availability of really good suspension has really helped those who have taken advantage of it.

Still, back to the original concept.

Guys, how do we do this?

Three tier system.

Pro Expert?  Sportbike, Formula Sportbike, Unlimited Grand Prix, Thunderbike, Formula Grand Prix (250 GP bikes with 600s), Lightweight Sportbike?

$100 an entry with a purse, qualifying, longer races...Championships, bonuses, etc?

Expert Sportsman?  MWSS, MWGP (250 GP bikes with 600s), LWSS, LWGP (125GP bikes with the lightweight production bikes), ULSB, Supertwins, F40, LWF40, HW/ULSS, ULGP...

Championships, current entry costs, etc.

Amateur?    ULSB, LW, MW, HW, UL...gives everyone, except those running a thousand, to run two classes.  

No points...minimum two weekends of competition in Amateur with a maximum of 18 months or so.  Cost of two entries shouldn't be much more, total, when compared to a "track day".

Thoughts?

QuoteThree tier system.

Pro Expert?  Sportbike, Formula Sportbike, Unlimited Grand Prix, Thunderbike, Formula Grand Prix (250 GP bikes with 600s), Lightweight Sportbike?

$100 an entry with a purse, qualifying, longer races...Championships, bonuses, etc?

Expert Sportsman?  MWSS, MWGP (250 GP bikes with 600s), LWSS, LWGP (125GP bikes with the lightweight production bikes), ULSB, Supertwins, F40, LWF40, HW/ULSS, ULGP...

Championships, current entry costs, etc.

Amateur?    ULSB, LW, MW, HW, UL...gives everyone, except those running a thousand, to run two classes.  

No points...minimum two weekends of competition in Amateur with a maximum of 18 months or so.  Cost of two entries shouldn't be much more, total, when compared to a "track day".

Thoughts?

Dave,

I would sign up for this... Indeed I would...  I'm not sure how CCE would deal with contingency though.  Especially when it comes to MFR contingencies.  

Also, how would a race weekend look?  All Pro-EX on Sun?  All AM on Sat?  Divided up??

Ideally it would probably be best to have the extreme class (Pro-EX) on one day so that the rigs can show up, run and leave.  After all, they have important stuff to do, like wind-tunnel testing different hair colors.

So another thought...  What about those who could easily run the Pro-EX, but remain in the EX ranks simply because they are (relatively) guaranteed that win & contingency whereas they'd have to fight for it in the Pro-EX ranks?  

Personally, I think it'd be funny to place a purse on 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th & 9th places.  That would make for some interesting racing!

There would probably need to be a stipulation that a racer couldn't be a Pro Expert and an Expert Sportsman on the same weekend.

Here's a novel thought.  Do Expert Sportsman riders need contingency and purses?  If there are no financial rewards for running as an Expert Sportsman, then it would truly only attract the "Hobby Racers."  Career buldiers would be in and out as fast as possible.  (Just a thought, and don't think that I'm not utterly thrilled when I recieve a bit of contingency myself!)
Those purses could be diverted to the Pro Expert class, thus sweetening the deal for riders willing to put forth the time, effort and money necessary to compete at the top level.  (Again I hear CCS yelling, "We already have FUSA!")
I remember showing up to Barber on a CCS/FUSA weekend and nearly being killed numerous times during the PRACTICE DAY!.  I couldn't even begin to learn the track while pro riders buzzed past at 20-30 seconds a lap faster, and we were ALL in danger because of this mismatch.  It wasn't until I took out Ike's amateur bike in a yellow plate practice that I could finally start to learn anything about the track.
I think this three tier idea rocks.  I'm all for it.

Contingency...

Well, nothing in Amateur.

Sportsman...you'd have some...probably similar to current amateur stuff.  I think still that this level of racing should have some amount of reward for those that compete regularly and work to do better.  Might be on their way to becoming a Pro Expert or just continuing to have fun over the long haul.  

Pro Expert - well, you'd like to have a deeper contingency because there is going to be fewer races available and should be more "competitive" and, thus, more expensive to remain competitive.

Formula USA as a national series?  Well, it's nice, I support it, but it doesn't really pay.  Unfortunately, given this year's purse, I can't continue to follow it.  Last year...well, that was good contingency.  Anyway, it doesn't seem to work.  One reason might be because there is are few direct classes that move between regional and national events.

Please eliminate any talk about advertising and all.  Yup, CCE has all kinds of media available, but really the word should get out through US, the racers, promoting ourselves and our programs.  If we have good racing like we did the past weekend at Blackhawk...hey, it was exciting, my neighbors thought it was really cool.

If you make it...they will come.  That can be reality.  If it's good racing, the word will get out.  NASCAR?  Hey, a consise set of rules that maintains an even playing field has kept many races undecided until the end of a long race...Everyone has their favorites, but who will do it.  That sells and brings those people in.  

Contingency is really required in the expert ranks.  Offsetting tire costs is a huge help, and one that would not really be prudent to remove.

Purses though...  I stopped running purse paying classes this year due to the additional cost.  I loved the GTx classes, but at this point I stand little chance of getting anything back, so I don't run them.

If I had a solid chance at a 5th, I'd run it.  But with the average pace being in the 12's-13's, I can't cut it with 15's currently.

QuoteIf I had a solid chance at a 5th, I'd run it.  But with the average pace being in the 12's-13's, I can't cut it with 15's currently.

OK, so what would make you run it?

Jeff, you can ride, and you ride well...Yeah, you're not doin' 13's...

If the entry were $110 for a class, the race was 50% longer, and there was payback to tenth like ULGP...but it's a middlewieght class...Add a few dollars for a end of year payout to the top five in points...

Would you rather run that kind of a class or run something only for points where you could finish maybe in the top five?

There would obviously be some over lap.  Some guys running Pro Expert would be slower than the fastest guys in Sportsman Expert.  But would the potential for possible reward, longer races, and prestige sway which way you would go?

I think that Stumpy wants to go further.  So, I can say that he'd probably go the Pro Expert Route...Key...well, I'd bet that he'd like to offset his costs.

Ike?  Where are you?  Starting back up...yeah, sportsman, but maybe lookin' for Pro.

Chime in...

QuoteExpert Sportsman?  MWSS, MWGP (250 GP bikes with 600s), LWSS, LWGP (125GP bikes with the lightweight production bikes), ULSB, Supertwins, F40, LWF40, HW/ULSS, ULGP...

 

Where would the 700cc SV's fit in?  Anyone who's been around for a while in the LW class instead of doing a supersport rebuild (since it's only good for one class) have upgraded to the 700cc motor. (I can name 5 off the top of my head)

Perhaps require stock air box and carbs (these parts are more obtainable than a new motor), but allow an increase of the CC size.  If this configuration is run, you would get a little over 80+ HP when our supersport SV was at 73.

I don't know how common it is in the in-line four classes to SB the motor.

My $0.02

Dawn   :-/

 Dave, I think you have a great idea. I would personaly love to see the format changed to something like what you have proposed. I raced motocross for a long time before I made the switch to roadracing, and when I did I didn't understand why the structure was the way it was. I raced motocross from when I was a full beginner all the way to AMA Supercross, and the format they used gave you incentive to progress. At local races they had an "A" "B" and a "C" class. "C" being new beginner or novice racers, there was now contingency or payback for these guys other than a small trophey. Once you showed good speed, or when you just started walking away from the rest of the novices they could move you up at any time in the year to the "B" class. "B" class or intermediate racers could earn contingency and race for points. The orginising district could not force you up to the "A" or expert ranking until the end of the season. Now i'm going to jump in here and say that even though they didn't move a large number of "B" class riders up to the "A" class I personaly thought they moved to many up,and it caught me off guard when I saw how easiley CCS moves riders up to expert. I mean you could finish mid pack all season long and race somewhere around eight races a weekend and still get moved to expert with there 800 point rule or whatever it is. Now a "B" class rider could move himself up to the "A" class at any time he felt ready, but at the discression of the district the rider could be moved back to the "B" class. The "A" or expert rider would race for points and cash along with contingency. And an"A" class rider could choose to move further up through the ranks if he wanted by applying for a Pro Expert AMA licnese. But if feel that the way it was done when I raced motocross gave everyone a place at the track along with the fact that people were always looking towarkd the fact that they could have someone competitive to race against. And if an "A" of expert rider wanted more competition of a chance at more of a purse then he or she could race a Pro Am race where there was more competition and more purse. My point is that it worked in motocross it could work in roadracing. I'm with you Dave 100%.

Someone write the petition letter to send to the membership.  I'll support with money and willing to critique all suggestions.

SD?  I'll edit if you write...

QuoteWhere would the 700cc SV's fit in?

I don't know how common it is in the in-line four classes to SB the motor.

My $0.02

Dawn   :-/

Uncommon to SB MW/HW/UL bikes.  Might be because the technology changes every two years, so you're almost better off moving to a new machine for resale...or buying a two year old former race bike...because they can go cheap.  Not that they are uncompetitive, but they are usually not good for manufacturer continency.

With a REAL purse available at the Pro Expert level, Manufacturer Contingency wouldn't necessarily be what drives the need to buy a new bike.  Might change some things...maybe.

700cc LW bikes...good question.  I don't have a great answer.  I do have LWGP.  Currently, there is LWSB and LWGP and Thunderbike.

Would Paul be running Pro Expert or Expert Sportsman?  Sportsman would have more classes available, but Pro Expert would have $$.


Now as for a concise plan....I think we need more input yet.  Keep it coming.

Remember, this is really a complete revamp of the whole club system.  It's always been one way.  Trying to figure out who would be what would be exciting all on its own.

Then we've got to sell the ability of racers to actually enter races with confidence.  In 2003, CCS offered Sportbike at the regional events with a purse.  Even though the rules were pretty much exactly like Supersport, only about eight to eleven guys would enter it at Blackhawk.  How can one tell CCS that riders will actually enter the Pro Expert races?  What would the fee structure be?  Qualifying?  We need a new schedule.

Dave,

If the race were longer and paid back to 10th, I'd run it.  

This year  I avoided all purse classes to keep my costs down.  I run 4 races per weekend and it's costing me $190.  Would I rather run 3 races, 1 with a (virtually unattainable) purse for $190?  no.  Would I pay more to run a GT race that paid to 10th?  Yes!  $110 though?  That's kinda stiff...  I'd probably end up running it sometimes, but not consistently.

I'm with Sean though.  Dave, get something together that we can get out and present at BHF and G-Man.

Rock the vote zupa-dave!

QuoteThis year  I avoided all purse classes to keep my costs down.  I run 4 races per weekend and it's costing me $190.  Would I rather run 3 races, 1 with a (virtually unattainable) purse for $190?  no.  Would I pay more to run a GT race that paid to 10th?  Yes!  $110 though?  That's kinda stiff...  I'd probably end up running it sometimes, but not consistently.

Gotta keep running with this.

Ok, you have a 600.  With my format...somewhere in this thread...you could run several races.  Let's say you decided to run the two "600" classes, Sportbike and Formula Gran Prix, and then race against the bigger bikes in Formula Sportbike.  All three would be purse races.  I'd really hope that they'd pay to tenth...at least.  Might have a payback based on entries?  

Races would be about twelve laps long at Blackhawk Farms.  I would suppose that you'd do qualifying for each "tier"...Sportbike and Formula Sportbike would qualify together, Formula Sportbike and Unlimited Grand Prix together, Lightweight Grand Prix and Thunderbike, etc....

If we're reducing classes, then the cost has to go up.  If we're getting more track time and qualifying, the cost has to go up.  Nothing can be free.  

Each rider usually enters so many classes.  That generates so much money for CCS.  We can't cut them short...that won't work.  I think currently an average racer usually enters four to five classes.  So, you, at $190, is around the average of four to five classes.  Would you enter three classes at $100 each with the opportunity to be part of a bigger show and to maybe get some payback?

QuoteSo, you, at $190, is around the average of four to five classes.  Would you enter three classes at $100 each with the opportunity to be part of a bigger show and to maybe get some payback?

$190 - 4 races
$300 - 3 races

This might be tough.  

I'm very budget based (who isn't?), so it would be a trial & error thing for me.  Would I like 12 lap races?  YOU BET!

Do I want to be a part of "a bigger show"?  I dunno...  it would really depend.  It's like FUSA for me.  Could I run FUSA?  Sure, I suppose I could.  However, I can't justify the extra costs to race for bottom 5 just because there's more exposure.

I would trial/error the format and see if it worked for me.

The one thing I have resigned at this point though is that (barring lotto & miracle in capabilities) I'm not going to run professional.  I'm a club guy.  I enjoy the family aspect & comfortable paces.

I'd rather run (BHF) 13's - 15's and be comfortable/stay upright, than push the envelope running 10's - 12's and crash 5x in a weekend.  But that's just me.  That being the case, the pro/ex may not be the right format for me.  Again, it would be trial/error to see.

Obviously, if I could run pro-ex and finish top 10 around 50% of the time, getting a payback, I would absolutely do it!

And YES, Purses SHOULD  be based on entries!  25% of entry fee back as purse, or something like such.

Yes and no.

In 1993, purses for GTU and GTO were based on entries.  Top finishers were given a percentage of the purse.

If you spent the money to go to Heartland Park Topeka and race (there weren't tons of entries), you only go so much money.  In June of that year, Jason Pridmore and I raced against each other and our take home purse was ridiculously small.  

You'd want people to go race at the "less popular" venues for some consistency.  So, you'd have to make some guarantees for a purse.  Yeah, some places CCS would get more money for the purse, but it'd be used to make up for it in other places.

Bottomline is that the purse needs to be reasonable, but not extraordinarily substantial.

$200 for a win in ULGP seems small for me.  You'd want the top five guys getting a pretty decent payback, with a payback of the entry fee plus something for the final five in the top ten...

Thoughts?

QuoteI'd rather run (BHF) 13's - 15's and be comfortable/stay upright, than push the envelope running 10's - 12's and crash 5x in a weekend.  But that's just me.  That being the case, the pro/ex may not be the right format for me.  Again, it would be trial/error to see.

Obviously, if I could run pro-ex and finish top 10 around 50% of the time, getting a payback, I would absolutely do it!

Yeah, that's the opportunity.

One, you'd have a choice.  Could you post really good results as an Expert Sportsman with 13's?  Probably.  

Might be boarder line for getting your entry fees back in Pro Expert.

But, you'd have the choice.  "Down grading" your license wouldn't be like "becoming" and amateur either....something that happens more now than in the past...and really seems ridiculous based on the perception and nomenclature of the class.

Well, I like the idea.  It sounds like a good idea to promote true talent and dedication.  I also really like the idea of paying more to the pros...TRULY more.  As in, not 200 for a win, but more along the lines of 750 or so.  200 would be good for 5th place.

Second, I think you'd need to try and see if you can get the manufacturers to step up their contingency for this pro class.  Sorry, but 60 bux from Dunlop for a win doesn't cut it...considering I just spent more than 300 dollars for a set of tires.  It needs to pay further back as well, just like the purse does.

I say the first two points because there are those of us who aspire to make it pro someday that afford these aspirations from their own back pockets.  A true pro team doesn't give a crap about that contingency money, but there are those of us that it literally means making the next race or not.

Lastly, it all comes down to money for CCE.  How will this make money for them?  It sounds to me like it will make less money, and as we know CCE doesn't give a shit about us...only money.  So how will it make more than the current structure?

Clay, a couple of years ago Unlimited GP used to pay $500 for a win and like $50 for 10th.  Riders weren't entering it like now with $200 for the win and whatever it is now (more than $50?) for 10th.

You can't get the manufacturers to step up.  When they say they will, they sometimes change their mind.  The only way to make this work is to establish a reasonable and solid foundation upon the CCS structure.

Yes, CCE can't loose money.  Can we make it a win, win situation?

Win for CCE...keep riders longer.  If you could increase a rider base of 5000 (that spends $500,000 on their license renewals at $100 each) to 7000...hey, that's an extra $200,000.  Insurance for Daytona is $42k alone.  Help with the bleeding of money and things really could change.

Would a purse structure for "Pro Experts" attract other riders from other organizations?  Might.  More licenses.  

Give more opportunities to the not so fast and not so financially well off to be reasonable competitive...well, you might get more entries in addition to retaining those riders for a year more than the 2.5 average.

SO, do you think you can convince CCE to give the go ahead on something like this with the "investment" model?  

It sounds like a good idea.  Either way, I'm really looking forward to racing with the white plates next year and can't wait to get even faster!!!!  ;D

I think I just need to sell it to Kevin Elliott and the race directors.  CCE...as long as it doesn't cost them money...will it matter to them?

That's just it though.  They might see this as an "investment" since it's got the potential to flop or sail.  Is it one they're willing to take?  I'd think the first year would see a possible decline in cash flow.  But your proposed idea of keeping more in longer is an idea for future growth.  

Anyhow, I ramble on.  There's no point in us guessing what the suits will do!  

At this point, I'm just reall curious to know the class structure.  I want to run the pro class, plain and simple.  Since I currently ride a 929, am I going to be stuck in only one class, or will I at least have two?  A SS and GP class sounds good to me.  The SBK class is overkill.  

I do like the idea of being able to race the pro class on just one day.  I tell ya, taking off work has hurt as much as the cost of racing.  I'm a contractor, so when I don't bill for hours, I don't make money.  Racing on Sat and Sun w/the usual practice on Friday sucks, NOT to mention FUSA weekend...Th-Sun.  I actually like the Florida races because I can drive down Sat and drive back Sun after the race is over.

QuoteThat's just it though.  They might see this as an "investment" since it's got the potential to flop or sail.  Is it one they're willing to take?  I'd think the first year would see a possible decline in cash flow.  But your proposed idea of keeping more in longer is an idea for future growth.  

Anyhow, I ramble on.  There's no point in us guessing what the suits will do!  

Well, the "suit" that will have to decide on it would be Kevin Elliott...a former racer himself, so....

QuoteAt this point, I'm just reall curious to know the class structure.  I want to run the pro class, plain and simple.  Since I currently ride a 929, am I going to be stuck in only one class, or will I at least have two?  A SS and GP class sounds good to me.  The SBK class is overkill.

Yeah, two seems good.  That's the idea.  Need to sit down with a schedule and try to revamp it a bit...

Disagree, I like it the way it is.

Good!

Tell me the good points.

Where do you race?

What classes do you race?

Did you receive your contingency quicky?  Was there enough?

How much was your purse?

Did you have fun?

First let me make a comment on something I read a few pages back, while it's still fresh in my head:

QuoteAmateur?    ULSB, LW, MW, HW, UL...gives everyone, except those running a thousand, to run two classes.  

Why not just change HW to include 1000s, and drop Unlimited?  Years ago, the 750 class was the "big bike" class.. GSX-R750, ZX-7R, YZF750, etc.  Not anymore - nobody but Suzuki makes a decent 750, and who knows how long that'll be around?  We need to keep with the times.  Since it seems to me that the grids for HW classes are no different than the grids for the MW classes (with 1 or 2 exceptions... Hall for example in the midwest), HW pretty much becomes a redundant class.  First thing you do when trying to improve efficiency is cut redundancy!

Now, as for the rest of this...

A lot to digest here - but overall I like the ideas.  3 tiers is a good idea for all the reasons listed here (no reason to reiterate.)  One thing I am very curious about is how you plan to make it all fit into a 2-day schedule?  I think that before CCS is really going to listen to this new idea (which is essentially a COMPLETE restructuring of how things are run) - we'd have to provide them with proof that it can physically work.  Come up with a sample schedule, come up with a basic financial plan forecasting registration fees, etc.  It seems like most everybody agrees to the general idea presented here - now let's try working out some of the smaller details to see if what we're proposing can actually work.

It's time for lunch.  Let me think about this some and I'll post more later.

Oh - and put me down for "Pro" class.

Just to throw a wild and crazy idea out there...  I haven't started racing yet, so I really don't have any opinions one way or the other on how CCE runs the show but:

If CCE isn't really promoting the sport and it's just a money making thing for them, and any change requires lots of research and proposal from riders vs. the sanctioning body, would it make any sense to create a non-profit by-racers for-racers organization to promote and produce these events?

Maybe this is totally blasphemous to suggest, but I guess my question is, what value does CCE provide that wouldn't exist in a member-run organization?  I imagine the big one is financial backing, but if the events are profitable, is that really an issue?  In a member-run setup, the profits could go towards increasing purses and/or airfence etc, vs. suplementing a for-profit company's coffers.

QuoteJust to throw a wild and crazy idea out there...  I haven't started racing yet, so I really don't have any opinions one way or the other on how CCE runs the show but:

If CCE isn't really promoting the sport and it's just a money making thing for them, and any change requires lots of research and proposal from riders vs. the sanctioning body, would it make any sense to create a non-profit by-racers for-racers organization to promote and produce these events?

Maybe this is totally blasphemous to suggest, but I guess my question is, what value does CCE provide that wouldn't exist in a member-run organization?  I imagine the big one is financial backing, but if the events are profitable, is that really an issue?  In a member-run setup, the profits could go towards increasing purses and/or airfence etc, vs. suplementing a for-profit company's coffers.

Your idea has been discussed a LOT already, and is still an idea on the table for some of us.  It's also a whole separate discussion.

I think the biggest hurdle to overcome when starting a new racing organization is money.  It takes significant money to rent a track, pay insurance, pay cornerworkers, etc.  Since you don't really know if enough people are going to show up until the day of the event... it also becomes a large financial risk, in that you might wind up LOSING money.

QuoteYour idea has been discussed a LOT

I never claimed that it was an original idea. ;)

Sorry for the threadjack.  FWIW, I think SD's 3 tier proposal makes a lot of sense.  Having spectated, and seen guys like Ed run away with every race he enters, (not a complaint, big props to Mr Key), it did cause me to question what the reward is for being bumped to Expert and having no chance of competing with the top few guys.

I intent to start racing my SV next year, and will likely only be racing the BHF weekends, primarily due to financial constraints.  The sportsman class sounds like it'd be where I'd ideally end up after my time in novice.  I have no delusions about ever being as fast or commited as the top experts, but it would be nice to know I'll have someplace to run and have a shot at being competetive.

QuoteWhy not just change HW to include 1000s, and drop Unlimited? First thing you do when trying to improve efficiency is cut redundancy!

Good question.

First, we have no idea where the market will really go.  So, to eliminate a displacement level might be a shot in the foot.

Heavyweight....Yeah GSXR750's...

But you still have RC51's, Ducati's, Aprilia's, etc...TLR's, SV1000's...I know, they aren't as popular.  But I don't expect many of those bikes to have anything for the new generation of 1000 fours.

And the new generation of 1000 fours certainly have staked out the claim as being unlimited.  

That's why I continued to have some sparation.  Suzuki still pays for may of it's Un-unlimited bikes in other categories.

There is only one bump class for those bikes...Unlimited GP.  Still limited, but does that satsify the market?  Not as many classes available, but still something in the "pro" category.

Ridgeway...

Yeah, I don't have perfect answers.

AHRMA is a member run and owned organization.  Unfortunately, the individuals that were in power that could make read everyday decisions were force out.  Now all that is left are individuals that form committees that look at things.  Several years ago, I competed in the Formula 500 class.  We had big grids...rules were changed (certain members gained power and changed the rules to reflect what they thought things were all about) and now this same class is unlikely to have many more than eight riders at a venue...sometimes less than five.  Terrible.  

I've butted heads with Kevin Elliott, but at least he will stand by his decision whether it's right or wrong...he'll take responsibility.  That can be a bigger help than a commitee.  Ultimately, business gets done that way.

Thoughts?

     SD, Something else to consider is when they run the 1 day format, will there be enough time to get all the practices, several qualifying sessions, and all the classes in during the day (and still leave a time 'cushion' for delays)? Also what classes would get combined on a single day event schedule, and would it be feasible (and safe) combinations? :)

Quoteit did cause me to question what the reward is for being bumped to Expert and having no chance of competing with the top few guys.

Not to pick on you, but I'm going to use what you said as an example.  Please don't take this to heart, or let it discourage you.

This is the wrong kind of attitude to have when trying to go racing, IMO.  You shouldn't be looking at the leaders and saying, "I have no chance... why should I bother?"  Instead, you should look at it as, "What to do I have to do to get to that level?  How can I beat him?"

Racing is about improving.  My thoughts are that you should always strive to make it to the top.  Discouraging youself from the get-go with "I'll *never* catch that guy" attitude won't help you any.  Be realistic - YES... don't expect to win an AMA national your first time on the track... but don't give up before you even try.

To me, setting goals and making progress towards achieving them is really what keeps me coming back.  When I started racing, I looked at the expert leaders... Rosno, Gordon, Tez, Weeden, and was like "Wow those guys are fast... I hope I can beat them some day."  Now, I haven't beat them yet... but it's definitely confidence inspiring to start looking at the guys that you look up to and think to yourself, "Ya know, they're not THAT fast..."  ;)

If you're looking for a class where you can definitely win - then why even bother?  Just go run NESBA or one of the many other trackday organizations.  There, everybody is a winner.

Don't have answers for that.  I think the one day format is kind of ridiculous.

Want some people to show up?  Offer money.

That was how FUSA got to a hot start in 2000 when SFX bought it (and CCE bought up SFX)...big purses.  John Ulrich was commenting about the $50,000 team owner bonus that he got for winning the championship at Road America.

So, one day format...still I have no idea.  Last year I got the fuel rules changed so you can actually run pump gas and racing fuel that you could potentially buy at a reasonable cost at the race track.  

I don't see anyone thinking that they should try racing CCS club events for any given length of time.  For what ends?  Guys are turned away for various reasons.  There is no good return for trying to put together any kind of real local or regionalized effort (or national for that matter), so why not make some changes to really pull riders in from the track days (one of the real pulls against race licensing) and give riders that aren't God Awful Fast a place to enjoy themselves and to learn, and a place where the fast guys can duke it out for some fair money.

Is $350 too much for a win.?  It certainly might cover a few races and dinner.  

No offense taken.

I see your point, and I do certainly strive to be as good a rider as I can, given the time and funds that I have available to dedicate to the sport.

I'm just trying to be realistic in my expectations so that I don't set myself up for frustration and disapointment if I'm not a regular top-5 finisher out of the gate.  I could see this leading to a quick exit from the sport, or crashing my brains out, riding over my head.

I don't need to win, (though that is of-course the goal).  The big draw for me is the thrill of competetion.  I fully expect to enjoy myself whether battling for 10th or 1st.  I just hope that there are others out there of comparable skill to battle with!

How about this for an pro pay out...

1   $350
2   $180
3   $150
4   $140
5   $130
6   $120
7   $ 95
8   $ 80
9   $ 70
10 $ 70
11 $ 60
12 $ 60
13 $ 50
14 $ 50
15 $ 50

Total $1655

What's the current break down on the ULGP purse for a $70 fee?  It's a $1000, I know that.  Last Blackhawk 24 guys started at $70 each...that's $1680-$1000 purse=$680 to "operate" the race.

I'd figure a $100 fee for this all day long.  Figure that we loose a couple of guys...22 guys at $100 each...$2200-$1655 purse=$520 to operate the race.  

If more guys decide that the have an opportunity of getting more money, all their entry or some of it back, would entries increase beyond our non-scientific example?

Who wouldn't like to get $50 of an entry fee back when you finish 15th for a $100 entry?

GTU pays nothing for sixth...no tire money, no nothin'...Costs $70...and a rear tire.

Faces for example...Last Blackhawk

1   $350  Jesse Janisch
2   $180  Dave Rosno  (I got $125 on the previous system)
3   $150  Brian Johnson
4   $140  Brain Boyd
5   $130  Matt Malterer
6   $120  Dan Ortega
7   $ 95   Doc Purk
8   $ 80   Andy Feruersthaler
9   $ 70   Dennis Debuhr
10 $ 70   Heath Locum
11 $ 60   Willie Broten
12 $ 60   Stumpy
13 $ 50   Ike
14 $ 50   John Avi Roop
15 $ 50   Greg Hemmersbach

16  Anthony Connor
17  Jeremy Bentz
18  Brenden Hafner
19  Rob Oliva
20  Rhiannon Lucente
21  Doc Stein
22  Simon Kowaski
23  Brian Hall
24  Mark Stiles

Certainly, even for some return, at least, I'm gonna try to do a bit more than circulate at 15th place.  Not a big reward, but at least you're getting something back.  Then you've got Murphy's Rule working for you too...

Brian Hall was well in command of second place when he tumbled in front of me...that moves everyone up.

Well Dave, you want opinions, here's mine. :)

     I think that this 3 tier system may be the way to draw in more new racers and get more racers to stay racing longer, which is something our sport desperately needs. As numbers of racers involved increases, due to new racers and people staying longer, it would make sense that money and support would follow in the form of contingency and purse money.

     The 1st tier would hopefully draw in some of those track day riders and curious street riders that may be intimidated to give this a try by allowing them some racing that most likely won't have some 'on fire' multi-year sand-bagger passing them like they were sitting still making them feel right from the start that it's not for them. Someone spectating the 1st tier races would probably feel that they could do that too.

     I have said numerous times how I think advancement should be based on lap time percentage as compared to the fastest expert racers racing that same event on similar equipment. This is comparing 'apples to apples' and should be fairly accurate. The exception to this is when you have a stand out expert racer who is smokin everyone else, but even that could be fixed by taking the fastest lap times of the top 3 or 5, averaging them together, and using that as the comparison lap time.

     A minimum required amount of races in the 1st tier (on top of the lap time percentage) sounds like a good idea too, that way new racers can become familiar with the racing format and procedures before being thrown in with the wolves. I think there should be a certain number of completed races, not a time frame, which determines the move (not # of events). If someone wants to get the 1st tier out of the way sooner they could run more classes right off the bat, but there would need to be at least 2 sprint classes to compete in per bike to really get the track time needed to learn. I would also be very much in favor of GT classes for tier 1 racers, that is an excellent way to gain experience and become more familiar with being on the track in a racing environment.

     As far as a maximum time frame in tier 1 I think number of classes run total combined with lap time comparison is good for that too. I wouldn't force someone to move up based solely on their lap time meeting the minimum for advancement to tier 2, let them do the max number of total classes run if so desired. But I would also have a lap time percentage in the tier 1 class which would force an advancement in order to avoid the large differences in lap times and speed which is both dangerous and intimidating. Determining how many races minimum and maximum and appropriate lap time percentages would be something that could be decided later by a possible combination of CCS and expert racers.

too be continued....

     Tier 2 would definately see huge grids in some classes, which could be bad in ways. This could lead to possible sell outs of grid positions in some classes which would be bad since this 3 tier structure would ultimately have less classes run total during an event. Tracks with 60 rider density (or less if there are any?) would probably sell out often in some classes, due to the combination of current amateur and expert classes, which would probably lead to lower total event revenue. There would also be alot more lappers in these races as well because of the shear size of the grids and difference in lap times (the larger the grid-the sooner the lappers).

     On the positive side I think this would be a great place for people who realize that they have to work on Monday and hanging off the ragged edge isn't for them. There would probably be alot of great racing thru-out the entire fields in tier 2 due to commonality in lap times between more racers at varying levels.

     Tier 3 would be a great spectator class as well because the shear speed of most all competators would be impressive. The higher pay-out / entry fee is definately a requirement in this class for the added costs of the leaders having to buy tires for almost every race run at this level, which is a major complaint I have with racing currently.

     What I think should also be done at the tier 3 level is the lap time percentage requirement as described previously. A minimum percentage along with a minimum number of races run in tier 2 would help to provide competition that was fierce and wouldn't have someone running the tier 3 classes because they just want a pay-out for 15th. I too have a concern as mentioned by others before about tier 3 competitors running tier 2 classes to finish out their tier 3 single race tires for any contingency and purse offered in tier 2 races. That will probably be something that can't be avoided, but will probably be an issue. I realize there will be those who will say "racing with faster racers will only make you faster", which is true, but only when your actually racing with them! I was in races at Daytona at the R.O.C. in '99 with John Hopkins in them. On Sunday, when I wasn't racing myself, I watched as he was so far ahead of 2nd place that by mid-race he was exiting the infield as 2nd place was entering it! There certainly wasn't too much learning going on there by the 2nd place competitor! This is where someone having the ability to compete up front in tier 2, and having the ability to progress to teir 3 where competition will be stronger, is a real benefit. But if tier 3 competitors are going to be also competing in tier 2 then the only real difference will be payout and race length in tier 3. This will probably be an issue, so I thought I would bring this up again.

     Seperation of tier 2 and 3 competitors will probably be required for this to work, otherwise it will probably be similar to the situation of AMA top 10 Pro's showing up at regional races and taking all the money. I'm not complaining about this, just making a point. I would think it wouldn't be out of the question to restrict all AMA Pro racers to tier 3 races only, quite possibly racers achieving certain lap times as well. If your good enough to aquire the license, then tier 2 is not for you, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The other option here would be to allow those tier 3 racers that want more track time to compete in non money paying classes only in tier 2, or not pay-out to tier 3 licensed competitors in any tier 2 class.

     In conclusion I think this would be a good system, but like anything it will need the kinks worked out of it. Of course there will be those racers that could be advanced sooner thru the direction of the Race Director, as well as being returned to a lower level if needed, but that will be somewhat rare. Ultimately this 3 tier system is probably the step in the right direction this sport needs to aquire and keep more racers. :)

Ok, lap time percentages...

I struggle with it.

It seems like a lot of work.  And I don't exactly see the complete relevance to everything.

The fastest amateurs currently only run a little behind the fastest experts often.  There are also experts currently that are running times slower than the fastest amateurs.

Getting bumped to the Sportsman Expert class from amateur...  Yeah, this is a safety issue.  Really, we want them to know the rules, have a fair and decent line, and they would be welcome to come and play.

I think that would be a decision that rider might be offered at a point.  

The bump from Sportsman Expert to Pro Expert...maybe that has to be a personal decision.  No one would probably want to run in a class where they are uncompetitive.  Even some riders might rather run in fifth place in Sportsman Expert rather than run in 16th in Pro Expert...also visa versa...but that should be a rider choice...thoughts.

As for Tier three riders finishing off tires in tier two...

I can't ride as an amateur and go get tire money now.  That wouldn't happen now.  At the beginning of the year, I think, a rider would apply for their license in their tier.  Yeah, if during the year, you wanted to move up, no problem.  If you wanted to move down, no problem.  I suppose you'd have to petition the race director for a move, but the process shouldn't be terribly complicated.  No, we're not gonig to allow "bouncing".

AMA Pros?  Well, yeah, tier three, but they would want the money just like any heavily competitive road racer.  If they are that fast, they are going to want to be in the fastest classes for safety issues anyway.

But who cares who they are top five, top twenty.

My Jason Pridmore story goes back to 1993 when he showed up at Heartland Park Topeka.  He was leading the AMA 750 Supersport National Championship at the time (and I was in like 12th?), but we didn't care.  I wanted to beat him; he wanted to beat me.  

Anyone have any thoughts on my purse structure?

QuoteAnyone have any thoughts on my purse structure?

I would ABSOLUTELY run purse races, and pay $100 for your break-down...  absolutely...  And I'd run MORE races than I do now!

I (personally) have about a 20-25% (maybe 30% on a good day) chance on getting a 5th currently.  That isn't close enough for me to pay the extra $$ for a purse class.

15th though...  I'd fight for that.  You bet I would.

Quote...I do certainly strive to be as good a rider as I can, given the time and funds that I have available to dedicate to the sport.

I don't need to win, (though that is of-course the goal).  The big draw for me is the thrill of competetion.  I fully expect to enjoy myself whether battling for 10th or 1st.  I just hope that there are others out there of comparable skill to battle with!

WORD Rigdeway!  You've done an excellent job of putting into words exactly how I approach being on the track.

I won't comment about the top level (Expert Pro) since I just don't envision myself there.  As a recent, older newbie (and one that entered this without the thought that I want to advance as rapidly as possible toward that factory ride that I know is in my future), Dave, I think you're plan is pretty good to make one feel safe and avoid that deer in the headlights look the first couple events.  As you stated previously, "... opportunity for true entry level racers to learn about the sport without the emotional pressure of worrying about being in the way of riders that circulate the track better."  This is a real concern and quite the sensory shock when it happens the first few times.

Though I'm curious how older bikes would fit into your displacement classes.  Would my F2 be grided with someone else's '03 R6 and GSX-R 600?

I definitely like the idea of being eligible for at least 2 sprints classes AND having a longer GT race in the Novice level.

I wouldn't place any time limit for racing in the Novice level.  Some may just find that level fun and worth remaining.  Since there wouldn't be any monetary rewards in the Novice level, I doubt many would stay there who are significantly quicker than the other racers.  But you could have some degree of policing if it was felt to be necessary.  But what's the problem if someone chooses to race at this level for years?

Something else I look for is some familiarity with, and the ability to prepare for, the next level up (Sportsman).  As currently envisioned, I'm not sure where I'd ride if I advanced to Sportsman with the same F2.

   H-man

QuoteThough I'm curious how older bikes would fit into your displacement classes.  Would my F2 be grided with someone else's '03 R6 and GSX-R 600?

I definitely like the idea of being eligible for at least 2 sprints classes AND having a longer GT race in the Novice level.

Good question.

As an entry level race, we want to get racers reasonably comfortable.

So, in ways, the F2 vs the newer stuff shouldn't make a difference.  Give me my old F2 that I raced in 1993 and I should turn times within about two seconds of my R6...no problem.  Similar trim also.

But, do we consider Thunderbike to be a "lightweight class"?  If so, then the F2 would bump down.

Ultimately, most riders won't spend a whole lot of time as "novices".  

Most racers do have a competitive feel to them, so the alure of racing as a "sportsman" would certainly offer that...with a little payback.

Making sense?

I think I like the names of the classes being Novice, Sportsman, Expert.

I want it to be expert pro...that way I can say I race pro. LOL :P

I agree with liking those 3 names (Novice, Sportsman & Expert) Dave.

In an earlier post I believe you wrote that a racer would only be allowed to participate in races he/she is licensed.  Well, would it be the colour of the number plate to easily distinguish the licensed level?  If so, that could be a problem for Sportsman and Expert racers who run both WERA and CCS if the number plate is something other than white (I'm guessing the yellow plates will be for the Novice level).

Also, you wrote "most riders won't spend a whole lot of time as novices."  And, they "have a competitive feel to them, so the alure of racing as a "sportsman" would certainly offer that...with a little payback."  Given this, there shouldn't be any reason for a max. time for racers in the Novice level.

Personally, I'd be at the Novice level to work out some individual things, but would be itching to move up to Sportsman quickly.  Then stay there.

   H-man

I'd think we could leave the plate color white for both sportsman and expert.  Most sportsman racers would be expert in the "other" org as well.  

That's sort of what I thought too Clay.  Thing is how do you readily (read, easily) halt racers from dropping a level to get relatively easy money.

Or, maybe I'm off on this point and it's no biggie?

Pro Expert name...reason I lean away from it now...

Potential problems tax wise and insurance wise for riders and organization.

The pro name might just set off some kind of flag somewhere for someone.

Colors to distinguish categories?

Yes.  Obviously, white would be what you'd use for Expert/Pro Expert.

Really, I don't see why the Sportsman racers couldn't continue using yellow plates.

Would they be different in other organizations (vs amateurs)...hard to tell.     And really, this is a real fundamental change idea.  So, it's really hard to actually compare things.  

In someways what we're really doing is this:

• Adding a real beginners tier below current amateur racing.


• Develop a more competitive expert program that has fewer racing categories and higher entry fees in return for longer races, qualifying, and a deeper purse.


• The sportsman/amateur category would retain the classes but allow riders to remain there, or even move back there more easily from an attempt at expert.

I think that's the reality that I'm beginning to realize.

I agree with and applaud the aims that you bulleted [getting in the business mode this morning by turning nouns into verbs ;)] Dave.

The reason I mentioned what may seem like a fine point (the colour of the number plates) is to try keep all the racers who may currently participate in organizations other than CCS and/or avoid them/us from needing 2 sets of body work due to different colour plates.

I'm thinking the easier it is for a smooth switch back and forth, we may draw other racers too.

It may be early in the game to discuss this in any detail, but I do believe it will need to be addressed.

Your friendly, neighborhood
   H-man

Ok, so here's a question...

Would it be reasonable for "novices" to practice with the "amateur/sportsman" racers?

So, lets consolidate this a bit...

Change of CCS rules to:

2.2.4 Riders will be issued Regional Series licenses as Novice, Sportsman, or Expert
Call them what you will, this is just an idea.

A.  CCS Officials will issue Expert licenses to those riders with proven experience or ability as follows:

(1.)  Applicats who are renewing a CCS Expert license or who are applying with an Expert license from one of the racing organizations listed in 2.2.1

Pretty easy.  If you are, you will be, right?  Additionally, we've added the "novice" rating.

B.  CCS Officials will issue Sportsman licenses to those riders with safe and reasonable ability and experience as follows:

(1.)  Applicants who are renewing a CCS Amateur (as per current nomenclature) or who are applying with an amateur license from one of the racing organizations listed in section 2.2.1

Ok, this is new, but it's kind of the same...if you're a current amateur, well, you're gonna be in the current new system, etc.  Pretty basic.

(2.)  Any Novice Rider who in the opinion of CCS Officials has safe and reasonable ability.

There's the window.  At some point, a rider may just be "too fast" for a novice class.  They may not be "seasoned" in the experienced way, but they may certainly have safe and reasonable ability.  I think it's fair to say, move them to Sportsman.  There are no rewards other than personal in the Novice class anyway.  (And often that's all there is anywhere else anyway...LOL!)

C.  CCS Officials will issue Novice licenses to riders that meet any of the following criteria:

(1.)  Riders that are applying with Provisional Amateur/Novice licenses from one of the racing organizations listed in 2.2.1

Again, pretty basic...  

(2.)  Riders applying with a certificate indicating completion of an approved Riders School.

(3.)  Riders applying with a CCS Sport Rider card.

This make sense?  Start 'em out in the new stuff.  Get them some experience.  Think of it as a longer riding school...

Eliminate line 2.2.5 and replace with the following STATUS CHANGE lines...

2.2.5  STATUS CHANGES -  Riders who change in status during the season will not carry points to their new status

I figure that it's a whole new ball game, so why carry it.  Novices will not have points anyway.

A.  Expert riders will be granted the opportunity to be moved to Sportsman status.

Ok, THIS one is the big one.  

Some riders may just feel out gunned in expert races because of ability, finances, time, opportunity, etc.  Why make a guy run around in somethingth place racing with no one?  The amateur/sportsman classes will only be slightly slower at the top, but the broader range of speeds in the class certainly opens up the opportunity for "racing"...and that part of the fun.  Is this why we loose some riders after those couple of years?  

This will allow more riders to feel as though there is an even playing field for them.  There have been some celebrated opportunities for some riders to stay amateur or to move from expert when seemingly they were reasonably competitive.  Give everyone the opportunity to choose their destiny....?

B.  Sportsman riders must petition to be moved to Expert.  Riders who in the opinion of CCS Officials has the ability and reasonable experience for Expert competition will be moved to Expert.  CCS reserves the right to deny Expert Status to any Sportsman rider that may not meet this criteria.

Again, big.

Prior rules dictated amatuer riders moving up after scoring 500 points in a 12 month period, winning a Series Championship, or finishing in the top five in any class at the Race of Champions.

The status change would fall into the hands of the rider.  I would suppose that there needs to be some criteria.  Times, finishes, something.  Certainly, a list of riders could be made that gives them the opportunity to elect to take the change.  Some will take it.  Some might not.

Why would someone?  The opportunity for the purse, qualifying, etc.  Why would someone not do it?  Lack of opportunity to race regularly, not feeling ready to race against potentially faster riders, or just not wanting to...

C.  Sportsman riders may petition to be moved to Novice.  Riders must show proof of inexperience or a lapse in competition

Yeah, this may really help some of those riders that struggle.  I have seen riders that are more concerned about who or what is going to pass them and when.  It's scary for the rider (and how they get that much intestinal fortitude to continue sometimes amazes me), scary for the one passing, and probably scary to the corner workers and officials.  So, give them the opportunity to race with less pressure.

D.  Novice riders will be offered the opportunity to move to Sportsman status with proof of safe and reasonable ability and experience after a minimum of two events.

Ok, I personally though there should be a minimum and a maximum, but after the input from everyone...I think I'd like a minimum, but a maximum...I'll leave it off.

Classes...Sportsman - Leave it the classes and fees same as current.  Fun and racing.

Novice...Very minimal classes with very reasonable entry fees..  This is not a destination tier.  We want to build a safe and level sportsman competitor.

Expert.  Fewer classes, deeper purse in ALL classes, higher entry fees, qualifying, etc.  This is the aspiration class.  Yes, there will be opportunities there that will be very inticing.  No expert will make a living here, but there will be some that might at least break even.  Maybe they will move on to something bigger too.  

Some racers run out of motivation and finances.  Don't make 'em go away because they don't have money and all.  Let them move into the sportsman ranks.  There won't be the financial rewards, but there will still be racing and the feeling of community.

How's it look?

There will be other rules that I'll have to re write that are related, but this is a good start.

The short version...

2.2.4 Riders will be issued Regional Series licenses as Novice, Sportsman, or Expert  
 
A.  CCS Officials will issue Expert licenses to those riders with proven experience or ability as follows:
 
(1.)  Applicats who are renewing a CCS Expert license or who are applying with an Expert license from one of the racing organizations listed in 2.2.1  
 
B.  CCS Officials will issue Sportsman licenses to those riders with safe and reasonable ability and experience as follows:
 
(1.)  Applicants who are renewing a CCS Amateur (as per current nomenclature) or who are applying with an amateur license from one of the racing organizations listed in section 2.2.1  
 
(2.)  Any Novice Rider who in the opinion of CCS Officials has safe and reasonable ability.
 
C.  CCS Officials will issue Novice licenses to riders that meet any of the following criteria:
 
(1.)  Riders that are applying with Provisional Amateur/Novice licenses from one of the racing organizations listed in 2.2.1   
 
(2.)  Riders applying with a certificate indicating completion of an approved Riders School.
 
(3.)  Riders applying with a CCS Sport Rider card.  
 
2.2.5  STATUS CHANGES -  Riders who change in status during the season will not carry points to their new status  
 
A.  Expert riders will be granted the opportunity to be moved to Sportsman status.
  
B.  Sportsman riders must petition to be moved to Expert.  Riders who in the opinion of CCS Officials has the ability and reasonable experience for Expert competition will be moved to Expert.  CCS reserves the right to deny Expert Status to any Sportsman rider that may not meet this criteria.
 
C.  Sportsman riders may petition to be moved to Novice.  Riders must show proof of inexperience or a lapse in competition
 
D.  Novice riders will be offered the opportunity to move to Sportsman status with proof of safe and reasonable ability and experience after a minimum of two events.

I like it a lot Dave. :D

When it comes to the part that reads, "Expert riders will be granted the opportunity to be moved to Sportsman status.",  allow me to suggest that this be limited in some way.

Possibly once the shift from Expert to Sportsman is made, the rider must remain in Sportsman for the remainder of that (or the upcoming) season; or allow a rider to switch down and back up only once; or make multiple changes allowable but after the first change, subsequent changes would require review by a CCS officialit upon.  This can be fodder for additional discussion.

   H.

Here's a link to the thread I have in General about purses, classes, etc.

http://www.racemotorcycles.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=ccs1;action=display;num=1094136146

QuoteI like it a lot Dave. :D

When it comes to the part that reads, "Expert riders will be granted the opportunity to be moved to Sportsman status.",  allow me to suggest that this be limited in some way.

I think ultimately, you'd leave those decisions in the hands of the race director.  I probably need to add section 2.2.6 that gives CCS the ability to make sure flip-flops don't happen.

Looking at your other post, I like the class ideas.  HOWEVER, a big NO to one qualifying round going to riders who ride in both SS and the GP classes.  I don't want someone to be able to take their bike setup for true GP rules and qualify against me on my bike that's setup for true SS rules.  It's highly unfair.  We need qualifying for both classes.  OR, qualify for GP and use pre-reg/points like WERA for gridding the SS classes.  

BTW, you need to sticky the other thread and close it and point all discussion to this thread.  It stinks having to go back and forth between the two.  :P

Another thing.  What about those Am's this year that want to go ex?  I'd really like to go straight to the ex class and skip the sportsman class.  I might not be blazingly fast, but my goal is to be the fastest and I'll only learn to be that by racing against the fastest.  

Basically, think of current amateur being sportsman...  Novice would be a step below.  A riders ability to move between tiers would be easier.  Now, well...  It too me thirteen months to get certificates to refund entries.  

Qualifying.  Really need it.  I was just throwing out ideas.

If it was done by category, the times would carry.  So, if you're in Formula GP (previously MWGP) you'd qualify in MW qualifying on your MWGP bike.  Conversely, if you were in Sportbike (previously MWSS) you'd qualify in MW qualifying.  Let's say you race your MWSS bike in MWGP too (Sportbike and Formula GP)...the time you do is good for both.  Of course the time for the Formula GP bike is not good for that bike if it's not eligible in that class.

Does that make sense?  I guess, each bike should have an opportunity to qualify.  Each bike to qualify for each race?  How many tires would that cost?  That's the quandry.  If I'm racing my R6 in Sportbike, Formula Sportbike, and Unlimited Grand Prix...I'd really like to go do one good session with one new rear tire for qualifying.

QuoteIdeally Superbike, Supersport, Twins, maybe a singles class are all that's needed. True GP bikes? How many are there?  Not enough for a true gp class anymore. :( Sorry.

Obviously you haven't attended a FUSA event weekend where the USGPRU was running. The last 2 events (VIR and Barber) there have been bigger 125 and 250 grids than all the FUSA classes. There are plenty of GP bikes out there - guys like me just want more classes to run in.

What about the guys (not me for sure) that have a GP bike and a SS bike.  Don't you think they'll be a little miffed that they have to qualify on their SS bike and those times go for their GP times as well?  I mean, for me it doesn't make a difference.  But what about guys like that?  Either make qualifying for both classes, or just keep it GP like it is now.  

I say 4 qualifying sessions.  600 and below and 750+ for GP and SS.  I know that to guys like Trey Yonce, slick tires means the difference for a half second.  You could run 4 20 minute qualfying sessions and have them done in an hour and a half.  No matter what way you do it, I don't think one qualifying session for all races is a good idea.  

With that...I think that the guys who run SS like me could choose to have their qualifying time carry to the GP if we didn't want to waste our tires.

QuoteObviously you haven't attended a FUSA event weekend where the USGPRU was running. The last 2 events (VIR and Barber) there have been bigger 125 and 250 grids than all the FUSA classes. There are plenty of GP bikes out there - guys like me just want more classes to run in.

I have.  Never raced USGPRU as I don't have either anymore.  Used to race a 250 and I raced a 125 for someone at an AMA National event in 1994.

I have nothing set in stone, everyone.  I'm looking for help, input, etc.

However, for me, locally, there were three 125 bikes in the 125 race...that's expert and amateur.  250's should be able to run with 600's.  

Regardless, for 250's, I have Grand Prix Light for the current structure of Lightweight Grand Prix.

I haven't put anything in for 125's under expert.  

Some of this is basic stuff that I've written, but it's on another thread...  http://www.racemotorcycles.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=ccs1;action=display;num=1094136146;start=30 jp233, give me some input.

Probably worth looking at.

Clay, I never said one qualifying session.  There would need to be several  sessions, but time is a consideration.  If I'm racing one bike in multiple classes, a couple of sessions would be fine, but I might only need/want two.  Ok, let's say I have some really cool qualifying tires.  Sure let me run them.  Certainly, I'm not going to qualify with slicks for a DOT race.

QuoteOk, so here's a question...

Would it be reasonable for "novices" to practice with the "amateur/sportsman" racers?

No.  Speed disparity would intimidate novices and take away from their core attraction to this system, not to mention impeding the amateur/sportsman racers.  I see myself in the amateur/sportsman class, but I would not be willing to share the track with first-timers for safety reasons.

If you wouldn't race with a particular group, you shouldn't practice with a particular group.  You'd probably be able to reorganize the practice groups (presuming the number of experts would now be smaller) and have the same number of groups with a novice only session.

     SD, If I read what you said correctly then Sportsman will basically be considered Amateur and will run yellow plates? I'm not sure how many current 'experts' would be thrilled about being considered an amateur again and having to run those hideous yellow plates just because they would prefer to run the 'Sportsman' class instead of the ragged edge class. There's a certain amount of pride that goes along with having done the laps and gained the experience to wear the white plates, no matter if your at the front, or the back, of the current 'expert' classes. I have generally looked at the yellow plates as a caution sign to experts racing in combined classes.

     That Sportsman category will probably see a wide variety of ability, speed, and experience which will probably make for alot of lap traffic and make competition at the front very interesting (probably very similar to lap traffic experienced during endurance races, but in sprints). My concern in the uppermost class will be the ability of competitors to run enough classes to satisfy their racing appetite, especially if they only have 1 bike, and it's not a 600. I think it would almost come down to having to run a 600 if you wanted to run multiple classes with 1 bike in the uppermost category.

Mike, I'll do you first.

Under current rules, a current production 600 can run in nine standard classes.  A 750, five.  1000, three.

Under my proposal:  600, five.  750, three.  1000, two.

Where it's tricky is for 1000cc twins, like Bernie's TL-R.  He's got two options.  Might be hard if he were running expert under these rules.

A 600 will always be able to bump up more because there is more to bump up to.  And 600's still are the most popular motorcycle.

Bernie, point taken on the practice idea.

Mike, lots of lapped traffic on the Sportsman races?  Don't know.  The slowest guys can stay in the novice classes rather than flounder.  The fastest amateurs are usually not that far off the fastest expert times.  Last year, we had Benji Thornton doing 13's as a first year amateur.  He didn't win every race either.  

Racing can be all about ego's or it can be nothing about ego's.  When it's about ego's...guys sometime leave the sport because they would never dare to be an "amateur" again.  Life sucks.  I say change the name, change the concept of what we think racing is at this level.  

Stephan Mertens was a guy that raced 250 GP, World Superbike, etc.  Now he's left with doing BMW World Cup stuff.  No ego.

Stupid question...

Dave, have you approached Kevin on this?  I ask because this is a RADICAL change.  Regardless of how many people sign up for it, we should know if he would entertain it.  (i.e., if 100% of participating members voted for free classes, it still wouldn't happen).

The fuel change was a no-brainer as it made sense and was really no change for CCS.  

This, however, restructures what they DO (points, standings, registration, licensing, race day).  

I recognize the fuel problems at the end of 2001.  Took me until the 2004 rule book to get it worked out.  

I let Kevin know about it.  He hasn't replied.  He has lots of work he has to do.  I do have off line things going on also.

Kevin...sorry to make your head hurt, and I know you read stuff...

Often, the reality of some changes has been from a minority of riders that wanted something changed (unhappy people are a bit more vocal than happy people)...example was the order of practice sessions a few years ago.  Most people liked it the way it was.  However, there were some that didn't like it.  Well, they were the loudest one's in the chorus, so...

This all has to make sense.  That's why I started here.  I can come up with ideas, but I am constantly looking for input all around.  

These are radical ideas.  But the worst that can happen is nothing, right?  Best is that some ideas get implimented.  Nothing will get better if things are done the same way over and over and over again expecting a different result, right?

QuoteThese are radical ideas.  But the worst that can happen is nothing, right?  Best is that some ideas get implimented.  Nothing will get better if things are done the same way over and over and over again expecting a different result, right?

I totally agree.  Just figured that a phonecall to grease the skids wouldn't hurt.

A simple call to get a "we'd be open to change if people wanted it" would be enough.  Plus, it might help get CCS involved in promoting this (if they agree it makes sense).  

The board here is a good starting ground for the idea, but I'm sure there is a VERY large percentage of CCS riders who aren't on this forum and have no idea of what you are proposing...  Something this large needs assistance.  

When would you imagine them implementing this?  Looking at everything I can consider is involved, I don't believe this would be capable in 05.  06, maybe, assuming someone (cough-Dave-cough) championed it during the year to work out the kinks...  

Am I being too pessimistic?

I think I have spent the past two days e-mailing back and forth.  Not with Kevin, but with someone.  Anyway, I do have a better understanding about  some things.  I understand why some things are one way and not another.

So, I'm going to have to regroup and redo some things.  I'll probably lock this thread and the other soon and start a new one with some more consice ideas.  

Someone owe's me a root beer float at Blackhawk...a low carb one... 8)