Should CCS grid by points?

[jryer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[StuartV666]

So what your saying is the only reason for awarding points at all in the regional series is for ROC grid position since regional championships are irrelevant .

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

[StuartV666]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Super Dave]

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


As for a one event championships...

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

[StuartV666]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mongo]

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

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

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

[StuartV666]

Stuart - you quite simply do nothing more than complain and you do so about the most irrelevant to anyone but you things.  It is much much more than just "constructive criticism" which is the ever so cute fall back of the constant complainer.

This is from thefreedictionary.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Super Dave]

About 80% believe that gridding by points is valuable.

[roadracer162]

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

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

Mark

[Super Dave]

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

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

[roadracer162]

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

Mark

[Super Dave]

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

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

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

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