How can we make this better?

[Super Dave]

Gordie, you know there is no way to cut classes unless you want to pay more in entries. What is now an average of $52 per entry would have to be $75 per entry, then with fewer classes you would expect longer races because you paid more and that would just take up the time saved by the reduction. (You wouldn't leave the races at 8 laps no one wants to see three hours of dead track time because there were no delays and we finished the schedule ahead of time.) Then as soon as some one crashed hard and caused a lengthy delay, you are faced with the same dilemma, cut laps, cancel races, etc...etc... and you have the same discussion.

When we cut Sportsman out of the CCS lineup, we lowered the number of races we needed to squeeze in and lengthened the races to 10 laps. The first thing riders did was vote to return to 8 laps...we're dammed if we do, dammed if we don't.

I am open to any realistic suggestions that can fix these "problems",

I've always been for longer races and higher entry fees.  Even back in 1996, I proposed this to Roger.

I don't know who asked to have ten lap races reduced to eight...

But also a couple of years ago, practice order was changed to experts first, then amateurs.  This was done because "riders voted" for it.  But, I'll have to say, sometimes it's only a minority that squeek.  And sometimes they get the oil.

I don't remember any recent opportunity to make comments on race length for a few years.

[Super Dave]

How honorable is it for Doug Polen and Geoff May to win a CCS race? I've met Doug Polen before and even had a chance to ride with him. I don't understand why (I may regret typing this) he would take money like that from club racers who have worked so long and hard all season to be at that race. How honarable or ethical is that? I've only been racing as an amatuer in the club scene thus far but is that proper racer etiquette?

Doug Polen has an expert road racing license, so he can race.  Is it honorable to beat Doug Polen?  Sure.  It's reasonable to race against a world champion too...and loose.

Mat Mladin, Miguel DuHammel, and Jason Pridmore have all raced world championship events, but race AMA.  Didn't Chris Ulrich win an AMA Superstock event?  Yet he races in club races and endurance events. 

Kevin Schwantz, 500cc World Champion, raced the AMA Formula Extreme event at Road America in 2004. 

For me, I would just prefer to beat them.

[weggieman]

All fine and well but,  they did not race against privateers in a championship weekend and take away a hard earned season championship from anyone.

If Polen needs the money, let him come out on his privateer bike and race the series like he used to, earn a weekend at the ROC and nobody would bitch.

It sucks when guys on  that level come into a championship weekend on near factory equipment and take away awards, prize money and contingencies from people who have worked hard for it all year.

What is so hard to understand about that? Racing against these guys on any other weekend probably wouldn't get people so upset but at the ROC it's just wrong.

[251am]

 OK, so it is a possibility to make a 40 hour round trip drive to ROC next October for a shot at the SuperTwins Nat'l title only to race against Neil Hodgson "setting up" Ducs for the '08 AMA season!? Take a look at the WERA wording for their GNF policy and adopt it, plain and simple.

[CCS]

Gordie,

I hear what you are saying, but after looking at the poll that was started on another thread, all I see is "as long as it's not my class they get rid of" so like I said earlier, damned if we do-damned if we don't... ::)

Dave,

It was the Mid-West riders that bitched the most about increasing laps.....2003 I think...ask Bill Fehrman, he was the one who had to listen to it...so did Dave Murray in the Mid-Atlantic....someone else said it best, maybe eight laps is long enough for the average sportsman racer.

oh well.....carry on gentlemen

[rwracer]

.....started on another thread, all I see is "as long as it's not my class they get rid of" so like I said earlier, damned if we do-damned if we don't...

I don't think much of anyone is laying claim to the GP class.  In fact I think the vast majority are in agreement that GP, as currently defined, is a complete, total and unecessary duplicate of SuperBike.  Since GP as defined makes no sense, I'd rather see it go away and the contingency passed to SuperBike.

But then this thread wasn't really about that, it was about validating the CCS portion of the ROC by only letting those who earned it race there.... at least for the most part...

[tzracer]

I don't think much of anyone is laying claim to the GP class.  In fact I think the vast majority are in agreement that GP, as currently defined, is a complete, total and unecessary duplicate of SuperBike.  Since GP as defined makes no sense, I'd rather see it go away and the contingency passed to SuperBike.

The difference is superbike is based upon street legal bikes, so superbike is a more restrictive class.  If one were to be dropped, make more sense to drop superbike and keep the GP classes.

[rwracer]

The difference is superbike is based upon street legal bikes, so superbike is a more restrictive class.  If one were to be dropped, make more sense to drop superbike and keep the GP classes.

Either way it has to improve things to drop one of them and either way ... this belongs in the other thread.

;)

[goldwing70]

Trying hard to understand and empathize with those who are upset with "cherry picking" at ROC, but I don't get it.  Racing isn't there fundamentally for people to make a living at it.  It's there for the competition.  If you are one of the few who are good enough to actually make money at it, good for you.   I've always heard the best way to end up with a million bucks in racing is to start with 2 million, or some variation of that.   This is a very risky way to make money.  There are so many things out of your control such as when the bike will fail, the weather, injury, and who is going to be on the grid.  There is always someone who is faster.   Anyone who meets the qualifications to race should be allowed to enter.  Why should Polen be treated differently?   I'm sure folks like Rob Jensen work really hard, but I'm sure he knows and accepts that he won't win all the time.    Someone happened to be present who was faster.  The only "guarantee" is that a racer will be challenged in this endeavor.  Hopefully this will be a desirable and rewarding challenge.  Have fun racing, whether you finish on the podium or not.

[spyderchick]

I'm sure folks like Rob Jensen work really hard, but I'm sure he knows and accepts that he won't win all the time.   

No, he expects to win ever time he turns a wheel in competition. That is the mindset of championship winners. When he does not win, he goes back to analyze why he did not make that result.

The point being made, and the one that was not addressed by CCS, is whether "Pro" level riders should be allowed in club events, especially those paying contingency.

What would be best if Doug Polen himself were to respond, because then we would get the real reason from the horse's mouth. Until that were to happen, it's all speculation and theory.   

[whitey_1964]

Popped in for a quick visit and see that this thread is still alive and as yet has no resolution.

There are a ton of points to talk to, so forgive me if my thoughts jump around a bit or seem disjointed as I try to touch on them all.

First and foremost, everyone should recognize that there are obviously some things that need improvement, but that doesn't mean its all bad. I'll ask everyone to check their egos before reading any further, and become dispassionate about the subjects at hand. If we all do that, it will make finding a resolution (or at least a comfortable compromise) easier to find. I'm not looking to point fingers or lay blame on anyone. I'd also caution everyone to realize that there are no quick fixes, and that it will likely never be perfect. It can however be an endeavor of continuous improvement and refinement, which is a whole lot better than regression or stagnation. For that to happen, it will take cooperation on everyones part.

Sorry to hear that Rhiannon isn't looking to CCS to be her primary racing org any longer. I don't really know her, having only met one time briefly at BHF, but I hope she changes her mind as she seemed like both a good person and a competitive racer. That said, I can understand her concerns voiced about the ROC.

I've only attended the ROC once....and in a crew support role at that. Hell, I only recently attended the learning curves school this past September myself, so its not like I am an experienced racer either. However, I am a quick study, and have been around CCS racing long enough to make some observations and informed opinions.

First of all with regard to the ROC, CCS needs to decide what sort of Race it wants to hold in Daytona, who its being primarily held for, and bill it correctly. Is it a Race "OF" Champions, or a Race "FOR" a Championship? Its not simply semantics, they are two very different and distinct things.


A Race "OF" Champions is exactly that, a race "OF" regional champions crowned throughout the year, with the winner crowned as the National Champion.

A Race "FOR" a Championship is exactly that as well, a one-time-of-the-year event with the winner of said race being declared the Champion.

I believe I understand CCS's need/desire/whatever to allow anyone to enter this end of the year race. Surely their entry turn-out is a factor of the prize money offered, and the title given to the race winner.  Which camp the rider/team falls into depends on their motivation for attending. Some likely attend simply because of the money, some because of the title offered, and some are motivated by both. Even the amount of prize money offered by sponsors may be contingent upon requiring CCS to allow anyone to enter (I certainly don't know). Either way, CCS desires to make the ROC as popular and profitable for themselves as they can, which is what businesses are supposed to do.

However, there has to be a better compromise than the existing setup of the ROC. Allowing just anyone to enter a Race "OF" Champions at the end of the year completely alienates your core customer...... those racers who throughout the entire season race CCS at the club level.

Imagine if at the end of the college football season, the Chicago Bears, the New England Patriots, and a host of other NFL teams decided they wanted to play in the college bowl game series.  If CCS ran the show, they'd be perfectly welcome as long as they paid their fees and showed up to play. Nevermind they they were in a different league, had more resources, and probably were of greater ability or experience. Would it be even remotely fair to the college teams to have their bowl games usurped by the pros? If it was run by CCS, it wouldn't matter.  Is it possible that on any given day Ohio State could beat the RAMS? Of course its possible...not terribly likely, but possible. But would it make sense to declare the BEARS Big10 and college national champs if they beat Michigan in the title game? Of course it wouldn't make sense...... And therein lies the problem CCS has because it hasn't properly defined what the ROC is, or who its for.

Knowing that CCS wants to; maximize revenue from the ROC event, wants to obtain as much in sponsor contingency/prize money as possible, wants to attract the best riders they can, and wants both to reward their club racers and crown a national champion, a series of compromises has to be made. Its either that, or you really should hold two different races.

Inviting regional CCS champions to a race for a national championship makes sense and is a good thing to do. Allowing other regional CCS racers to enter that race also makes sense. Its the last race of the year for the club, and those racers who didn't win regional championships (sometimes by very slim margins) may want to race one last time and argueably have a right to battle for a national title.

Allowing anyone else to enter makes sense, but with certain caveats. While you can't literally cater to everyone and their needs and will never make everyone happy, you can get much closer than the current situation allows.  CCS would be able to have their cake and eat it too.

Here is what I propose:

Hold a race within a race, or two races in one, if you will.

Keep the current practice of gridding CCS regional club champions in the first rows by points. This maintains their reward for earning a regional championship throughout the summer, and entering the championship event. Grid remaining CCS regular club racers next by order of entry or by points if possible. Grid remaining racers, cherry-pickers, semi-professionals, professionals, or whatever you want to call them in the remaining rows by entry order or qualifying of some sort. If they really are that much better, then starting from the back won't dramatically effect the outcome of the race anyway.

Run the race.

First person across the line at the end of the race is the CCS Daytona Champion.
Second person across the line at the end of the race is the CCS Daytona Runner-up.
etc.

First CCS regular club racer across the line is the CCS National Champion
Second CCS regular club racer across the line is the CCS National Runner-up
etc.

In this scenario, it would be possible for a CCS racer to win both a National Championship title and a Daytona Championship title....IF they were good/fast enough.

Split contingency money between the "races within the race" on some type of percentage basis. For instance, if for race XYZ there is $20,000 in prize money:

Daytona Champion $7000
Daytona Runner Up $5000
Daytona 3rd place $3000

CCS Nat. Champ $2500
CCS Nat. Runner Up $1500
CCS Nat. 3rd place$ 1000

In the proposal above, regular CCS racers have an opportunity for both a National Club Championship and contingency money regardless of who enters the race. The CCS National Championship is awarded to the fastest club member. In turn, cherry-pickers, semi-pros, and professionals aren't denied entry to the race either, and whomever wins the race outright is awarded the CCS Daytona Championship and prize money.

Sounds pretty fair to me and is at least as attractive as the current situation....perhaps more so to club racers who don't currently attend because they believe they cannot fairly compete against the high budget teams that show up for the ROC.

So what do you think Kevin? Would CCS like some ice cream to go along with that cake?

If you're going to keep the current format, then by all means don't call it a CCS National Championship. Call it a CCS Daytona Championship. The former implies that it was the best of the CCS club racers which cannot be the case if you allow anyone to enter.


The second major point I'd like to address is the way in which events are run and the organization (or lack there of sometimes) of said events.  I realize that many more things go right at these events than go wrong.  I also realize that a majority of the races put on by CCS include a great number of volunteers and underpaid employees, and my hat is off to them for their efforts and dedication.  However, this is particularly why having clearly defined responsibilities and processes is important.

Clearly defined responsibilities, and processes that are documented, communicated, and followed, help to minimize mistakes or problems. They also provide a starting point and a means to measure your own success for continuous improvement. In addition, having a well documented and laid out plan, with provisions for contingencies as they arise, would help make things go smoother and with less confusion.

I've only personally witnessed a few instances where the process was in question, made up on the fly, or inconsistently applied. I have heard many others relate experiences of a similar nature though, so it leads me to believe that its not completely isolated.

I know it wouldn't be easy, and it doesn't have to pass ISO 9000 certification standards, but having a standardized plan would go a long way toward increasing efficiency, lowering costs, increasing customer satisfaction, eliminating inconsistency, and making the events you put on a better experience for everyone involved.


Again, this was not meant in any way shape or form to be an attack on anyone.... simply trying to continue the discussion in a constructive way in an attempt to make things better than they are, if possible. After all, if CCS succeeds and improves, it benefits us all.

[G2G racing]

I understand eliminating some classes to make rrom for qualifying.  But to complain about racers who are faster than you???   Come on people are we going to eliminate everyone who is faster than you so you can finish int he top 5 or top 10.  If you can't handle someone finishing in front of you you have 2 choices get faster or quit racing.   ::)