Why can't CCS have more purse races and run qualifying?

[HAWK]

Mike,

While your system would put the faster riders in front and the slower riders in back it is self perpetuating. The fast will become faster and  the slow slower. You are forcing the slower riders to fight their way through traffic to get a better grid position at the next race and the faster riders need only stay in front, with clear track to ride in, to maintain their front grid postions. The rewarding of consistant, loyal participation is what championships are all about. The idea that a slower rider in front of a faster rider is unfair or unsafe doesn't hold water either, if it did then we would also want to pull riders in danger of being lapped in the name of safety.

If this was professional racing then we would have qualifying for each race, it's not and in club racing grid position is a perk that can help the organization to improve it's financial security so that there is a race next weekend. Right now that means pre-registration which let's CCS manage it's self more effeciently. With a switch to a points based system there is every reason to believe  attendance will increase which will in turn increase revenue keeping costs down for all racers while also benefiting the organizations bottom line, a true win - win situation. I should point out that both of these methods reduce the manpower, hence  costs, over qualifying which is the only "fair" way to grid riders. Nothing short of qualifying will be completely fair or satisfy everyone but with the number of classes there is simply no way to run qualifying sessions for everyone without raising prices through the roof. In reality one only has to pre-enter a couple weeks for most races to get into the first 2 rows, this does however increase attendance by getting the guys on the fence to commit before seeing the weather report. Simple points gets people to run more events to try to stay in the front. Both methods reward commitment and help keep the club alive.

This is club racing, we welcome all comers, we have no 110% rule, we make our money to keep the organization afloat from the racers not the gate. We do this for fun. For those that need to take it to the next level there are plenty of other levels available but let's not turn this into the AMA, that would only drive away 2/3 of our members and bankrupt the system. Then we close the playground and no one wins.

Just my 2 cents, although it may not be worth quite that much. 

[ahastings]

gsxr mike, the ponts system has been changed since 2003. Under the new system you don't get as many points for just finishing. If only the pre-entered riders are gridded by points then CCS will still get their pre-entry numbers. Oh, I don't ride a middleweight bike and am leading the MidAtlantic overall expert points. I do ride 2 bikes though. Gridding by points isn't perfect, yes some slower riders will be gridded up front, but it would at least give some sort of order. Gridding by PI points would put it in even better order and would be easy to impliment.

[Super Dave]

While your system would put the faster riders in front and the slower riders in back it is self perpetuating. The fast will become faster and  the slow slower. You are forcing the slower riders to fight their way through traffic to get a better grid position at the next race and the faster riders need only stay in front, with clear track to ride in, to maintain their front grid postions.

I disagree that being up front makes riders faster.  It's interesting speculation.

The Hayden boys weren't always the fastest on the track, and they didn't get slower. 

[HAWK]

I disagree that being up front makes riders faster.  It's interesting speculation.

The Hayden boys weren't always the fastest on the track, and they didn't get slower. 

In re-reading Mikes post I find I read in something that was not there. I guess I'm not totally clear on Mikes idea. I don't understand how his system will prevent a midpacker who comes to every race from gridding in front of a faster rider that comes to just a couple races a year.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

In re-reading Mikes post I find I read in something that was not there. I guess I'm not totally clear on Mikes idea. I don't understand how his system will prevent a midpacker who comes to every race from gridding in front of a faster rider that comes to just a couple races a year.

It wouldn't, a huge complaint I've read over the years has been how the fastest guys think it's crap that if they skip an event or 2 (for example to race AMA or due to injury) that they would most likely lose out on any championships they had going in CCS - that was a big reason CCS changed not only the points system, but factors in P/I to figure the overall Top 10 plates now. What it would do is allow the fastest racers to have 'no shows' or DNF's in some races and still retain their championship leads.

And since you may not know my history of opinion on this subject I will give you a brief summary. I personally compare a race season to a war, with individual battles being each event and the overall war being the overall points championships. Winning individual battles does not guarentee you to win a war, in fact you don't have to win any battles to win a war, all you have to do is achieve the goals you set out to achieve with each battle that lead to an overall win of the larger picture - the war. I personally believe that winning individual races is like winning battles, while it's an accomplishment, it's only a puzzle piece in the bigger picture (being overall class and Top 10 championships). I think CONSISTENCY is what should be rewarded as far as championships go, winning individual races is great, but competing in EVERY race the ENTIRE season is more impressive to me. The reason I was winning those 9 championships was because I went to EVERY event and ran the same classes ALL SEASON LONG and didn't miss any individual races by crashing or not attending any events, something others were apparently not able to do that season. Since the CCS rule making commitee recently felt there should be preference toward those who win races but don't compete at every event, as opposed to those who show up to EVERY event and consistently run all their races EVERY round, I've somewhat conceeded my thoughts in the 'consistency' regard and just focused on what would make the current train of thought better concerning championships and gridding. I personally believe gridding shouldn't be by qualifying, it should be by your consistency, in otherwords your points in each class. You should be rewarded for being committted to the sport and consistently running all your races EVERY event, that to me is what a championship is about (not degrading to more of a NASCAR mentality of twisted rules and regulations to make it so certain things happen in a series). POINTS pure and simple show who showed up and raced ALL their races - if you want to go for the win that's extremely admirable, but I don't believe it should 'entitle' anyone to any championships, consistency should. The same with gridding, reward those who consistently show up and run all their races at every event. This would also help to sway those who are on the fence about competing due to weather because by skipping an event that could reslut in them being a couple rows back on the grid at the following event - if you race, you benefit by better grid positions.

A super fast racer starting on the front row (due to qualifying) and running away from the entire field doesn't provide a whole lot of excitement, but that racer having to battle to get to the front because they only had enough points to be gridded on the 4th row is exciting. With the current points structure the most consistent racers would be fairly high finishers as it is (most likely Top 10), so it's not like you would have back of the pack people gridded at the front due to consistency. BUT, since it's already been decided that preference will be given to the fastest racers, I wrote my original response as I did in order to make sure the fastest racers were being rewarded (as CCS has already decided it should be).

[Super Dave]

If we're talking expert club racing, one can put the fastest experts on row five, if you like, and they move up to the top three if not higher usually by the first lap.

If you want excitement, just offer a few more purse races. 

[ahastings]

gsxr mike, Yes consinstency is still important, but why would you want to win championships just based on that and not by finishing up front. And if you miss a round or two and are gridding by points , the most you will probably  move back is only one row , two at the most in grid position. This year I am chasing CCS points , but when I do run WERA I am still gridded in the first 3 rows usually and I only do about every other race with them in my region. With CCS figure top 10 in points in each class would be in the first 3 rows.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

gsxr mike, Yes consinstency is still important, but why would you want to win championships just based on that and not by finishing up front. And if you miss a round or two and are gridding by points , the most you will probably  move back is only one row , two at the most in grid position. This year I am chasing CCS points , but when I do run WERA I am still gridded in the first 3 rows usually and I only do about every other race with them in my region. With CCS figure top 10 in points in each class would be in the first 3 rows.

As I mentioned before, championships reward those who are consistent finishers. Winning races and winning championships require different mindsets and sets or risks to achieve. If someone wants to push as hard as it's required nowdays to win races, then more power to them, I respect that. But with that desire to win individual races comes elevated risk of crashing and loss of position in championships. Championships should reward those who do well in EVERY race, if someone wants to pursue winning every race then they will probably risk throwing away that chance of winning championships, it's a choice one has to make for themself. A true champion in my eyes is able to make a good result happen at EVERY event, look at how many years Mladin was able to not only win championships, but also win the most races of any racer in his class most of those seasons. Take Nicky Hayden as an example, how many races did he win to get the MotoGP championship? Nicky got the championship because the true performer in the series had a couple DNF's and dropped the championship, Nicky was just close enough to pick it up before it was snatched back. Yet everyone seems to be all on fire about how great it is that Nicky won the championship. Really? I think it was kinda *blah*, but he did do what it took to win the overall championship according to the MotoGP rules.

The system I proposed initially in this thread would reward those who win, in fact it rewards them even more if they were able to pull a gap on the field by lowering the points the people behind them earn, that would put an extra benefit in being the leader. But on the other hand it's not the race leaders who bring the majority of money into this sport, it's all the racers who don't win or don't have a realistic chance of it. Money is a huge factor in winning races (and championships to a degree), if your not replacing tires like mad and using crazy expensive race fuel in a fairly new bike your chances of winning are slim. Championships are something someone can strive to win without dumping as much money into consumables, it also carries with it a slightly lower risk as compared to trying to win races.

This is such a double edged sword topic because those that risk it all at every event to win individual races want to also get the championships for doing so (even if they don't race every event or every class they are chasing at every event), yet those who honestly don't have the resources available to them to win races need something they can strive for as well. I suggested something in this thread that goes along with the mentality CCS has adopted most recently that's trying to reward championships to those who win, over those who are consistent. I'm certainly not saying I agree with it, I'm just trying to point out that the current system is flawwed and biased toward someone either running a middleweight bike or at least 2 different class bikes. I provided a way to more accurately reward the race winners with championship points, I hate seeing someone like Ed Key not even having a chance at an overall #1 plate due to riding in the lightweight classes with the current system in place. Gridding by points using that system would allow both the fast and the consistent good finishers to be at the front of the grid.

I realize my opinion here is somewhat confusing because I prefer doing things a different way than I initially proposed, but I also realize that the current system is already in place and desperately needs to be fixed.

[ahastings]

I think you are wrong about Ed Key not having a chance because he is on a lightweight. Like I said I run lightweight. I also run a Duc in the big bike stuff, but I think I could still get the championship without the Duc. In fact it is much easier in the lightweights to get points. If he did every round in his region he would have a very good chance. You don't have to win races to win a CCS championship. It actually takes more financial resources to run every single round ,even midpack, than to try to do well in select rounds

Example- I am in the MidAtlantic region attempting to win the #1 expert plate. The region has effectively 13 rounds since Barber is Twin Sprints, they run from Daytona to West Virginia, a 900 mile spread. I generally run 6-7 points paying sprints per race weekend. It is not in my budget to travel to the Southeast rounds that are included in the Mid-Atlantic points, so I am not doing 4 of the rounds. Fortunately I am doing well enough in the 9 true Mid-Atlantic rounds to lead the points over some of the guys that are doing all of the rounds. By your theory they should be ahead of me just because they do all the rounds and run mid pack.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

Apparently you missed the part in my 1st post about the effect that P/I has on any points you earn (as CCS uses it currently). It's the opposite of how most people assume it works, a person in a lower entry race may be able to score more points in a race, but their P/I will take points back away from them. Here was my original post about how the current system is:

Performance index (P/I) is also very deceptive, it's a nail in the coffin because it punishes those who run lower entry classes. If you take a lightweight race that had 15 racers in it that saw the top 5 break away and fight the whole race long, the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 733 , in a 60 rider race the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 933. While both 5th place finishes get 21 points it doesn't take into account how close of a finish the lower entry race was, instead in penalizes the 5th place finisher in the lower entry race with a substantially lower P/I. This really comes into play when you look at the overall points which combines your points and P/I, the racer in the 60 rider race would end up with 19.60 points, the rider in the lower entry race would end up with only 15.40 points for their 5th place finish that they had to fight the whole race for.

Now if you win every race you run then the P/I won't matter, but logically most people won't. The 2 examples in the quote of low and high entry races are accurate points earned toward the overall championship. The high entry class racer gets 19.60 points toward the overall championship for their 5th place finish after incorporating the P/I as it is used currently, the racer in the lower entry race only get's 15.40 points toward the OVERALL POINTS CHAMPIONSHIP for their 5th place finish. So in other words the racer in the lower entry class only gets apx. 3/4 of the points toward the overall championship that the rider in the larger race does (while both of them had 5th place finishes).

It's very true that it's easier to earn points in a lower entry race toward that classes INDIVIDUAL CLASS CHAMPIONSHIP, but not toward the OVERALL CHAMPIONSHIP once you incorporate the P/I as it's used currently - so many people have trouble understanding this.

[Super Dave]

Gridding by performance index wouldn't do anything constructive in my point of view.

If you're going to make grid changes, make them to keep people that come do a decent number of events feel rewarded as "good customers".

Points is the easiest for that.

If you grid by PI only, well, in some cases, there are riders that will do two or three manufacturers contingency races in a region.  They win, and they have a PI of 1000.  Meanwhile, a racer that risks doing more events gets more points and has a lower PI even if they won every other event that the other guy didn't attend. 

Just an opinion, but I think keeping it simple and using the new smaller scale points system (35 points for a win vs 65) to develop grids is a nice one. 

[ahastings]

Mike I understand the PI well. you are citing extremed examples of 15 and 60 riders. The other way of looking at it instead of a saying " riders in smaller classes are being punished "is riders in larger classes are being rewarded because it is generally more difficult to get 5th in a 30 rider field than a 15 rider field.  Actually in the expert ranks, the lightweight classes are not necessarilly smaller than the middleweight classes and they are definitely larger than the heavyweight classes anymore.