2008 rules changes

[Ridgeway]

Here's a scenario I've talked over with many people who've responded positively.

Move the pre-entry deadline back to 1 month before an event, and grid by points for pre-entries only.  Those that post-enter are gridded after the pre-entries by order of entry.

Best of both worlds.  Those that wish to can be gridded by points, and CCS is still able to collect entry fees in advance to hedge against weather issues etc.

I would think this would also allow the grids to be partially set before the weekend starts, and would possibly increase the total number of pre-entries because many of us would be more likely to pre-enter if it meant we'd be gridded by points.

To me, this would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

PS, perhaps we could take a quick vote on this at the awards banquet to see which way the population leans on the issue?  CCS claims people prefer order-of-entry, lets test that theory.

[Super Dave]

There is some merit to that.


Let's get this out there though.

A lot of stuff that needs to be done in rules has to be done on a non democratic basis.  First, racing isn't democratic.  Second, we're racers.  We're lucky that we find or asses with our hands.

Championship Cup Series is a business that someone has their house riding on, basically.  It's a giant mortgage, and someone needs to cut through some of this at times and make command decisions that keep the business going.  The racers' stake in CCS is very limited in its risk for success as a result.   If CCS "goes away", hey, your out your cost of a CCS license.  Even then, you can use that to get another road racing license, so it still isn't a complete loss. 


I still want grids by points.  It's just a matter of crafting it in a way that overcomes problems or develops solutions for other problems.

I'd love it if it was just implemented for some classes even as a try out.  If that happened, it'd probably be for a class that I don't race anymore...LOL!

[ekraft84]

Dave - I don't think anyone disagrees that CCS is a business and it needs to be profitable to remain "in business".  The issue I have is that it's fairly shady in the manner in which certain rules are being deemed "necessary" by Eric Kelcher.  There's really no merit behind it - especially from someone I would assume to be more or less an expert in the field of running a race series and knowing the in's and out's of what goes with that.  The reasoning behind the above mentioned is borderline weird.

I've raced with a number of series (CCS as one of them).  I assume each organization is in the business of staying afloat and making money.  However I've never gotten more of an impression that money is everything (and the end racing product isn't) than I have with CCS.  This is solely my opinion based on my experiences. 

Smite on.   

[SV88]

I don't think that the economic argument makes any kind of sense with respect to the pending rule change for the following reasons:

1. SV riders comprise the largest portion of LW classes - alienating them out of the sport or to another org. is going to cost CCS.
2.  The SV route is the lowest cost/entry level way into racing - many of us have gone that route - I probably would not be racing if I hadn't taking my 30K+ SV off the street and slowly converted it to the race stallion that it is (I'm being sarcastic!!).  Springing for a $8-9k MW 600 + $2-3K of mods + 2 sets of tires a weekend to say nothing of the meatgrinder aspect of MW AM racing would have disqualified this club racer in  a hurry.
3. The alternative is for LW racers to find Duc 1000 CC, reliable Buells and BMW all of which are 2-4 x more expensive than SVs.

My feeling is that SV racers in other regions have complained bitterly about the BMW/s and to a lesser extent the Buells and Ducs beating up on the them every weekend - this has driven the rule change endeavour.  Ironically, this may be the SV's death knell as a competitive budget racer.....

[Grashopr]

Giving up time to some riders that get a jump on the field because of the date of grid purchase IS AN ADVANTAGE. 

Where the hell is the clapping guy icon?

To keep this in perspective;  I'm a mid-pack AM paying for my racing out of my tax refund and whatever I can save during the year.  I dont know much about much, but from my point of view, even though I would STILL grid on the 15th row, gridding by points makes SOO much more sense than the way that you guys are currently doing it.  Even if it's the hybrid 'grid by points for pre-regs' setup.  Honestly, the way you guys are doing it now doesn't benefit anyone but the guy who can pay for all of his races Jan 1st.   Me, I'm doing good to make pre-registration at all with the way my finances are setup.  But no matter how well I do throughout the year;  at the last race, I'm still going to be stuffing my front wheel in on Turn 1 to try to get around the dil-weed who had the $$ to spend on entry fees and wants to grid on the front row, but still runs 10 seconds per lap off the pace.   

When I raced motocross, we had no pre-registration, and you got gate pick in order of when you got to the track that morning.  If we're going to continue gridding by registration date, can we PLEASE get a gate shack in the middle of the front straight and the backwards-falling-gates?   Cause giving Richy Rich a 60-yard head start on me is slightly unnerving.    At least then we'd all be the same distance from the finish line.   Or...  we could get our umbrella girls to hold the bikes up and do a running start (foot-running) like they did at Le Mans in the old days.  The only thing that would make that more fun is if we could get some sort of aftermarket kick-starter for all the bikes.   I'd sure like to see SD kick over that SV1k after a 50-yard sprint. 

All jokes aside;  pre-registration is a must from a business standpoint, but from a racing standpoint, it's equal is gridding that is 'performance-based', not 'money-based'.  Isn't there ANYTHING that can be done to find some sort of combination? 

[Super Dave]

I'm still trying to find anyone that was actually asked on the topic.  I'll probably race some CRA again this year.  They won't accept any entries until April, and, since you're at WFO for so long there, at least things shake down pretty quickly for faster riders when compared to slower ones.  At least you don't get bottled up giving away our tax refund opportunities.

[Team Spalding]

Grashopr,

I like that Le Mans running start thing. I am all for that.

[Grashopr]

Grashopr,
I like that Le Mans running start thing. I am all for that.

For the fun of it, or just for the Umbrella girls?   :D

[ekraft84]

I had a bad dream last night about this topic.  It was utter chaos.  :D

[Cowboy 6]

I think its of the DOESN'T MAKE SENSE variety.

I agree.  The SVs are competitive in LW. Now the ULW bikes will get creamed.....
Like another poster in the thread above, I spent a good deal of money improving my bike for 2008. I intended to run ULSB instead of LWSS to get away from the SVs power advantage. Now they show up in UL ?  Give us a break.
Maybe the 1000 Ducatis need to go to MW if the SVs can't keep up?

[kl3640]

Would having one of the practice sessions double as qualifying work?  Even if they can't be run as proper qualifying sessions, what the officials could do is use the fastest times as qualifying times (providing of course that the riders know that their practice times will count for something).  The downside of this approach is that the whole notion of "there are not trophies for practice" goes out the window, and people WILL ride more aggressively during practice.  Any attempt to mitigate that added risk by doing things like limiting the number of riders qualifying at any one time, etc., would start to look suspiciously like a real qualifying session...

Gridding by points would work also, so long as they're not restricted to region.  Logically and in practice, a rider's points will correlate to speed except for the outliers.  If there is a concern over a fast rider who hasn't ridden a lot lately, then points used could be a rolling average or total of the last several races only, instead of tracking the whole season.  So either only the last 3 events would count, or only the riders' last 3 races (within some reasonable limit, say 6 months) would count.

The other thing that could be done as an alternative to qualifying or points-based-gridding or the status quo is to put all pre-entries in front and post-entries in back by order of entry, as has been suggested by others, but with the following hitch: the pre-entries would be randomized, to eliminate anyone getting an advantage due to financial reasons that allow those people to pre-register very early.  It wouldn't solve the faster-riders-in-the-back problem, but neither does the current system either.  That way, at least people would still be incentivized to pre-register in order to not have to take their chances at the track, but as long as they make the deadline (which is reasonably close to the event anyway) they wouldn't be penalized for not pre-registering in February for an October event.

[MELK-MAN]

it would be cool to "qualify"  but for which races? In FL region, we have a BUNCH of races all run on Sunday with 1 practice session on sunday morning. How would you qualify your supersport 600, your superbike 600.. and your unlimited bike?? Not possible. This is "club" racing after all, if you want pro racing with qualifying sessions there is ASRA or WERA nationals or the former AMA. I really don't think guys just getting into racing will have the extra tires for qualifying sessions AND for the races. I saw a comment about "Richy Rich" paying for races up front.. well.. that same guy is gonna put on new tires for both qualifying and race, what about the guy that runs 1 set of tires for all races then practices on them next race weekend?
For CCS racing, with ALL the various classes that have to get squeezed into a weekend there is no way to do qualifying. Perhaps to what Henry D. does in FL region.. you pre enter all your FL region races with POST DATED checks that DO NOT get cashed till Monday after the races. There goes the "Richy rich" argument.