Couple new rule ideas for next year.

[r6_philly]

if I had paid money to race a SV in 5 classes (TB and LW/MW) I would expect to get 2 practice sessions. Paymore get more practice, makes sense to me.

[Eric Kelcher]

Fees are such that first entry covers practice, race, and insurance; second covers race and insurance and race; third+ covers the race (no added charge for insurance).

So for added practice session would you be willing to pay for it? what would be fair? and then bike density issues for practice become even more problematic as you cannot figure how many people have bought extra sessions by use of computer. currently the schedule for practice takes into account the entries

[r6_philly]

Fees are such that first entry covers practice, race, and insurance; second covers race and insurance and race; third+ covers the race (no added charge for insurance).

So for added practice session would you be willing to pay for it? what would be fair? and then bike density issues for practice become even more problematic as you cannot figure how many people have bought extra sessions by use of computer. currently the schedule for practice takes into account the entries

Eric, can't figure out by use of computer? I can do anything you want with a single laptop. I can create a payperless system that can reduce your administrative tasks by 90% and do it better. Thats what I do.

you can monitor and decide how you want to split your practice sessions, and adjust the number if you had a system in place to monitor that. You can make a general determination by looking at pre-entry numbers before you leave for the event.

If CCS offered extra sessions for extra money, how many people would be willing to buy it? How much more income would it generate? If a computer system is set up you can monitor how many people have registered for practice and decide when it will be full and only sell available slots based on a cap in each group. You can control that, as you do now, with color tech stickers, Then you can move people from crowded practice groups to less crowded ones. If there are 60 people in odd number and 15 in even, you can move that.  Its hard without an automated system, but if you do it would be a breeze.

I proposed to CCS what, 3 years ago to build a system/web app to solve
- point posting
- results posting
- online entries
- rider profiles (For everyone)

As I see that results are still being posted as text files, the system I was going to make would still be another 5 years advance of what we have now.

I understand businesses are resistant to changes. But just because you don't choose to doesn't mean you can't make the whole operation better with the RIGHT developing firm. Data solutions are supposed to help reduce work, instead of increasing workload.

If they had adapted what I proposed, we would not have any complaints about why points are not posted and not correct.

Ken Abbott told me last year that this year we will have a "state of the art" system that did everything I proposed... where is it?



sorry this is a bit off topic, but since you mentioned that your computers can't do something real simple... I would just like to elaborate on that.

[Eric Kelcher]

From the time an post-entry is done until practice starts there is not time to get into computer. Computer entry at registration then link to scoring is not feasible at most (any?)track. Plus it would just slow down the registration line.

direct electronic entry is not feasible for one reason alone lawsuits. It must be hand signed entry form.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

     How about having a big number on the tech sticker saying what group your in for practice. Have 2 rows of stickers next to each other at tech for groups that normally have to be split, every other sticker that is used would be for the other group, this way it doesn't matter how many odd or even #'s there are at a particular event. Doing it this way you could look at the rows of stickers and see if they are equally balanced or not for like bike practice sessions. :)

[watsonx11]

the only problem I see with this is it sounds great in theory split the all AM into two groups, and experts into two groups.  However there are those of use who are on 1K bikes, and those of us who are 125's.  It is a bad idea to throw those 2 together,

Best idea, 4 groups,  Heavyweight, Middlewieght EX, Middlewieght AM, and TBK/Lwt/Ultraliight

This splits the biggest group, Middleweight by EXpert and AM.  And if I remember correctly this is how its done for the most part.  And BTW, if you dont like the group that your end, you can goto another higher practice group.  

BTW, everynow and then when USGPRU is in town we split LWT/ULTRALWT into EX/AM, for saftey, b/c having 80+ bikes out there for a practice group is unsafe much less unerving

Just my .02 though  Take it for what you will

What I would like to see is cut some of the LWT classes next year, I race them so I can say that :) , and add qualifying for all the GT races.  I think that would be a much improved rule change.  

Come on guys, do we really need all the different classes?  I would rather fewer longer races.  I know this is not going to happen, b/c CCS is in the business to make money, and they dont do that by having fewer classes, with longer races.  They make more money by having alot of races, more entries= more money.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

the only problem I see with this is it sounds great in theory split the all AM into two groups, and experts into two groups.  However there are those of use who are on 1K bikes, and those of us who are 125's.  It is a bad idea to throw those 2 together.

     I wasn't saying to split the Amateurs and Experts into 2 groups each, I was saying that if the current groups were used they could be split evenly using what I suggested (instead of doing the unpredictable even/odd number plate system). :)