SD's new AM/EX idea...

[Steviebee]

ULGP usually seems to have 25 guys in it at Blackhawk.
Thats 1750$ in entry fees,  and they payout 1000$ (Sponser by LP still ?)

Bigger trophies for experts !!  not just plaques !

[the_weggie_man]

I don't agree with a three tiered structure. I do agree with fewer classes overall and longer races for the experts. 8-10 laps novice, 12 -15 laps expert. And yes, the experts could pay a little bit more for the extra laps and more purse money.

I loved CCS original concept of only superbike, gp and twins classes but that went away when Edmondson tried getting contingencies and the factories would not pay out for those classes. Hence the supersport era arrived. Roger didn't want to run stock classe so he came up with the modified or Supersport idea. the factories liked it and here we are.

I think either superbike or GP classes should be eliminated. Either one allows slicks and pretty much unlimited mods so why have the duplication?  ???

Ideally Superbike, Supersport, Twins, maybe a singles class are all that's needed. True GP bikes? How many are there?  Not enough for a true gp class anymore. :( Sorry.

I'd also love to see a mini series for kids. Maybe 10-12 yrs old and 14-15 yrs old  on YSRs. mini-motards or whatever.  I think it would be a great class, if we could control the soccer dad/mom mentality of the parents.  That's a whole other issue.  Other clubs are doing it and it seems to be a hit where ever they have it.

Just my basic idea. Nothing close to SD's thoughts but I always believed in the K.I.S.S. principle and it seems to work. ;D ;D

[Eric Kelcher]

Okay few points about increased spectators.

1. Insurance: probably the single biggest expense at a spectator event, ala FUSA, has much higher insurance than a non-spectator event, ala CCS.

2. Rental: venues charge more for a spectator event since they must provide more services, security, restrooms, clean-up, gate personel, seperate gates for spectator/participant, secure area for participants.

3. overcrowding: some venues can hardly handle the racers others are non-spectator venues so with that it means you have a vastly different income scale than other tracks so would you charge different entry fees where spectators are not allowed/cannot be accomadated or do you drop the purses there? other issue insurance is bought in bulk for the year and with limited venues that are non-spectator you would run into paying specator rates for non-spectator events.

I ran some numbers at slightly increasing spectators, more of a direct marketing to the possible future racer, for the return of increasd staff only you would need to spend aprox extra $200 a weekend for every 100 spectators. get much over 1000-2000 people through the gate and you start becoming a spectator event and the venue starts eyeing higher rates, and the increased insurance to cover themselves. so you start running into a brick wall; org gets ~$8 spends $2 for each spectator and if it rains or is blistering hot the expense is still there but no income. OUCH!!! then if you have a specator only gate income may only be ~$5 per spectator doesn't look very appealing if for that potential $3 you still need to pay for the advertising you did to bring that spectator in. (this was when I did some promotion and advertising for the CMRA a then CCS affliate in 2000-2002)

[Super Dave]

Okay few points about increased spectators.

1. Insurance: probably the single biggest expense at a spectator event, ala FUSA, has much higher insurance than a non-spectator event, ala CCS.

Ok, how much?  CCE has global insurance.  They put on a lot of spectator events.  So, if anyone gets a deal on it, it's CCE.

It's not going to be a spectator event until it's a spectator event.  It would have to be built first.   Change comes over a period of time.  If the gate were 2000 people at Blackhawk (racers, helpers, family, friends...a handfull of spectators) what would another 2000 people do?  Another $10k in revenue?  That might just pay for the track for one day at Blackhawk.

2. Rental: venues charge more for a spectator event since they must provide more services, security, restrooms, clean-up, gate personel, seperate gates for spectator/participant, secure area for participants.

3. overcrowding: some venues can hardly handle the racers others are non-spectator venues so with that it means you have a vastly different income scale than other tracks so would you charge different entry fees where spectators are not allowed/cannot be accomadated or do you drop the purses there? other issue insurance is bought in bulk for the year and with limited venues that are non-spectator you would run into paying specator rates for non-spectator events.

I ran some numbers at slightly increasing spectators, more of a direct marketing to the possible future racer, for the return of increasd staff only you would need to spend aprox extra $200 a weekend for every 100 spectators. get much over 1000-2000 people through the gate and you start becoming a spectator event and the venue starts eyeing higher rates, and the increased insurance to cover themselves. so you start running into a brick wall; org gets ~$8 spends $2 for each spectator and if it rains or is blistering hot the expense is still there but no income. OUCH!!! then if you have a specator only gate income may only be ~$5 per spectator doesn't look very appealing if for that potential $3 you still need to pay for the advertising you did to bring that spectator in. (this was when I did some promotion and advertising for the CMRA a then CCS affliate in 2000-2002)

Ah, so this is the complete reason why CCE has absolutely no interest in doing anything for CCS racing as a whole.

We are talking risk/reward here.  CCE has an investment.  They could loose money, but they are making better money on CCS that they would, maybe, when compared to putting it in a bank.

Meanwhile, riders risk their opportunites in CCS to do what?  Two or three years then out...debt, etc.  

Guys going for ULGP championships have the most to risk anymore...with no purses at FUSA events (why, I still don't understand) their is no reward for what should be potentially the most exciting class.

Additionally, when Roger formed CCS, experts had a purse for all classes.  That was a good thing.

[spyderchick]

I'm going to chime in here, but this only my opinion, I'm not an expert in staging events or dealing with the financial end. Anyone with some solid numbers to answer some of this, your input would be greatly appreciated.

First off, I see almost no difference in attendance of the Raod America event as it is held now as an FUSA event as when it was held as a CCS event exclusively. I'm not talking racer/crew/family/friend participation here, but "spectator" numbers. Those not associated in any real form with a "race team", but just for the fun of seeing bikes at speed.

I'm also trying to understand how the FUSA event (using Road America as an example) is a "spectator" event when in the Southeastern Wisconsin area I didn't talk to a single person who had seen any advertising. CCE owns billbaords and broadcast stations in Milwaukee and the surrounding area, so this baffled me.

So this question is: How can an FUSA event be a spectator event, due to the lack of real advertising, and a CCS event is a "club" event with a (perceived) policy of no advertising?

How does this question affect the riders and the rules?

We need a clear definition of who's club level and who is really pro, as well as what constitutes a "spectator" event as opposed to a club event. Finally we need some way to better understand administrative decisions, and have a voice in the process.    

As Dave is pointing out, there is a blur in the lines of who is enrty level/amauer/pro racers. These need to be defined by more than just a regional number and plate color.

I understand what Gordy is saying, and he has been a race director in the past. Dave's got many valid points as well. I think there has to be a middle ground somewhere.

I think what needs to be established is a set of goals to be implemented over the next serveral years. This is such a complex issue, and I think the racer's voices are left out of the discussion and debate over class structure/rules changes, etc. That's why these questions keep popping up year after year.

"Write a letter to CCS/Kevin Elliott" is not always the answer, answering a small survey on a yearly basis is not the most equitable way of affecting change.

Dave, Gordy and a handful of vocal racers have tried and sometimes succeeded/sometimes failed to make changes. What I would propose is a racer rep from each region/series to be liasion between CCS/FUSA. (I have proposed this to Kevin in the past)

The reps main objective would be to bring issues about anything racing related to the administrative ear, and for this person to get those answers back to the racers. Effective communication is hamstringed by the fact that CCS/FUSA have so few people on staff in the main office. I somehow think that this would be a better way to get anwsers than everyone asking the same questions, but basically getting no where because it's not on a priority list somewhere.

This would probably mean alot of volunteer work for someone, and CCS/FUSA would have to acknowledge the rep as being someone in a position to bring them ideas, issues and questions, and e willing to work with that person to listen, resolve and answer anything the racers might feel is important.

How this rep would be appointed/elected would have to be worked out, but somehow I feel that this would be one giant step towards making the racers feel like they were part of the process and not just a source of revenue.

The floor is open for debate.

[1fastmofo]

The Northeast (LRRS) runs a three tier system that seemed to work well. They had Amateurs, Juniors, and experts. Basically the system was based on a combination of lap times, number of races, and performance index. Amateurs raced by themselves. The experts and juniors were on the track together. The Juniors would leave as a second wave. Juniors only raced against other Juniors.

Next year they are still running a 3 tier system, but it will be Novice, Amateur and Expert. I thought the junior class was a great idea. Too bad the rest of CCS didn't recognize the distinction and made Juniors run as experts anywhere else.

[Super Dave]

I am familiar with LRRS's system.

The trick with the LRRS system is that it is not perfectly compatible with CCS as it is.  At ROC, Juniors race as experts.

Additionally, there is no system for breeding a little funding for the "pro" racers...something that would breed real local competition in the form of machines, teams, riders, dealerships, pride, etc.

LRRS certainly has a huge history with dealerships being involved in local and national racing for decades.  

Spectators are not drawn by advertising, but by personalities.  You're not going to get much for personalities racing for points...well, you will, but not ones that are there necessarily looking to put in the fastest laps in an attempt to bring home some $$.

And for those not looking to race like that...well, we have the "B" class.  Still fun, still competitive.

[tomdavid]

Part one
There are a ton of snips of his original concepts here and there are two parts as well. Actually I think that you have hit on a very workable idea. Let me elaborate within your quoted text.
 
>Class C will be the entry level tier.  The riders will have their own practice.  The riders will have a limited number of classes available to them for racing.  Those classes will be divided by displacement.  Lightweight, Middleweight, Heavyweight,. No trophies, only certificates of accomplishment.  No championships. <

I would add, No Unlimited, No slicks, No Superbike with preparation only at the Supersport level
 
>A rider would be limited in the time that they could spend in this entry level class.<

Wouldn't it be better to move riders forward when they accumulated a certain amount of points? Using the current CCS points structure might not be appropriate as that structure hands out points way, way down the list of finishers ( where I usually am ) Maybe 25 for a 1st, 15 for 2nd, and 10 for 3rd. Then move them up when they hit say 100 points accumulated over several seasons. Further I think that moving a rider up mid-season in this class would make a lot of sense.

> but still allow a rider to stay in that structure for a maximum of about eighteen months. <

if done by points this is a self solving problem. A rider that wants to come out maybe once or twice a year can do so without fear on being placed in a race group that might be over their heads a bit.

Also it seems to me that any rider that runs within a certain percentage of the Expert Pole time for their class at the specific event ought to be moved up given that they have demonstrated the ability to ride smoothly and under control. Maybe this is where the more seasoned and experienced Experts could form a committee with the Race personel. They could ride in the Class C practice which would do two things at once:
Give the most experienced guys an incentive to acts as coach/referee, and
Helps to insure that riders moving up are in fact competent as well as fast.
This percentage needs to be in the %120 to %140 but that percentage would need lots of thinking by better riders than I am

 The structure is as such to allow them time to overcome the sensory overload that is associated with beginning racing and to become consistent without the pressure to perform at speed.

And that is exactly the difficulty I have right now. In amateur practice at a track I have never been to before the fast guys literally zoom by mostly within safe considerations, but sometimes not, and the vast majority of the Amateur that are familiar with the track come streaming by. This makes just learning the track extremely dangerous and difficult.
 
Sportsman type racing - Sportsman?
 
> current experts.<

This whole idea makes a great deal of sense as while many riders aspire to qualifying for Expert status, not many of us will be competitive. It seems that there is as much variance in lap times in the expert class as there is any place. However, winning just once, or accumulation of a certain amount of points ought to move a rider up and mid-season makes sense here too.

> Racers in this class would be competent and safe. <

 And I thought that we all had to ride competently and safely! Does this mean that a rider can consistently be  incompetant and unsafe and continue to be allowed to compete ?
 
Upper level racing - Expert or Pro?

>their would need to be a purse for each class, and, as a result, the entry fees would be higher <

And might that not be the basis for some of the purse?  

> As a result, qualifying would be expected. <

This, by itself, seems like an idea who's time has come. The computer program that would compare lap times from all practice sessions and form a grid based on those times is simplistic. My granddaughter could right one. Maybe the riders could be shuffled by the program by every two rows. But whatever, this is an easy thing to accomplish
  

[tomdavid]

Part two
. Maybe the riders could be shuffled by the program by every two rows. But whatever, this is an easy thing to accomplish
  
> Under the current structure, there are riders that have been amateurs for a few if not several seasons.  There are even some riders that have expert licenses that can run in or around the top ten in a Middleweight race, but that have petitioned to become amateurs...in the sake of making contingency and purse money that, I would argue, is rightfully the property of those entry level riders that the current amateur program is really meant for. <

And you would be arguing successfully!
 
Advantage of such a tiered system:
 
>A longer opportunity for true entry level racers to learn about the sport without the emotional pressure of worrying about being in the way of riders that circulate the track better. <

Just what I personally need and I'm not always last

There are other good ideas here but I have responded just to those few where I might have some reasonable insight. But please remember, I'm dead slow and just learning. I do have extensive experience in cars however and the problems there are ones of who has the most $.
Cars = Driver 10% tops car 90%
Bikes = Rider 90%, bike 10%

[tomer]

i ride in the mid atlantic and have an idea of what it is you are asking for, but why are you asking for the changes? safety, money, too many riders, we as riders need to find out what is the most important thing or problem that we need to change and deal with it one problem at a time. all of you made very good point but what is the # 1 problem that we as riders need fixed and how? for me its safety and sometimes i feel unsafe, ccs is doing a great job with what they have, and we as riders do need to give them CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, write down what it is we want changed, and e-mail or  send it to kevin.I would like the grid to be 3, 2, 3, 2, not 4, 3, 4, 3, turn 1 is scary too many riders to fast, it might help to have longer grids.black flaging slower riders or starting to use blue flags maybe bumping riders down if they are extremly slow, ill be the first to go if needed. ;)

[Super Dave]

Well, I don't know what to say to you.

Growth is necessary.

There needs to be a place for regular riders to feel welcome where they can be competitive on a reasonable basis.  Fun with rewards.

There needs to be a place for the really fast to feel pressured to do better and to be rewarded for their investment and risk.  Hard competition with reward.

There needs to be a place for honest new riders to have a place to learn a few things.  Opportunity to learn and have fun...get introduced into the racing community.

Safety?  Generally starts on the right hand.  But it also starts at set up.  Can't say that enough.  Even riders that I work with on a regular basis still don't always get that.  We can't make decisions for riders on what they do at a particular moment.

Starts?  They are potentially always the most dangerous time on track.  Sounds like you have some ideas.  I'd say make your proposals.  Usually the gridding is based on space available.  I'd love to have more space on the start...then again, if we raced based only on the fastest lap time, we might have a different winner too...so, our kind of racing is based on competing lap by lap, corner by corner.  

Even if we had the rows set up one by one by one...you'd still have everyone trying to get in on the same piece of real estate.  Agreed?

Blue flags?

Personally, I've only had them cause more problems than help.  Before a faster rider gets to a rider that is so slow that they need a blue flag...well, the faster rider has already changed their line to accomodate the rider.

The blue flag certainly catches the momentary attention of the slower rider...even if it is for a moment...that rider might only move one way or another a little bit, but it might be in the exact place that the faster rider was going...it can be very scary.  Unsafe?

[spyderchick]

Yeah, blue flags are weird. I was the recipient of them regularly, so I learned to ignore them. I've heard way too many experts complain that after someone gets a blue flag, they change their line or stand it up, causing more problems than it's worth.

If you are a slower rider, you should EXPECT to be passed (Until you become fast), and therefore should be listening and aware of everything around you. (You should be doing that anyhow), but you know what I mean.

I think anything that could eliminate confusion should be the order of the day.