SD's new AM/EX idea...

[Super Dave]

Faces for example...Last Blackhawk

1   $350  Jesse Janisch
2   $180  Dave Rosno  (I got $125 on the previous system)
3   $150  Brian Johnson
4   $140  Brain Boyd
5   $130  Matt Malterer
6   $120  Dan Ortega
7   $ 95   Doc Purk
8   $ 80   Andy Feruersthaler
9   $ 70   Dennis Debuhr
10 $ 70   Heath Locum
11 $ 60   Willie Broten
12 $ 60   Stumpy
13 $ 50   Ike
14 $ 50   John Avi Roop
15 $ 50   Greg Hemmersbach

16  Anthony Connor
17  Jeremy Bentz
18  Brenden Hafner
19  Rob Oliva
20  Rhiannon Lucente
21  Doc Stein
22  Simon Kowaski
23  Brian Hall
24  Mark Stiles

Certainly, even for some return, at least, I'm gonna try to do a bit more than circulate at 15th place.  Not a big reward, but at least you're getting something back.  Then you've got Murphy's Rule working for you too...

Brian Hall was well in command of second place when he tumbled in front of me...that moves everyone up.

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

Well Dave, you want opinions, here's mine. :)

     I think that this 3 tier system may be the way to draw in more new racers and get more racers to stay racing longer, which is something our sport desperately needs. As numbers of racers involved increases, due to new racers and people staying longer, it would make sense that money and support would follow in the form of contingency and purse money.

     The 1st tier would hopefully draw in some of those track day riders and curious street riders that may be intimidated to give this a try by allowing them some racing that most likely won't have some 'on fire' multi-year sand-bagger passing them like they were sitting still making them feel right from the start that it's not for them. Someone spectating the 1st tier races would probably feel that they could do that too.

     I have said numerous times how I think advancement should be based on lap time percentage as compared to the fastest expert racers racing that same event on similar equipment. This is comparing 'apples to apples' and should be fairly accurate. The exception to this is when you have a stand out expert racer who is smokin everyone else, but even that could be fixed by taking the fastest lap times of the top 3 or 5, averaging them together, and using that as the comparison lap time.

     A minimum required amount of races in the 1st tier (on top of the lap time percentage) sounds like a good idea too, that way new racers can become familiar with the racing format and procedures before being thrown in with the wolves. I think there should be a certain number of completed races, not a time frame, which determines the move (not # of events). If someone wants to get the 1st tier out of the way sooner they could run more classes right off the bat, but there would need to be at least 2 sprint classes to compete in per bike to really get the track time needed to learn. I would also be very much in favor of GT classes for tier 1 racers, that is an excellent way to gain experience and become more familiar with being on the track in a racing environment.

     As far as a maximum time frame in tier 1 I think number of classes run total combined with lap time comparison is good for that too. I wouldn't force someone to move up based solely on their lap time meeting the minimum for advancement to tier 2, let them do the max number of total classes run if so desired. But I would also have a lap time percentage in the tier 1 class which would force an advancement in order to avoid the large differences in lap times and speed which is both dangerous and intimidating. Determining how many races minimum and maximum and appropriate lap time percentages would be something that could be decided later by a possible combination of CCS and expert racers.

too be continued....

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

     Tier 2 would definately see huge grids in some classes, which could be bad in ways. This could lead to possible sell outs of grid positions in some classes which would be bad since this 3 tier structure would ultimately have less classes run total during an event. Tracks with 60 rider density (or less if there are any?) would probably sell out often in some classes, due to the combination of current amateur and expert classes, which would probably lead to lower total event revenue. There would also be alot more lappers in these races as well because of the shear size of the grids and difference in lap times (the larger the grid-the sooner the lappers).

     On the positive side I think this would be a great place for people who realize that they have to work on Monday and hanging off the ragged edge isn't for them. There would probably be alot of great racing thru-out the entire fields in tier 2 due to commonality in lap times between more racers at varying levels.

     Tier 3 would be a great spectator class as well because the shear speed of most all competators would be impressive. The higher pay-out / entry fee is definately a requirement in this class for the added costs of the leaders having to buy tires for almost every race run at this level, which is a major complaint I have with racing currently.

     What I think should also be done at the tier 3 level is the lap time percentage requirement as described previously. A minimum percentage along with a minimum number of races run in tier 2 would help to provide competition that was fierce and wouldn't have someone running the tier 3 classes because they just want a pay-out for 15th. I too have a concern as mentioned by others before about tier 3 competitors running tier 2 classes to finish out their tier 3 single race tires for any contingency and purse offered in tier 2 races. That will probably be something that can't be avoided, but will probably be an issue. I realize there will be those who will say "racing with faster racers will only make you faster", which is true, but only when your actually racing with them! I was in races at Daytona at the R.O.C. in '99 with John Hopkins in them. On Sunday, when I wasn't racing myself, I watched as he was so far ahead of 2nd place that by mid-race he was exiting the infield as 2nd place was entering it! There certainly wasn't too much learning going on there by the 2nd place competitor! This is where someone having the ability to compete up front in tier 2, and having the ability to progress to teir 3 where competition will be stronger, is a real benefit. But if tier 3 competitors are going to be also competing in tier 2 then the only real difference will be payout and race length in tier 3. This will probably be an issue, so I thought I would bring this up again.

     Seperation of tier 2 and 3 competitors will probably be required for this to work, otherwise it will probably be similar to the situation of AMA top 10 Pro's showing up at regional races and taking all the money. I'm not complaining about this, just making a point. I would think it wouldn't be out of the question to restrict all AMA Pro racers to tier 3 races only, quite possibly racers achieving certain lap times as well. If your good enough to aquire the license, then tier 2 is not for you, a line has to be drawn somewhere. The other option here would be to allow those tier 3 racers that want more track time to compete in non money paying classes only in tier 2, or not pay-out to tier 3 licensed competitors in any tier 2 class.

     In conclusion I think this would be a good system, but like anything it will need the kinks worked out of it. Of course there will be those racers that could be advanced sooner thru the direction of the Race Director, as well as being returned to a lower level if needed, but that will be somewhat rare. Ultimately this 3 tier system is probably the step in the right direction this sport needs to aquire and keep more racers. :)

[Super Dave]

Ok, lap time percentages...

I struggle with it.

It seems like a lot of work.  And I don't exactly see the complete relevance to everything.

The fastest amateurs currently only run a little behind the fastest experts often.  There are also experts currently that are running times slower than the fastest amateurs.

Getting bumped to the Sportsman Expert class from amateur...  Yeah, this is a safety issue.  Really, we want them to know the rules, have a fair and decent line, and they would be welcome to come and play.

I think that would be a decision that rider might be offered at a point.  

The bump from Sportsman Expert to Pro Expert...maybe that has to be a personal decision.  No one would probably want to run in a class where they are uncompetitive.  Even some riders might rather run in fifth place in Sportsman Expert rather than run in 16th in Pro Expert...also visa versa...but that should be a rider choice...thoughts.

As for Tier three riders finishing off tires in tier two...

I can't ride as an amateur and go get tire money now.  That wouldn't happen now.  At the beginning of the year, I think, a rider would apply for their license in their tier.  Yeah, if during the year, you wanted to move up, no problem.  If you wanted to move down, no problem.  I suppose you'd have to petition the race director for a move, but the process shouldn't be terribly complicated.  No, we're not gonig to allow "bouncing".

AMA Pros?  Well, yeah, tier three, but they would want the money just like any heavily competitive road racer.  If they are that fast, they are going to want to be in the fastest classes for safety issues anyway.

But who cares who they are top five, top twenty.

My Jason Pridmore story goes back to 1993 when he showed up at Heartland Park Topeka.  He was leading the AMA 750 Supersport National Championship at the time (and I was in like 12th?), but we didn't care.  I wanted to beat him; he wanted to beat me.  

Anyone have any thoughts on my purse structure?

[Jeff]

Anyone have any thoughts on my purse structure?

I would ABSOLUTELY run purse races, and pay $100 for your break-down...  absolutely...  And I'd run MORE races than I do now!

I (personally) have about a 20-25% (maybe 30% on a good day) chance on getting a 5th currently.  That isn't close enough for me to pay the extra $$ for a purse class.

15th though...  I'd fight for that.  You bet I would.

[H-man]

...I do certainly strive to be as good a rider as I can, given the time and funds that I have available to dedicate to the sport.

I don't need to win, (though that is of-course the goal).  The big draw for me is the thrill of competetion.  I fully expect to enjoy myself whether battling for 10th or 1st.  I just hope that there are others out there of comparable skill to battle with!

WORD Rigdeway!  You've done an excellent job of putting into words exactly how I approach being on the track.

I won't comment about the top level (Expert Pro) since I just don't envision myself there.  As a recent, older newbie (and one that entered this without the thought that I want to advance as rapidly as possible toward that factory ride that I know is in my future), Dave, I think you're plan is pretty good to make one feel safe and avoid that deer in the headlights look the first couple events.  As you stated previously, "... 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."  This is a real concern and quite the sensory shock when it happens the first few times.

Though I'm curious how older bikes would fit into your displacement classes.  Would my F2 be grided with someone else's '03 R6 and GSX-R 600?

I definitely like the idea of being eligible for at least 2 sprints classes AND having a longer GT race in the Novice level.

I wouldn't place any time limit for racing in the Novice level.  Some may just find that level fun and worth remaining.  Since there wouldn't be any monetary rewards in the Novice level, I doubt many would stay there who are significantly quicker than the other racers.  But you could have some degree of policing if it was felt to be necessary.  But what's the problem if someone chooses to race at this level for years?

Something else I look for is some familiarity with, and the ability to prepare for, the next level up (Sportsman).  As currently envisioned, I'm not sure where I'd ride if I advanced to Sportsman with the same F2.

   H-man

[Super Dave]

Though I'm curious how older bikes would fit into your displacement classes.  Would my F2 be grided with someone else's '03 R6 and GSX-R 600?

I definitely like the idea of being eligible for at least 2 sprints classes AND having a longer GT race in the Novice level.

Good question.

As an entry level race, we want to get racers reasonably comfortable.

So, in ways, the F2 vs the newer stuff shouldn't make a difference.  Give me my old F2 that I raced in 1993 and I should turn times within about two seconds of my R6...no problem.  Similar trim also.

But, do we consider Thunderbike to be a "lightweight class"?  If so, then the F2 would bump down.

Ultimately, most riders won't spend a whole lot of time as "novices".  

Most racers do have a competitive feel to them, so the alure of racing as a "sportsman" would certainly offer that...with a little payback.

Making sense?

I think I like the names of the classes being Novice, Sportsman, Expert.

[Clay]

I want it to be expert pro...that way I can say I race pro. LOL :P

[H-man]

I agree with liking those 3 names (Novice, Sportsman & Expert) Dave.

In an earlier post I believe you wrote that a racer would only be allowed to participate in races he/she is licensed.  Well, would it be the colour of the number plate to easily distinguish the licensed level?  If so, that could be a problem for Sportsman and Expert racers who run both WERA and CCS if the number plate is something other than white (I'm guessing the yellow plates will be for the Novice level).

Also, you wrote "most riders won't spend a whole lot of time as novices."  And, they "have a competitive feel to them, so the alure of racing as a "sportsman" would certainly offer that...with a little payback."  Given this, there shouldn't be any reason for a max. time for racers in the Novice level.

Personally, I'd be at the Novice level to work out some individual things, but would be itching to move up to Sportsman quickly.  Then stay there.

   H-man

[Clay]

I'd think we could leave the plate color white for both sportsman and expert.  Most sportsman racers would be expert in the "other" org as well.  

[H-man]

That's sort of what I thought too Clay.  Thing is how do you readily (read, easily) halt racers from dropping a level to get relatively easy money.

Or, maybe I'm off on this point and it's no biggie?

[Super Dave]

Pro Expert name...reason I lean away from it now...

Potential problems tax wise and insurance wise for riders and organization.

The pro name might just set off some kind of flag somewhere for someone.

Colors to distinguish categories?

Yes.  Obviously, white would be what you'd use for Expert/Pro Expert.

Really, I don't see why the Sportsman racers couldn't continue using yellow plates.

Would they be different in other organizations (vs amateurs)...hard to tell.     And really, this is a real fundamental change idea.  So, it's really hard to actually compare things.  

In someways what we're really doing is this:

• Adding a real beginners tier below current amateur racing.


• Develop a more competitive expert program that has fewer racing categories and higher entry fees in return for longer races, qualifying, and a deeper purse.


• The sportsman/amateur category would retain the classes but allow riders to remain there, or even move back there more easily from an attempt at expert.

I think that's the reality that I'm beginning to realize.