2009 MARRS Format - speak up now or live with it

[Gregg]

competely disagree withh the points system. way too complicated. there should be no points for pole or the sat race. feature races should be equal marrs races. if there is a desire to make the saturday race count for "something"...make the sat summit races a separate washington dc series...away from marrs.

I completely agree that it's complicated and would hope that it's a conversation starter for combination with other ideas. I will be more than happy to expand on my reasons for not having a separate championship at Saturday's meeting.

As when we met in October, there were a lot of people present, not a lot of ideas. Judging by the number of proposals submitted, it's looking like that might be the case once again. Hopefully it isn't.

 

[Charlie Broring]

I think we need to reassess some of the plans we made made last fall. We didn't come up with this format by by evaluating the deficiencies and building on last years successful program. Rather, made some wholesale changes in a successful program that please some members but alienate others.

Think abut this. With 11 races, 3 tows out of region and almost twice the number of racing laps per weekend it is the most ambitious and expensive MARRS series ever proposed. This while we are in the worst recession in over 50 years. Yes more race laps is nice but they are also more expensive then qualifying or practice on old tires. For me personally it's just too expensive to consider running the while series this year. I am forced to race less.

I think The MARRS series will lose far more racers who are displeased by this new program then it will gain in new racers attracted by this format.

Now, I don't disagree with everything in this planned program. I think 11 races can work if MARRS allows points drops for 3 races. This would help keep competitors who cannot afford to tow to 3 expensive away races.

I also think Saturday races in the second qualifying session could work if we don't compromise the other aspects of our program to do so. I think 8 run groups is a big compromise. The Miata's and Open Wheel have it pretty good but the remaking 25 classes are squeezed into 4 race groups. Consider that 2 years ago overcrowded race groups were such an important issue that we expanded to 10 groups and stopped going to VIR. Yet now we no longer are concerned about crowded groups.

And we need to make the Saturday race meaningful.

In the mid 1990's we had qualifying races for one season. We also had longer races for one season. Neither were successful and we returned to the format used through last year. We should learn from the past mistakes.

I hope we reconsider the current plans for 2009, but I'm afraid that it's going to be hard to change these ill considered plans at this late date.

Charlie Broring

 

[evanwebb]

Take ITS out of the Big Bore group and put it somewhere else. ITR is more or less as fast as AS so that makes some sense, but there are a bunch of ITS cars running slower than 1:30 and they shouldn't be in with Big Bore.

 

[evanwebb]

Go back to 9 groups and un-screwup this grouping. 18 lap races on Sunday is plenty long enough. Get SRF away from small bore. Get ITS (probably ITR) out of the group with Big Bore. You could probably figure out a way to break the IT/SS/SRX7 etc. classes into three groups with ITR the fastest in one group, ITS the fastest inthe second group, and ITA the fastest in the third group.

 

[jjjanos]

The Miata's and Open Wheel have it pretty good but the remaking 25 classes are squeezed into 4 race groups Consider that 2 years ago overcrowded race groups were such an important issue that we expanded to 10 groups and stopped going to VIR. Yet now we no longer are concerned about crowded groups. .

OK - crowded groups are bad. OK - an alphabet soup of classes is bad. That means the only group that has it "good" is FV/F5. They have a 2 class group and only 19 cars on average.

Spec Miata doesn't have it good, it might be a single-class group, but it has crowding equal to or greater than all groups other than SSM and Small Bore. SSM doesn't have it good, they are the most crowded. Fast formula doesn't have it good, they have 11 classes on-track at once.

Lesson - Anything can be made to look bad with the correct spin.

In the mid 1990's we had qualifying races for one season. We also had longer races for one season. Neither were successful and we returned to the format used through last year. We should learn from the past mistakes.

We had 5-lap qualifying races. The same thing happens at WGI when a 10-lap feature race works out to 5 laps under the green. Lesson - very short races equals stupidity.

We shortened our races because we ADDED groups. Not because the races were unpopular. If you've got a fixed amount of track time and you go from 8 to 9 groups, it means that Mohel's Law has to be applied and everyone loses 12% off the top.

Take ITS out of the Big Bore group and put it somewhere else. ITR is more or less as fast as AS so that makes some sense, but there are a bunch of ITS cars running slower than 1:30 and they shouldn't be in with Big Bore.

Go back to 9 groups and un-screwup this grouping. 18 lap races on Sunday is plenty long enough. Get SRF away from small bore. Get ITS (probably ITR) out of the group with Big Bore. You could probably figure out a way to break the IT/SS/SRX7 etc. classes into three groups with ITR the fastest in one group, ITS the fastest inthe second group, and ITA the fastest in the third group.

We should be able to combine ITS with either ITA and not have problems. We cannot combined the MARRS ITS with ITA without creating problems. The number of S cars we lose by combining them with Big Bore is far smaller than the number of A and B cars we will lose if those two classes are forced to race with them.

I didn't see why ITR couldn't stay with ITA and I was surprised that the Rep didn't suggest it.

ITS and ITA aren't don't work together. The only class IT class we can combine with them is ITB. An ITR/ITS group is too damn small. You want an ITB/ITS group? I sure don't want to be on track with them.

If people want 9 run groups, put together a grouping and don't just magically wave your hands and say "presto! 9 run groups!". I'll send you the car counts we used.

 

[evanwebb]

Yes, ITB and ITS together works fine. They are pretty well separated by speed, and it has been done before. Its no different than EP and HP running together. However, a GT1 car running 1:20 on slicks has no place running with a 1:30+ ITS car on DOT radials. 8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

 

[evanwebb]

Please post the car counts, and how they were calculated.

 

[lateapex911]

You want an ITB/ITS group? I sure don't want to be on track with them.

.

Why not??

Generally speaking the difference in lap times means each group is left to themselves. A split start helps a LOT. MUCH better than running A and S together.

 

[dave parker]

Why not??

Generally speaking the difference in lap times means each group is left to themselves. A split start helps a LOT. MUCH better than running A and S together.

Jake
We tried this several years ago, it had mixed results. The down side was that a lot of ITB drivers got the crap scared out of them by a couple of uber fast e36 BMW's that were well driven (ie. lots of go). Another downside was the front eight of the ITB field got fucked by some ITS cars that were poorly driven or not well sorted. We lost several ITB cars in those events. We also had some very upset ITS drivers who felt wronged after they held up ITB cars turn after turn only to be beat on on track or brow beat in the paddock later.
The upside was that it was fun making an ITS car look like a chump with my ITB Golf GTi.
There was no split grid or split start which meant that if you weren't in with the front of the ITB field you had no chance of catching them because you had to race through the ITS backmarkers.
cheers
dave parker

 

[dazzlesa]

personally when i am in my A car, the S cars are fine to race with. the experience level and speeds are closer. when i am in my B car, i hate to run with the S cars. we end up running with the slower or less experienced cars

 

[erlrich]

Please post the car counts, and how they were calculated.

Below is a listing of the average cars per class for '08 for the seven MARRS races at Summit, based on the number of starters for each race. The two out-of-region races at Nelson Ledges were not included. Also, here is a link to a spreadsheet where you can try different groupings and see the car counts based on '08 actuals. Use the "Proposed 09 Groups" tab to make up the groups.

Class OA Average
1 SSM 40.86
2 SM 34.71
3 ITA 21.43
4 SRX7 17.29
5 FV 17.14
6 ITB 15.00
7 SRF 14.71
8 ITS 11.14
9 IT7 6.57
10 GTP 5.57
11 ITC 4.86
12 EP 4.43
13 CF 4.29
14 FC 4.29
15 AS 4.00
16 GTA 4.00
17 HP 3.86
18 GT1 3.57
19 ITR 3.43
20 SPU 3.29
21 FP 3.14
22 ITE 3.14
23 SSC 2.71
24 SSB 2.14
25 F500 1.71
26 FE 1.71
27 FF 1.71
28 GT2 1.57
29 SPO 1.29
30 DSR 1.00
31 FS 0.86
32 S2000 0.86
33 DP 0.71
34 GTL 0.57
35 FA 0.43
36 FM 0.43
37 FB 0.29
38 GP 0.29
39 CSR 0.14
40 T1 0.14
41 T3 0.14
249.43

 

[jjjanos]

Yes, ITB and ITS together works fine. They are pretty well separated by speed, and it has been done before. Its no different than EP and HP running together. However, a GT1 car running 1:20 on slicks has no place running with a 1:30+ ITS car on DOT radials. 8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

1. It was done with a different group of ITS drivers.
2. GT1 cars currently run with DOT cars - AS cars. (see page 470 - http://cms.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/09%20GCR/ASCS.pdf )According to mylaps.com, the differential is in the area of 10-14 seconds compared to the 11-18 seconds that should be the difference between GT1 and ITS.
3. EP and HP work together because drivers in both classes are aware of what is going on around them. I am also confident that ITB drivers would be aware.
4. The tail third of the ITS field is lapping 6 to 9 seconds off the ITB pace and it isn't straightline speed that accounts for that difference. I run mid-pack ITB and my lap times are faster than over one-half of the ITS field. It isn't horsepower - it's cornering speeds. ITS will motor away from an ITB car on the straights and hold them up from 5 to the bridge. You'll be hitting ITS ass with your nose coming out of T1. You'll be beating out ITS dents from the side-to-side contact in the carousel. You'll foul your plugs in the esses. You'll be picking your car off the tires in the chute. You'll soil your driving suit as you close up on an ITS car between turn-in and the apex at T10 and you'll do it because you won't be expecting to come on a "faster" car that quickly and you'll have to do it because if you don't, you just FUBARED your race.
5. I spent 3 years in ITC trying to get past tail-end Charlies (2 years SRX7 and 1 ITB.) with more HP and less cornering speed then the Titanic. There's a reason I went out and bought a B car. The only one thing that's remotely close to watching your race vanish in the distance while you are held up behind a HP-rich/corner-poor car and that's spending 2 laps setting him up for the pass and having him not have the good graces or common sense to not roar past you on the straight.
6. Our leaders will be on the back 25% of the ITS field in about 4 laps and the ITB race will be completely and totally screwed. The ITS cars will walk away in a straight line, park in the corners holding up the leaders and will do what they did in the ITA/ITR/ITS group. Unless these guys have gotten a hell of alot faster over the winter, ITS has to be with cars that have the HP to motor past them. ITB isn't that class.
7. IT7 and the two SS classes run lap times right around ours, not slower. With a split start, we'll never see them.

8 groups is pointless and unnecessary.

Are you in favor of more track time? Do you want more racing? If you answer yes, then there is a point and it is required. The quick solution is combining the two open-wheel groups, but that won't happen and nobody wants to open that fecal canister after last year.

 

[Charlie Broring]

So you wanted lotsa track time...

The 2009 MARRS 22 Race Championship Series: (Sponsored by Master Card)

The Summit race format will be Saturday AM 15 minute qualifying. Saturday PM 10 lap races paying up to 100 points. 20 Lap Sunday races for 300 points.

Labor day is the old traditional two sanction number double race format with 2 qualifying sessions on Saturday and 20 lap 400 point races on Sunday and Monday.

Two race weekends at New Jersey, probably same format as a Summit point race.

A race at VIR details TBD.

8 race groups.
ITR and ITS with Big Bore.
ITA with SRX7.
ITB ITC IT7 SSB SSC together.

 

[spnkzss]

Can't wait!!

 

[JamesB]

Jeff, your funny. But I can gaurentee you that, we will not have split starts now that there are 4 classes in the ITB run group. Just like everyone else, you will have to deal with the starts. I am not happy that Saturday is now a points race. Did they at least double the drops? Or you only get 2 still?

 

[erlrich]

Jeff, your funny. But I can gaurentee you that, we will not have split starts now that there are 4 classes in the ITB run group. Just like everyone else, you will have to deal with the starts. I am not happy that Saturday is now a points race. Did they at least double the drops? Or you only get 2 still?

As I understand it, the number of drops won't double - and the exact number is still uncertain until the VIR event is finalized. Here's how it was explained to us:

"Both races count toward your MARRS points, but you cannot drop a single day. When time comes to calculate your drops, it will be an entire sanction/event that gets dropped, not just a specific Saturday or a specific Sunday."

As to the split starts, I'm just guessing but they will probably do something like with ITA - classes will be combined and then split for the start. In our case, ITA and T3 would make up one "mini-group", with SRX7 making up the second. Of those two groups, the one with the fastest qual time would get the first flag.

 

[jjjanos]

Jeff, your funny. But I can gaurentee you that, we will not have split starts now that there are 4 classes in the ITB run group. Just like everyone else, you will have to deal with the starts.

James,

The stewards were very accomodating towards split starts for Sunday races. I believe that every group whose DRs asked for split starts was told they would get them. Ask your DR whether your group got a split start.

I am not happy that Saturday is now a points race. Did they at least double the drops? Or you only get 2 still?

No. One less than the out-of-region MARRS sanctions.

A great deal of discussion about making Saturday award points. Almost of of it was centered around cost versus intent on track. Some folks wanted a Saturday Championship.

The majority of those present apparently felt that, given the opportunity to race w/o points and enough points to "make it matter", a large % of drivers would simply use the session as a qualifing session and wouldn't "be in the game." That, if Saturday's finishing order didn't count towards the MARRS championship, a significant number of drivers wouldn't be racing. There was concern of "racers" and "qualifiers" impeding each other.

I'm not in that group and given the opportunity to race, I'm going to race, study my competitors and practice racecraft. It doesn't matter to me whether I'm earning points for MARRS or not.

 

[JamesB]

Jeff, well good luck on that request for 4 split starts. Personally, I vote no. We managed last year with ITC, we can manage this year that we have more classes in the group. But hey that is how the cookie crumbles.

So to try and force people to race the powers that be chose to make it a points counting race. You realize there is much more potential in that causing more of a rift as those that WANT the championship and those that are just there to get a couple of clean laps in will only get worse.

I only wish they increased the drops if they where going to put points on the Sat race. I will have used up my drops as of M1 due to a schedule conflict keeping me from the first race of the season.

 

[JamesB]

I don't think you've been around long enough (or your memory is failing), but the DC region has done split starts with two pace cars. It has been quite a while, however.

Dave

Dave,

I have not been around long enough then. At least since 2003 I have never seen a race with a true split start using multiple pace cars. Only the situation of the pole sitter flagging the start, which I never thought was a great idea as someone will always have an issue with that.

 

[Gregg]

These are not the "split grids" that ITC/SRX7 and ITC/ITB ran in '06 and part of '07.

Split starts for '09 will have not more than two "mini-groups" of classes. We may have two pace cars if drivers/cars are available, but the second mini-group will always get a pace car.

As was mentioned, some groups have already provided how these "mini-groups" will be broken out and they will be written into the supps. For your run group I would recommend splitting them as (IT7/SSB/SSC) + (ITB/ITC) but that's for the different reps in that group to decide.

For a much more detailed report on what our '09 format than what Charlie provided, see what I sent my drivers on Saturday night.

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/MARRS-ITA/message/1833

If it's important for you to know what the vote breakdowns were, I can certainly provide that information as well.http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/MARRS-ITA/message/1833