MARRS ITB/ITC say hello to ITS

[jjjanos]

The really sad part about this whole disaster is that it has been foisted upon ITB/ITC with no input from the drivers that race in that group.

Another sad thing about this is that, AFAIK, every class that has requested a mid-year group change has been told...

Groups are set at the start of the year. We will revise at the start of the new year.
​

Tradition and precedent say this should have been rejected as soon as it came up.

I want a split start and it better be in the GD supps.

 

[jjjanos]

This revised grouping should work well as long as both groups respect the each other.

Terry,

That may happen. I do not expect it.

It certainly helps ITS to get out of the Big Bore group where they were like an abused stepchild.

Think of it as more akin to being sent to reform school.

One benefit of this classing is that there tends to be an implicit split grid with the ITS cars qualifying in front of the ITB cars - allowing the lead groups of both classes to run by themselves for most / all of the race.

Hardly.

The grid from the last MARRS based on qualifying times.

Outside/Inside
ITS/ITS
ITB/ITS
ITS/ITB
ITB/ITS
ITB/ITB
ITB/ITB
ITB/ITB
ITS/ITB
ITC/ITB
ITS/ITB
ITB/ITB
ITB/ITB
ITB/ITB
NULL/ITC

ITS cars are bolded. How many fasterB cars do you think they will pass on the run to Turn 1? They'll do it simply because of HP.

As a Steward who volunteers at WDCR races, are you prepared to hear unsportsmanlike protests filed and impose penalties if slower ITS cars hold-up faster ITB cars? Or will you simply say that's part of multi-class racing?

As a frequent Chief Steward at WDCR races, are you willing to give a split start or will you go all GW on us?

 

[Knestis]

While I am glad that the ITB/ITS grouping works for other regions racing programs it has been proven here in WDC that it DOES NOT work. The last year that I raced in ITB we were grouped with ITS. You did not have to worry about the front running ITS cars, but the under-developed/poorly driven ITS cars were a HUGE problem. If anyone doubts me on this I would be happy to provide video evidence of the clusterf#ck that went on all season. ...

With all due respect, it sounds like the complaint should be with those drivers rather than with the class or the grouping. Particularly at someplace like Summit where a strong group of regulars comes back over and over, it should be possible to deal with the issues rather than trying to legislate behaviors with rules.

K

EDIT - Whoops. What Jake said.

 

[mlytle]

dang, some of you guys need to get a grip. whenever two different classes are put together there are going to be challenges with the front of the slower class and the back of the faster class. its is NO DIFFERENT than any other class in this respect. there are situationally challanged drivers in EVERY class. i have run with/through/around itc, itb, ita and its drivers over the last 8 years. the range of talent and bozos is there in every class. does it suck not to be the fastest class in a run group? sure, but until we have enough track time for every class to have its own run group, we gotta share.

yes, there are some new drivers in its this year. the class is rebuilding. if any itb driver has an issue with an its driver, see me and bring your video. i will work with the its driver if they are the issue. my contact info is on the dcregion site.

 

[lateapex911]

I want a split start and it better be in the GD supps.

:026::026::026::026:

I just had to quote that and add a bit of emphasis..

One question. Not one guy who's bitching has mentioned actually discussing the issue with the "perps". Or having the driver rep have a chat with them. Or a Steward.

Has that happened?

Maybe they should put ITA in with ITB instead?

 

[jjjanos]

yes, there are some new drivers in its this year. the class is rebuilding. if any itb driver has an issue with an its driver, see me and bring your video. i will work with the its driver if they are the issue. my contact info is on the dcregion site.

There's a couple of important principles that have been violated here and that's the major reason my dander is up.
1. Group changes were requested multiple times in the past and everyone was told to suck it up. This time, they weren't.
2. This was an ambush without time to get driver input.
3. There's no significant increase in safety. Fast Big-bore group to slowest ITS time: About 19 seconds/lap. Fast ITS time to slowest ITB/ITS time: About 13 seconds/lap.
All this has done is dumped the problem on another class.

So, please excuse me if I am just not feeling the love here. Had we started the year with the class, ex-post facto discussions would be great. Given the way this was ambushed on us and shoved down our throats, I'm not certain I feel like talking. I'd rather file the paper on make the stewards work - especially since I have a strong hunch that their hands were all over this move too.

Since you are aware of the issue - at least with some of last year's drivers - shouldn't there be some a-priori discussions with the slower drivers in the class from their DR?

I just had to quote that and add a bit of emphasis..

One question. Not one guy who's bitching has mentioned actually discussing the issue with the "perps". Or having the driver rep have a chat with them. Or a Steward.

Has that happened?

My understanding is that last year drivers were approached. Things did not improve last year.

The timing of this and the way it was done, however, simply leaves me unmotivated to discuss this after the fact.

As for the stewards...

Let's go to the tape...http://www.vimeo.com/2097173

No action taken. IIRC, there was an investigation by the operating steward who determined that an RFA wasn't justified. Could be wrong though.

Several incidents this year and the resulting penalties could leave one with the impression that going through the stewards will be about as useful as breasts on a boar.

 

[chewy8000]

I have my faith in the DC region to get it right. I had a long discussion with another ITB VW this evening and our decision was X. I hope you guys have a great season and we'll see you next year. Not bitching or "getting a grip" just our take on it. I actually like ITS and know a few great drivers, but I don't think it's a good (mid-season) decision. Looking forward to NJ and the ARRC. Have a great 4th everyone!

 

[lateapex911]

.....

As for the stewards...

Let's go to the tape...http://www.vimeo.com/2097173

No action taken. IIRC, there was an investigation by the operating steward who determined that an RFA wasn't justified. Could be wrong though.

Several incidents this year and the resulting penalties could leave one with the impression that going through the stewards will be about as useful as breasts on a boar.

Judging from that video, Greg should have written paper, and Aziz should have been punished. But from your description it sounds like Greg did not.

 

[Gregg]

I'd rather file the paper on make the stewards work - especially since I have a strong hunch that their hands were all over this move too.

Nope..not the case here. But a number of compelling stories of near misses between GT1 cars and ITS cars, as well as genuine fear from ITS drivers (incl. a former drivers school chief instructor) were behind the request. Admittedly some of those near misses owed to lack of awareness by ITS drivers more than anything, IMHO.

Whereas in the past the different reps to the CRC have been loathe to even consider mid-year group changes, I think this year is very different given our reliance "on the numbers" to create groups.

]As for the stewards...

Let's go to the tape...http://www.vimeo.com/2097173

No action taken. IIRC, there was an investigation by the operating steward who determined that an RFA wasn't justified. Could be wrong though.

Bad example, and I don't think we should be placing the onus on the stewards for something that hasn't even happened yet. In the above incident, an RFA against me was filed after the 007's crew chief approached a steward and complained. My explanation and video as well as video from a trailing car easily exonerated me.I chose not to file paperwork because I (mistakenly in this case) thought that talking to the driver would be more productive. Given the carnage I caused this past weekend, I'm glad that a few drivers made the same decision in working with me, though the stewards probably should have whacked me very hard.

With the overlap in lap times, I'm pretty confident that a correctly timed/spaced split start will eliminate inter-class racing. At this point, you have so few ITS cars out there (< 10) there should be little difference from running w/ IT7 (which has been moved to ITA/SRX7/T3).

As for the question of combining ITA & ITB in MARRS -- That would place us at or above the 50-car max for the track each race and make it almost impossible to get acceptable densities for other groupings. ITA and ITB were split apart mid-season four years ago for just this reason.

If there's one thing we (or Marshall as the ITS rep) should take away from all of this is that on the whole the MARRS ITS drives have a pretty poor reputation for awareness. A lot of that was earned running with ITA the past two years but also during preceding seasons. A lot of the names and cars have changed over the years but the on-track actions have not. My suggestion would be a group pow-wow to let them know what's up and what's on the line for them as a class and as individual drivers.

 

[Charlie Broring]

marrs did have this combo before and it worked fine. its cars should corner FASTER than ITB cars.

there is no perfect match of classes, everything is about compromise. this combo is far better/safer than what was being done...ITS running with GT1/GTA/AS.

good move....if i do say so myself.

notice we didn't move ITR into the group. left them(me) in Big Bore.

marshall
MARRS ITS/R driver rep

Marshall, Yes, MARRS grouped ITS with ITB a few years ago and from the front runner ITB perspective it SUCKED BIG TIME. Every race the ITS back markers would blast down the straight and park in the corners right in the middle of the ITB race. Did I say every race? Maybe things have changed but the history of this combo at Summit Point is very bad for ITB.

Also, two days prior to the meeting where this was decided we were racing at Summit. You were there Mr ITS rep. as was Patrick the ITB Driver Rep. Yet no mention of this proposed change was made at that time for driver input. It appears to some ITB drivers that we were blindsided at the meeting.

My butt is still sore.

Charlie Broring

 

[lateapex911]

As for the question of combining ITA & ITB in MARRS -- That would place us at or above the 50-car max for the track each race and make it almost impossible to get acceptable densities for other groupings. ITA and ITB were split apart mid-season four years ago for just this reason.

.

I asked more to make a point than as an actual suggestion. The point being that I'd think there would be even MORE interclass racing going on between the ITB front runners and the ITA mid packers. Now the ITA midpackers might not have the power to squirt out on the straights, but, there'd be more of them, so it might be a bad trade.


I'll say this, and it might not be popular, sorry, but that BMW..wow....he needs a good ego beat down.

 

[jjjanos]

This would have gone down much easier if this had been discussed in advance.

This would have gone down much easier if, while ramming this down our throats, there had been both some thought put into how it would impact a class - ITB - that produces equal to 70% of the entire big bore group and 2.5 times the size of ITS nor how that impact could be mitigated.

For example, the DR for the classes getting this shoved down their throat could have polled his drivers about getting a split-start in the supps. The DRs proposing this could have included a mandatory split-start as part of the proposal. AFAIK, there's no language in the supps giving us a split-start and there's no guarantee that the stewards will allow one.

 

[Bill Umstead]

Is this true and if so how is it possible?
__________________
Ron Earp
NC Region
#38 ITS 260Z
www.gt40s.com

Ron,

Did not see anyone reply to your question so I thought I try...

The 20JUN09 LRP Regional had 21 entries in Group 3, consisting of 5- ITR, 6-ITS and 10- ITB entries.

The 4- ITR cars finished 1- 4 OA (one ITR was a DNF)

The ITS cars finished 5-7, 14, 18, 19

The ITB cars finished 8 -13, 15 -17, and 20.

ITR best lap times 1:00.747 to 1:01.885

ITS best lap times 1:01.624 to 1:08.841
[It should be noted that the bottom two ITS times were with drivers who finished their second driver's school the previous day.]


ITB best lap times 1:03.901 to 1:12.203
The top three ITB drivers finished the same lap as the ITR and ITS winners. All others finished -1 lap.

LRP is unusual since it awards momentum drivers and from my vantage point mid-pack the ITB drivers give up nothing to their faster brethern. The difference between the 3rd place ITS car (1:03.270) and the 1st place ITB car (1:03.901) was 0.631 seconds!

Anyway, thought this might answer your question on how ITR/ITS/ITB work in the NE.

Bill Umstead
ITS RX-7
(no, not a front runner)

 

[Charlie Broring]

Bill, the ITB/ITS mix works well at many tracks. If ITS runs away from ITB it works out great. However last time it was done at Summit it was very frustrating to the ITB drivers due to constant interaction between the groups. I looked at MARRS 5 results from this year and over half the ITS field is running ITB lap times. Maybe those guys will speed up a few seconds by next race and stay away from the ITB front runners. I guess we will find out.

Now, Jeff's comments on how this change occurred show the frustration of an unexpected reshuffling of our race groupings mid season. There is some history to this. Last year the ITS and ITA drivers representatives tried to move ITS into ITB mid season. They announced the proposal in advance of the meeting and the Competition Committee wisely rejected the change, which it turns out was a good move. This year there was no discussion of this change during the race weekend just 2 days prior to the meeting. The surprise tactic seems to have worked out well for ITS. Well, sleazy politics has been known to happen in Washington DC before...

 

[erlrich]

Bill, the ITB/ITS mix works well at many tracks. If ITS runs away from ITB it works out great. However last time it was done at Summit it was very frustrating to the ITB drivers due to constant interaction between the groups. I looked at MARRS 5 results from this year and over half the ITS field is running ITB lap times. Maybe those guys will speed up a few seconds by next race and stay away from the ITB front runners. I guess we will find out.

In all fairness (and coming from one of the ITA drivers who was bitching about ITS drivers last year), I don't think this is about lap times. Yes, half the ITS cars at M5 were running ITB times, but half the ITS field = 4 cars. If you look at the MARRS 4 results you'll see that fully half of the IT7 cars were running lap times at or below the ITB leader's times - a total of 3 cars. Over half of the IT7 field finished behind the 2 ITB leaders - 4 cars. Have there been cries to get those IT7 cars out of the group?

The real issue IMO is some of the ITS driver's attitudes; there is no excuse for a 4th, 5th, or lower place car in an 8 car field to be racing the leaders in the "slower" class. I may be wrong, but I don't get the sense that the ITS drivers are as close knit a group as we have in ITA or ITB, and so there might not be the sort of peer pressure you would hope for. Maybe a 'come to Jesus' meeting with the DR and a few stewards would help...who knows. I hope this move doesn't end up screwing up the ITB class too. IMO those drivers who are talking about quitting MARRS because of this move - before they even run one event - should take a reality check. Unless you race in SM or SSM you're going to have to deal with other classes.

As far as the split starts; I was under the impression that any group who felt it was necessary could request a split start this year and it would almost always be granted. Is that not the case?

 

[no FI]

Where are the IT7 cars going to start, with the SRX7's or with ITA?

 

[shwah]

Good luck sorting this out guys.

ITB ITS can work well, and did pretty much at IT Fest last year. Here in CenDiv we are together all the time (along with ITR,A,C), and while you might think that slow S cars would not be a problem on a long track, I have only had real issue with one at Road America. The guy stayed in front of bedside and behind me the entire race while P1 pulled away then entire race. So no a long track won't 'fix' the problem.

While I understand this is a reality of multi class racing, I do sometimes wish more awareness existed among drivers and corner workers of who is racing for the lead in a given class.

 

[jjjanos]

In all fairness (and coming from one of the ITA drivers who was bitching about ITS drivers last year), I don't think this is about lap times. Yes, half the ITS cars at M5 were running ITB times, but half the ITS field = 4 cars. If you look at the MARRS 4 results you'll see that fully half of the IT7 cars were running lap times at or below the ITB leader's times - a total of 3 cars. Over half of the IT7 field finished behind the 2 ITB leaders - 4 cars. Have there been cries to get those IT7 cars out of the group?

Well no, because WDCR doesn't normally move classes mid-year, so what would be the point?

The real issue IMO is some of the ITS driver's attitudes; there is no excuse for a 4th, 5th, or lower place car in an 8 car field to be racing the leaders in the "slower" class.

Bingo. For example, last year I was running in an ITB-ITC-ITB-ITC group. I was 2nd ITB car (7th place IT and the two ITC cars were going for the lead. It was going to take me a couple of laps to get by the leading ITC and then it would take a couple of laps to get by 6th place in ITB... so I pointed a somewhat slower ITC car by me as we went by S/F. I wasn't willing to FUBAR their race for the slim possibility of picking up a meaningless 6th.

IMO those drivers who are talking about quitting MARRS because of this move - before they even run one event - should take a reality check. Unless you race in SM or SSM you're going to have to deal with other classes.

I think opposition has less to do with multi-class racing and more to do with process. ITB-ITS can work, especially given the light ITS turnout. To make this work we need

1. A split-start to ensure that the slower ITS cars do not interject themselves in the midst of the ITB lead battles.
2. Slower ITB cars showing courtesy and situational awareness when being lapped by the ITS leaders.
3. ITS leaders being aware of the closing speeds they will have on the slower C and B cars.
4. Slower ITS cars showing courtesy and situational awareness when/if being overtaken by faster ITB cars.

As far as the split starts; I was under the impression that any group who felt it was necessary could request a split start this year and it would almost always be granted. Is that not the case?

Depends on the Operating and Chief Steward. Historically, DC Region stewards have had a strong bias against split starts out of a fear that the first pack will catch the back of the second group before it gets the green - it nearly happened this past weekend on Saturday.

I know that in the past, they've required 100% agreement and, even then, rarely granted the request. There was even one instance where the drivers were told they were getting a split start and then found out on the grid that the request had been denied. That's why the split starts for specific groups are written into the supps.

 

[jjjanos]

The ITB - ITS grouping is a done deal. Those upset about it can either sit out or try to make this work. As angry as I am about the way this was done, I've accepted it. Now, we've got to see about making it work.

ITB drivers need to contact Patrick and have him request a split start for our group.

His contact info can be found at http://www.wdcr-scca.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BtlV4e+hFJU=&tabid=57&mid=2825

The B racing has been way too good this year for people to sit out if we can make this work.

 

[steve b]

I ran an MR2 with ITA/ITS/ITR last year (as a rookie) so believe me, I know a thing or two about being lapped.

I'll go along with whatever the other ITB drivers want regarding the split start, but just consider this. Based on fastest laps, it seems the faster ITS cars will start in front of the leading ITB cars and will probably NOT lap them. A split start will assure that they do get lapped.

I guess the question is, do you want to risk a couple slow ITS cars in your race early, or a couple fast ITS cars in your race late?

Split start or not, I think a group driver's meeting should be in order and without pointing fingers at any particular group, just remind everyone to consider what position they are racing for vs. the positions the cars around them are racing for.

I'm still far enough back that I don't really care. I think the leaders should decide.