VIR SARRC/MARRS Proposal
- Thread starter JeffYoung
- Start date
Charlie Broring
New member
I read here "SARRC Historically runs 2 day double races" Let me bring up the history of the SARRC/MARRS Mothers Day race. The first three years after VIR reopened the race was run on a 2 day format. There were fewer entries back them and SM was not around yet. The 2 day format worked well at first. By 2002 we ran 8 groups in a 2day format (!) to accommodate the growing number of entries
However about this time the number of entries and the emergence of SM and SSM made it desirable to add run groups so the change was made to a three day format with 9 run groups for 2003. This was a comfortable arrangement and accommodated the growing number of entries well. It was a high quality race.
2004 and 2005 Were three day races with 8 run groups. I remember this being a very leisurely pace and I thought we could have run 9 smaller groups and spread things out more. 2006 was a 3 day format with only 7 race groups. This was the only Mothers day race that I missed
This year, 2007, the race returned to a 2 day format. And there were a lot of entries. A race that one was once 9 groups over 3 day was squeezed into 7 groups in a 2 day format. And the quality of racing suffered badly. My race had 81 starters on Saturday. I felt that my race finishing was determined by how lucky I was with traffic in a short, crowded qualifying session. Many others had similar feelings.
The MARRS competitor who remembers the less crowded past years at VIR and appreciates the small groups that we enjoy at Summit Point doesn't care for the overcrowding of the present Mothers Day format. If The VIR race returned to the 3 day format that was historically successful instead of "historical SARRC 2 day double" it would offer a higher quality of racing. There were other reasons MARRS isn't going to VIR next year but the bottom line is this race isn't as appealing as it once was.
Charlie
However about this time the number of entries and the emergence of SM and SSM made it desirable to add run groups so the change was made to a three day format with 9 run groups for 2003. This was a comfortable arrangement and accommodated the growing number of entries well. It was a high quality race.
2004 and 2005 Were three day races with 8 run groups. I remember this being a very leisurely pace and I thought we could have run 9 smaller groups and spread things out more. 2006 was a 3 day format with only 7 race groups. This was the only Mothers day race that I missed
This year, 2007, the race returned to a 2 day format. And there were a lot of entries. A race that one was once 9 groups over 3 day was squeezed into 7 groups in a 2 day format. And the quality of racing suffered badly. My race had 81 starters on Saturday. I felt that my race finishing was determined by how lucky I was with traffic in a short, crowded qualifying session. Many others had similar feelings.
The MARRS competitor who remembers the less crowded past years at VIR and appreciates the small groups that we enjoy at Summit Point doesn't care for the overcrowding of the present Mothers Day format. If The VIR race returned to the 3 day format that was historically successful instead of "historical SARRC 2 day double" it would offer a higher quality of racing. There were other reasons MARRS isn't going to VIR next year but the bottom line is this race isn't as appealing as it once was.
Charlie
mlytle
New member
i think we don't. it doesn't work. the optional friday does nothing to address the crux of the problem...not enough run groups causing several instances of 80-90+ car fields. vir did not run smoothly last year. sarrc may be good at running 300 car doubles in two days, but not 400 car doubles in two days.
on the worker issue, a good percent of the workers at past marrs/sarcc events are people from the dc region who came with us for the three day events.
gotta love the "IT WON"T HAPPEN" comment...sounds like "my way or the highway". not a lot of compromise or consideration there....sheesh. this was supposed to be a joint event, not a sarrc event that marrs folks are tolerated at. that is sure what it is sounding like.
on the bright side, if vir "WON'T HAPPEN" for marrs in 09, NJ motorsports park should be open. ahhh, fresh asphalt, a new facility and jersey in the spring time!
erlrich
Super Moderator
Gentlemen - if I may borrow from a great old move "what we have here is a failure to commumicate". IMO until someone comes up with a solution that addresses both parties' primary concerns there will never be any agreement. For SARRC it is the desire to run a 2-day double - or at least a double that only requires 2 days of participation. For MARRS it appears to be (and I say appears because there doesn't seem to be 100% agreement) the desire to have run groups that are resonably sized - "reasonably" as yet to be defined, but I think it can be assumed that 80 - 90 cars does not meet the test. Just a guess, but I would think 60 car fields would probably be considered reasonable. I also get the feeling that some of the other issues voiced by the MARRS group would go away with the smaller groups.
So what to do? IMO there are three options that would meet both group's needs - 1, add two more groups to the schedule; 2, make the race a restriced regional, with the two traditionally lowest-subscribed groups being excluded; or 3, restrict entries to 60 per group.
Oh, and for those of you bashing the MARRS guys for their stance on this, it may (probably won't) help to know that they just had to address a similar issue before the '07 season for the races at Summit , and made some fairly major changes within that series to correct the overcrowding problems, including adding a 10th group, and restricting race lengths for undersubscribed groups. So this is not an issue reserved for the VIR race.
So what to do? IMO there are three options that would meet both group's needs - 1, add two more groups to the schedule; 2, make the race a restriced regional, with the two traditionally lowest-subscribed groups being excluded; or 3, restrict entries to 60 per group.
Oh, and for those of you bashing the MARRS guys for their stance on this, it may (probably won't) help to know that they just had to address a similar issue before the '07 season for the races at Summit , and made some fairly major changes within that series to correct the overcrowding problems, including adding a 10th group, and restricting race lengths for undersubscribed groups. So this is not an issue reserved for the VIR race.
Well, I think you have your answer. As the host has offered it, we have said no thank you, but if you make these changes, we will participate. Frankly, if a hosting region wants the entries en masse that come with MARRS, it needs to meet the standards/requests that come with that large block of entries. If a hosting region wants to profit from MARRS, it needs to offer something that makes the SERIES - not individual drivers - want to go there.
According to mylaps.com, the event had 348 starters on Saturday. 173 of them were not running for SARRC points. That's 49.7% of the entrants. So something like one-half of the entrants aren't attending because it offers a chance to pick up two SARRC events. 107 of those 173 (31% of the total or 62% of the non-SARRC entrants) were drivers who competed in 50% of the MARRS events and I imagine a large percentage of them will not return without the series. So kiss off somewhere between 25 and 50% of the entry fees.
As for MARRS turning their event upside down for the SARRC guys - if we wanted SARRC to be part of the event and they put conditions on their participation, then yes because that would be the only way to have SARRC be part of the event.
More importantly, if the event had significant snafus as it was run, WDCR would have taken preemptive action to correct these rough spots or not renewed the invitation.
Oh there's plenty of compromise. We've told you what the problem is - overcrowding for several groups. You're just unhappy that we recognize that your offer isn't a solution to the problem.
A little proactive action last year would have done prevented this problem. For example, SRFs had 37 cars in their group. Why weren't the slower IT classes moved into this group and a bona-fide split start used? On a 3.27 mile circuit, they'd have been practically alone. Why weren't the one or both of the B classes moved into Prod? Why wasn't the Miata field split started since there pretty much was no way to split them apart?
It's doubtful 7 race groups would work, but there were combinations that would have made it better.
Cobrar05
New member
i think we don't. it doesn't work. the optional friday does nothing to address the crux of the problem...not enough run groups causing several instances of 80-90+ car fields. vir did not run smoothly last year. sarrc may be good at running 300 car doubles in two days, but not 400 car doubles in two days.
on the worker issue, a good percent of the workers at past marrs/sarcc events are people from the dc region who came with us for the three day events.
gotta love the "IT WON"T HAPPEN" comment...sounds like "my way or the highway". not a lot of compromise or consideration there....sheesh. this was supposed to be a joint event, not a sarrc event that marrs folks are tolerated at. that is sure what it is sounding like.
on the bright side, if vir "WON'T HAPPEN" for marrs in 09, NJ motorsports park should be open. ahhh, fresh asphalt, a new facility and jersey in the spring time!
[/b]
Dude,
You are kidding yourself if you think you are going to NJ and are not going to see huge turnout like at VIR. The population centers in that area combined with the thurst for a fresh road course is going to attract BIG numbers. VIR is in the middle of nowhere next to Thunder and Lightning there.
Really...give that some thought.
I would ask my MARRS people to remember that NCR as the host region must be allowed to run things their way, and that NCR consider the problems MARRS had with 2007's event and do what you can within your parameters to adjust them.
Guys, if we can't work this out, a traditionally outstanding event (SARRC/MARRS) will go lost as a monument to the destructiveness of bullheadedness and lack of imagination. Run the damn thing as a single race event if necessary, but find a way.
How about:
Increase number of groups. Limit groups to 75 cars - that is not a "crowded condition" at VIR. Ask the pace car driver to remember he has many cars of differing speeds behind him and he needs to hold a slow pace to keep them together.
Use Friday as an optional practice day. No qualifying.
Saturday, run one 20-minute qualifying session for an 8-lap Saturday race (all groups).
Sunday run one 12-lap race gridded by finishing position from Saturday's race.
That should loosen up the schedule and make everybody happy.
Guys, if we can't work this out, a traditionally outstanding event (SARRC/MARRS) will go lost as a monument to the destructiveness of bullheadedness and lack of imagination. Run the damn thing as a single race event if necessary, but find a way.
How about:
Increase number of groups. Limit groups to 75 cars - that is not a "crowded condition" at VIR. Ask the pace car driver to remember he has many cars of differing speeds behind him and he needs to hold a slow pace to keep them together.
Use Friday as an optional practice day. No qualifying.
Saturday, run one 20-minute qualifying session for an 8-lap Saturday race (all groups).
Sunday run one 12-lap race gridded by finishing position from Saturday's race.
That should loosen up the schedule and make everybody happy.
JeffYoung
New member
Don't know for sure, but doubt that will work due to economics. VIR is not cheap; as STeve E. points out we have to run more than one race to collect enough fees to make it work economically. A single sprint race for the entire weekend, probably won't/can't cut it fees wise.
JeffYoung
New member
The $30k difference may bee enough to kill the deal.
I think (again, I don't speak for them) NCR is confident enough that a double weekend will attract enough drivers to pay the bill, regardless of whether MARRS is involved or not. We had a huge turnout in October for a single SARRC/Double ECR/CCPS -- yes, we ran that many races in two days - and I suspect the same will be true in May.
VIR is an attractive place to run. It draws folks from all over and, honestly, I suspect a lot of MARRS guys will come anyway regardless of whether the MARRS series pays points for the race or not.
I think (again, I don't speak for them) NCR is confident enough that a double weekend will attract enough drivers to pay the bill, regardless of whether MARRS is involved or not. We had a huge turnout in October for a single SARRC/Double ECR/CCPS -- yes, we ran that many races in two days - and I suspect the same will be true in May.
VIR is an attractive place to run. It draws folks from all over and, honestly, I suspect a lot of MARRS guys will come anyway regardless of whether the MARRS series pays points for the race or not.
JeffYoung
New member
Spanky, here's the race grouping I have been kicking around with one of your guys (GRJones?). I think the only folks with real concerns, but legitimate ones, about grouping were the ITC and B guys. Would this help?
Group 1 -- SM
Group 2 -- IT7/SpecRX7/B/C/Slow production cars
Group 3 - R/S/A/BP/DP/AS/Fast production cars (E Prod?)
Group 4 -- SRF and Sports Racers
Group 5 -- Formula Continental/Atlantic/Mazda/SCCA/"Fast Formula cars"
Group 6 -- Formula Vee/Ford/500 "Slow" formula cars.
Group 7 -- Ground pounders
Again, I don't speak for NCR and don't know if this is something they would do or not. But I think it gets you guys a run group of cars that all sort of make speed the same way?
Group 1 -- SM
Group 2 -- IT7/SpecRX7/B/C/Slow production cars
Group 3 - R/S/A/BP/DP/AS/Fast production cars (E Prod?)
Group 4 -- SRF and Sports Racers
Group 5 -- Formula Continental/Atlantic/Mazda/SCCA/"Fast Formula cars"
Group 6 -- Formula Vee/Ford/500 "Slow" formula cars.
Group 7 -- Ground pounders
Again, I don't speak for NCR and don't know if this is something they would do or not. But I think it gets you guys a run group of cars that all sort of make speed the same way?
spnkzss
New member
I'd want to take a look at specific turn outs, but taking an immediate look E Prod won't want to run with IT anything due to bumpers
AS with Ground Pounders, and I know this has been beaten to death, but my opinion is to move ITR away from S and A.Now, I am just a racer in the WDCR. I am not a rep, and am between classes right now. TIFWIW. (Had to add my own disclosure
)WHat about an 8th or 9th run group if we do the dbl in single format? I think the concensus would be to keep the fields under or around 75 cars.
JeffYoung
New member
I'm open to anything that works, so long as it give us two races in two days, with an optional third.
A few thoughts:
1. EP ran with S and A this year. Some liked it, some didn't. I think honestly the S guys liked it the least - too much oil everywhere! But it worked.
2. AS runs with S in the Midwest, probably could run with us here (SPU does sometimes, and it works out fine). But if they fit better in a smaller ground pounder group that's fine too.
3. I do think there will be resistance to 8/9 groups do to length of the race day.
What causes this mess is SM/SSM. They have to have their own (large) group which they don't seem to mind, and that results in their beign a catch all IT/Prod class that is too big.
A few thoughts:
1. EP ran with S and A this year. Some liked it, some didn't. I think honestly the S guys liked it the least - too much oil everywhere! But it worked.
2. AS runs with S in the Midwest, probably could run with us here (SPU does sometimes, and it works out fine). But if they fit better in a smaller ground pounder group that's fine too.
3. I do think there will be resistance to 8/9 groups do to length of the race day.
What causes this mess is SM/SSM. They have to have their own (large) group which they don't seem to mind, and that results in their beign a catch all IT/Prod class that is too big.