VIR SARRC/MARRS Proposal
- Thread starter JeffYoung
- Start date
LOL
JeffYoung
New member
Spanky, it's fine. Appreciate you and GRJones actually talking about solutions rather than highlighting the real problem which is killing SARRC/MARRS, and that is a power struggle over "control" of the race scheduling.
I've sent the above groupings and schedule to my RE. I've indicated that there is some driver -- but not leadership -- support within MARRS for the same. Maybe you guys can do that same and we can get the powers that be talking?
Thanks a bunch. The efforts to actually work on fixing this are much appreciated.
I've sent the above groupings and schedule to my RE. I've indicated that there is some driver -- but not leadership -- support within MARRS for the same. Maybe you guys can do that same and we can get the powers that be talking?
Thanks a bunch. The efforts to actually work on fixing this are much appreciated.
mlytle
New member
good idea!
itr/s (not ita) ran with all the prod cars last year at vir. the ep guys were ok to run with, some of the other prod classes...not very good. scary slow and lots of oil...
marrs ran itr/s with as in 06...it was not pretty at all. we moved away from that combo in 07 due to the problems.
the fast itr cars at vir appear to be a couple sec's faster a lap than the its cars (based on the sarrc/marrs results for 07, group 7 and the october race). that actually makes a nice little gap between the classes so they don't interfere. itr/s/a is a good grouping, especially at a long track like vir.
seckerich
New member
One of the big problems this year was the unwillingness to fix the unbalanced groups correctly. In the past ITS and ITA have run with spec racers with very few problems. That group was very small and did not deserve to run alone. If we were willing to accept the region changing groups around as necessary the week before the event we could solve the overcrowding. In the past the race chair would only move groups to a later session. Bad policy with the numbers this race draws. Everyone needs to give a little bit.
mlytle
New member
or lump the spec racers in with the open wheel cars up front. or put all the open wheel cars together. there seems to be a lot of resistance to running metal body it cars with plastic cars in some regions. there were 39 spec racers, 19 small open wheel and 13 wing n things. three separate run groups. what a waste of track last year. consolidate down to at most two groups for these folks and it help some.
or as someone suggested...run it as a restricted regional...closed wheel only. that is a very tough sell though.
or as someone suggested...run it as a restricted regional...closed wheel only. that is a very tough sell though.
Gregg
New member
Very perceptive, Jeff. So is there some point you're trying to make. We're not going to BeaverRun, the Glen, Pocono, or any of the many tracks we've run at before either. While it was discussed, nobody wanted to schedule dates in the late summer/fall of '07 w/ NNJR for a track that was not open yet and possibly might not be open for a scheduled '08 date. Seems pretty basic to me. While they are paving now, they had barely broken ground when we started discussing schedules. You can bet that once it's operational the MARRS series will look very closely at partnering for an event at Thunderbolt for '09.
JeffYoung
New member
Gregg, I had hoped, and still hope, that you are one of the guys interested in working with NCR on options to save what in my view, despite the crowding issues, was a great eent. My comment and point above was that the "I'm packing up my toys and heading to NJ" argument from Marshall if MARRS didn't have control over SARRC/MARRS scheduling (which is the way I read his posts; maybe I'm wrong) wasn't a solution at all. The New Jersey track looks to be just as crowded with the same issues we all face at VIR.
So instead of one side or the other demanded this or demanding that, I ask again: is their a compromise that satisfies both concerns? Revised run groups and 2 day/3rd day optional schedule? Something other than it has to be a 3 days or it has to be single.
If not, well, then I don't know what to do other than to let what was once, I bleieve, one of if not the largest amateur racing events in the country pass into oblivion.
So instead of one side or the other demanded this or demanding that, I ask again: is their a compromise that satisfies both concerns? Revised run groups and 2 day/3rd day optional schedule? Something other than it has to be a 3 days or it has to be single.
If not, well, then I don't know what to do other than to let what was once, I bleieve, one of if not the largest amateur racing events in the country pass into oblivion.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Is it?
Money talks. How many open wheel racers are there? I don't know the numbers and have not looked at them yet. But if two groups of say 35 cars can use up 1/4 of the track time (2 run groups out of 8 run groups) in an event of 350 cars then that is not a good thing. 10% of the cars use 25% of the time. Bad.
Clearly I have not looked at the numbers but if what I wrote above is anywhere close to the truth then it simply isn't fair to the majority.
Ron
JeffYoung
New member
These are the revised run groups that I discussed with a non-leadership MARRS member, and have sent to Mark Senior, the outgoing VIR RE:
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
I roughed out the numbers based on last year's attendance and Group 2 gets down to a more manageable number. 3 is larger but I think the speed differential there is less, and it works. It's possible that 5 & 6 could be ocombined as well, to make room for dividing up the sedan classes even more.
I am hoping that this addresses some of the MARRS concerns on grouping.
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
I roughed out the numbers based on last year's attendance and Group 2 gets down to a more manageable number. 3 is larger but I think the speed differential there is less, and it works. It's possible that 5 & 6 could be ocombined as well, to make room for dividing up the sedan classes even more.
I am hoping that this addresses some of the MARRS concerns on grouping.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Not going to happen if you want a SARRC sanction. All classes or no points. Combine groups but all must run.
[/b]
Well, I'm not afraid of exposing my ignorance. I have to admit, that front part of the GCR that has a lot of information about running the races, I uhhhh, sort of skipped over for the most part.
Would be nice to see them combine the run groups though.
And it'd be extra nice to see them put the big groups first. It seemed illogical to me to make 350 guys stand around and watch the open wheels run in the first couple of groups of the day while the majority of racers, the closed wheel guys, waited to run later.
Seems more logical to make the few stand around and watch the many.
Jeff if the ground pounders outnumber the open wheels groups I'd suggest moving them up. On the other hand, maybe they are smaller and you've already logically grouped them.
R
Gregg
New member
And I thought you were just behind on the postings here. Take a look at post #36. I think youl'll see a recommendation for a 2-day event that someone else here posted as their own a few days later (grjones, post 49). I don't see anybody demanding anything here. I see you insulting those of us who represent the DC Region drivers as well as those who represent the DC Region's volunteers. Perhaps you should go back and read Marshall's posts 44 (which was a response to your post 33 about you and NCR drawing lines in the sand as well) as well as 67.
BTW--If we were to race the format that I suggested back on page #2, I personally wouldn't pay more than $250 for the honor since I'm getting the same amount of track time as a single event. As a "non-leaderhip" member of NCR you might want to consider the economics and what the NCR leadership has in mind vis a vis revenue generation (see your post 55). You can be very assured that when DC Region folks talk about quality of track time, the cost contributes to that perceived quality.
JeffYoung
New member
I'm not going to get into a spat with you about who insulted who first, or even who I allegedly insulted. Not worth it and not productive. You are wrong and I am done with that.
Back to the issue at hand. I saw your post 36 and the other ideas that essentially make this a single event with the resulting entry fee. At VIR, I doubt the economics of that would work, and both Steve E. and I posted that above. VIR is EXPENSIVE, and will continue to get more expensive as demand for it increases.
But let me look at your schedule and see if I can hash out something that I think might work with NCR.
Back to the issue at hand. I saw your post 36 and the other ideas that essentially make this a single event with the resulting entry fee. At VIR, I doubt the economics of that would work, and both Steve E. and I posted that above. VIR is EXPENSIVE, and will continue to get more expensive as demand for it increases.
But let me look at your schedule and see if I can hash out something that I think might work with NCR.
Ron Earp
Administrator
What about restricting the entries? A few people have brought it up, every time they have the comment has been ignored.
What about going green at 730am on the dot, instead of the typical "green at 815 that turns into 830"? This would add more time to the event and possibly help out with scheduling.
Could lunch/quiet hour be brought down to 30 mins? A worker change over could happen in this amount of time.
What about going green at 730am on the dot, instead of the typical "green at 815 that turns into 830"? This would add more time to the event and possibly help out with scheduling.
Could lunch/quiet hour be brought down to 30 mins? A worker change over could happen in this amount of time.
Gregg
New member
Uh huh. If that makes you feel better about yourself....
So that begs the question, "How expensive is it." No offense, but your saying it is "EXPENSIVE" doesn't really tell me much. Is the dollars lost by the majority of MARRS/WDCR drivers skipping the event if you stay w/ the status quo going to be less than if you go back to a 3-day event some SARRC drivers or go to a 2-day modified single event and charge less?
BTW, Here's that tentative DC Region schedule for you to peruse:
April 5-6L Spring Drivers School
April 26-27: MARRS 1
May 17-18: National
May 30-31: MARRS 2
June 13-14: 12 Hour
June 28-29: MARRS 3
July 12-13: MARRS 4 & 5 (Nelson Ledges)
Aug. 2-3: MARRS 6
Aug. 30 & Sept 1: Labor Day MARRS 7 & 8
Sept. 27-28: MARRS 9
Oct. 25-26: Fall Drivers School
Note that the Mother's Day event is one week before the proposed date for the Summit National. Our volunteers have been very concerned about the front-loading of the WDCR schedule in the past. As you know, a very large contingent of WDCR volunteers man corners at the Mother's Day event each year so their concerns would need to be considered as well.
When some keep bringing up how "EXPENSIVE" the track is, I doubt some organizers would think that's a option. The regions are "not for profit," but they always try to make a profit.
We would also then have to consider how you restrict the entries? Do you restrict the total, per class, per run group, per SARRC or MARRS, etc. Not only a difficult decision but one that I certainly wouldn't want to make.As I think has been mentioned, the DC Region did quite a bit of jiggering with our race day schedule, which required lots of compromise from our volunteers in order to squeeze in another group run group during the race weekends we host. This was done to alleviate over-crowding for closed-wheel groups while not disenfranchising some difficult-to-group classes. That includes thinking outside the box as far as start times and cleanup schedules. Given the amount of slop in the schedule at these events in past years this should be investigated. Although I don't think the Sunday church goers are going to go along w/ a change in quiet
hours, it should still be possible to manage some compression. Your suggestions would be a good start to allowing to the time to add another run group, thus lowering total cars per group and allowing you to group compatible cars and not just throwing together just what makes the numbers work.
mlytle
New member
so you have obviously not been reading my posts enough to understand anything. i clearly said 2009, not 2008, when refering to NJ motorsports park. i have not said MARRS must control the sked. i have always said it should be a JOINT event, not a complete NCR control deal.
how can the NJ tracks, which aren't even open yet, look to be as crowded as this event at vir? have you looked at the proposed design of the NJ motorsports park? do you actually read what you write? it is no wonder you turn off some positive discussion.
i agree though, would be a shame to let what was a great event pass into oblivion. it was big and fun as a three day event, it was just big as a two day event.
i also agree with you that a single race event isn't a good idea. financially a problem, and not worth the tow.
key factor to make a two day event work is to make better use of the track time. 13 car run groups like there were last year can't happen, neither can 90 car groups.
another key factor is quality racing. just lumping classes together to make the numbers right can't be the only consideration. classes like ITS/R and AS don't play well together.
and i still have to ask why a three day event is so bad to NCR. it was done that way with great success for years. is it just a few drivers that won't commit the extra day? IF, repeat, IF that was the only way to make the run groups reasonable, how many SARRC racers would bail out? fewer than the whole MARRS series dropping out? just trying to scope the problem.
JeffYoung
New member
Alright, I'm willing to put the shit slinging aside, which I am as guilty of as anyone. In both posts above I see a desire to try and save SARRC/MARRS. Let me think about this and see if there is some way I can cobble together something that works from all of the above.
I'll be in touch tomorrow.
I'll be in touch tomorrow.