what a nice day to be at marrs1

Just thinking out loud - wouldn't ITS fit better in small bore than big bore? The fast ITS times are right there with the EP - FP cars. And, if necessary you could move the SSB/C cars into the SSM group - I know the SSC driver who was paddocked next to me this weekend would have loved to get out of small bore. Or is the idea to not have cars from different classes, but of comparable speeds, running together?
 
Just thinking out loud - wouldn't ITS fit better in small bore than big bore? The fast ITS times are right there with the EP - FP cars. And, if necessary you could move the SSB/C cars into the SSM group - I know the SSC driver who was paddocked next to me this weekend would have loved to get out of small bore. Or is the idea to not have cars from different classes, but of comparable speeds, running together?
[/b]
Click to expand...
idea is to avoid having different classes running the same times together. then they interfere with each others races. don't want too big a gap though, or else the passing gets scary.

as and its are a good example of why avoiding mixing different classes running the same times is important. the as cars make up their time on the straights. its cars make it up in the corners. this leads (led) to some crappy racing in the corners for the its group.

ep-fp might have the same issue with its cars. ep-fp have trick suspensions, brakes and slicks. its cars have engines...might suck for the ep-fp cars.

this is why grouping the it classes together makes sense. similar levels of prep.
 
All that I can say is that they need to rethink that group. I was watching near pit out and it looked like the closing speeds are about 70 or 80 mph. Someone is going to get hurt or killed. Did anyone notice that the FV , F500's had about 7 cars in that group? WTF?
 
only 5 where out to qualify sat morning. it was very easy to tape that session.

If lap times are comparable why not stuff the handfull with SRF with a split start if thats the issue.
 
Hi Guys.

It's your former DOC, "she who must be replaced" speaking. (But we're not gong there.) I no longer have any stake, nor any position, nor influence, nor any knowledge of what's happening, so I'm a blind innocent at the moment ... (Hoorah!!) ... I don't even run the charity stuff anymore.

I knew when I saw the FV/F5 entries that that issue would be back on the table. Actually, guys, it's not just the speed differential but also the size differential. And remember that "open wheel" racing has its own unique set of dangers not present when you have bumpers and fenders. A "metal to metal" contact has a whole different meaning for this bunch ... like if you actually get close enough to have a "metal to metal" you're already past the wheels and not exactly in a good place ...

But still. 7 cars.

There were actually 3 Atlantics (a record number recently!), but only one that made the grade for the whole weekend. However, you still have to count the other two, because they were there, and because they were on track at least some of the time (but not much!).

Anyway. The whole class grouping issue is one that is extraordinarily painful for the region, In a way, we are victims of our own success. I was on the competition committee for 7 years and it has been a battle every single year. And every year it's been a different group or class with the problems. Bet most of you don't remember when we had 30 SSC Neons ... or 55 SRX7s ... or even enough FV/ F5s that we had split starts (course, the F5s were F440s then). Or how about production and SRF? Just because we lump groups together doesn't mean we like any of it. It usually comes down to "doing the least harm", and different people define that different ways! A no-win situation ...

Frequently it looks like adding a 10th race group would be the ideal solution. And it would - except for the problems of daylight, worker fatigue etc - to run 10 groups would (I think) necessarily mean shortening each group by at least 1, maybe 2 race laps ... plus adjustments to the practice/qualifying sessions on Saturday ...

For the record, the group 8 / station 8 debacle did involve two GT-1 cars. I heard all kinds of post-event hooh-hah from many different directions, and am sure procedures will be changed as a result...

Anne
 
True enough, and I think all of those that follow, work, or drive in the series knows the issues of the sucess from the paddock space to the groupings. I guess the biggest issue out there is figuring out what to do when you have a class so small, and others that are so tight or stuffed together in a way that causes the fun to drop a notch.

I thought SRF and FV with a split for one reason. It keeps the hefty srfs from the FV cars at the worst time, the rest of the race I think its possible for them to run together due to times. maybe im wrong, I dont know the classes well enough to point out all the aparent dangers.
 
James (and others),
You need to check your GCR (7.1.3) before you start playing with group combinations. The club has looked at the safety issues involved in combining some classes, and does have controls in place. However, that doesn't mean the issue is closed ...
Anne :015:
 
I have two words on this, Restricted Regionals.
[/b]
Click to expand...

yup, right answer..... :happy204:

or maybe run group minimums. if a run group can't put an avg of 30 cars on the track for the season, they either have to combine with another run group the next year or they are dropped from the schedule. we can't afford to have 7, or even 20 car run groups on track when most others are maxed out and compromising their racing.
 
Agreed - I've suggested that someone take the wording that Bob C used to create IT7 and modify it to restrict classes. Ideally this verbiage would give a probationary class one year to increase their car counts - if, after that year, the car counts are still below the required number, then the class is restricted until such time as the class petitions to be re-added to the fray with an appropriate number of cars participating.

Of course I don't want to be the one to draft that verbiage since I have enough irons in the fire...
 
Oh you can jugle one more red hot iron cant you?

I dont think they make nomex thick enough for me to consider drafting that verbage.
 
I dont think they make nomex thick enough for me to consider drafting that verbage.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Writing the verbiage is the easy part :024: - enforcing it (and getting the BOD to approve it) is another matter entirely :dead_horse:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top