PDA

View Full Version : Novice Waves in MW, HW, and Open Classes



T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 10:25 AM
discussion moved here. The proposal is to add additional Novice classes, to run as a second wave to the existing Expert classes.

MW SS Novice
MW SB Novice

HW SS Novice
HW SB Novice

Open SS Novice
Open SB Novice

The intent of the classes, I believe, are to provide additional opportunities for Novices to race during the weekend - thus increasing race entry revenue for the club.

My thought is that probably not more than 15-20 Novice racers will ride up - not 40+ as Geoff suggests.

It should be noted that MANY clubs in the US do this, and some (like the AFM for example) run completely combined classes all the time. 60+ bikes, mixed Novice and Expert - all running in 600 Superbike. Good Times!

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 10:33 AM
a response from the other thread:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dragos13 wrote:
I always thought the reason for class eligibility (yellow versus white plates) was a matter of safety.


+1

I can't imagine the chaos of Matt Lynn and Jason Disalvo battling for contingency $$ through a field of 40+ new novices.

*If* we went this route - I would suggest getting rid of Nov O and Nov U and moving to LWSB Novice and MWSB Novice (2 waves) running together and HWSB Novice and OSB Novice (2 waves) running together.

If novices want exposure to experts - run amateur classes and/or get an expert plate.
_________________
Geoff Snyder
#76

dragos13
September 9th, 2009, 10:35 AM
Please add some sort of time limit qualification to this rule limiting novices to run in expert classes. We should use some sort of 110% time limit as currently used in ROR. I feel it should be the same for these classes as they have just as fast of riders and usually larger grids.

I have no problem running 60+ bikes mixed with novice and expert, so long as there is some basis to what novices are eligible.

Honestly, if you can run the pace then why are you still on yellow plates?

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 10:52 AM
some guys would like to win a novice championship, and still compete with the experts given the opportunity... cromer comes to mind.

If you limit novices to 110%, then shouldn't the experts be held to the same standard? there are many experts who are slower than slow, even by slow guy standards - and they run in these sorts of classes.

remember in order to be successful financially we need to cater to the 80% not the 20%...

AFM has no lap time limits. The fastest guy is on pole, the slowest guy in the back. they make no differentiation between Novice & Expert.

snay
September 9th, 2009, 11:18 AM
some guys would like to win a novice championship, and still compete with the experts given the opportunity... cromer comes to mind.

If you limit novices to 110%, then shouldn't the experts be held to the same standard? there are many experts who are slower than slow, even by slow guy standards - and they run in these sorts of classes.

remember in order to be successful financially we need to cater to the 80% not the 20%...

AFM has no lap time limits. The fastest guy is on pole, the slowest guy in the back. they make no differentiation between Novice & Expert. =D>

gsnyder828
September 9th, 2009, 11:30 AM
remember in order to be successful financially we need to cater to the 80% not the 20%...



Not to be too off-topic, but I disagree with that statement and think that mindset/framework sets the MRA up for trouble in a down economy.

The 20% (series regulars) are the financial health of the series and the series should be designed to be break-even (at a minimum) around them.

The 80% (part-timers) all have valid reasons why they don't show on a regular basis - a large one being $$. Looking to bring some more of them in is fine - but very few will become regulars and the financial success of the MRA should not depend on them.

hcr25
September 9th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Honestly, if you can run the pace then why are you still on yellow plates?[/quote]

So you are saying Cromer should have moved up and not run novice?

WERA has run experts and novices for years. In the WERA national series they have way more fast guys then us and they dont seem to have any problems getting through traffic.
mike

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 11:49 AM
remember in order to be successful financially we need to cater to the 80% not the 20%...



Not to be too off-topic, but I disagree with that statement and think that mindset/framework sets the MRA up for trouble in a down economy.

The 20% (series regulars) are the financial health of the series and the series should be designed to be break-even (at a minimum) around them.

The 80% (part-timers) all have valid reasons why they don't show on a regular basis - a large one being $$. Looking to bring some more of them in is fine - but very few will become regulars and the financial success of the MRA should not depend on them.

Except remember that last year, at Pueblo we took a vote and the "dyed in the wool" racers voted for an 11 race season. It almost bankrupted us... The season was too long, and the costs too great for most normal humans. If we're simply to rely on the 20% (even only to break even $$), then expect entry fees to quadruple...

There's a balance in there somewhere I'm sure - but MY primary objective is to get weekend race entries UP, and per race participation UP. That's the only way we can keep pace with insurance and track rental costs.

racedk6
September 9th, 2009, 11:58 AM
...

dragos13
September 9th, 2009, 12:09 PM
So you are saying Cromer should have moved up and not run novice?

WERA has run experts and novices for years. In the WERA national series they have way more fast guys then us and they dont seem to have any problems getting through traffic.
mike

I told Cromer many times that he would benefit as a racer if he moved up to expert classes.

Hey, if there are peolpe who before wouldn't join the MRA but now will because they can run up in expert classes, then I'm all for this change.

Better yet, why dont we go back to the old schedule since the two day schedule actually screws over some novices right?

Honestly I thought our decline in members was not a lack of novices, but a lack of returning experts. Wasn't that the case this year?

hcr25
September 9th, 2009, 12:24 PM
I think the decline was both. If we do novice mw, hw and open superbike with the expert classes that will give the novices getting screwed 3 more classes to run on Sunday :wink:

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 12:31 PM
Casey, there's two things afoot here:

Adding the novice wave to the SS & SB classes is to take the current Novice racers and give them an opportunity to spend more money with the MRA each weekend. Not necessarily to try to bring in new novices, though it could have that effect too... If the current Novice racers added two classes, thats an extra $40-50 each that we wouldn't have otherwise.

Allowing this would "unscrew" :wink: the Novice guys who work on Saturdays. This would leave them with several classes to race on Sunday, instead of just one or two.

The Superstreet (aka beginner) class (other thread) is to incent track day guys to come try racing without having to drop $10K only to find out that they don't really like it after all. This is where the growth of novice riders will come from, imo.

We were distinctly down in renewals this year - both novice and expert. There were 30 Experts and 44 Novices who were licensed last year, but DIDN'T renew this year. And, of the 81 new students we had in April, only about 12 actually got licenses. Further, of the nearly 300 licensed racers this year almost HALF of them NEVER made it to a race... sux, no?

Total 2009 membership breaks down like this (accurate as of race # 8 )

Expert 143

Novice 130

racedk6
September 9th, 2009, 12:36 PM
So in adding these classes, will these guys be riding against the other novices or against the experts points wise?

dragos13
September 9th, 2009, 12:37 PM
Thanks for that info Tony. Wow I didn't realize the lack of students that actually got licenses.

I am not trying to start any fights here, just want to make sure all details are covered. I can see what you mean about being an incentive to race more classes and of course that is appreciate.

I would also be happy to have more then 8 people on the normal supersport grid. Earlier today I would have never voted for such a change but I'm starting to see where you guys are coming from financially.

marty
September 9th, 2009, 12:37 PM
hellz yeah, 125 in open sb next year! i was needing a couple more classes to run!

will novice bikes be required to maintain ss rules for modification to run as the second wave or will the novice wave still have sb rules?

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 12:51 PM
So in adding these classes, will these guys be riding against the other novices or against the experts points wise?

they would be scored separately.

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 12:56 PM
Thanks for that info Tony. Wow I didn't realize the lack of students that actually got licenses.

I am not trying to start any fights here, just want to make sure all details are covered. I can see what you mean about being an incentive to race more classes and of course that is appreciate.

I would also be happy to have more then 8 people on the normal supersport grid. Earlier today I would have never voted for such a change but I'm starting to see where you guys are coming from financially.

Yeah, it's pretty shocking when you get down to the nutz and boltz of it isn't it??

Asking intelligent questions is not starting fights - and I welcome the input. This allows me to put forth the information that you guys and gals need to create informed opinions for yourselves. There's no easy fix for any of this, unfortunately.

We're trying to find ways to accomodate as many people as possible, still keeping it fun and competitive, and increasing revenue for the club. Sometimes you gotta look at new and different ideas to make it work for everyone.

T Baggins
September 9th, 2009, 12:59 PM
hellz yeah, 125 in open sb next year! i was needing a couple more classes to run!

will novice bikes be required to maintain ss rules for modification to run as the second wave or will the novice wave still have sb rules?

The intent is to have Novice waves in BOTH SS and SB, but they must meet the class structure rules just like the Experts. So, if you're SS legal, then run SS and SB. If you're only SB legal, then run SB, and run "up" in the bigger displacement SB classes too!

dragos13
September 9th, 2009, 01:02 PM
We're trying to find ways to accomodate as many people as possible, still keeping it fun and competitive, and increasing revenue for the club. Sometimes you gotta look at new and different ideas to make it work for everyone.

Thats exactly what the club needs too. We have to adapt to changes to survive and I'm glad we are willing to think outside the normal MRA mindset.

rybo
September 9th, 2009, 01:09 PM
So in adding these classes, will these guys be riding against the other novices or against the experts points wise?

Steve,

They would be scored as two separate races like we do with Vintage and Twins classes.

The main reason for this is so that we don't give up manufacturer contingency in the expert classes. Many manufacturers will NOT pay contingency in Novice or Amateur classes, only expert classes.

There are several models for this around the country including AFM and WERA.

Geoff, I'm all for the safety argument, and want to see good safe racing, after all that is why we go to the track instead of tearing up the canyons. That being said I'm a slow guy who's been on the track with some really fast guys and they've never had any problem making a safe pass.

Also, there are plenty of experts who are running slower lap times than many of the novices. If there is going to be a cutoff then it should apply to all on the grid. Personally I think that's a bad idea. Instead of that I think that using the heat race plan we already have in place is a good solution. We say that at HPR there are X number of spots total on the grid Say at HPR we call that number 60, 30 in each wave. If the number exceeds that then we run heat races for that class and set the grid accordingly.

s

gsnyder828
September 9th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Except remember that last year, at Pueblo we took a vote and the "dyed in the wool" racers voted for an 11 race season. It almost bankrupted us... The season was too long, and the costs too great for most normal humans. If we're simply to rely on the 20% (even only to break even $$), then expect entry fees to quadruple...



Understood - and I know you recognize the difference between "asking what they want" and putting together a fiscally viable season based on data - trending grid levels, participation, etc. and cutting operational costs appropriately (even if that means removing/combining classes and going to a 1 day schedule, etc.) to ensure the health of the org.

That's what I mean by focusing on the 20%.

Moto-Mania
September 9th, 2009, 07:35 PM
Oh nuts, here goes anyway....

Along the lines of what Rybo suggested:

- Set the grid limit for each race/track.
- Fill the grid based on lap times
- Subject to a max lap time cutoff
- Race classes could have different cutoff limits (ROR, SS, AM, etc.)

Probably more work and hard to administer, but that's why we have computers.

oldtimer
September 10th, 2009, 09:57 AM
I'd like to hear more about why we should add 6 more novice classes/championships to the existing schedule. Currently novices can run novU, novO, amU, amO, 4 endurance classes plus all the "exception rule classes" like twins, ladies, CO class, etc. Do they need to race every single class the entire weekend, PLUS Novice and Amateur classes?

I also predict that MWSB is going to be overwhelming, since almost every novU rider will qualify. I'm looking forward to having expert classes without novices in them to race in. As a first year expert I'll already be gridding up with novices in the Amateur classes, so the only difference in AmU and MWSB under this proposal is whether novices are shuffled in or listed separately in finishes. I'm not sure I see the value in this restructuring.

racedk6
September 10th, 2009, 10:32 AM
I'd like to hear more about why we should add 6 more novice classes/championships to the existing schedule. Currently novices can run novU, novO, amU, amO, 4 endurance classes plus all the "exception rule classes" like twins, ladies, CO class, etc. Do they need to race every single class the entire weekend, PLUS Novice and Amateur classes?



If a novice comes in to the club on a 750 or 1000 and can only race sundays, that gives them one class they can race they can run under the current structure.

benfoxmra95
September 10th, 2009, 10:42 AM
The "MR600A"

I truly dislike the fact that you can run so many classes on a 600. And if you show up with a 1000 you've got 3 races 4 including endurance.

If we are going to base te club around 600's then we should tighten up te supersport rules alot.

T Baggins
September 10th, 2009, 10:50 AM
I see the value in that we have additional opportunites for our CURRENT customers to spend more money at our store. We need to increase revenues in order to succeed financially. This is only one facet of a multi-faceted approach to growing the club and club revenues.

I think you've overstated the racing opportunities for Novices. Obviously they can't run all 4 endurance races since we run them two by two. And if the racer has a modern bike, anything bigger than 600cc's, or a penis then he's pretty much excluded from most of the rest you've mentioned.

A novice who works on saturday and rides a 750 or 1000 is limited ONLY to Amateur O. Not much of an incentive for a new guy to spend $140 and then wait around all day for a 7 lap race.

Do you really think every Nov U rider will run MWSB? Personally I think the racers who are top 15-20 will run it, but the others would probably prefer NOT to have their ass handed to them by Dalton on lap 2. If it becomes a problem with too many entries -THEN- we should look at cutoff times, etc.

My question to you is "why not"? What would it hurt to give our racers an opportunity to get more track time and spend more money with the club? ***remember, we're "not" the AMA***

dragos13
September 10th, 2009, 11:06 AM
In my opinion, this is a major change of the schedule to add novice racers on the expert grids. Not only that but also a safety issue.

Why are we making such changes? Are we doing this to better support the Novice rider who only shows up on Sunday and happens to run a 1000cc so he can race more then one race?

I dont think that rider falls under the 80% we are worried about right?

T Baggins
September 10th, 2009, 11:18 AM
couple things:

1) we aren't making these changes - this is a rule change suggestion (which I happen to favor)

2) it's "no" change to the schedule at all. It just adds a second wave to six classes.

2) $

3) $$

4) $$$

Is nobody but me seeing the financial benefit provided by this? If we had 15 novices in each of the 6 races (which is very reasonable) that would net the club an additional $1800 per weekend MINIMUM. This from the racers who are ALREADY THERE ANYWAY. NO extra cost to the club, no need to recruit new members, nothing. Just free money for the club.

We could just as easily raise entry fees for everyone (say $20 per racer) to get the same net effect. But the riders get NO additional benefit if we do that. NO extra races, nothing - just a fee increase.

For the record, this wasn't my rule suggestion - but I think it is an excellent way to provide additional racing opportunities and revenue stream for the club.

If you're opposed to it, go to the rules meeting and be heard. I'm voting "yes" unless someone can convince me why this is a bad idea...

oldtimer
September 10th, 2009, 11:21 AM
If a novice comes in to the club on a 750 or 1000 and can only race sundays, that gives them one class they can race they can run under the current structure.

I understand the point, but this is about rider choice. I self select my class options based on the racebike I choose to run. For example you and I both selected 600's to give us more classes. I previously owned an 850 twin and replaced that bike with a 600 for this very reason. I respectfully suggest this idea to novices who can't run Saturday and have a liter bike.

oldtimer
September 10th, 2009, 11:30 AM
Is nobody but me seeing the financial benefit provided by this? If we had 15 novices in each of the 6 races (which is very reasonable) that would net the club an additional $1800 per weekend MINIMUM. This from the racers who are ALREADY THERE ANYWAY. NO extra cost to the club, no need to recruit new members, nothing. Just free money for the club.

We could just as easily raise entry fees for everyone (say $20 per racer) to get the same net effect. But the riders get NO additional benefit if we do that. NO extra races, nothing - just a fee increase.

For the record, this wasn't my rule suggestion - but I think it is an excellent way to provide additional racing opportunities and revenue stream for the club.

If you're opposed to it, go to the rules meeting and be heard. I'm voting "yes" unless someone can convince me why this is a bad idea...

I do see the financial benefit. I'm also considering the impact to the expert racing the SS and SB classes.

I think this discussion is about ideas to strengthen the club's finances but not compromise the racing experience. And I don't know that I favor having a massive novice wave to race through in my expert classes. I believe there will be more than 15 novices in the middleweight, and possibly heavyweight grids, what if there are 20, or 30? I'm interested in hearing more comments on the topic.

T Baggins
September 10th, 2009, 11:35 AM
it's being done successfully at other MAJOR race organizations throughout the country. further, clubs like the AFM don't even run Novice classes - everybody runs together and the fast experts get thru the slower riders (novice and expert both) just fine. maybe their experts are just more "expert" than our experts... :lol:

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 11:40 AM
I can see both sides of this. You don't want the entire NovU grid lining up on MWSS/MWSB along with the experts. However, there were quite a few novice this year that finished in the top 5-10 in their novice races AND their amateur races. So obviously they are fast enough to compete with, and beat, some of the experts.

I think a safe and fair compromise would be to put a qualifier in the rule for eligibility. It could be along the lines that once a novice had finished a novice race in the top 10 or an amateur race in the top 15 they would be eligible to compete in the novice wave along with the expert classes.

You get the safety factor of only putting people on the grid that are fast enough to not be a safety hazard, yet still allow novices to run with experts, get more races and still compete for their own standings. With this, you also filter out the random guy who signs up for his first race weekend and signs up for all the expert races because he thinks he's the next Spies, and promptly gets blown past all day long and never comes back.

T Baggins
September 10th, 2009, 11:50 AM
Rybo, this was your damn rule suggestion... where are you bro?? Gonna sit there and let me take all the heat?!? Yeah, I see how you are.... :lol:

dragos13
September 10th, 2009, 12:04 PM
it's being done successfully at other MAJOR race organizations throughout the country. further, clubs like the AFM don't even run Novice classes - everybody runs together and the fast experts get thru the slower riders (novice and expert both) just fine. maybe their experts are just more "expert" than our experts... :lol:

It would be totally understandable to grid them with experts in the MRA if the MRA didn't have novice classes. But we do 8)

My main issue is allowing someone who has never raced before in their life, to grid up in some very aggressive classes. Personally, I think income can be found not by giving a novice an extra class, but doing something to get experts to return to the grid, something I feel is currently being overlooked.

T Baggins
September 10th, 2009, 12:12 PM
If the committee recommends a "cut off" along the lines of what co750 suggests, then that may be a reasonable solution. I guess I'm not envisioning a first weekend novice signing up for MWSB... but who knows - maybe they wouldn't know better?

If you have a solution on how to bring existing experts back to the grid, please share... or better yet, make it part of your Bio and then come be a rider rep and join in all the fun! :lol:

hcr25
September 10th, 2009, 12:13 PM
So WERA has been doing it this way for years with very good success. They do have some novice only classes but many are run with the expert grids.
here is what a daily race schedule from WERA looks like

http://www.wera.com/pdfs/2008Schedules/jennings090609.pdf

9:00am - 11:30am Practice Groups as follows:
1) 600cc Experts 4) Lightweight Novices and Experts
2) 750cc and Up Novices 5) 600cc Novices
3) 750cc and Up Experts 6) Minis
11:30am - 12:30pm Lunch Break
11:40am Riders Meeting - Tech
12:10pm Chapel Service - TBA
12:30pm Pirelli/WERA Sportsman Series Races - 8 Laps each
1a) Minis - 6 laps
1) A Superstock Ex & Nv
2) WSS, HWT SB, V6 HW, V7MW
3) C Superstock Expert
4) C Superstock Novice
5) Formula 2 Ex & Nv
6) Senior Superbike Ex & Nv
7) B Superstock Expert
8) B Superstock Novice
9) C Superbike Ex, HWT SS Ex & Nv
10) C Superbike Novice
11) 125cc GP, Clubman
12) Formula 1 Expert & Novice
13) LWT SS, DSB, ESS Ex & Nv
14) B Superbike Expert, V7 HW
15) B Superbike Novice
16) LWT SB, DSS
17) A Superbike Expert & Novice
- Awards Presentation in Tech following last

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 12:26 PM
I guess I'm not envisioning a first weekend novice signing up for MWSB... but who knows - maybe they wouldn't know better?



Many people know where they stand and what classes wouldn't be good for them to run in. But there are always some who's ego, self image, showing off for a girl, whatever, makes them believe/do stupid things.

I just think a cutoff weeds out all of these scenarios, yet still increases classes and entry fees. Plus, it can be viewed like a reward for the novices that are entering races and doing well. They get to have a preview of the competition in the expert classes they could be competing in the next year.

dragos13
September 10th, 2009, 12:28 PM
If you have a solution on how to bring existing experts back to the grid, please share... or better yet, make it part of your Bio and then come be a rider rep and join in all the fun! :lol:

I'm worried that combining expert and novice as well as cutting/combining ROR will do just the opposite.

Again, when I was a Novice I ran 4 classes. Plenty for most racers out there. The "majority" of novices run both saturday and sunday, and also run on a 600cc bike. If we are working towards making the majority happy, how is this being accomplished by letting them run 6 or 8 races per weekend?

I think a big reason that experts didn't come back was due to the economy and just not being affordable. Maybe lower entry fees, more class choices for experts, keeping RORU etc. will help keep experts around.

benfoxmra95
September 10th, 2009, 12:31 PM
i don't see novices running 6 races plus an endurance per weekend if they can barely afford to run 2/3 races with tires and gas money.

I guess There's no penalty to allow more riders sign up, so go ahead and do it.

but let's find some other way to get more track time to the 1000cc riders.

maybe another class, Open GP Superbike Extreme class.

dragos13
September 10th, 2009, 12:32 PM
So WERA has been doing it this way for years with very good success. They do have some novice only classes but many are run with the expert grids.
here is what a daily race schedule from WERA looks like

http://www.wera.com/pdfs/2008Schedules/jennings090609.pdf

9:00am - 11:30am Practice Groups as follows:
1) 600cc Experts 4) Lightweight Novices and Experts
2) 750cc and Up Novices 5) 600cc Novices
3) 750cc and Up Experts 6) Minis
11:30am - 12:30pm Lunch Break
11:40am Riders Meeting - Tech
12:10pm Chapel Service - TBA
12:30pm Pirelli/WERA Sportsman Series Races - 8 Laps each
1a) Minis - 6 laps
1) A Superstock Ex & Nv
2) WSS, HWT SB, V6 HW, V7MW
3) C Superstock Expert
4) C Superstock Novice
5) Formula 2 Ex & Nv
6) Senior Superbike Ex & Nv
7) B Superstock Expert
8) B Superstock Novice
9) C Superbike Ex, HWT SS Ex & Nv
10) C Superbike Novice
11) 125cc GP, Clubman
12) Formula 1 Expert & Novice
13) LWT SS, DSB, ESS Ex & Nv
14) B Superbike Expert, V7 HW
15) B Superbike Novice
16) LWT SB, DSS
17) A Superbike Expert & Novice
- Awards Presentation in Tech following last

It looks like the only classes being combined are the open SS and SB. Middle and Heavy ( class B and C) are still seperate. Also appears WERA runs a 1 day format? Are we on board with WERA as everyone in the post has said?

hcr25
September 10th, 2009, 12:34 PM
I think a big reason that experts didn't come back was due to the economy and just not being affordable. Maybe lower entry fees, more class choices for experts, keeping RORU etc. will help keep experts around.

How much do you think we would need to lower the entry fees?
If the average racer spends $200.00 now and we lowered it by $50.00
do you think that would make the difference? Or would we need to lower it even more?
Mike

dragos13
September 10th, 2009, 12:37 PM
How much do you think we would need to lower the entry fees?
If the average racer spends $200.00 now and we lowered it by $50.00
do you think that would make the difference? Or would we need to lower it even more?
Mike

Honestly I dont think the club should lower fees. I just feel the major reason people dont return to road racing is that its expensive. Alot that I know are now riding dirt or supermoto and its usually $35 per day. Of course we can't accomplish something like that and personally I dont think its feasible.

Maybe we can lower the first entry amount letting people who only want to run 1 or 2 classes to do it for slightly cheaper.

benfoxmra95
September 10th, 2009, 12:39 PM
I see the value in that we have additional opportunites for our CURRENT customers to spend more money at our store. We need to increase revenues in order to succeed financially. This is only one facet of a multi-faceted approach to growing the club and club revenues.

I agree with this setiment. But I'd honestly like to see the other facets focused on to grow the club. And not look inwards towards our current memebership to spend more of their money than already can afford.

hcr25
September 10th, 2009, 12:41 PM
click the link :) they are a two day club. only copied and pasted one day just for an example

dragos13
September 10th, 2009, 12:43 PM
click the link :) they are a two day club. only copied and pasted one day just for an example

ok thanks :oops:

oldtimer
September 10th, 2009, 12:55 PM
So WERA has been doing it this way for years with very good success. They do have some novice only classes but many are run with the expert grids.
here is what a daily race schedule from WERA looks like

http://www.wera.com/pdfs/2008Schedules/jennings090609.pdf

9:00am - 11:30am Practice Groups as follows:
1) 600cc Experts 4) Lightweight Novices and Experts
2) 750cc and Up Novices 5) 600cc Novices
3) 750cc and Up Experts 6) Minis
11:30am - 12:30pm Lunch Break
11:40am Riders Meeting - Tech
12:10pm Chapel Service - TBA
12:30pm Pirelli/WERA Sportsman Series Races - 8 Laps each
1a) Minis - 6 laps
1) A Superstock Ex & Nv
2) WSS, HWT SB, V6 HW, V7MW
3) C Superstock Expert
4) C Superstock Novice
5) Formula 2 Ex & Nv
6) Senior Superbike Ex & Nv
7) B Superstock Expert
8) B Superstock Novice
9) C Superbike Ex, HWT SS Ex & Nv
10) C Superbike Novice
11) 125cc GP, Clubman
12) Formula 1 Expert & Novice
13) LWT SS, DSB, ESS Ex & Nv
14) B Superbike Expert, V7 HW
15) B Superbike Novice
16) LWT SB, DSS
17) A Superbike Expert & Novice
- Awards Presentation in Tech following last

Just an FYI, their gridding system is different than our pre-planned schedule.

Because I'm planning to attend a WERA race this year I recently spoke with a WERA racer about where I would be gridded as a novice. She told me they rearrange the schedule for every weekend based on sign-ups. So if a ton of middleweight racers show up I'll probably run a separate race, if not I'll be gridded behind the experts.

snay
September 10th, 2009, 01:14 PM
I'd like to hear more about why we should add 6 more novice classes/championships to the existing schedule. Currently novices can run novU, novO, amU, amO, 4 endurance classes plus all the "exception rule classes" like twins, ladies, CO class, etc. Do they need to race every single class the entire weekend, PLUS Novice and Amateur classes?

I also predict that MWSB is going to be overwhelming, since almost every novU rider will qualify. I'm looking forward to having expert classes without novices in them to race in. As a first year expert I'll already be gridding up with novices in the Amateur classes, so the only difference in AmU and MWSB under this proposal is whether novices are shuffled in or listed separately in finishes. I'm not sure I see the value in this restructuring.hell yes its a good thing not all novices will take part but i will i drive 14 hrs to race in the mra and 1 time 22 hrs to race each bike once a day 4 total races i would love to race more sprint races if we the mra can make it work =D>

hcr25
September 10th, 2009, 01:15 PM
Just an FYI, their gridding system is different than our pre-planned schedule.

Because I'm planning to attend a WERA race this year I recently spoke with a WERA racer about where I would be gridded as a novice. She told me they rearrange the schedule for every weekend based on sign-ups. So if a ton of middleweight racers show up I'll probably run a separate race, if not I'll be gridded behind the experts.[/quote]


Sounds like it works for them.

snay
September 10th, 2009, 01:27 PM
I see the value in that we have additional opportunites for our CURRENT customers to spend more money at our store. We need to increase revenues in order to succeed financially. This is only one facet of a multi-faceted approach to growing the club and club revenues.

I think you've overstated the racing opportunities for Novices. Obviously they can't run all 4 endurance races since we run them two by two. And if the racer has a modern bike, anything bigger than 600cc's, or a penis then he's pretty much excluded from most of the rest you've mentioned.

A novice who works on saturday and rides a 750 or 1000 is limited ONLY to Amateur O. Not much of an incentive for a new guy to spend $140 and then wait around all day for a 7 lap race.

Do you really think every Nov U rider will run MWSB? Personally I think the racers who are top 15-20 will run it, but the others would probably prefer NOT to have their ass handed to them by Dalton on lap 2. If it becomes a problem with too many entries -THEN- we should look at cutoff times, etc.

My question to you is "why not"? What would it hurt to give our racers an opportunity to get more track time and spend more money with the club? ***remember, we're "not" the AMA***I'm with you tony it takes Thursday to Monday night every round and i get to race 4 races!! don't get me wrong I'm not bitchin i would love to race more with the mra!!!

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 01:46 PM
I see the value in that we have additional opportunites for our CURRENT customers to spend more money at our store. We need to increase revenues in order to succeed financially. This is only one facet of a multi-faceted approach to growing the club and club revenues.

I agree with this setiment. But I'd honestly like to see the other facets focused on to grow the club. And not look inwards towards our current memebership to spend more of their money than already can afford.

I agree with that fully. We continue to look for existing members to shell out more money, when most are at the limit already. In the long run I think this pressure will turn away more members.

Personally, I like this idea if it is limited to what novices are allowed to race in these classes. It gives those who have the ability and money to race more, generates more revenue, and doesn't put a strain on all members like raising entry fees across the board would.

oldtimer
September 10th, 2009, 01:57 PM
I guess I'm not envisioning a first weekend novice signing up for MWSB... but who knows - maybe they wouldn't know better?



I think you're underestimating the turn out if these classes are created. Remember, under this proposal novices are not actually racing the experts. They're racing each other in a separately scored division, just like the MVGTU/LOR 2 wave grid. So regardless of how many times a novice gets lapped by Dalton, he can still get a top finish in his own separate class, with more trophies and another championship. If I was a novice I would find this appealing.

I anticipate a lot of people signing up for MWSB, as well as all the other SS and SB classes. If I really thought my fellow GTO novices would be "too scared" to enter OSB with the super fast guys, why wouldn't I sign up on my 600 and collect my 1st place novice OSB trophy by myself? To give our novices credit, I don't think they'll be scared I think they'll all enter! :D

I'm not completely against this idea, but I want to understand how this will work if it's implemented. What's the point of our novice and amateur championships if we create all these new classes? If we're going to have a Novice MWSB Championship, is it fair to exclude some novices from competing from the get-go if they don't meet a laptime cutoff? That doesn't seem right. We currently have giant novice grids, how will everyone be assimilated?

benfoxmra95
September 10th, 2009, 02:14 PM
What about contingency money? Will Michelin Pirelli etc... Pay out for all these extra classses? If not then will that be a deciding factor on who signs up?

snay
September 10th, 2009, 02:28 PM
I guess I'm not envisioning a first weekend novice signing up for MWSB... but who knows - maybe they wouldn't know better?



I think you're underestimating the turn out if these classes are created. Remember, under this proposal novices are not actually racing the experts. They're racing each other in a separately scored division, just like the MVGTU/LOR 2 wave grid. So regardless of how many times a novice gets lapped by Dalton, he can still get a top finish in his own separate class, with more trophies and another championship. If I was a novice I would find this appealing.

I anticipate a lot of people signing up for MWSB, as well as all the other SS and SB classes. If I really thought my fellow GTO novices would be "too scared" to enter OSB with the super fast guys, why wouldn't I sign up on my 600 and collect my 1st place novice OSB trophy by myself? To give our novices credit, I don't think they'll be scared I think they'll all enter! :D

I'm not completely against this idea, but I want to understand how this will work if it's implemented. What's the point of our novice and amateur championships if we create all these new classes? If we're going to have a Novice MWSB Championship, is it fair to exclude some novices from competing from the get-go if they don't meet a laptime cutoff? That doesn't seem right. We currently have giant novice grids, how will everyone be assimilated?just my opinion I'm not looking to get any points or cash just more sprint races i can run in well cash ok :shock:

gsnyder828
September 10th, 2009, 02:42 PM
just my opinion I'm not looking to get any points or cash just more sprint races i can run in

Shawn - out of curiousity, why don't you move up to expert? :?: Then you can run MWSS, MWSB, HWSS, HWSB, OSS, OSB, MWEnd, Open End, AmU and AmO on your 600 and 1000.

That's 10 classes in a weekend! \:D/

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 03:08 PM
just my opinion I'm not looking to get any points or cash just more sprint races i can run in

Shawn - out of curiousity, why don't you move up to expert? :?: Then you can run MWSS, MWSB, HWSS, HWSB, OSS, OSB, MWEnd, Open End, AmU and AmO on your 600 and 1000.

That's 10 classes in a weekend! \:D/
I think that is the whole point of this idea. As an expert you have a multitude of classes to choose to race in. As a novice you really only have gtu and gto to race against other novices. This would give more options for that while not impacting the overall schedule.

gsnyder828
September 10th, 2009, 03:27 PM
I think that is the whole point of this idea. As an expert you have a multitude of classes to choose to race in. As a novice you really only have gtu and gto to race against other novices. This would give more options for that while not impacting the overall schedule.

OK, so you recognize that the opportunity exists to run additional classes - simply by moving to expert.

Why not advance to expert then?

:? You just like the color yellow? :?

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 03:32 PM
This is for those of us who don't yet have the option to move to expert.

And I love the color yellow. It matches so well with my helmet and brings out the color of my eyes. :lol:

gsnyder828
September 10th, 2009, 03:46 PM
This is for those of us who don't yet have the option to move to expert.


Help me understand why you don't have that option?

rybo
September 10th, 2009, 04:20 PM
In my opinion, this is a major change of the schedule to add novice racers on the expert grids.

Casey,

One of the reasons I made this proposal is that it is exactly ZERO change to the schedule. The July 26th race there were 14 bikes on the grid in MW SS, and 21 in MWSB. By any measure we really can't call these "full" grids. ROR U only had 15, and that is what we call the premier class that caters exactly to the 20%. Hell, us old slow guys in Twins U fielded 14 bikes (the same as MW SS) and we ran with the second wave of Modern Vintage GTO.

What I'm driving at here is that the argument that the "grid will be too big" is an argument for a problem that we AREN'T even close to having.

Looking at the other classes:

Novice U - 34
Amateur U- 32
Novice O - 41
Amateur O - 28

Now, here is where it gets interesting:

LW/MW endurance = 40 riders total

This is the situation you speak of with some of the fastest most aggressive 600 riders and some of the slowest least experienced novices together on the same track at the same time. Not only that, but the length of the race means that the slower riders are getting lapped multiple times. On the 26th the slowest rider was lapped 6 times by the fastest rider.

From watching the starts and races carefully I honestly believe that we can run 50 to 60 bikes on the track at HPR in a race environment with properly trained riders (which I believe we have in spades). A 2 wave start with 30 bikes per wave scored separately for novice and expert seems like a reasonable and safe solution to expanding what the club can offer to it's members.

Ben:

In the review of results I just did I have to agree with you and at the very least this rule proposal goes a small step towards offering (2) more 1000CC classes to our novices. I also agree that further tapping our REGULAR existing membership is a hard way to go, but I see this as a way to give the occasional racers (and we have a lot of them) more of a reason to come. Some of my biggest costs in a race weekend involve getting to and from the track. If I can get more bang for my buck while I'm there, then why wouldn't I?


Are we doing this to better support the Novice rider who only shows up on Sunday and happens to run a 1000cc so he can race more then one race?

I dont think that rider falls under the 80% we are worried about right?

Sorry to pick on you Casey, but you ask good questions. We should be worried about 100% of the racers, and the needs of some groups of racers are mutually exclusive to the needs of other groups. In the end it's a delicate balance of taking care of the whole club in the amounts that they need to continue to want to come racing.

Ben: Re Contingency

Who knows? The contingency sponsors put together their packages based on what classes we offer. They may or may not offer contingency for these classes, but I'm guessing they will. These classes offer a direct advancement to classes that share exactly the same rules as an expert.

CO750: Re: limiting which novices are allowed to race

Again I think this has been answered in several ways, one is using the existing heat race system once the grid gets too big.

That being said see the note above about the LW/MW endurance and the speed differential in that class.

oldtimer: Re underestimating the turn out for these classes

I would be pleasently surprised if we "underestimated" anything to do with turn out or revenue generation for the club next year.

I'm glad to see that this topic has developed some lively discussion.

Scott (aka Rybo)

snay
September 10th, 2009, 04:39 PM
just my opinion I'm not looking to get any points or cash just more sprint races i can run in

Shawn - out of curiousity, why don't you move up to expert? :?: Then you can run MWSS, MWSB, HWSS, HWSB, OSS, OSB, MWEnd, Open End, AmU and AmO on your 600 and 1000.

That's 10 classes in a weekend! \:D/This was my first year ever on a race track I'm hoping get a few trophy's and move up !next year i will work hard this off season miller Vegas and prump on riding and my cardio and see how it goes next year.

gsnyder828
September 10th, 2009, 05:05 PM
LW/MW endurance = 40 riders total

This is the situation you speak of with some of the fastest most aggressive 600 riders and some of the slowest least experienced novices together on the same track at the same time. Not only that, but the length of the race means that the slower riders are getting lapped multiple times. On the 26th the slowest rider was lapped 6 times by the fastest rider.



Scott - all due respect, but I don't think it's fair to compare a 30 minute amateur class endurance race involving (maybe) some tire $$ to the top 5 with a 7 lap sprint with national level bounty hunters + all our fast guys going after real manufacturer's contingency dollars.

Apples and oranges.

The endurance races may have a handful of our fast guys, but the sprints certainly have more/deeper talent and a higher level of "urgency" since the top guys are battling for their paycheck on some weekends.




What I'm driving at here is that the argument that the "grid will be too big" is an argument for a problem that we AREN'T even close to having.


I agree - but why approach the issue by incenting novices to stay novices rather than incenting novices to move to expert and filling the expert grids? They're the light grids - not the novice grids. Added benefit is more classes to run once you bump up.

It seems like we're looking to establish a perpetual novice class by adding more and more incentive to stay novice rather than adding incentives to move to expert.

Heck, you don't even have to do service hours anymore. That was a big motivator for me to move to expert - since it meant a 1/2 day of work instead of riding. Now you write what - a $50 check?

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 05:47 PM
This is for those of us who don't yet have the option to move to expert.


Help me understand why you don't have that option?

Well, I'm speaking of myself and others who weren't able to race every round and finish high enough in the points to qualify to "move up". Or even first year racers.

For those people who only make 4-5 weekends, this gives them more options to race. And for those who are at every round, they get even more time on the track.

Scott: I only think there should be some sort of qualifying for novices because I don't think the whole NovU/O grids should just be duplicated behind the experts. It doesn't seem fair to the experts riders who are chasing contingency to have to weave through 40+ other riders. But I think that about the top half of the novice grids would be a good compromise.

And just to clarify, I don't stand to benefit in either situation. Unless my right hand magically learns where the gas is this winter, I probably wouldn't be eligible to race in these classes under the type of proposal I suggested. And I wouldn't unless I thought I could be competitive and not be a safety hazard as a back marker.

benfoxmra95
September 10th, 2009, 06:24 PM
Snyder hit one of my points I was making earlier this year.

There's no real incentive to move to novice. And when you are a novice an get bumped because you finished well enough you are posed with the question of spending a crapload of money on a "supersport" bike.

I have talked to numerous novices over the years who purposefully stayed novice to collect novice contingency.

Scored51
September 10th, 2009, 06:26 PM
In my opinion, this is a major change of the schedule to add novice racers on the expert grids.

Casey,

Now, here is where it gets interesting:

LW/MW endurance = 40 riders total


There were actually 49 riders scored by the transponder system during that race and I believe the sign ups were for had 41 for MW End and 13 for LW End totaling 54 bikes.

marty
September 10th, 2009, 06:50 PM
maybe we could combine a couple of rule changes to appeal to everyone. what if we did an expert "show room stock" class gtu/gto (cases covers and tires for mods) and as a second wave have a sunday novice grid. this would keep the expert classes novice free except for two, and give the sunday novices two more classes to run.

polar x
September 10th, 2009, 08:18 PM
I walked thru the pits sunday and spoke with several riders and asked their opinion on what they wanted and thought was important for the new clubs president to tackle. How to keep novices and get more novices in the club was in the top 3. If we don't cater to the novices how can we expect them to keep coming back and become the experts of the future?

I dont see how adding nov races to our existing scheds will keep the novices from moving up. Frankly with out them we as a club will not grow. We need to structure the club to be what the customer wants. I am not saying to ignore the experts but the experts wont keep this club healthy. More novices will.

I like the idea and if it ends up with huge grids and problems with to many bikes, well thats a GREAT problem to have that we can fix if the time comes.

froth
September 10th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Just to hit the large grid situation. LW and MW endurance, with the 54 machines was, to say the least FUN! Sometime around the third lap, LW was mixing in with the MW back markers, and it was a hoot.
If we wind up with two (large) wave starts, great. As the man said, we can deal with that issue when it arrives, but as for being in the 54 bike situation, the track wasn't crowded, and when we got four or five of us in a turn......that's why they call it racing.
Very good discussion gang! I'm enjoying reading what everyone is thinking, as well as why they think that way.

dirkterrell
September 10th, 2009, 09:35 PM
As one of the slowpoke novices, I'll weigh in with my view on things. This is a healthy discussion and I can see it from the point of view of the fast experts as well as my own slow novice viewpoint. Good points made by all.

I'm trying to get better by getting instruction and riding more. Having more races appeals to me, especially since I'm on a 750. I race for fun, pure and simple. I don't care about points or trophies. I was doing Nov-O but bailed on it because with the huge grids and huge range of skills, it was just too dicey. I just saw too much dicey passing and decided it wasn't worth it. I was even run into once (not bumped, nearly knocked off the bike). I have no problem with close racing and even trading paint but I don't enjoy being run (slammed) into.

It seems to me that what we need is a way for novices with more similar skill sets to race each other. I really think that the whole GTU/GTO concept is not optimal at the novice level. Look at the number of 600s in the top 10 of Nov-O. Clearly at this level the bike is a much less important part of the equation than the riders. What we really need is a classification based on rider skills that offers a more graduated way of progressing towards expert status, maybe something like Nov-A, Nov-B, Nov-C where Nov-A is like sportsman and Nov-C is like Nov-O. I know this doesn't have the elegance of the solution Scott is offering and it might be difficult to implement, but it's an idea that seems worth exploring, at least from the point of view of a slow novice looking to get better.

Dirk

CO750
September 10th, 2009, 09:58 PM
With that idea all you are doing is taking the novice grid, splitting it in thirds, and adding two races to the schedule, but not allowing a novice to race in any more events than before.

Really, that is what sportsman is for. If you don't feel comfortable on the big novice grid you race in sportsman.

I'm not trying to jump on your case, and I am a slow novice myself, but you don't get faster racing in sportsman, or NovU/O. If you really want to get faster you need to put in time on the track outside of races working on different aspects of your skills.

racedk6
September 11th, 2009, 12:31 AM
Snyder hit one of my points I was making earlier this year.

There's no real incentive to move to novice. And when you are a novice an get bumped because you finished well enough you are posed with the question of spending a crapload of money on a "supersport" bike.

I have talked to numerous novices over the years who purposefully stayed novice to collect novice contingency.

If you look at the top 3-5 in NOV and AM, they are running times either on par or not much off the SS times. Yes some have modified bikes but some like myself and Cromer do not. Our mods are all bolt on mods that almost anybody can afford and most are the standard on what gets put on a race bike when you build one or buy one.

cromer611
September 11th, 2009, 05:48 AM
if the goal is to collect more money for the club with entrees. why not move Novice classes to sunday, rather than let novices race with experts. just my opinion.
-oh and you dont need to spend a shit ton of dough to run in supersport : ) the key to that is in your wrist and two fingers. : P

dragos13
September 11th, 2009, 06:25 AM
Scott - all due respect, but I don't think it's fair to compare a 30 minute amateur class endurance race involving (maybe) some tire $$ to the top 5 with a 7 lap sprint with national level bounty hunters + all our fast guys going after real manufacturer's contingency dollars.

Apples and oranges.

The endurance races may have a handful of our fast guys, but the sprints certainly have more/deeper talent and a higher level of "urgency" since the top guys are battling for their paycheck on some weekends.




What I'm driving at here is that the argument that the "grid will be too big" is an argument for a problem that we AREN'T even close to having.


I agree - but why approach the issue by incenting novices to stay novices rather than incenting novices to move to expert and filling the expert grids? They're the light grids - not the novice grids. Added benefit is more classes to run once you bump up.

It seems like we're looking to establish a perpetual novice class by adding more and more incentive to stay novice rather than adding incentives to move to expert.

Heck, you don't even have to do service hours anymore. That was a big motivator for me to move to expert - since it meant a 1/2 day of work instead of riding. Now you write what - a $50 check?

Great points Geoff.

Steve, if the Novice riders are on par with SS riders, then maybe they should just finish the season and move to white plates. I still dont understand the point or revenue that will come from this. As a novice, you can run novice classes and then get your "expert" fix running Amateur. Once you finish your novice year (which normally should only be one year to begin with if you are wanting to move up) then you can still dominate in Amateur and get your feet wet in SS and SB. What is the need for a first year novice to battle with on an all expert grid? I have no problem with someone like yourself running with experts as I expect to be doing that next year with you anyways. I just feel like we need to get novices into white plates and fill our ACTUAL expert grids. I would love to have 30 experts gridded up in MWSS. Plus with the HIGH level of skill from our Novices last year, I think we are going to be doing pretty well there.

Scott, I know you said 0 impact to the schedule, however there will definitely be an increase in time for these races to finish. Also, an increase in crashes due to have an additional group on the grid. Endurance is definitely not the same as a sprint race as you are talking about Matt Lynn, Jason Disalvo, Kane Laski, and so on. Those guys are head hunting for money and are on a SPRINT race. They are not on the slower pace of an endurance since they sometimes have several thousand dollars on the line.

Marty, I really agree with your idea of creating another superstock type beginner class. That will give them more classes to choose from, and still keep the incentive of becoming an expert to ride expert classes.

Chris, if all we do is cater to the Novice riders then we might as well just make all classes novice classes. Here we are already talking about cutting/combining our PREMIER class. Now we also want to make every expert class tagged on by a Novice class? How does the thought of lap traffic appeal to our experts? Next year all the fast Novices will be bumped to white plates and running these expert classes anyways. The ones who were not bumped and choose not to progress, again, will stay in the novice classes.

I agree that Novice riders are what keep this club alive so why dont we do more to make it easier to get them on the grid? Most new riders dont jump on board because its so damn expensive. So we are going to respond with "hey now you can run 10 classes". I mean thats several sets of tires and lots of gas.

I hope we can keep our focus on bringing in new riders and spectators, appealing to the experts as well as the novices, and get this club to grow. So, why dont we create more classes that will give new riders easier ways to get involved? I mean, each person who chooses to run an additional race only brings in what $20 for a 3rd or 4th race? Will that really amount to much? Wouldnt' it be better to get a couple trackday guys out here, running a superstreet class, and geting 1st entry and 2nd entry fees collected? Just one race costs $140 so if we could get one new rider, that would equal about 7 novices joining these proposed classes. The math just doesn't add up to me.

dirkterrell
September 11th, 2009, 09:12 AM
Ok, I posted a reply to this thread last night after CO750's comments on my first post and now I don't see it. Hopefully I still have it cached on the laptop at home.

Dirk

gsnyder828
September 11th, 2009, 09:13 AM
I just feel like we need to get novices into white plates and fill our ACTUAL expert grids. I would love to have 30 experts gridded up in MWSS.

=D>

jplracing
September 11th, 2009, 09:24 AM
Okay here is my $.02

I completely agree with the efforts to increase revenue and provide more classes for someone on the outside looking in to get involved

But I think that two major points are being missed in this discussion.

1) When a new marketing plan (and this is what this suggestion really is) is developed in any business, it is built around data collected from the consumers. Has anyone thought of polling next years novices to see if they would be interested in this type of structure? My concern is this may increase the novice ranks by a few and add a few dollars to the revenue bucket, but would this really create NEW RIDERS or just spread out the current ranks over different classes? Honestly a question that I don't have the answer too.

2) In the last few months of attending the meetings and listing to what the current board had to say, it appears that the average racer spends $200 in entry fees per race weekend. Is this because of the current state of the economy and all they can afford or is this because of the class structure and all there bikes are eligible for? My guess is that over the past two seasons, money has been a more important factor to the individual racer. My gut feeling is that the economy isn't going to be that much stronger (and god forbid could be worse next summer). Should we be looking at ways to provide a bigger bang for the dollar that is already being spent?

I personally believe that this could be one piece to the financial puzzle that we are searching for so that we don't end up in the same boat next year as we did this year. However, as with most things in life, 20% of the club is responding in this thread....I think it is vastly more important to get the opinion of the 80% that isn't involved in this discussion and the opinions of the people that are thinking about becoming racers next year.

Joe

benfoxmra95
September 11th, 2009, 09:34 AM
if the goal is to collect more money for the club with entrees. why not move Novice classes to sunday, rather than let novices race with experts. just my opinion.
-oh and you dont need to spend a shit ton of dough to run in supersport : ) the key to that is in your wrist and two fingers. : P


You haven't been racing in the club long enough to know that the Spirit of the supersport rules have changed dramatically over the years.

Your idea of a "shit ton of dough" and mine are two different things.

My idea of a shit ton of dough on a supersport bike is:

An exhaust system
power commander
fork revalve, no cartridges
rear shock

The current supersport idea of a shit ton of dough is:

exhaust system
fork cartridges
radial brake master
shock
air filter
traction control
kit ecu
kit harness
milled head
milled cases
kit head gasket
$25 a gallon fuel
I know im missing some other things here so: etc...etc....etc.....

elvis8310@hotmail.com
September 11th, 2009, 10:28 AM
some guys would like to win a novice championship, and still compete with the experts given the opportunity... cromer comes to mind.

If you limit novices to 110%, then shouldn't the experts be held to the same standard? there are many experts who are slower than slow, even by slow guy standards - and they run in these sorts of classes.

remember in order to be successful financially we need to cater to the 80% not the 20%...

AFM has no lap time limits. The fastest guy is on pole, the slowest guy in the back. they make no differentiation between Novice & Expert.

Hell, yes tell it how it is =D>

T Baggins
September 11th, 2009, 11:08 AM
So, why dont we create more classes that will give new riders easier ways to get involved? I mean, each person who chooses to run an additional race only brings in what $20 for a 3rd or 4th race? Will that really amount to much? Wouldnt' it be better to get a couple trackday guys out here, running a superstreet class, and geting 1st entry and 2nd entry fees collected? Just one race costs $140 so if we could get one new rider, that would equal about 7 novices joining these proposed classes. The math just doesn't add up to me.

Casey - the two ideas are not mutually exclusive. There are discussions about doing BOTH, and if we're successful in implementing BOTH then the math will REALLY add up. :wink:

dirkterrell
September 11th, 2009, 01:46 PM
Ok, I'm not sure what happened to the post I made last night but I'll try to recreate it...


With that idea all you are doing is taking the novice grid, splitting it in thirds, and adding two races to the schedule, but not allowing a novice to race in any more events than before.


No, the idea is to replace Sportsman, Nov-U and Nov-O with Nov-A, Nov-B and Nov-C. Slower riders could ride up if they wanted to but faster riders couldn't ride down. Now, this would reduce the number of races that the fastest riders could run but with Scott's plan, they would ride up into the new classes he proposes.



Really, that is what sportsman is for. If you don't feel comfortable on the big novice grid you race in sportsman.


I'm well aware of what Sportsman is intended for. What I'm proposing is to take that idea a step further. The current scheme for the novice classes results in huge grids of riders with very different skill levels. I'm trying to think of a way to smooth it out a bit. If the results of these races are based so clearly on skill and not on the bike, why do we run them that way?



I'm not trying to jump on your case, and I am a slow novice myself, but you don't get faster racing in sportsman, or NovU/O. If you really want to get faster you need to put in time on the track outside of races working on different aspects of your skills.

Well, maybe you don't get faster by racing but I do. And I don't get faster by running against people who are tens of seconds a lap faster than me. I get faster by chasing someone who is a second or two faster than me and, more importantly, I have a lot more fun, especially when I don't have to constantly worry about getting taken out by someone who's fast but inexperienced with making passes on significantly slower riders.

I get passed all the time by experts in endurance and I've never had a problem with them because they know how to do it. I have had quite a few passes in Nov-O that were close to taking me out. Now, one response might be "Grow a set and deal with it." I prefer to try to think of ways to allow people to enjoy the competition of racing and do so more safely.

Dirk

hcr25
September 11th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Side note...
The sportsman class was designed for novice and amateur racers to get the chance do a complete a full race if the did not qualify in the heat race. Heat races are held when we have too many racers signed up for a nov/am class. They are 3 lap races. In the past if you did not qualify in your heat race you were done, you got 3 lapds for your entry fee! The sportsman class was then designed to give the non qualifiers a full length race for free if they had signed up and did not qualify in the novice or amateur heat race.
This is what it was designed for.

mike

gsnyder828
September 11th, 2009, 02:09 PM
This is what it was designed for.

mike

Which of course begs the question - since we haven't had heat races in years, should we scrap Sportsman and make room for another class?

CO750
September 11th, 2009, 04:42 PM
With that idea all you are doing is taking the novice grid, splitting it in thirds, and adding two races to the schedule, but not allowing a novice to race in any more events than before.


No, the idea is to replace Sportsman, Nov-U and Nov-O with Nov-A, Nov-B and Nov-C. Slower riders could ride up if they wanted to but faster riders couldn't ride down. Now, this would reduce the number of races that the fastest riders could run but with Scott's plan, they would ride up into the new classes he proposes.

Dirk

OK, I thought you were proposing to break up both NovU and NovO into three separate races based on speed.

But with this, you actually lower the amount of races available to run in. A lot of novices run both U and O races and this would actually now reduce the amount of entry fees collected and opportunities to race on any given weekend. I see your point in matching speeds more closely, but I just don't see this as something that would increase races and entry fees.

And again, I'm not trying to attack you our your idea, or anyone else's for that matter. I'm just fully interested in being able to race more next year and for the club to be better off financially.

Mike- I didn't know that was the original purpose of the Sportsman class. I thought that since you timed out for running too fast, it was intended for some of the slower riders to race more competitively in a smaller grid.

dirkterrell
September 11th, 2009, 05:13 PM
But with this, you actually lower the amount of races available to run in. A lot of novices run both U and O races and this would actually now reduce the amount of entry fees collected and opportunities to race on any given weekend. I see your point in matching speeds more closely, but I just don't see this as something that would increase races and entry fees.


Not really. The slowest riders run Nov-A and Nov-B (and Nov-C if they like, meaning that the riders most in need of more seat time can get it). The medium riders do Nov-B and Nov-C. The fast riders run Nov-C and Nov-MWSS or whatever other 2nd wave expert classes they qualify for under Scott's proposal. Only the fastest riders are really affected, and this encourages them to move up towards expert status, which from what I'm hearing, is what our more experienced riders are saying they should be doing.

Dirk

gsnyder828
September 11th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Not really. The slowest riders run Nov-A and Nov-B (and Nov-C if they like, meaning that the riders most in need of more seat time can get it). The medium riders do Nov-B and Nov-C. The fast riders run Nov-C and Nov-MWSS or whatever other 2nd wave expert classes they qualify for under Scott's proposal. Only the fastest riders are really affected, and this encourages them to move up towards expert status, which from what I'm hearing, is what our more experienced riders are saying they should be doing.

Dirk

Dirk - I think this is one of the most interesting and creative proposals I've seen. It merits serious consideration IMO.

Scored51
September 11th, 2009, 05:36 PM
What about this scenario. If Sportsman were removed from the schedule and Novice classes are created to run as second waves as suggested, the current contingency monies in the novice classes could be moved to these new second wave classes and the remaining Novice classes effectively become the new Sportsman class.

CO750
September 11th, 2009, 06:28 PM
Not really. The slowest riders run Nov-A and Nov-B (and Nov-C if they like, meaning that the riders most in need of more seat time can get it). The medium riders do Nov-B and Nov-C. The fast riders run Nov-C and Nov-MWSS or whatever other 2nd wave expert classes they qualify for under Scott's proposal. Only the fastest riders are really affected, and this encourages them to move up towards expert status, which from what I'm hearing, is what our more experienced riders are saying they should be doing.

Dirk

So you are proposing to do this as well as add the second wave novice classes? I thought you were intending this instead of adding the second wave classes.

In that case then I definitely see merit with this idea since no one is losing seat time and can actually race more.

Do you set up a breakout time for the a and b groups after which a rider is ineligible in those classes? or how do you see determining who fits where?

dirkterrell
September 12th, 2009, 12:05 AM
So you are proposing to do this as well as add the second wave novice classes? I thought you were intending this instead of adding the second wave classes.


Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear.



In that case then I definitely see merit with this idea since no one is losing seat time and can actually race more.

Do you set up a breakout time for the a and b groups after which a rider is ineligible in those classes? or how do you see determining who fits where?

Yes, I think carefully considered lap time cut-offs would be the way to go. I would start by looking at the spread of lap times currently in Nov-U and Nov-O and then setting the cutoffs based on that. And I haven't thought about that too carefully yet but it might not be an even division that is best. Let's think about that more.

And Chris, I haven't thought about contingency stuff either yet. Maybe just Nov-C or eliminate it and move that money to the new classes that Scott proposes, as you suggest. My first thought is that you don't do contingencies for these three novice classes to avoid sandbagging, but I'd like to hear opinions from both sides.

And thanks Geoff. I appreciate your willingness to consider the idea.

Dirk

snay
September 12th, 2009, 03:15 AM
So you are proposing to do this as well as add the second wave novice classes? I thought you were intending this instead of adding the second wave classes.


Yes, sorry I didn't make that clear.



In that case then I definitely see merit with this idea since no one is losing seat time and can actually race more.

Do you set up a breakout time for the a and b groups after which a rider is ineligible in those classes? or how do you see determining who fits where?

Yes, I think carefully considered lap time cut-offs would be the way to go. I would start by looking at the spread of lap times currently in Nov-U and Nov-O and then setting the cutoffs based on that. And I haven't thought about that too carefully yet but it might not be an even division that is best. Let's think about that more.

And Chris, I haven't thought about contingency stuff either yet. Maybe just Nov-C or eliminate it and move that money to the new classes that Scott proposes, as you suggest. My first thought is that you don't do contingencies for these three novice classes to avoid sandbagging, but I'd like to hear opinions from both sides.

And thanks Geoff. I appreciate your willingness to consider the idea.

DirkI dont know why we need to add a,b,c nov just leave it as is and look at letting us Nov's that are qualified to to run some expert races that will fill the grids and extra cash for are club the bord can decide if there is room and who can race by lap time. just my opinon :mrgreen:

dirkterrell
September 12th, 2009, 10:40 AM
I dont know why we need to add a,b,c nov just leave it as is and look at letting us Nov's that are qualified to to run some expert races that will fill the grids and extra cash for are club the bord can decide if there is room and who can race by lap time. just my opinon :mrgreen:

Just maybe there are benefits to looking at things we can do for others than just the fastest guys? :)

Dirk

Scored51
September 12th, 2009, 11:34 AM
And Chris, I haven't thought about contingency stuff either yet. Maybe just Nov-C or eliminate it and move that money to the new classes that Scott proposes, as you suggest. My first thought is that you don't do contingencies for these three novice classes to avoid sandbagging, but I'd like to hear opinions from both sides.

Dirk

You may find some contingencies pay across all classes in the MRA even if they are label non-compete classes like Sportsman. I just didn't want to see the current rewards paid out to be lessened because it would now be divided between the two waves, expert and novice, in a given class. Furthermore, if the contingency is stripped away from Novice GTU/GTO it provides the best incentive to move up the licensing ladder.

mbohn
September 12th, 2009, 01:09 PM
Just maybe there are benefits to looking at things we can do for others than just the fastest guys? :)

Dirk
It's a valid point. To paraphrase an old statistics joke: more than half the racers finished slower than the median time. Meaning that the bulk of the entry fees come from guys who show less-than-stellar performance on track. So, yes it makes sense financially to consider these folks. For example: I've met several novices who avoid NU/NO and the reason they do is fixable.

JWinter
September 16th, 2009, 09:08 PM
Why don't we set up a couple of Q and A sessions with potential riders??? Advertise on the CSC forums and advertise at the local bike shops or hang outs. We are racers, why not ask the potential racer what they want?

All I have read here is our thoughts NOT the outsiders thoughts. Is it the cost of bike prep? Is it the cost of entries? Is it the lack of novice classes? Is it lack of novice classes on Sunday?

I strongly support the super street bike class and I think it is our best option for 2010. It will be cheap entry fees, cheap bike prep, and will give the new rider a taste.

I am willing to set up a Q and A session up north. I don't want to make a change that has little or no impact.

Jeff

CO750
September 17th, 2009, 09:52 PM
You have a valid point about contacting racers and getting their opinions. I believe we should do that.

This idea is not necessarily aimed at attracting new racers though. It is more about appealing to current novices and getting them involved in more races. I wouldn't want to base these decisions on the opinions of people who probably, wont be racing next year.