So, a few years ago I had a rather radical idea for changing the MRA by eliminating all of the "niche" classes and getting back to the basics. It never took off, and I didn't really think it would. I just wanted to stimulate some outside the box thinking. Well, I'm at it again. In my opinion (worth exactly what you're paying to read it) the MRA has a few problems:

1) Running late way too often
2) Two many underpopulated classes, which makes for boring track time, both for the riders and the spectators
3) Racers aren't getting enough "bang for their buck" - too little track time each weekend
4) The limited number of rounds makes it difficult to recover points-wise from a bad weekend (somewhat addressed by the recent rules change)
5) Money! We all know that the club is having problems.

I have a suggestion that may solve a lot of these problems. The suggestion is based off of what I see in the car racing programs that also use the track. The SCCA, for instance, has approximately 1.4 million classes (I may be exaggerating a little, but not by much) and it simply isn't feasible for them to run each class individually, so they run "run groups" for practice, qualifying and racing. Each "run group" is made up of several different classes of cars that are generally compatible on the track together. So, in each "run group" there may be a half dozen different races going on, each scored separately. Additionally, they stay on schedule religiously by running races according to elapsed time, not lap count. Races simply cannot run long - if it's a 25 minute race, it's over in 25 minutes regardless of the number of laps completed.

I think the MRA should consider adopting a similar approach. Doing so will greatly increase the amount of track time each entrant will get, every event will be a double header which has a huge impact on the points chases, and it will allow the raceday to be scheduled much more efficiently. Additionally, it would get the riders more track time, enough that I don't think it would benefit the track to run motorcycle lapping on Fridays (we would run cars every Friday). The club could then charge for practice on Saturday and bank the extra $$, and the riders wouldn't feel they have to take Friday off to be competitive. Finally, there would be no guessing what time the program would be done at the end of the day.

So, here's a starting point for how each weekend would run:

Saturday:
Practice broken down by lap times, not by expert/novice
800-820 Slow (over 2:15)
820-840 Med (1:55 - 2:15)
840-900 Fast (under 1:55)
900-920 Slow
920-940 Med
940-1000 Fast
1000-1020 Slow
1020-1040 Med
1040-1100 Fast
1100-1120 Slow
1120-1140 Med
1140-1200 Fast

1200-100 Lunch

100-200 Superstreet

200-500 3hr endurance

That's right, instead of the traditional 30 minute endurance races we would have a 3 hour at every round (or a 2 hour and be done at 4:00, or ???), and no sprint races on Saturday. Why get rid of the 30 minute endurance? Keep reading...

On Sunday, we would go to the "run group" scenario. The run groups would look something like this:

Group 1
COLO
LOR
LWGP
MVGTU
NGTU

Group 2
MVGTO
MWSS
NGTO
250
STGTU

Group 3
AGTU
F40
HWSS
OSB
Thunderbike

Group 4
AGTO
HWSB
OSS
STGTO
MWSB

Group 5
RoR (combined)

Each group session would be 40 minutes long. 4 minutes for a warmup lap and gridding, 32 minutes for the race, and 4 minutes for cool down. The Sunday schedule would look like this:

800-820 Slow Practice
820-840 Medium Practice
840-900 Fast Practice

900-940 Group 1 race
940-1020 Group 2 race
1020-1100 Group 3 race
1100-1140 Group 4 race
1140-1220 Group 5 race

1220-100 Lunch

100-140 Group 1 race
140-220 Group 2 race
220-300 Group 3 race
300-340 Group 4 race
340-420 Group 5 race

Obviously, this could be tweaked. Lots of options.

But, think of this - a rider with a SS legal 600 could practice Saturday morning and/or run the 3 hour Saturday afternoon. Then on Sunday you could enter MWSS, MWSB and RoRU, and this gets you *SIX* 32 minute races. This would also allow each racer 14 opportunities (2 races per weekend * 7 weekends) to earn points for each class. This means that a single bad finish has minimal impact on your championship standings. A Novice coming in with a 600 running NGTU and AGTU would get four 32 minute races per Sunday. A Novice with a 1000 could do the same running NGTO and AGTO.

What's the downside? I can think of a few things, none of which are deal breakers in my opinion:
- It would obviously have an impact on guys like Moham that like to run every freaking class we have. The opportunity to do that would be limited somewhat depending on how the grouping was done, but at the end of the day I think even someone like Moham would see an increase in the amount of track time he gets each weekend. With the proper bike selection you could run in every group and do TEN 32 minute races on Sunday. Talk about Iron Man!
- There would be more traffic and speed differential. I imagine a lot of people will argue that it's unsafe. However, I don't see it being any worse than our current 30 minute endurance races, and certainly not worse than the 4 hour. It also wouldn't be worse than the traffic at larger clubs like WERA and AFM that have huge grids and where every race is Experts in the first wave and Novices in the second. Currently, most of our races are only "races" until the first time the pack reaches turn 4. By then the field has sorted itself out and the riders are doing nothing more than turning laps until the finish. Makes for boring racing, both for the rider and the spectator. At the end of the day, the riders will adjust to the increased traffic and race accordingly.
- Obviously gridding strategy would have to be discussed, there are several different ways this could be approached. There may be scoring issues with having several separate races going on at once, but obviously the other clubs have figured this out so it's not insurmountable. Plus, we already have a few combined races going on now and it's not a problem.

So, that's my idea. As I said before, I didn't expect my previous idea to be considered seriously, but this is something I think the membership should discuss and the board should seriously consider.