Novice Waves in MW, HW, and Open Classes

[benfoxmra95]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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:

[dirkterrell]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.