Post season race schedule assessment

I like your idea, Ryan. I think that you'd have to offer full points for both races to prevent sandbaggers from doing poorly in the first race to grab pole for the second (with their sticker tires!). Not that I would ever do such a thing.

Like many of you, I have raced SCCA weekends too, and I like having two races during a weekend. More racing, less qualifying I say. As for back to back weekends, my budget makes me choose which races to run. I don't run for points, so I just choose about 5 or 6 (ideally) weekends per season to run.
 
OR SCCA had several weekends where they did 20 min qual in morn, 25 min race in afternoon. I liked those weekends, more racing for
the tow and travel time, same total amount of track time. 2 race weekends are OK.

I am with Kevin on this one, 2 day 2 race weekends are fantastic.

I do not like spending 1 ½ days practice/qualifying, if I need to practice I signup for the DT / HPDS.

Back to back weekends do not work for me!

I.M.O most drivers can only afford to do so many race weekends per season.
If you are racing in ICSCC and SCCA this leaves only a few weekends in ether venue per year, so the 2 day 2 race works well.

.02c

John Rissberger
#10 A/S Camaro
ICSCC & SCCA
 
I think it's important to have a practice session at the start of a weekend in case any gremlins come up, plus it gives you a chance to warm your brain up.
 
Once upon a time...

I remember seeing, on a race schedule, Pract/Qual sessions. It was a very long time ago, but the concept shouldn't be lost.

30 min pract/qual? I don't think it could be any worse than normal qualifying, but maybe those that were out there qualifying thought the others that those that were only practicing would be in the way, because I haven't seen a schedule like that for some many years.

Perhaps is was an SCCA schedule. The seasons go by so fast, it's kinda blurry after awhile.
 
One of the great reasons to have a Friday Test and Tune is that people can get out and look for Gremlins somewhere other than the short Saturday morning practice session. We have some serious time constraints that we cannot do anything about at Pacific Raceways which means at some races we have TEN minute sessions on Saturday morning. Compare that to the SEVEN minutes it takes to clear the track and get the next group out - we are spending nearly as much time and more effort BETWEEN sessions as we are letting drivers actually use that expensive track time for DRIVING. I would suggest that in that short session a driver barely has time to see if the car shifts, turns, and contains it's fluids properly. Certainly no setup or tuning gets done. I would suggest that if the practice period on Saturday is where you determine whether your car is properly prepared then that in itself poses a potential problem. (Just trying to see how many "p" words I can fit in a sentence!)

In all seriousness, we would be better running three LONG qualifying sessions before lunch on Saturday and the other three after lunch on Saturday. There would actually be time for a car to go out and run some qualifying laps, come into the hot pits, make a change, and go back out to see if it was quicker! Instead of running every group twice with the attendant breaks twice, you run each group once for longer and save the six 7 minute breaks - 42 minutes back in the schedule without costing anyone any on track time! Then run two races on Sunday - a fifteen or twenty minute long "sprint" race in the morning based on the previous days practice/qualifying session and a full 30 minute "feature" race in the afternoon gridded according to the finish of the sprint race. Two races per week-end, no loss of track time. Maybe make the points availabe for the shorter race a bit less than the feature. Something to think about.

Just a brainstorm - I encourage more thought into what a race week-end should look like. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the traditional race week-end, we should just always be looking at things to make sure we can't make them better. There are lots of really bright people in Conference, think about it a bit.
 
Last edited:
A number of people have suggested that the Friday TnT "replace" having a designated practice session. Yeah, although it sounds like an okay idea, I see a number of problems.
The first being that much of this conversation is revolving around cost, and doing a Friday TnT will run you an extra $160+. That's not saving you money.
Second, doing a Friday means taking an extra day off work for many people.
Third, usually, a racer doesn't need a whole day to check out his/her car, rather just a session out on track to make sure it all still works after last time.

I firmly believe we need to have a practice session (even the 10 minute ones do some good in the following cases).
If one has changed/repaired the car, we need a time to make sure it's not going to kill him/her or someone else.
Novices/upgrades are surely better off for having a "non-competitive" session before being thrown to the wolves.
If one has never been to that track, it's better to have driven even a few laps before trying to do it for qualifying.
 
Do the novices really use a whole 30 minute session for practice and qualifying? At ORP, they only got 20 minutes, like the rest of us. How did that work out?

Making the minutes count seems like a prime goal.

Since the practice sessions are not as stimulating, maybe we should just keep them to 10-12 minutes and put the difference into competitive sessions?
ORP could be an exception, as that track needs a bit more time and focus to get it down.

Additionally, we need to keep in mind what it was like to race when we were less experienced. We want to draw in new blood, not scare it off. What will bring them in and keep them? Be good to hear more from people who were recently novices.
 
I have been a half novice (did my schooling in SCCA) but attended a fair share over the past two years in ICSCC.

My personal opinion has always been more "race" seat time. That's why I have double entered as much as possible (even when that puts me at the very back of g1). You can't learn nearly what u do in a race just doing laps. And when you are getting started the most challenging steps are 1)consistency 2) find time/speed on your competition. So unless you are watching data or are waiting in pregrid to grab a spot next to them you never see them in practice or quali.

A race you start a row or two behind them and learn to "hunt". Where/when to pick ur time to make a move Vs. Lapping day in practice.

This definitely varies by car as there have been a few times where I have gone out with other 944s and asked for them to follow me for a lap or two... And then for a lap or two for me to follow. Which only can happen in practice.

I will email this thread to some other novices from this year fir feedback.
 
Karen - I have a lot of respect for the effort and improvement you and your team have made in the last couple years, so please don't take this the wrong way -
Your quote: "If one has changed/repaired the car, we need a time to make sure it's not going to kill him/her or someone else." The LAST place something like this needs to take place is during ANY hot track session. If there is any question as to the safety of a race vehicle for it's driver or any competitors, then it needs to be evaluated by someone who can confidently say without hesitation that it has been properly prepared for safe operation on a racetrack. The only difference between what we in Conference call "practice", "qualifying", and "race" is how the resulting lap times are used. All involve driving at high speed in close proximity to other race cars, all require a minimum standard of training, safety gear and construction, all are typically timed, and all require that participants drive in a way that protects their own safety and the safety of other drivers. Failures and faults do occur, but are no more likely to happen in practice than in qualifying or races. Anyone passing through the gate on their way to pregrid in a car that they intend to take out on a hot track to see if it is going to "kill him/her or someone else" is risking the existence of the club, the sanctioning body, and the sport as a whole. I just want you to know that I write this not as a disagreement that we need or don't need practice sessions - I'm more than content to consider anyone's opinion on how we want to use the track time we have. I just don't want anyone to get the idea that ANY session that is run on a hot track is an appropriate place to take a car that you are not sure is mechanically prepared for safe operation at racing speeds. The requirements are no less for any session regardless of how they are named.
 
I'm not the bean counter for any club, but I wonder... if ICSCC did go to some sort of schedule that involved two races per 2-day race weekend, how would that change the number of second entries? Second entries help get the weekend paid for.
 
Okay, Rick
Yes, but... I've had a number of times where things have conspired to make my car feel as though it wanted to kill me or someone else. Usually due to changes in conditions or once or twice to forgetting to change strut settings before practice (like between back-to-back weekends where the car didn't leave the trailer). Not changing strut settings on my car for Seattle makes it jump over every bump, and there's lots of them. It's no fun.

This last weekend at Seattle with the "aged" 3-yr-old tires and the colder temps, we found out Sat. that my car would try to float off turn 1. The weekend before at ORP, I guess I was able to keep enough heat in the tires for them to work okay, but by Seattle they had been worn done more and it was damper and colder. Net result: tires are done. On Sunday, I ran the only other set we had (somewhat used intermediates) and the car actually tried to stay on the track. :)

So, just saying, the time to find out if something's not right is during practice. And even a Friday practice is a "hot track". There is only so much you can do beforehand--some things have to be felt at speed.

Hope that came across right.
 
Last edited:
I'm not the bean counter for any club, but I wonder... if ICSCC did go to some sort of schedule that involved two races per 2-day race weekend, how would that change the number of second entries? Second entries help get the weekend paid for.

I would imagine that if we went to this type of schedule a few other things would have to change to accomodate it, allowing the clubs to maintain the current cashflow.

Logistically I would look at it like this from a scheduling/cost/income point of view:

1: The number of races in the season would have to expand, by double. If every "single" weekend became a "double" weekend then that would lead to us having a 24-30 race schedule without increasing the number of weekends.
2: Because of #1, our minimum race attendance to qualify for championship would greatly increase. So a racer might have to enter 15 races just to qualify for a championship... kind of cool.
3: We would have to do away with the 3 races per track rule and possibly increase it to a 6 races per track rule. However, the PR and Ridge conundrum with IRDC still eludes me.
4: Under the current setup, we make a good deal of extra $$ on 2nd entries as illustrated by Lance. However, with this new type of schedule would we lose 2nd run group entries?... I think so but would we lose money?
Currently we have primary drivers represented by X and lets say that 65% of those drivers enter a second run group but the 2nd run group is at a discounted rate (say 55% discount of primary entry) so for the value the drivers 2nd run group would be X(.65)-55%. (I know I put the formula together wrong but Math isn't my strong suit).
Just theoretically: Take a weekend with 300 entries (big weekend, I know). That means there were 182 primary entries in which 65% of those of drivers doubled entered giving us 300 entries. Ok, so the 182x$270/entry = $49,140. Then we have 118 double entries = 118x$150/2nd entry = $17,700 With a grand total of $66,840.

So let's assume that with this new proposed schedule we lost ALL of our second entries for sake of math and the club still issued a discounted rate for Sunday's races at the same rate they did for 2nd entries. Would we have 182x$270 and then we would have 182x$150. However lets assume there's some attrition and instead of 100% of our Saturday entrants running on Sunday and we lose 25% over night. So that equates to 136. 136x$150= $20,400. So $49,140 From Saturday and $20,400 from Sunday puts us at: $69,540. That's a gain and working under the assumption that 0 drivers ran secondary run group as well.

With that said, should it be implemented for every event next year? I don't know. However, it might be interesting to experiment with it at 1 or 2 weekends.

With that said, addressing this same thing from a driver's point of view.
1: I won't know if I like it until I try it.
2: I really like the idea of doing 4 sessions in a weekend in one group and now having 2 of them be races!
3: If it was the norm for every weekend I might enter 2 classes less sure, but I'd still rent to my dad meaning the car might see 4 races in a traditional weekend!
4: It would increase wear and tear on the car but that's racing and one of the reasons I race a Honda.


Another question: With this type of weekend (racing on sat and sunday) would that possibly increase entries on Friday T&T's?

That's my $.02.
 
I agree with Stuart, Greg, and Wes. I was one of the ICSCC drivers at the Sovren event and enjoyed the format. Five races on a continuing basis might be a bit much (see Wes's assessment of driver age) but the multiple race format is great. I too really enjoyed the Spokane event and hope they keep the format for next year. That said Karen brings up a good point about taking extra days off etc. I believe that a prac/qual and race Sat then race, race Sun is workable. If the newer folks don't like that then perhaps prac qual on Sat and race race Sun. In the off season last year there was much discussion about multiple race weekends and then fewer weekends overall, thus saving money for everyone including the sponsoring clubs, also precludes the expansion of races Colin talks about. I am in favor of any of the multiple race proposals. Someone stated that the first couple should be singles for car/driver shakedown, maybe not a bad idea; or perhaps the first weekend or two have a Fri TnT day, same travel money and less expensive to enter rather than a complete race weekend. Many possibilities but multiple races on a weekend are the way to go, more racing less qualifying. More bang for the travel buck is always good, for me 7 hrs to PIR is the closest track, personal problem I know. Wouldn't do it if I didn't love it.
 
I like some of Rick and Colin's thoughts. Maximizing the minutes available for actual on track activity is the key. Perhaps combining practice/qualifying Saturday am as Rick states to reduce the amount of "down time" as the track is being readied for the next session. I do think though that we should avoid a double race on Sunday of a 2 day weekend, but instead have a shorter sprint race Saturday pm which will set the grid for Sunday's main race with a short warmup session Sunday am. Having both races on Sunday, would mean 4 races if someone decides to double enter. Too much in one day IMO. Also, perhaps we reduce the length of Novice activity on Saturday at some of the tracks (PR) where time is critical. I just know that when I single enter, Saturday is a big bore with only morning practice and afternoon qualifying. That is why I enter the T&T's when I can.

Bill-
 
Colin your numbers are skewed a lil. your assuming that for only 2 session on track that the club would charge the same as they now charge for 4 sessions?
 
Colin your numbers are skewed a lil. your assuming that for only 2 session on track that the club would charge the same as they now charge for 4 sessions?

My numbers aren't skewed a little... They're scewed a lot. I don't have accurate figures or any real data so the only thing I had to work with was my pure imagination.

But for what you're specifically calling out, I was working under this perspective: On a single race weekend we are charged for 1 race. Even if an emergency happens, or there's a bad morning FOG and 1 or more of our practice/qual sessions gets deleted we don't get any type of discount because... We paid for 1 race, even if that one race gets shortened from 30 to 20 minutes, still 1 race. Most of the time I don't even go out for Practice and if it's scheduled to be sunny on Sunday and it's raining on Saturday, there's no point on going on track on Saturday, yet I don't feel like I've wasted any money as I'm there "For the Race". If I just needed track time solely for the purpose of kicks and giggles, there's T&T's and HPDE's for that.

I'm am NOT advocating that this viewpoint is correct but is the viewpoint I chose for the sake of putting together that math. If I were to say that since there would be fewer sessions per entry, that it would be fair to lower the price of the entry (which I'm impartial to) then I would calculate it like this:

Currently on a single race weekend at PR (assuming you're an IRDC member) the price broke down like this:
Primary Entry $275
Secondary Entry $150

So that Equals: $425.

If we were to run a "Double Single" as I'm calling it (Qual/Race on both Sat/Sun) and we were to NOT use my previously adopted viewpoint of "1 race" then it might be fair to cut that $425 in half then minus 25% and charge that for each day, and if you double enter (potentially getting 4 races in 2 days) there should be no discount for the double entry as primary entry is already discounted.

Example: ($425-25%) / 2 = $160 (roughly).

Scenario 1: On a regular Single Entry weekend a person single entering is spending $275.
Scenario 2: On a modified Double Single weekend a person single entering is spending $320.

In both scenarios the driver gets 4 sessions on track, however in Scenario 2 the driver gets to RACE TWICE! If you ask me that's work paying another $45 for! Also, the club makes more money. You want to talk about adding value, there you have it!

Disclaimer: I'm making all this up as I go along so Cum Grano Salis.
 
Colin your numbers are skewed a bunch! The reason for pushing double and triple week-ends is to elimanate races, not add them! If each track had one single and one double, with a triple thrown in once or twice we could have 12 or 13 races over 5 or 6 week-ends, saving us all thousands in fuel, motels, food, etc. It is a very simple and economic solution to our current issues guys.
The workers spend more time per day on course, but travel a lot less, as do we drivers, so it seems like a win-win to me.
 
Sorry Wes,

"The reason for pushing double and triple week-ends is to eliminate races"

General idea is to eliminate number of weekends NOT races. (just thought I would clarify that one, even though I knew what you meant)
 
Back
Top