Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
Conference President Kevin Skinner and at least a few of the various E-Board reps do check this forum, fwiw.
How many races is too many?
- Thread starter Randy Blaylock
- Start date
colin_koehler
Great SCOTT!
I disagree. What is bigger picture result of racers were allowed to be eligible for championship regardless of how many races they attend? If they only run 1 or 2 or 4 I don't see that being a problem but what is someone who could attend 14 weekends? They would win the championship by default simply because they had the time and $$ to do so. I like limiting the championship points to a maximum number of weekends but not a minimum. Winning should be more appropriately awarded as well. Is that what you're suggesting Michael?
I know it's not the topic in this thread but I think the point system is due for a change. It is my opinion that there is not enough disparity between 1st, 2nd and 3rd place points. Without having to change the points system, the change in number or race weekends or which ones (or how many) can count towards a championship could be a huge game changer in how much our "wins" actually mean.
I'm partially on the side of the PRO3 clan. I like racing, hell, I LOVE racing but if my time out on track doesn't mean anything (nobody in class to race closely with or no chance for a possible championship run) then I might as well save my money and stick to lapping days. I race to compete, I race to win and knowing that I have less people to compete with because there's too many race weekends and too many are spread too thin makes racing less fun for me. The Competition, the Points, the Championship is all about fun.
westipton
Well-known member
Cascade has had 4 races per year for a very long time, and have been unwilling to drop one in spite of frequent requests. So why would the 3 events put on by IRDC be a point of contention for anyone? Don't think Kenny meant it to be a slur, but it was confusing.
I can say that if the proposed schedule were to stay as is, CSCC would take a huge hit on their second event which follows PR and ORP in a 3 week back-to-back scenario that everyone hoped would not happen again anytime soon. If you have to throw out one PIR anyway, that would be the logical event to skip.
We did not pursue the double race week-end format for this current rules meeting because we ran out of time. We, as in numeorus drivers and very concerned workers will definitely discuss and submit a rules proposal for next November. Don't mean to beat a dead horse as this was posted and discussed a few months back, but it would solve a lot of scheduling issues and obviously give us more races and more track time in fewer week-ends. If the clubs charged full price for each day they would not lose anything, and the drivers would not pay anymore than they already do, so it is a win-win for all of us. If we DO NOT trim the schedule we will lose both workers and drivers who just can't afford the time off, the expense or the strain of a long expensive season.
I can say that if the proposed schedule were to stay as is, CSCC would take a huge hit on their second event which follows PR and ORP in a 3 week back-to-back scenario that everyone hoped would not happen again anytime soon. If you have to throw out one PIR anyway, that would be the logical event to skip.
We did not pursue the double race week-end format for this current rules meeting because we ran out of time. We, as in numeorus drivers and very concerned workers will definitely discuss and submit a rules proposal for next November. Don't mean to beat a dead horse as this was posted and discussed a few months back, but it would solve a lot of scheduling issues and obviously give us more races and more track time in fewer week-ends. If the clubs charged full price for each day they would not lose anything, and the drivers would not pay anymore than they already do, so it is a win-win for all of us. If we DO NOT trim the schedule we will lose both workers and drivers who just can't afford the time off, the expense or the strain of a long expensive season.
Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
The tentative schedule approved by the E-Board today is for 15 races on 11 week-ends. Also, the IRDC enduro is back to 4 hours and the Cascade enduro is back to 8 hours.
the_driver
Eric Blois
they would lose me as a driver for at least one of the days. but im in the minority with entry fees are the majority of my budget. but i only 5-7 races a year.
mikecolangelo
Well-known member
Actually, I agree with you. What I meant to say is that the current requirement of a minimum number of races run should be removed. I also support limiting the max number of races (not necessarily weekends) for championship points purposes and for the reasons that you stated.
westipton
Well-known member
If you think about it Eric a double race week-end would actually save you $$. Rather than attending 2 week-ends, you do one double for the same price but your travelling expenses are essentially halved. Reduces worker burn-out and saves us all a few week-ends, and substantial money, over the season.
As to making a championship easier to win, that would open some very interesting discussion for sure. Sovren awards championships based on the number of laps run and events attended rather than points, but that still requires going to all, or most of the events. If we redefine racing and structure it toward fun and easily won titles then does it cease to be true racing?
As to making a championship easier to win, that would open some very interesting discussion for sure. Sovren awards championships based on the number of laps run and events attended rather than points, but that still requires going to all, or most of the events. If we redefine racing and structure it toward fun and easily won titles then does it cease to be true racing?
robjacobsen
The Pros From Dover
Spokane is tentatively looking at a three race weekend next July. Racing on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Sound great to this volunteer, but how many race cars can take that much abuse? Does having three races make the trip over to the dry side of the state attractive to large numbers of racers? From where I stand, it seems like this deal should draw the largest turnout that Spokane has ever seen. With the new track.configuration and shortening of the long straight, it should be a blast.
the_driver
Eric Blois
the part i quoted if they charged entry fees for both days then i would not race both days because i can not afford 2 entries the same weekend. but like i said im in the minority with how small my budget is. i would have to look but i would not be surprised if its under 2500 for an entire year 5-7 races
Ken Killam
Fats
Considering that the costs of renting the facilities and other event related services should not double, with only the addition of the third day two points races should not require the clubs to increase entrie fees x2.
Certainly that becomes the decision of each operating club, but do the math. Two day rental for one points race as opposed to three days rental costs for a two points races. $ per race day should actually go down. Then theres Spokane...
That's some out 'o the box thinkin' there.
It would be nice if someone could post the accumulated TENTATIVE dates that have been submitted this weekend.
Certainly that becomes the decision of each operating club, but do the math. Two day rental for one points race as opposed to three days rental costs for a two points races. $ per race day should actually go down. Then theres Spokane...
That's some out 'o the box thinkin' there.
It would be nice if someone could post the accumulated TENTATIVE dates that have been submitted this weekend.
Last edited:
westipton
Well-known member
Two races over two days would be double per what club input I've received. If each club were to drop one event, (as in one double and one single week-end as opposed to 3 or 4 singles), then they would need to make that up, and giving a discount is not likely. I would agree that the $$ should drop slightly, but each club will have to crunch their numbers and go with their math. It would be nice to have that info early next year so we could pursue this format idea.
Three races in three days is quite the concept. If a driver were running for year end points he or she would definitely have to be there, and knowing NW they will make it a very attractive deal I'm sure!
Three races in three days is quite the concept. If a driver were running for year end points he or she would definitely have to be there, and knowing NW they will make it a very attractive deal I'm sure!
Stephen Hui
Member
I think you have it backwards. Currently the championship is structured to reward attendance over outright speed. Reducing the number of races counted would enlarge the pool of eligible drivers and ensure that winners would have to place well instead of just participating.
westipton
Well-known member
The current format was adopted many years ago because the fast guys just showed up for the big I-5 races and did not support the outlying venues. They cherry picked the points available at the well attended races and ignored the other events.
Currently you have to attend a good number of races to get a top 3 season finish in most of the tightly contested classes, which in my opinion is what winning a championship is truly all about.
I do agree that a reduction in the number of races would give more drivers a chance, and as has been discussed before would save us all $$ and time. In this economy a schedule with the same or more races than last year is gonna bite the clubs in the butt hard, so I trust the final 2011 schedule decided in January will be smaller, but I won't be holding my breath.
Currently you have to attend a good number of races to get a top 3 season finish in most of the tightly contested classes, which in my opinion is what winning a championship is truly all about.
I do agree that a reduction in the number of races would give more drivers a chance, and as has been discussed before would save us all $$ and time. In this economy a schedule with the same or more races than last year is gonna bite the clubs in the butt hard, so I trust the final 2011 schedule decided in January will be smaller, but I won't be holding my breath.
mikecolangelo
Well-known member
OK, I'm hearing that - tentatively at least - the 2011 schedule will have 15 races over 11 weekends. Under the current rules, to qualify for a championship, a driver needs to participate in at least half the races. That means that, for 2011, a driver will need to run in 8 races. Compared to many race organizations across the country (i.e., SCCA and NASA), 8 races is a full season or pretty close to it.
It sounds like a number of drivers here, including myself, would like to see the minimum number of races to be eligible for a championship reduced to a more wallet-friendly or time-friendly or family-friendly number. What should it be? 50% over a 10 race schedule was probably a good idea back in the day. Wes gave us the historical reason why. But 50% of a 15 or 16 race schedule, maybe no longer a good idea. Should the rule be amended to just a hard number such as 5 or 6 races (over 3 or 4 tracks) or should the min number of races be removed altogether as long as the driver races at a minimum of 3 or 4 different tracks during the season? I don't know the answer, I'm just thinking aloud.
What do you guys & gals think?
It sounds like a number of drivers here, including myself, would like to see the minimum number of races to be eligible for a championship reduced to a more wallet-friendly or time-friendly or family-friendly number. What should it be? 50% over a 10 race schedule was probably a good idea back in the day. Wes gave us the historical reason why. But 50% of a 15 or 16 race schedule, maybe no longer a good idea. Should the rule be amended to just a hard number such as 5 or 6 races (over 3 or 4 tracks) or should the min number of races be removed altogether as long as the driver races at a minimum of 3 or 4 different tracks during the season? I don't know the answer, I'm just thinking aloud.
What do you guys & gals think?
Last edited:
dan_heinrich
Active member
Mike,
This year if we have 15 races, you will only need 7 races to qualify for a championship. The rule (503 A.) states you round down if there are a odd number of races.
If you do the triple race in Spokane, the double race at Mission and the double race at ORP - you have just qualified for a championship in 3 weekends. If you wish to forgo one of the double races, go to two at Pacific and you qualify in 4 weekends. If you don't want to go to either double race, you can do two races at Pacific and two races at PIR and qualify for in 5 weekends.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This year if we have 15 races, you will only need 7 races to qualify for a championship. The rule (503 A.) states you round down if there are a odd number of races.
If you do the triple race in Spokane, the double race at Mission and the double race at ORP - you have just qualified for a championship in 3 weekends. If you wish to forgo one of the double races, go to two at Pacific and you qualify in 4 weekends. If you don't want to go to either double race, you can do two races at Pacific and two races at PIR and qualify for in 5 weekends.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
colin_koehler
Great SCOTT!
Mike, I think Dan covered your concern perfectly but from my point of view it's all moot. Unless you can tow and finish well in the maximum # of races it's next to impossible to consider yourself in the hunt for a championship. The difference between 1st and 2nd place is only 3 points and the difference between 2nd and 3rd place is only 2 points. What that says to me is that winning doesn't matter nearly as much as towing.
If I towed to 10 races and finished as low as 8th place (15 points) in every race, 8th PLACE!, I would have guaranteed myself 4th place in points! Where's the motivation to finish up front (besides obvious competition) as opposed to simply towing to every event and driving gingerly to guarantee myself a top spot in the championship if not the #1 spot? Many groups don't even have 8 cars so TOWING is even more advantageous than winning.
Mike, I was sitting down this winter and saying to myself, I want an ITA championship, especially after the banquet. After all this research it appears that instead of worrying about buying the "go-fast" parts for the race car (new final drive, better shocks, etc) so that I can win (because I REALLY like winning) I should instead put my $$ towards Hotel/gas/time-off-work (aka: Towing) so that I can finish 4th or 3rd place in more races, which doesn't seem very fun for me.
With my complaining aside, I see the bigger picture and the conundrum is quite obvious. According the function of points and towing being a bigger award than winning this means the clubs will potentionally see more participation at more events front drivers who are serious about the Championship. If this group of drivers (those who really fight for championship points) are more heavily awarded for winning, would this reduce the number of events they attended? Possibly so, and if my complaints about the point system fall on deaf ears then I understand. I don't want to see the clubs hurt financially.
The reason I didn't start a new thread about points is that number of races/money to race/points/championships all go together so I thought this applied to this topic.
Does anybody else have any insight on points or am I the only one that is a little caught off guard by this and is asking.... What's the point? (pun intended).
So now I'm back to scratching my head. Do I tow or do I win? Can I do both? Do I say screw it and only race at my local track so I have $$ to do the spring Enduro and Chumpcar racing instead of season of sprint races? My passion for racing is unwavering but now I'm asking what I want out of it since my original milestones have been achieved.
/end rant
If I towed to 10 races and finished as low as 8th place (15 points) in every race, 8th PLACE!, I would have guaranteed myself 4th place in points! Where's the motivation to finish up front (besides obvious competition) as opposed to simply towing to every event and driving gingerly to guarantee myself a top spot in the championship if not the #1 spot? Many groups don't even have 8 cars so TOWING is even more advantageous than winning.
Mike, I was sitting down this winter and saying to myself, I want an ITA championship, especially after the banquet. After all this research it appears that instead of worrying about buying the "go-fast" parts for the race car (new final drive, better shocks, etc) so that I can win (because I REALLY like winning) I should instead put my $$ towards Hotel/gas/time-off-work (aka: Towing) so that I can finish 4th or 3rd place in more races, which doesn't seem very fun for me.
With my complaining aside, I see the bigger picture and the conundrum is quite obvious. According the function of points and towing being a bigger award than winning this means the clubs will potentionally see more participation at more events front drivers who are serious about the Championship. If this group of drivers (those who really fight for championship points) are more heavily awarded for winning, would this reduce the number of events they attended? Possibly so, and if my complaints about the point system fall on deaf ears then I understand. I don't want to see the clubs hurt financially.
The reason I didn't start a new thread about points is that number of races/money to race/points/championships all go together so I thought this applied to this topic.
Does anybody else have any insight on points or am I the only one that is a little caught off guard by this and is asking.... What's the point? (pun intended).
So now I'm back to scratching my head. Do I tow or do I win? Can I do both? Do I say screw it and only race at my local track so I have $$ to do the spring Enduro and Chumpcar racing instead of season of sprint races? My passion for racing is unwavering but now I'm asking what I want out of it since my original milestones have been achieved.
/end rant
Lance Richert
Well-known member
I think the points as they are awarded, serve their purpose pretty well. And that is to reward participation. That's what most people are looking for in ICSCC; participation, friendly competition and comraderie. If someone wants to really test themselves in a championship then pick a class where you pretty much have to run every race to place high in the final standings. Then go run the season and see where the chips fall. Running for a championship should be hard (and in racing, add "expensive" as a natural by product), or why put it out there?
kyle_nickels
"The Okie"
Save some $$ for the CSCC enduro too Colin!!!
colin_koehler
Great SCOTT!
I see that and I'm all for awarding participation but I don't like it.
I think Rule 503a is sufficient enough to promote participation. Beyond that, how far do we need to go?
- Do we refrain from awarding winning too greatly for a reason that I can't see?
- Does Conference have a record of racers being too aggressive too often with a points system that hands out a larger percentage of points to the winner?
Lance, allow me a "what if scenario":
Imagine you and I are both millionaires and money is no issue the only thing that is a restriction in our lives is TIME. We both run PRO3. Say you had 5 Wins and I only had 1 but you had some "business" that kept you from attending 2 races and because of this I took 1st place in the championship even though you had 4 more wins. How would you view the significance or importance of the Championship?
That's what's in my head right now. All year and recently I've been saying to myself; "I really would like to win an ITA championship, maybe in 2011." Now, I'm looking at it and thinking, what's the point it doesn't even matter.
I understand both sides and to me the bigger-picture question is:
The clubs need participation but winners want to win. It appears that our points system awards participation and not winning. This is similar to AYSO Soccer or Youth Softball. Where's the happy medium?
I'm trying to focus on the merits of Towing vs. Winning. Winning a championship should be hard because winning is hard, towing is not. Towing is a waste of money that's a by-product of what we do and what we do is racing.
Winning happens so rarely in Racing in the grand scheme of things. To quote a wiser racer than myself:
And now, Lance, we've come full circle. Do I spend more Time and $$ on my car so that I can win races in a competitive group or do I transition that Time/Money into towing/hotel/entry fees for a championship even if it means consistently finishing 2nd, 3rd or 4th?
Decision decisions!
colin_koehler
Great SCOTT!
I think I'll be there for the Chump enduro, not the 8 hour. I have yet to talk someone who hasn't gone on and on about how much fun it is. Besides, how can you say no to a 72 car field!