Majors Points...

[Swift17]

QUERY? -- I just checked the Majors/SCCA web page for points and it only shows "one race" counted for PBIR - We finished all four (4) Florida races BUT only three (3) results listed

I then checked the Majors/SCCA web page for the 2014 Points Structure (identified as "new") and it states ..........

TOPEKA, Kan. - October 31st, 2013 - .... "It was previously announced that each race weekend on the 2014 calendar will feature a common format. All will be double race weekends, with Saturday’s race a 20-minute timed sprint race, and Sunday’s race the traditional 45-mile format. Both races will count for full points and receive trophies and commemorative checkered flags, though the full podium ceremonies will only take place for Sunday’s races." [emphasis by bold and underlining added]

http://www.scca.com/events/news.cfm?eid=6551&cid=51695

Did I miss/SCCA post some change ? (...at my age missing something could be the obvious, and probably, the answer) - Butch, can you please pipe in ?

As always, thanks

EJ

[Gary Michael]

Also for some reason the Saturday race was not eligible for Contingency payout as stated at the top of the result sheet .

[Swift17]

.........what contingency ? in FF ? -- Jimmy G - you need to know/you probably knew this ... where the hell are my bi-focals ?

[GT1Vette]

The "No Contingency" statement was incorrect due to miscommunication between the National Office and the host region. It will be updated when the correct files are received.

Rather than using printed results we also have a separate results file (.csv) that provides input to the points tracking software. I'll verify it today for sure, but I'm guessing the files haven't been received yet for Sunday's race.

All 2014 Majors weekends will have two races, and both races will count for points and awards (including contingency awards).

[GT1Vette]

Just checked and the Eastern Conference points now include Sunday's race at PBIR. The "not eligible for contingency" note has also been removed from Saturday's results.

If you see a problem please let me know and we'll figure it out.

BTW - these results also support my contention that track records are not always accurate (see my other thread). If you look at the Big Noise group on Saturday it indicates a new record was set in GT2 at 1:22.535 by John Yarosz. Even though Randy Kinsland ran a 1:21.982 while winning GT2 on Sunday the software did not pick that up as a new record. Obviously we have some work to do but I'm confident we're can work with the host regions to figure it out.

Thanks...

[Steve Demeter]

Butch,

So how does one know if the track records are correct or not?

And what about "Runoffs Records" at certain tracks. What is the track record? The "regular record or the "Runoffs Record".

And what about an oiled down track during qualifying or someone pukes gallons of antifreeze during the qualifying session. Seems to be more downside than upside to targeting a record set obviously under ideal conditions that may or may not exist at the weekend in question.

Seems that it would make a lot more sense to go back to 120% of pole sitter time. As far as it being difficult to figure, I regularly see "time slower than 120% of pole time must see chief steward for permission to race" on grid sheets at least at MO. So it can't be that tough.

Be careful or the Majors will eliminate already sparse opportunities to race for some.

Just some food for thought to possibly avoid further alienating more racers.

[Purple Frog]

Personally.... i think it should be like 106%. Especially at a Major. Hell... maybe even 105%.
They are Majors afterall, not wankerfests.
And... the SOM has the ability to compensate for weird conditions.

[Steve Bamford]

Personally.... i think it should be like 106%. Especially at a Major. Hell... maybe even 105%.
They are Majors afterall, not wankerfests.
And... the SOM has the ability to compensate for weird conditions.

Road America as an example, if I have my math correct, a pole sitters time of 2:21 with a 105% rule would mean 7 seconds off the pace or 2.28 could still compete. At 115% is 21 plus seconds off the pace. That seems pretty easy to make it at 115% & more reasonable where Mike is saying.

[Steve Demeter]

Personally.... i think it should be like 106%. Especially at a Major. Hell... maybe even 105%.
They are Majors after all, not wankerfests.
And... the SOM has the ability to compensate for weird conditions.

Doesn't the GCR require a protest or a chief steward RFA for the SOM to address anything. I do not think anyone relishes protesting to be allowed to race.

I don't think that many "marginal" guys will go to a majors not being sure that they will be able to race.

And no Mike I am not a wanker.

I think that the 115% or 120% of (whichever is the current GCR) the pole sitter in the class should stand.

If the rules are to be changed from the GCR, follow the due process in place. And submit for member input

[Wren]

If the rules are to be changed from the GCR, follow the due process in place. And submit for member input

This. Put it out there for member input from the club.

BTW- JR's time for Sebring was not an FB track record. Brandon did a 2:04.674 in 2010.

[Steve Bamford]

This. Put it out there for member input from the club.

BTW- JR's time for Sebring was not an FB track record. Brandon did a 2:04.674 in 2010.

No it's a Major's record now though.