MARRS CF in danger

[Ferris11]

Todd,

Interesting thoughts, .. .. but for me, .. I'm a junky at this point and wish I could race evry week end. But what you say makes some sense.

BTW, .. if you come out to summit make sure to leave the DB-1 at home and bring the CF, .. ..
and would you give me a lap head start? ;)

Curtis

[Rob Howden]

Todd,
The spec tire for MARRS is the Hoosier 60, GY600 and the American Racer. The rule was designed to allow just about everyone in the country on spec tires to race.

[Ken Lawrence]

Thanks Andy. I guess the CFF track record at Summit is safe forever with those spec hockey pucks. LOL

BTW Barry, it's like Rick said, unless the groupings change, SCCA open wheel racing at Summit regionals will surely continue to dwindle. It's unsafe and certainly not any fun. All of the open wheel racers who have left, Rick and myself should be great indication of the DC region's lack of action and poor judgement. Just look at the April 6th National groupings; FV-F500 are FIRST, and FF, FC, FM, are LAST. OUR last session on saturday, and the race on sunday will probably be shortened due lack of daylight...same BS, just a different year. Thanks DC region.

Hey Pete - Split weeekends don't require anymore of workers than they already do know. The number of race weekends would stay the same and the schedule would also. The number of entries doesn't really change because it's a double race weekend. (half +/- of the participants x2= pretty much the average weekend with everybody +/-) And the "paddock spaces" that Barry mentioned are so hard to come by, well they are freed up, because there's only HALF +/- the racers there would normally be. That's one extra you don't have to take off from work... YEEEEHHH!! Structure it how you like. But, the racers WILL pay for "better racing" and "quality track time". Nothing changes but the format of the weekends. It could work, but we'll probably never know unless somebody gives it a whirl. 4 or 5 pilot weekends could be tried, I'll bet you the numbers would JUMP in ALL classes when the racers see what they would get in return.

[Joe Bass]

Sorry, Todd, you'll have to be more explicit in your description of a split weekend. I'm not getting it.

[quote]Originally posted by T.Bardwell:
[b]Hey Pete - Split weeekends don't require anymore of workers than they already do know. The number of race weekends would stay the same and the schedule would also. The number of entries doesn't really change because it's a double race weekend. (half +/- of the participants x2= pretty much the average weekend with everybody +/-) And the "paddock spaces" that Barry mentioned are so hard to come by, well they are freed up, because there's only HALF +/- the racers there would normally be. That's one extra you don't have to take off from work... YEEEEHHH!! Structure it how you like. But, the racers WILL pay for "better racing" and "quality track time". Nothing changes but the format of the weekends. It could work, but we'll probably never know unless somebody gives it a whirl. 4 or 5 pilot weekends could be tried, I'll bet you the numbers would JUMP in ALL classes when the racers see what they would get in return. [/b][/quote]

[Ken Lawrence]

Hey Pete. Please re-read my post from 2/25/03. The "Split Weekends" idea was floated years ago for MARRS, and nixed for whatever reason. It goes like this. Basically you have a 10 weekend race series (such as MARRS) with ALL classes showing up at each weekend. In reality, most club racers can only do 4-5 weekends max comfortably (time and budget wise). When the racers pick over which weekend fits their schedule best, it effectively thins the fields. Say we SPLIT the weekends up into "Purpose Built Race Cars" on 5 weekends (every other weekend that is already scheduled preferrably) and "Door Bangers" on the other 5 weekends. We could then run a DOUBLE race weekend with less cars the to keep inline with a 10 race series. The entry fee could be doubled if needed. With less cars (at first, but not for long) at the track, the paddock space is not so limited. Registration/tech lines are shorter, hotel rooms are easier to get, and obtainable for all closer to the track. The participants would get 2 RACES for ONE tow fee and ONE hotel bill. More time between race weekends to repair and/or prepare. The QUANTITY AND QUALITY of track time would increase dramatically for everybody. The grouping would improve due less classes and with more similarities. The workers would still work the same weekends they would have in the first place. Now some people might ASSUME; that some workers would only want to work the "Door Banger Weekends", and some workers would say they only want work the "Open Wheelers Weekends". OK. No problem. Because the "Open Wheelers" could then be required to work 1-2 weekends (or whatever) for the "Door Bangers" and vice versa. Thus no shortage of workers, and everybody gets a view from the other side of the tire wall! And when you limit the amount of potential weekends somebody can race their car, you can reasonably assume that it would increase the participation numbers "per event" in each class. The EWC is a great example of condensing more quality/quantity "per event" (with only 4 events, but 8 races) and will be an even greater success because of it.

[Joe Bass]

I understand now.

This sounds like a local issue. I don't see how it could be applied to my region or Area 5. We only have 6 regional weekends in Area 5. One is a single following a two day driver's school. One is a two day single in October when daylight is in short supply. That leaves only four double regional weekends.

There are no other available dates at our two tracks (Road America and Blackhawk.)

The racing regions in Area 5 surveyed drivers to help in planning programs for 2003. We had a reasonable response with some very clear preferences emerging from the statistics which have been implemented. I'd suggest working on getting the region to do something similar and be sure to include your ideas on split weekends in the survey with a thorough explanation.

I'd also suggest you prepare for a response that wouldn't support it. Although you've said each group would only have to participate in half the events you then go on to say they'd have to work about half the others. Seven weekends out of 10 with only five spent on track doesn't sound too attractive to me, but YMMV. Perhaps that was why the proposal was originally turned down.