Chuck T. Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 John Lindsey ( Our race director) and I are talking about what type of starts we would like to do at Nationals this year . I would like your input . It looks like we will be the largest single class so keep that in mind if we can make a better show of it we could draw more racers to our group ! So for our qualifying races 2 wide flying starts ? #1) Straight up off times. #2) Make it fun fastest qualifier rolls a die invert that number. #3) roll 2 6 sided dice to set invert. And for our main race ! A) straight up 2 wide flying start based on qual races (normal) B) Straight up 3 wide flying start. (interesting) C) 3 wide with some amount of the top half inverted at Race Directors discretion. Any votes for standing starts ? Vote NOW ! let me know what you think ! Quote
Chuck T. Posted July 22, 2009 Author Posted July 22, 2009 My vote is #2 , C max fun and the race is long enough / the track wide enough . The slower cars at the front will still be pretty darn fast ! Make Norman earn it this time Quote
Weston Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) #1, A (I'd prefer a standing start, but a no-BS flying start is fine) I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise... I appreciate your intent, but I just desperately want a normal, legitimate, competition. That's why I'm looking forward to Nationals. I know this is a great opportunity to put on a good show and promote ourselves, and the RA-1 nonsense has already damaged the serious competition aspect anyway, but I think most of us are still going there in the hopes of a real competition, being that it is our national championship event. We might have people cancel their entries if we threaten the integrity of the competition, or appear to threaten it. 3-wide starts are interesting to me too, but my expectation is that the guys in the middle will just get screwed and can't really move, which could also be a safety issue if things go bad in Turn 1. It's something that we might want to try sometime, but I'm uneasy with the thought of our national championship event being the time and place for that experiment. Edited July 22, 2009 by Guest Quote
Big Dog Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I must agree with Weston. No funny business and no standing starts. We don't do them and shouldn't start now. As for inverted starts, there is only one way I am interested in them and that is were everyone is inverted and certainly not for our National Championships. If I was the first guy to not be inverted, so the guys I am racing with are all a number of places ahead of me on the start, I would not be happy at all and it would not be fair. There must be a reason no one does 3 wide and I don't want to be involved in trying it out. In short, there was talk from the RM region about troubles with our normal 2 wide flying starts. We need to work on that problem to tighten up the start and not go off into left field. If this is a real possibility, let me know so I can make a decision about my attendance. Big Dog Quote
944-Spec#94 Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 #1, A I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise... I appreciate your intent, but I just desperately want a normal, legitimate, competition. ... I agree. I do like the some of these options for regional races. Especially rolling a die to figure how far to invert the field. So for regional stuff where all the drivers know each other well and the track well. Hey we can do some odd ball stuff. National is different. It is a big race with strong competition. Unlike a regional race I am not sure who will win. I might be able to pick out a top 5 or top 10, but even in that group picking the order will not be easy. Heck last year on the 4.5 I qualfied on pole. I had not done that in years. It was great to take a 20 car class to green. I lost the lead right away, but at least I had my moment in the sun. Same should apply for National. Fast qualfiers for each day get pole for each race. Then combined best gets pole for the main. Considering also that the track is new to most I expect most guys to get faster as the weekend goes on. Not everyone will get faster at the same rate so a guy who took 5th on the Thursday first race could win it all on Saturday because they found some speed some place on the track. Quote
AvantAddict Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I think the qualifying races should be an invert with the main race being the average of your finishing position of the qualifying races. If you qualified fastest but can't manage to get from 6th back to 1st, you should be driving in TT. W2W is about being able to do more than drive fast. Our national champion should be the BEST driver, not just the fastest. That means being able to pass and to also make the car as wide as possible. If someone can drive fast but sucks in traffic, I'm sorry but they don't deserve to be the champ. As for the starts, I think it depends on what we do for the Main race. If the main race is a three wide flying start, I think we to do that so we can find and resolve any issues prior to the main race. Given that, I'm going to assume that we are going to do flying starts even though I prefer standing starts. As for RM having problems getting lined up for flying starts, the problems we have experienced are not limited to our region and I don't like the implication that's been put out there that we do. We do, however, need to make sure that everyone is going at the same speed prior to the green flag. This should prevent someone at the back of the pack from getting a run on the group. Quote
944cer Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 #3 or full invert on qualifying only and A on main race. That way, in qualifing you have earned the pole for the main race and have given some of the slower drivers a chance to get up to speed or their prove race craft. Lee Quote
Weston Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I think the qualifying races should be an invert with the main race being the average of your finishing position of the qualifying races. I kind of like that idea, as long as we're talking about full field inverts for the qualifying races (not something random or arbitrary), but we'd have to figure something out to prevent sandbagging. If my car acts up and runs some really crappy laps, that puts me on pole for the qualifying race, then let's say I fix the issue... while I'm not the fastest guy out there, maybe I'm fast enough to get a pretty big lead while everyone else is having to work their way through 20 slower cars, so I end up finishing 1st. That's not right. If you qualified fastest but can't manage to get from 6th back to 1st, you should be driving in TT. W2W is about being able to do more than drive fast. Our national champion should be the BEST driver, not just the fastest. That means being able to pass and to also make the car as wide as possible. If someone can drive fast but sucks in traffic, I'm sorry but they don't deserve to be the champ. I agree with that, but the problem is doing it fairly. Let's say that Driver A qualifies 6th, and Driver B is 0.100 seconds slower and qualifies 7th, but then we end up inverting the top 6... Now Driver A is on pole while Driver B has to start 6 positions behind him instead of just 1, with all of the top drivers in between them. That's not fair, and what could have been an exciting race between Drivers A and B is prevented from happening. Maybe they'll both still finish where they would have anyway, but we'll never really know, because it wasn't a level playing field. On the other hand, if we do a traditional race based on qualifying times, drivers start in the position that they've actually earned, and turning one quick lap to get on pole wont win you the race. A lot of people can run a quick lap here or there, but not a lot of people can do it consistently. If the guy behind you is a little slower in qualifying, but more consistent, you're going to have a hard time keeping him behind you. It's a 45 minute race, so that's really going to come into play for us. Quote
944-Spec#94 Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 ... but the problem is doing it fairly. Let's say that Driver A qualifies 6th, and Driver B is 0.100 seconds slower and qualifies 7th, but then we end up inverting the top 6... Now Driver A is on pole while Driver B has to start 6 positions behind him instead of just 1, with all of the top drivers in between them. That's not fair, and what could have been an exciting race between Drivers A and B is prevented from happening. Maybe they'll both still finish where they would have anyway, but we'll never really know, because it wasn't a level playing field. This is exactly the issue we ran in to in Az when we had out May event with 18 cars. Sunday's race we wanted to change it up so invert the top X in the field. The issue became there was no easy way to invert without messing up a battle between drivers. As such we tossed the idea. Instead we got a double yellow about 1/2 way in the race. That closed the field and fur started flying yet again. Quote
Cory M Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 #4) Standing start #5) Old-school Lemans start #6) Motorcross style "holeshot" start Quote
GaryM05 Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 1A is my vote. If we’re ever going to have just a straight-up, normal race, Nationals is the time to have it. If we need to do all kinds of wacky stuff to have an interesting race that’s fun to watch, then do we really have that good of a class in the first place? If you’re fastest (and in this case, have won one or two qualifying races), then you should start on the pole. If you can’t keep somebody behind you after that, that’s just racing, and good for them if they’re able to pass a faster car. If somebody consistently wins the qualifying races, why should they be penalized in the main race? If their racecraft isn’t good, they likely won’t have won those races anyway. To take somebody who finished 6th in a qualifying race, but might only be a few hundredths off of the winner on average lap time, and stick them on the pole of the National Championship race, unfairly penalizes a proven race winner and rewards somebody who has maybe not even won a race, IMO. (I say all of this fully expecting to be nowhere near the front!) Times are going to be so close throughout the various parts of the pack that I think we’re going to have close racing no matter what. Inverted starts on a wide, fast track with the T1 funnel so far from the green just sounds like a recipe for disaster, in my opinion, and might showcase all the wrong things about this class. Quote
cbuzz Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I agree with Gary MO5. If you are fast and have proved it you should not be penalized with gimmicks. Rolling 2 wide start for all races. Start Q races based on fast lap from Qual. Start second Q race based on finish position. Start Main Event based on combined finish of Q races. This is the Big Show, no need to do anything but what is fair to those who have worked hard to get there. Oh yeah, no new rules!!!!!!! Charlie #999 Quote
bpanther Posted July 22, 2009 Posted July 22, 2009 I would suggest that the fomat shouldn't wander too far from how it has been in the past. At a regional event, it's easy to flip stuff around, but at Nationals T&S, Grid, etc is dealing with 7 other race groups + 2 TT groups. Asking for special grids will not work. The excitment will come from having that many 944s to race with. I suggested the 3 side start assuming you had 60 cars. This would make sure everybody was pointed straight before you got the green. If we're looking at 35 cars.. not required. Quote
b f cybronetics Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 #1 and A First off I am not a front runner in his 2nd year of racing. All the inversions and dice rolling could help put me in a better place on the grid that I neither earned or have the skills and experience to handle. The net result a higher probability of a mistake that ruins my race and those of everyone else. A very bad risk reward. When you look at any of the other options listed think risk assesment. All other options are poor risks. Very few of the participants have vast experience at a standing start, plus equipment not designed or it. Three wide again very litle expereince by vast majority of participants bad idea, potential for lots of bent metal in turn one. With the number of cars on the grid I strongly feel everyone will have at 1 if not 2-5 other cars of similar skill to race with in a 45 minute race. In fact at the end of the day this class wants to put on a show that will encourage others to join, an incident free, mechanical breakdown free, competative throughout the grid race class and that is the best show to put on. In conjunction with it if everyone sees us as having fun and helping others to enjoy the racing and not looking to game a contrived system the result will be a big plus for the class. As I stated I am not a front runner and have only 2 years of racing experience, so what, if I can go to a nationals competition find a few people to race with and have a blast racing a 20+ year old Porsche on a world class race track, with some very pleasent people I can not think of a better way to spend a long weekend. Let's remember we are not professional race car drivers and we are their to just have fun. We should all understand the faster you qualify the better the grid postion. If you start at #1 and you can hold off the competition then on that day you were the best driver. Lets just go and enjoy the show. #805 Southern california Quote
Capt Squid Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 We went 3 wide into turn 1 last year. I vote for a 3 wide start. Standing starts are for Hondas. If the inverted start is out, Joe's idea of a double yellow at the mid-point to bunch up the field is great. Quote
Weston Posted July 23, 2009 Posted July 23, 2009 Standing starts are for Hondas. As a former Honda guy, I have to say that our 944's are a hell of a lot better at standing starts than any FWD Honda I've ever seen. I cringe at the memory of all the FWD wheel hop... Quote
Tim Comeau Posted August 12, 2009 Posted August 12, 2009 Guys, Couple things... 1. Standing starts are, at best, very hard on clutches. Standing starts are WAY more dangerous than flying starts due to the possibility of a car failing or stalling at the front of the pack. With every row of the grid that passes that stopped car, the impact speed becomes greater. For those reasons, I vote no on a standing start at any event. 2. Every passing evolution is a risk taken. Inverting the field, to any degree, compounds the chance of contact because there's way more passing. I enjoy and encourage inverting the fields at local, low-key events that have small attendance as a way to keep the slower drivers in the mix for a longer period of time. This is a class marketing thing. I think it's a much better idea at Nationals to sort out the field by qual speed and qual race finishing, just like we always do. Reward performance. 3. Starting 3 wide is also an idea that should be given careful thought. With 2 rows, you can dive off the track left or right to avoid a collision. If you're in the middle row and something happens in front of you..........no where to go. 2 rows is safer. Quote
Chuck T. Posted August 13, 2009 Author Posted August 13, 2009 Tim has spoken ! Expect straight up no frills starts for Nationals . Quote
Tim Comeau Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Huh?! What happened, Chuck? Does my opinion count more than Jim Foxx or Joe Paluch, or? I just have one little voice way down here in the southwest corner of the country......I'm practically in Mexico. Does my vote still count? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.