PDA

View Full Version : Grid Positions for First Endurance Race of the year



Steve Breen
10-02-2003, 09:50 AM
As I understand it the endurance grids for the start of the season are determined by order of entry, with three waves broken into heavyweight, middleweight and ligthweight bikes. If that's wrong, ignore the rest of this post /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

So, let's take our brethern Faltless Racing for example ... they typically finish races 5th overall or so on a lightweight bike, but yet at the first race of the season they are gridded in the 3rd wave of bikes at the endurance race?? Hmm...

Well, in light of the close finishes we've had this year in the endurance races, these 20-30 secs that a team gives away at the start of such a race could actually factor into the results at the end of a 6 hour race!

How about this (just an idea to get things moving):

The top X teams regardless of bike size grid by overall finishing position from the previous season and then the gridding is done by order of entry.

Thoughts?

Derek Delpero
10-02-2003, 06:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Steve Breen:
The top X teams regardless of bike size grid by overall finishing position from the previous season and then the gridding is done by order of entry.

Thoughts? </div></div>You trying to make my life difficult? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

How would this affect future class finishes?

For example, Faltless finishes with in the cutoff, but no other light weight teams qualify for a first wave grid position. Then all of Faltless' class competitors will be starting from the 3rd wave. Now we've given Faltless a head start.

Seems like potentially less teams are affected if we leave it the way it is.

Steve Breen
10-02-2003, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Derek Delpero:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Steve Breen:
The top X teams regardless of bike size grid by overall finishing position from the previous season and then the gridding is done by order of entry.

Thoughts? </div></div>You trying to make my life difficult? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

How would this affect future class finishes?

For example, Faltless finishes with in the cutoff, but no other light weight teams qualify for a first wave grid position. Then all of Faltless' class competitors will be starting from the 3rd wave. Now we've given Faltless a head start.

Seems like potentially less teams are affected if we leave it the way it is. </div></div>Well, while I used Faltless as an example, naturally I have an agenda /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

But why not reward those guyz? They do amazing things on an SV and they finish way up the order overall by the end of the day, so they've earned that advantage IMO.

If you consider the deficit that a middleweight team (ok, us) has for that first race, it's not inconsequential - especially given how close our races can be at the end of 6 hours.

Gridding by points for the first race gives some credit to teams that spent time and money achieving something the previous year.

Bryan Norton
10-02-2003, 10:26 PM
What about a team that is new for 2004?

Not very fair to give someone else a head start just becuase they ran the year before.

No solution would truly be fair for all, except heat races for the first grids...

and don't even mention it /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Steve Breen
10-02-2003, 11:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
What about a team that is new for 2004?</div></div>Teams that retain their single digit numbers according to the prior year's resuls?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Not very fair to give someone else a head start just becuase they ran the year before.
</div></div>Heya Brian -- I hear ya on that one ... I guess I would say if we are gonna do order of entry, let's go all the way with that notion and mix the different displacement bikes all together from the first to the third (or whatever) wave -- that would be more "fair" than penalizing teams that are running "smaller" bikes, no?

I originally offered up the top 10 (or so) idea cause I believe I understood the original notion of defining the waves by bike displacement was for safety purposes. But honestly I can't see much validity with that approach since the endurance grids for the rest of the year are according to points anyway.

So, what about order of entry across the board?

That would be easy on Derek and the crew I would think.

Craig Montgomery
10-03-2003, 11:20 AM
IMO, the only unfair advantage here would be letting a team entering a certain class start at the front of the grid based soley on the class they are entering. If you say that letting a certain number of teams start in the first wave of the first race is unfair just because they finished top (x) the previous year, isn't that sorta like saying griding up based on the previous race's results is biased as well? I'm sure this is all based on safety, but I'm betting that if we changed changed the 1st race grid policy to an (order of entry only), the faster more commited teams would enter first.

John Orchard
10-03-2003, 11:38 AM
Order of entry for the endurance would be very cool!

cedestech
10-06-2003, 07:09 PM
I don't care if a light weight bike finishes
first overall every race. Their race is not with the heavy weight class. Their race is with the
light weight class. The classes should be grouped
together with the first race determined on
entry recieved then points the rest of the year.
2-3 rows verses 30 seconds for 2 waves down
is fair. How would you feel if you were
the 2nd place light weight team and lost by 20 seconds when first place basicly got a defacto
30 second head start.

Nice idea though.

Craig Montgomery
10-07-2003, 10:09 AM
"I don't care if a light weight bike finishes
first overall every race. Their race is not with the heavy weight class. Their race is with the
light weight class."

I guess that depends on how slow they are. Faltless is gunnin for an overall podium every race they enter IMO. The serious teams, even though they are on smaller bikes, are not just racing for a class win.

John Orchard
10-07-2003, 10:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
...Their race is not with the heavy weight class. Their race is with the
light weight class...
</div></div>So, Emmett, if each class is only racing against itself, as you say, then why would you stop gridding by class after the first race?

The overall race is won by multiple classes, and is just as important to many teams if not more important than the class race. (SB is not one of these teams btw! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif )

Troy Green
10-08-2003, 04:54 PM
Here is how I think it should be done.

Top ten 2003 teams overall are gridded in the first ten grid positions, all remaining grid positions filled by order of entry, no class seperation needed.

This is sligtly bias towards the top ten teams, but they are the top ten teams for a reason!!
If a new team or a none Top ten team enters early they will still be in the first wave.

I am not a member of any of the top ten teams so I have no personal motives.

And just for the cheeeesssyy factor how cool would the first Starting grid picture be with all the front bikes in numerical order?? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Troy Green
CMRA #1
Expensive Laps Racing #65

Mitchel
10-08-2003, 06:43 PM
I say grid the fastest guys in the back. Maybe put Short Bus last? Yeah, that sounds good.

cedestech
10-09-2003, 08:46 AM
<<So, Emmett, if each class is only racing against itself, as you say, then why would you stop gridding by class after the first race?>>

That is not what I said.

Unless I am mistaken (which is very possible)
the HW, MW and LW bikes are on 3 differnt
grids and in those grids they are
grided by points first to last. I know
there are LW teams that out perform HW teams
but that is no reason to give them a
30 second head start. They already get bonus points for teams beaten on top of laps
completed.

If I remember the 6 or 8 hour from last year
John Hanners team lost by one position
because the clock ran out before the
start/finish line. He got on the bike in the last hour I think it was and mounted a
comback from something like a 30 second deficit. Second do matter in a timed event. That
is why I say that the LW bikes are racing against LW bikes in the LW class, HW and MW
the same.

Personaly I think it'd be great to invert the
grid like dirt track.

It give you more people to pass.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

John Orchard
10-09-2003, 09:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
I don't care if a light weight bike finishes
first overall every race. Their race is not with the heavy weight class. Their race is with the
light weight class. </div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
<<So, Emmett, if each class is only racing against itself, as you say...>>

That is not what I said.
</div></div>Emmett, I really can't argue with both sides of your mouth... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif


btw - currently, each class has it's own wave and within that wave, each team is gridded by order of entry received - not points.

David Branyon
10-09-2003, 10:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by John Orchard:
btw - currently, each class has it's own wave and within that wave, each team is gridded by order of entry received - not points. </div></div>Just to clarify, this is for the first race. After that, teams are gridded by overall points, right? And I'm not sure HOW the waves are decided after the first race, since it's not by class. Or is it just one big wave? I can't remember anything. Someone remind me please.

John Orchard
10-09-2003, 10:18 AM
David, yep, that's first race only.

After that everyone is gridded by points for the remainder of the year and the waves are some max number of bikes that Walter (or someone else in charge of grids) determines to be the best number he wants going through turn one at the same time..

cedestech
10-09-2003, 11:34 AM
<<Emmett, I really can't argue with both sides of your mouth>>

One of us isn't getting the other one...

It may be me.

I am trying to say, Even if a LW bike finishes
in first place over all in the race and
he beats 10 MW and HW bikes that are in front
of the 2nd place LW bike, "he" , the
first place, first over all LW bike is not
racing/collecting points for the HW or MW
classes (unless of corse he entered those classes also, I don't know if thats possible).

He is awarded first in class for LW and given
points for laps completed and other teams
finished ahead of.

It's cool beating classes performance indexed above you but it shouldn't effect your grid position other then in class. Definantly
not 2 waves ahead of the 2nd place in class
team.

Rich Desmond
10-09-2003, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
<<Emmett, I really can't argue with both sides of your mouth>>

One of us isn't getting the other one...

It may be me.

I am trying to say, Even if a LW bike finishes
in first place over all in the race and
he beats 10 MW and HW bikes that are in front
of the 2nd place LW bike, "he" , the
first place, first over all LW bike is not
racing/collecting points for the HW or MW
classes (unless of corse he entered those classes also, I don't know if thats possible).

He is awarded first in class for LW and given
points for laps completed and other teams
finished ahead of.

It's cool beating classes performance indexed above you but it shouldn't effect your grid position other then in class. Definantly
not 2 waves ahead of the 2nd place in class
team. </div></div>That's exactly what happens. If, after the first race Faultless is 5th overall and the 2nd LW team is 20th, then Faultless will start the next race with the first wave and the 2nd LW team will be in the 2nd wave. I guess opinions vary on this but I think that's exactly the way it should be.

Derek Delpero
10-09-2003, 12:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by John Orchard:
David, yep, that's first race only.

After that everyone is gridded by points for the remainder of the year and the waves are some max number of bikes that Walter (or someone else in charge of grids) determines to be the best number he wants going through turn one at the same time.. </div></div>The rule of thumb is 20 bikes per wave. It really depends on the track, weather conditions, type of race and how many bikes are on the grid. IE. if 50 bikes were on the grid of an endurance race, we'd *probably* do 2 waves of 25. If 60 bikes were on the grid we'd *probably* do 3 waves of 20 bikes.

cedestech
10-09-2003, 01:33 PM
I thought the bikes grided by class
not over all position during the year.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

John Orchard
10-09-2003, 01:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
I thought the bikes grided by class
not over all position during the year.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif </div></div>uhhhhhhh no - not in the big bike endurance.

cedestech
10-09-2003, 01:55 PM
They are gridded by over all position
or they are gridded by class?

Derek Delpero
10-09-2003, 02:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
They are gridded by over all position
or they are gridded by class? </div></div>Minis are gridded by class for all races.

Big bikes, first race grided by class, every other race gridded by overall points.

cedestech
10-09-2003, 02:15 PM
Well in that case then I agree with
Breen. Top 10 teams from this year should have
the top 10 grid spots reserved.

Sorry for my confusing.

Try being me, I walk though life daily like this.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Derek Delpero
10-09-2003, 02:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Emmett Dibble:
Well in that case then I agree with
Breen. Top 10 teams from this year should have
the top 10 grid spots reserved.

Sorry for my confusing.

Try being me, I walk though life daily like this.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>Just remember to turn right going into turn one this weekend /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Brett
10-14-2003, 04:53 PM
Grid the first race based on last season's results, for everyone, not just the top 10 teams. New entries get grided last based on order of entry.

If you are concerned about giving competative leightweight teams a chance, just giving the top 10 teams a break isn't really fair. Why should Faultless get a first wave grid while Heritage P&B gets a third or fourth wave grid when they finished six places apart overall and one place apart in class?

If you grid by previous season points then only new teams will be at the disadvantage, but they will only be at the disadvantage for one race in their first season with the CMRA. Just think of the incentive they'll have to race a second season with us, they'll get to move up in the grids on the first race!

Best Regards,
Brett

Brad Thomas
10-15-2003, 11:40 AM
The top 10 teams have earned their top 10 number for next year and 5 of the 10 are champions of their class. Champions earn awards; awards are based on achievement in competition. We don't have qualifying for grid positions so that's why we grid according to overall points. If you want to expand it to more teams it should only grow to the top 15 since extra points are only given to the top 15 overall in each race.

I don't agree with it not being fair. If you want to start in the front next year finish in the top 10 overall and you will EARN a spot. Merely running the series and accumulating points should not be an entitlement to a grid position the next year, believe me it ain't easy to finish in the top 10 with this bunch. This would just be an award for those teams that finished and earned top 10 status.

Brett
10-15-2003, 01:41 PM
I guess my main point is that everyone should be treated equally. Setting apart the top 10 or 15 teams doesn't do that. I agree they did earn their top 10 or top 15 ranking, but to only give them an advantage is unfair to teams who placed 16th overall and lower.

I'll offer another idea, why not grid based on qualifying? We have a transponder only practice...is our computer system good enough to keep track of the lap times from that practice and sort the teams accordingly? If you miss the practice then you get randomly gridded at the back of the pack. Heck, if this work out we could do it for every race, not just the first one.

Derek Delpero
10-15-2003, 07:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Brett Murdock:
I'll offer another idea, why not grid based on qualifying? We have a transponder only practice...is our computer system good enough to keep track of the lap times from that practice and sort the teams accordingly? If you miss the practice then you get randomly gridded at the back of the pack. Heck, if this work out we could do it for every race, not just the first one. </div></div>The scoring system is well equiped to handle qualifying. Not a bad idea.

Chuck Ergle
10-15-2003, 10:02 PM
The only problem I see with that is that everybody will send out their fastest guy on warmed-up soft compound tires to do a flier during transponder practice. This is club racing. The present gridding system has worked well for a very long time, and we shouldn't be trying to fix something that ain't broke. Y'all are trying to make something simple very complicated; hey wait, do any of you work for the government by any chance?

Brad Thomas
10-16-2003, 11:21 AM
Qualifying for grid positions would give teams with unlimited budgets an advantage because they would be able to afford the soft tires which help produce fast qualifying times. Plus teams with multiple bikes could utilize one bike set-up to qualify and a second bike set-up for the race. If they throw the bike away in qualifying itís no big deal because they have another bike.
The purse money would have to go way up and go a whole lot deeper to justify something like this.

This thread is about changing the way our club grids for the first race of the new season, not every race.

It is about giving the top 10 or 15 teams a bonus for their achievement the previous season.
I certainly don't have any personal motive because our team runs USS which will more than likely be in the first wave. However I do believe the MWSB, MWSS, LWSB teams who end up on top at the end of the season should be able to start up front the next season. It's a simple request for our club to consider.

John Orchard
10-16-2003, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Brad Thomas:
It is about giving the top 10 or 15 teams a bonus for their achievement the previous season.
</div></div>Actually, I think it's more about leveling the playing field a bit for the teams that have proven from the previous year's result that they consistently compete for the overall regardless of bike size.

Brad Thomas
10-16-2003, 12:39 PM
yea, what he said!

David Branyon
10-16-2003, 03:29 PM
Yeah, I guess it's highly dependent on where you place the emphasis: place in class vs. place overall. Being in the LW class, we never figured to be able to compete for overall. The only one that really gets close is Faltless. Figuring off of this plan, this would put Faltless in the first wave for the first race next year and all the other LW teams in the 3rd wave. Do they really need that advantage? Definitely not for the LW class. Are they seriously competing for the overall? Even with their OUTSTANDING performance, they are still 7th overall, 823 points from first place. From that, I'd argue that at least for the LW class, place in class is more pertinent than place overall.

This might make more sense to do for all classes other than LW. I dunno. Doesn't really seem broke to me either, but if I was on a MW bike competing for overall, I could see everyone's point. Just thinking out loud.

Keith Hertell
10-16-2003, 04:06 PM
I say keep it the way it has been for years.

David Branyon
10-16-2003, 06:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Keith Hertell #11:
I say keep it the way it has been for years. </div></div>Works for me.

Steve Breen
10-16-2003, 09:10 PM
Here are the top 10 teams from 2003:

1 Vinyl Edge Racing HW
2 Village Idiots MW
3 Desert-Rats.net HW
4 Northwest Honda Racing HW
5 Team ODonnell MW
6 Short Bus Racing MW
7 No Homeless Racing HW
8 Faltless Racing LW
9 One Way To Big Air Racing MW
10 Nemesis Motorsports/RideSmart HW

That breaks down as:
5 Heavyweight teams
4 Middleweight teams
1 Lightweight team

So why exactly do these 5 HW teams have an advantage at the first race due to the displacement of the engine?

If nothing else, order of entry makes things even simpler than they are now from an administration perspective and makes things a bit more "even" without any cost to anyone.

Craig Montgomery
10-17-2003, 01:21 PM
There seems to be a lot of things changing in the club, i.e. our whole class structure for next year, so I don't see why changing an unfair gridding system for the first race of the year would be a problem. If teams are concerned about top 10 gridding being unfair, let's just do it like sprints....order of entry for first race.

David Branyon
10-17-2003, 02:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Steve Breen:
<snip> That breaks down as:
5 Heavyweight teams
4 Middleweight teams
1 Lightweight team

So why exactly do these 5 HW teams have an advantage at the first race due to the displacement of the engine? <snip>
</div></div>Steve,
Two perspectives:
#1: If you grid the first race by class w/o regard to last year's finish, then in the OVERALL competition, the HW bikes get an unfair advantage over the MW bikes.
#2: If you grid the first race by last year's finish, then the top 10 LW bike gets a two wave advantage over his competitors for the CLASS competition. (Top 10 MW bikes would get a one wave advantage over their MW competitors for CLASS competition.)

Depends on which competition you place priority on: overall or in-class. From the LW perspective, where we have little chance to play a significant part in the OVERALL competition and the focus is on in-class competition, the new proposal is bad. Pick your poison.

Being LW, I'd vote to keep it as-is. Even with the close finishes, it's hard to imagine how the 5 second + 20 yard advantage (=? 10 seconds?) of the HW bikes in the 1st wave vs. MW in the 2nd wave for the first race of the year is really going to play a major part in the year-end points battle. Yeah, you've gotta pass some folks, but...

Steve Breen
10-17-2003, 05:13 PM
David,

My proposal is to follow order of entry for the entire endurance grid regardless of bike size or prior season results.

I threw out the top 10 thing early on just thinking outloud, and that idea was torpedoed.
No worries.

Order of entry seems very easy to administer (Nancy can shoot me if I'm wrong there /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif ) and is about as "fair" as you can get in my estimation.

So far, I've not heard any logical argument for the reasoning behind our current method of gridding by bike size ... it appears to be an arbitrary method. Additionally, it fails the "safety" argument since we do not grid subsequent races for the rest of the events.

Following the order of entry approach, teams that would prefer to grid further back for fear of being up front in the start can simply register close to the date of the event.

Bob Cronin
10-19-2003, 11:17 AM
I would think that the people handling the paperwork would like the teams to be gridded by order of entry. If for nothing else, the teams concerned with a decent start will get their paperwork in early in the hopes of beating someone else into the system.
Now the only thing that would hurt smaller teams would not be the bike size but rather the fact that teams with more money could possibly registar for a whole season in advance, thus placing them on the front line each and every race.
Yeah....let's grid by entry date! I like that idea a lot.

David Branyon
10-20-2003, 09:04 PM
Steve,
I think order of entry or by class gridding for the first race are both acceptable. The "logical argument" behind gridding by class is that if you take the class competition as primary (e.g. if there were no overall, or if you are in LW and have no realistic chance of overall and couldn't give a rat's tail about it), then everyone you're racing against is at least in the same wave as you. I know, that doesn't work out because of the other 4 classes that are all basically competing for overall, but that is the somehat logical if unfair argument behind it.

Bob, remember the topic here: gridding for the FIRST endurance race of the year. Good try though. :p

Aw heck, let's just park all the bikes up near the front of pit road, hold all the starting riders in the snack bar, and on the green flag, everyone run for their bikes LeMans style. Whatdya say?? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Bob Cronin
10-21-2003, 07:58 AM
Run to the bikes? It's hard enough to walk in these blasted suits. Do we get a water break when we get there?

Jeff the jet Lee
10-21-2003, 11:46 AM
I think we should do a Le Mans every time at TWS, anybody else think so? Then it would'nt really matter how you are gridded at the start.My .02

Bryan West
10-21-2003, 07:37 PM
LE MANS!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL THE WAY!!!!
that would be sweeeeeeeet.

mark niemi
10-22-2003, 08:00 PM
Even order of entry isn't really fair. What if a team has to save it's pennies to enter and can't register early. That would give the team that can afford it an advantage. It would also give the teams that have formed early an advantage.
The only way I can think of that's completely fair is to put all of the names into a hat and draw for grid spots on the day of the race after registration.
Of course with the exception of the teams from Houston. They should start from the back.

Steve Breen
10-23-2003, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by mark niemi:
Even order of entry isn't really fair. What if a team has to save it's pennies to enter and can't register early. That would give the team that can afford it an advantage. </div></div>The CMRA can hold the payments until the week before the event, right?

Bob Cronin
10-23-2003, 11:49 AM
Teams that registar early before the cut off get gridded accordingly. Those that enter the day of the event get gridded in the same manner.
Most teams know if they are going to race in every event or not. It's the snooze you lose thing.
So for the out of town races, I need to get a room at a hotel. Should we gather in the parking lot and draw names to see who gets a room?

Bryan Norton
10-23-2003, 12:31 PM
I've stayed outta this one as long as I can.

Nothing could be truly fair, I hope we all can agree to that point.

For the FIRST race only
What was decided was top 10 teams have entry reserved until close of registration.
they will be gridded 1-10.
Following that will be gridded by registration.

Yes it gives the top teams an advantage, but they earned it.

Jeff the jet Lee
10-23-2003, 01:44 PM
Le Mans style start? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif just one to see how it goes? Perhaps a poll might be in order? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif feedback?

Steve Breen
10-23-2003, 01:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
I've stayed outta this one as long as I can.

Nothing could be truly fair, I hope we all can agree to that point.

For the FIRST race only
What was decided was top 10 teams have entry reserved until close of registration.
they will be gridded 1-10.
Following that will be gridded by registration.

Yes it gives the top teams an advantage, but they earned it. </div></div>Outstanding news - thanks for listening, BOD.

David Branyon
10-23-2003, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
<snip> For the FIRST race only
What was decided was top 10 teams have entry reserved until close of registration.
they will be gridded 1-10.
Following that will be gridded by registration.
<snip></div></div>Bryan, good note that nothing in life is "fair."
This gives Faltless a two-wave advantage on me and the rest of the LW field at next year's first race, but as Clark Griswold said to Cousin Eddie, "Do you really think it'd matter?" Answer: no.

Keep that thick skin on and keep up the good work.

John Orchard
10-23-2003, 04:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by David Branyon #87:
[QUOTE]This gives Faltless a two-wave advantage on me and the rest of the LW field at next year's first race...
</div></div>David, read Bryan's note again, 1st 10 teams are gridded by previous results, then it's by order of entry....you & your team could be number 11. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Thanks BOD!!

JesseJohnson
10-23-2003, 04:40 PM
I'm for returning teams being gridded by their previous year's overall finish, followed by new teams based on order of entry.

Returning teams must have same name and core riders.

Jess

David Branyon
10-24-2003, 01:27 PM
So noted John. Good point.

Andy Galindo
10-25-2003, 05:48 PM
ugh.

Why can't we just leave some things alone? It's been working fine! Am I correct in understanding that after the first race, grid positions will be determined by the order in which teams register?? How early can teams sign up for each race? Can they sign up for the whole season ahead of time? That seems nuts! The current (or past) system rewarded your overall placement and it didn't matter when you registered- which in my mind rewards a team for its performance. But now we're switching to rewarding the team who "signs up the quickest"? What's the point of that? I thought this sport was RACING, not GUN SLINGIN' REGISTRATING. If the smaller classes feel they are at a disadvantage because they start in 2nd 3rd and 4th waves, then do away with gridding by class and grid by overall points, regardless of classs IMHO

Steve Breen
10-25-2003, 07:18 PM
Andy - this is all about the first race of the year only.

At the first race the grid is determined by order of entry with the top 10 teams from the prior year having a spot reserved at the front of the grid.

For the rest of the races, it's overall points just like we do now. The only change is the very first race of the year.

Andy Galindo
10-26-2003, 08:03 PM
Oops, there I go again getting all excited... I've been misinterpreting this the whole way through, seemed like we were establishing a new rule for the whole season, not just the first race. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/eek.gif Saaaweeeey. I'm gonna go crawl back in my hole now. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif