2016 New Expert List

[Michael De Simone]

I hear they are huge in Japan.

Even in Japan, they are still small.

[Rab McNaught]

I will never understand the mind of someone that sandbags to win a Short Bus Championship(s). I have a lot of respect for riders like Tim Rose that bumped up to Expert during their novice season when they were one of the dominate riders of the field. Rab is another rider that comes to mind, he had a strong showing at the beginning of last year and if it were not for an injury, would have likely been a dominate rider throughout the season. But instead bumped himself, so when he comes back, he will be racing where he belongs. I've rarely sprint raced and have stuck to endurance for 3 years, but this year I plan to sprint and move on, if the CMRA deems me worthy.

This is well put Yorke, and thank you for the mention. I hope you can do well enough to get on the list for next year.

I personally believe that the system we have in place now works just fine.

I think the Rider Index and automatic promotion works incredibly well. In fact, I think it works so well that it eradicates the need to entertain any protest petitions.

There are some wide-ranging opinions expressed in this thread - some agree with me and some don't. I still have concerns that the current system is open to manipulation when protests are handled like this. I'd like to put something together in writing, so it can be discussed at a BoD meeting, but I follow up with that offline.

Thanks everyone for the input. <3

[robert duncan]

The points system for any rider that has been reclassified is prob the best idea.

[Michael McGehee]

The points system for any rider that has been reclassified is prob the best idea.

i like it.

[robert duncan]

That would keep everyone honest

[Jim Dugger]

Interesting thread.

Overall, I'm not so much a fan of the Novice/Expert system because I think it's a completely arbitrary division. Its tricky to divide the bar roughly between the midpoint of the club, and it's hard to do well.

A great example would be this past weekend in Houston where the winner of Superstock C novice was every bit as fast as the winner of Heavyweight Twins Expert, despite the latter only being eligible for the A classes, where the Novice winner ran decidedly better times. This is not a bike/class issue. This is an issue of a novices being faster than experts despite similar or lesser hardware, which is at least peculiar!

Having been part of the system for a bit, I mostly agree what we have works well, it's the "what we have" I struggle with. I think it encourages sandbagging, other various kinds of bad behavior, and like the handicap concept in golf is just disingenuous to reality. It's arbitrary, it's hard to get right; the traditional means of entry into racing where it was really necessary has been largely replaced by a track day community that well-prepares racers in a way inconceivable 20 years ago when the novice/expert system evolved, and novices were really novices.

I haven't totally thought this through, but one I idea I've noodled is the concept of heats. So, in SSC, there's two races, just like today, but 1st place in the second race is actually "40th" (or whatever) overall. Points determine grids, just like today, and if you want to have a chance of finishing in the top 40, you better race your butt off and get in that grid, because if you don't, your "win" is only good for last place + 1 in the previous race. Overall is all that matters, and there's no win for coming in at the top of the second race. In a way, nothing about what the club does today changes, except there's only one winner per class type, not unlike how we do lightweight classes. Newer riders stay in the second heat until they demonstrate a consistency through points achievement to advance to the first heat in a given class.

The system we have has been with us a long time -- it's stood that test of time, too. That in itself should give us some caution regarding change. But, I also think the nature of club racing, and how riders come to it has changed, and it's worth a look and some thought around new ideas. These ideas might not make the cut, but it's worth doing.

[Dave Felio]

I don't think you can ever completely legislate yourself out of sandbagging. Its an inevitable artifact of any tiered competition structure, and the minute you create classes so that a broader range of people can compete, there's going to be a small percentage of people who don't get why the bottom classes exist. If you spend any time around competitive youth sports, you'll see the same thing.

I think you just have to depend on the public data, and trust it to always reveal evidence of the fact.

And on the upside: Sandbaggers by definition are faster, and so they should just serve to help Novices be faster, right?

[robert duncan]

Jim you are too smart.You are one of those people I always walk away from after talking to thinking I'm a dumb #%*

[Steven Smith]

A great example would be this past weekend in Houston where the winner of Superstock C novice was every bit as fast as the winner of Heavyweight Twins Expert, despite the latter only being eligible for the A classes, where the Novice winner ran decidedly better times. This is not a bike/class issue. This is an issue of a novices being faster than experts despite similar or lesser hardware, which is at least peculiar!

Quoting yours, but it also applies to other comments in this thread addressing fast novices:

Per Section 1.2 of the rulebook, it states that the CMRA may ask people to voluntarily move up to expert during the season. Has this person you referred to been asked to move up? If not, why not? Based on other comments in this thread, was anyone asked to move up after MSRH?

[Brandon Orr]

Jim you are too smart.You are one of those people I always walk away from after talking to thinking I'm a dumb #%*

We should start another club.