- This topic has 83 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
@Jon Betts wrote:
$20 Ha Ha , last race down here in the dessert cost us $116 and the racing is not very good either.
Add another $5 for tech and race director, these are issues that need to be attended to at any cost, if they are not then people will start to become pissed off with racing against people they THINK are illegal and go race somewhere where the tech issues are addressed (like CRE).
I don’t even think that our tires where check for correct compound for the class at Steamboat!!!
I think we might need to consider a bit more than 5 buck, but not more than 10.
Here’s my thinking. There are certain key individuals we should have at all races. These are Race Director, Tech Director, Timing/Scoring, and the head flagger. Each of these people should be compensated. Lets say we break it down like this:
Race Director = $200
Tech Director = $175
Timing/Scoring = $125
Head Flagger = $125
Total = $625If we have an average of 100 entries/event and charge an extra $5 to the current entry fee we’ll come up $125 short. If we tag on $10/entry we’ll have a $375 dollar surplus. That money could be used to compensate other important functionaries on race day, such as corner workers, announcer, regsitration pre-tech and scale tech. on a 7-race schedule that’s less than 100 bucks/racer/season. To help ensure we have consistant, and well-run events I would consider that money well spent.
Chaz, Your the best chop-buster on the web,I figured you were kidding. I know everyone hates to see cost go up,but the logistics of adding qualified people without extra money doesn’t add up. Another idea would be to take the extra money of a $5- $10 increase,put it in a pot and split it up among the racers at the year end according to the amount of races run. It might ease the pain of an entry fee increase,if they knew they would get a little back at the end of the year and have a quality race series also. Just an idea. Mitch, That would be great if George would support the series. I understand where he is coming from in regards to having a solid club scene and not wanting to hurt the local club racing he has established. If we keep the series short and sweet, I think he would benefit from the exposure of his track to more karters and better the sport in Co. I have spoke to George a few times and know he wants to better organize karting in our state. I think all the tracks have made consessions this year to some degree to have there club races and also include the CSC. In some of the post on ekartingnews it seemed that when someone came up with a solution, he found a problem with it. I would like to race at CRE and so would others. Would one large state event at his track hurt the club racing at CRE or anywhere else? I doubt it, IMO. Dump the politics and lets race!!
All the tracks are currently at 2 races each for the series… one toward the front of the season, one at the back half.
So we add two more races in the the series to add CRE, it extends the season one more month on both ends. Would that be too difficult for them, or any of us, to do?
Let’s do it, C’mon George!
-S
Good post Chaz , Lets not forget about the corner workers , and the great job Doug has done for us (gratis) !
Since we are throwing around ideas , what if we didn’t change anything ??
or — How about 5 races at each of the 3 tracks , one at Steam Boat (double points) with 2 throw-outs , and cancel all club racing ?
J.B.One race a month is great, if people want to run more often, then the Club racing’s for them.
-S
I think that Chaz is right about adding additional $ to the CSC to get officials and consistiant coner workers, I personally would not have a problem with 10 extra to cover these essentials. Any $ over what it takes to pay the officials should go in to a pot to cover CSC races that don’t get enough entries cover thier expences. If they all cover It should go to year end awards, trophies or banguet halls…. what ever.
As for JB’s suggestion to cancel all club events….I believe it is a good Idea for The CSC because the racers would have more $ to chuck at the full season of competition and would probably raise a bit of revenue for the tracks by increasing the # of people going to practice for the up coming events. It would benefit Bandimer’s facility because of all the work going on and they will need all the $ they can get their hands on (via rentals) to continue to improve the track and its resources. IMI could probably go either way as they are pretty well established. GJMS Doesn’t matter to the west slopers but would probably keep the club events to grow racers. CRE… just to many variables to know for sure but without rentals George would choose to keep club racing.
If there are racers/shopowners/trackowners who plan to support or race the CSC next year reading this and not posting sell all your s*** and go do something more productive with your time. I’m not trying to pick a fight but with 621 views vs. 35 responces and 100+ racers participating in CSC this post should be up and running every afternoon until next years series is set in stone.
Chaz’s idea of having a series group of officals is going to have to be (in my “best” opinion”) because every flag guy, corner worker, and tech guy do things differant, ex: at IMI the second time, engine tech was performed, whereas steamboat there was only a pre tech on saterday, with weight check on sunday after the races. There should be a standard when it comes to these things so races run more smoothly and each person knows what is in store for them. I think Angie has done registration all year (absolutly no complaints, great work all around) so lets hope she wants to do it again. Having “employees” that preform roles for the series will only do great things, and make it smooth and easy.
Once a month is good for those of us who have to travel 400+ miles! also at least one drop would be good, Also try to get the schedule out ASAP.
Chaz your scheme for paying workers is great, BUT you must have a coherent set of well writen rules for the tech team to enforce.
As far as 125 shifers go keep the pro rules basically the same …esentialy anything goes. As far as the Novice class is concerned It is OK, as long as you run MX and ICC together then you can’t restrict the MX motors like the SKUSA FMX class or they won’t be competitive. So again leave it basically the same.
@Jon Betts wrote:
BUT you must have a coherent set of well writen rules for the tech team to enforce.
This is SOOO true. I have offered to type up the final copy AND make them available from this web site.
angie
@J.B. Olmstead wrote:
Good post Chaz , Lets not forget about the corner workers , and the great job Doug has done for us (gratis) !
Since we are throwing around ideas , what if we didn’t change anything ??
or — How about 5 races at each of the 3 tracks , one at Steam Boat (double points) with 2 throw-outs , and cancel all club racing ?
J.B.5 Races at thre tracks plus S-Boat? Drop the club series? That makes 16 events for the state championship. That’s a lot of races for one title/class.
My initial reaction was “no way – never work”. Someone could win a championship (and easily) simply buy hitting more races than the other competitors. Might not have to win a single race or even place well. It becomes a numbers game as opposed to a test of skill.
And who can afford 16 races? I know I can’t. 8 races, maybe. 16, no way.
This scenario – numbers game – will be tied in large part to who can afford to run the most races. Your propsoed shedule better better than doubles the number of races in the series, and this will double the cost of a championship. Because Homie here can’t play that game, that kinda puts me in the SOL class.
JB, if that’s the way you guys want to set up ’04, it’s up to you, but I can’t go that route.
@Angie MacEwen wrote:
@Jon Betts wrote:
BUT you must have a coherent set of well writen rules for the tech team to enforce.
This is SOOO true. I have offered to type up the final copy AND make them available from this web site.
angie
That’s great angie, but I don’t think you realize what that would entail. A comprehensive set of rules – one that would satisfy the needs of the series would be an immense undertaking. Our current set doesn’t even cover all the real tech issues surrounding the classes and there’s a lot more to competition rules than tech specs.
Better to find a sanctioning body or bodies whose rules work for us and save ourselves the headache and printing bills that we’d get trying to write up our own.
Chaz, he is throwing out ideas for next year, he gave a normal, and a spectacular scenario, which is highly unlikely but its good to see all sorts of suggestions out there
@chazilla wrote:
That’s great angie, but I don’t think you realize what that would entail.
Chaz, I certainly do realize what that would entail. I wouldn’t offer to be a part of such a huge undertaking unless I thought it was important.
A comprehensive set of rules – one that would satisfy the needs of the series would be an immense undertaking.
Yes it will be a big project, but given that this is the birth of a series that we want to be credible, to grow, and to prosper, I certainly think it worth the time and effort to create our own set of rules. You are ready to have a paid series Race Director and Tech Director, but not have our own rules?! The system we had for this first year worked ok, mainly because everyone cut a little slack to the series because it was in its first year. I don?t think racers are going to be so forgiving as time goes on.
At this point, if someone is interested in the series, that has never run at our local Colorado tracks, and ask for the rules, what are we going to say?. Shifters by SKUSA, except we have these tire specs, these weights and the this and the that; the rest of the classes run by IKF, except for this rule and that rule; then there is the race procedure – I doubt that we will all agree on one organizations current procedures over another, my guess is it will be a combination of each, plus some of what we do around here. It would be a whole lot better to say ?here is the rule book?. Everyone has to know what they are running against, and what is required of them.
If we were starting from scratch, it would be much more difficult, but considering that we are currently racing under SKUSA and IKF rules (loosely), it will be slightly less difficult (I didn?t say easy). In the long run, if we are going to continue the series, and have it grow, we will have to have our own rules OR be sanctioned by an organization that we can agree on their rules.
Our current set doesn’t even cover all the real tech issues surrounding the classes and there’s a lot more to competition rules than tech specs.
You are right, our ?current set? as you call them, are really only a few modifications that we have added. They don?t begin to cover all of the exceptions to the rules that we currently have. For instance, in the Junior 1 class, if we were following IKF rules exactly, there would be no electric starters used, the pull start must be in place. Also, there is an assumed “open clutch”, which is not documented. I am sure these kind of assumed exceptions are in every class.
Anyway, it makes sense that since we are using other rule sets now, it won?t be impossible to mold them into our own. Take a copy of each and start highlighting and marking out, making notes, etc. Of course, the actual copying of the rules and notes into a finished form will take a little time, but certainly can be accomplished. Once they are completed, updating them will not be so hard either. As far as printing costs, I believe most racers would not hesitate to pay as much as $10 for a hard copy of the rules, which would easily cover printing costs. However, if it is available on the internet to download and print for FREE, I imagine the majority of racers would choose this.
Better to find a sanctioning body or bodies whose rules work for us and save ourselves the headache and printing bills that we’d get trying to write up our own.
It is wrong to require people to run by rules that they cannot easily get their hands on. In order to get a legal copy of the IKF rules, you have to become a member, at a cost of $50. If we charged only a fraction of that, it would easily cover our expenses. How fair is it that the shifters don’t have to pay for rules, because the SKUSA rules can be downloaded for free, but that others have to pay? And since we still are going to have to have a written set of exceptions to the rules, tire specs, AND specify which set of race procedure rules we are going to agree upon, it makes sense to create our own.
I am really interested in what others have to say on this subject. I have spoken to many folks around the pits, and read the forums, and it seems like rules are pretty important to the majority of racers.
Angie 😕
I agree that the CSC will need its own rule book. Not so much for the experienced members because we pretty much know what the rules are and they are pretty easy to follow. More so the CSC will need the rule book for the 1st and 2nd year guys who arn’t familiar with the rules or regs of SKUSA, WKA, or IKF. I think more importantly the CSC will need the book for the tech officials and race directors to have one solid source to fall back on for our races and our racers.
If the CSC were just Shifters and TaG the SKUSA rule book would work but there are to many other non SKUSA classes to do that. I am Not, I repeat NOT in any way offering to help write it, been there done that.
Good luck with that whole loophole, gray area and sprit of intent thing…… 😯Here is a point of veiw from apart time motor builder/Racer for 4 strokes running in Colorado. Which is a minority opionion. I am not sure if in skusa rules change as frequently. But the majority of Briggs racers in America use either IKF or WKA rules. With the OHV motor only being in it’s infant stages we will be seeing a nother new set of rules for motor tech at the begining of the year. To make a set of rules out of last years WKA or IKF rules would be setting up to be a year behind in correcting problems that all ready have been found in the “now” old rules.
As of now I am waiting for the new rules to come out before buying and building for next years races. It is allready a wait and see deal for the IKF and WKA rules, any mods to them would only lengthen the waiting time to prepare for next year and would cause possible problems for any new colorado racers. Not that I agree or want any of the rules, but I do know that John Doe will be looking at the same set of rules when they are available.
I do think that WKA and IKF are at least trying to adapt the same rules for the growth of the OHV. WKA rules are on-line. The simpilest thing you could do is instate a set of local option rules to eliminate any high cost political rules national orginization tend to make.
Brad has allways been the leader in orginizing this goal in January right after the new rules come out. We need to work with him on this.
For the CSCS 2004 year I do wonder if my class will even be run, as the numbers were very poor for it. I just think the average Briggs 4 stroker isn’t willing to spend what it takes to run even the CSCS. They all stayed at IMI for $45.00 a race. I think I am beginning to understand why.
It may help if the series is more divided between “PRO” and “Amateur”. I loved watching the great racing we got to see with large classes racing for all the money that interested sponcers dangled in front of them. I makes me want to join “That Crowd/Class” to see if I could race at that level and get the money. I did receive plenty of fun for the money while racing in the series in this low turn out Briggs class. Every race I still had a nother racer doing their best to beat me. I thank every one involved that let me enjoy this.
As far as understanding some one that would race a Briggs motor will take way to long to post. 🙂 There would be more of us if any one could make money while sporting and supporting complete packages for sale. IMI and CRE are the only ones I really know of attemping to do so.
The seperation of “Pro” and “Amateur” ? I did pay the same fees to race as the Pros did. I think attention to the cheapest of racers is nessasary for the growth of karting. A feeder class of Jr. and or adults ran in the Series at lower than Pro Rates might help?
Sorry for the ramblings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.