So from the tone of this thread it seems that we should combine intermediate and expert. Maybe keep the classification but force the riders to be gridded and race together? Imagine how good it feels for the Intermediate racer that finishes ahead of an Expert, even if it is for 12th place! Larger grids = good Racing with riders that are faster than you = good More space created within the schedule to accommodate additional races per class, or practice sessions = good
Adam I don't know if you are listening anymore or not but I do understand what you want from a competitive point of view, and as you point out if you are interested in moving forward with your talent and skill you always want new and bigger challenges. Once you have outgrown the local track you move on to bigger and better tracks until you reach a place where you are challenged every race but are still competitive and feel that you are at the peak of your talent and ability. It's no fun being 5 seconds out front every race whether you are beating 4 racers or 44. This happens to different racers at different levels depending on skill, budget and commitment. Of course if your skill, budget or commitment fade then you start working you way back down until you reach a level where you still feel fufilled as a racer. The club does have to balance what all the levels of competitors want with what will bring the most racers to the track taking into consideration where everyone is at with their skill commitment and budget. We all what what works for us as individuals. The club has to find some way of keeping us all happy enough to stay.
I blame my parents. I don't want to be slow. I've tried & tried to go faster. I raced in Superbike all year this year, I have no problem racing with the fast guys, why would I? But, I can't believe guys like you Adam, Austin, James and Schooey, & other I can't remember don't come off the track shaking their heads and pissed off after I unintentionally get in your way. In my case combining the two doesn't make much of a difference only that now I would be actually "racing" haha you folk ..shit if I had my way i would've been bumped anyways.
So what's your point? I don't race Superbike because I leave early to catch the ferry back to the island. My R1 has more motor than your bike but that's the only advantage it has. I'm not using my bike as an excuse, I'm sure several guys can ride it faster than me, I will never claim to be able to ride that big bitch to it's full potential. People don't agree with everything you say so you're taking your ball and going home? Don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out.
I do the same. I wasn't allowed a motorcycle as a child and it wasn't until I was an adult that I purchased one. I don't think anyone gets upset. If a faster rider can't get around a slower one, it is their own fault. At round 6 I was pitted beside a guy and he kept coming over and complaining about how his lap times were high because of some other (apparently reckless) guy in front of him. It was pretty funny. I think its great that you want to move up. If you are capable of running in combined superbike already, I think the club would be happy to move you. Maybe ask?
no, it's has to given not asked for or based on conditions. Perhaps, this time next year they won't find a reason to keep me there or it will all just be a moot point anyways..?
I agree with you exactly Jay. 3 skill classes should still stand, but int/exp should be gridded together in the schedule. Larger grids = good Racing with riders that are faster than you = good More space created within the schedule to accommodate additional races per class, or practice sessions = good Contingency still available to Int = Good
The difference in speed between the slowest amateur and the fastest expert make that too dangerous. Typically only the faster of the amateurs enter the combined superbike and 600 and open are usually only combined at the discretion of the exec.
Over in CA? I think you mean down in CA. You're a real international superstar now. Read my post again, I said don't let your ego hit you in the ass on the way out. You speak about what's best for the WMRC but also that you're a big shot USA racer now, and seem to think the WMRC's demise is guaranteed by the new Ridge track opening next season. Great attitude. Enjoy the 2 hour line ups at the border. Back to the subject: Eliminate Intermediate? I voted no.
Actually, the exec are administrative only. We run the operations of the club, however, that decision is made by the race director and the referee. The exec does appoint those positions, but we don't make that call.
I'm glad people are passionate about this, however, I'd like to remind everyone to keep insults to a minimum. Let's continue to keep this productive.
Whether you like or dislike Adam, it is difficult to imagine that his suggestions for the WMRC are self-serving. The superstar comment isn't accurate either seeing that he is a ways off winning in the AFM at this point. I'm not trying to take anything away from him but it's true. I often travel with him and I can tell you first hand he is having more fun battling for top 10 finishes now than he ever did winning at mission. The recipe for success here has everything to do with the racing being fun. Putting ideas forward is what this public forum is all about.
Right, thanks for the clarification. My point was that mixing all amateur and expert sprints is not something the director would do unless it seemed safe to do so. The restructuring suggestions that Adam has put forth solve this issue. The slowest racers (he called it clubman but again the naming doesn't matter), would not be eligible to race with experts.
I would like to challenge that idea with the following example. Round 6 2011 Open SS INT&EXP combined for 20 riders on the grid. Steve O'Toole wins the race with a fastest lap of 1:11.5 17 of the 20 riders on the grid lapped within 110% of that time (fastest laps). I agree that it is difficult to make consistent laps when you have to deal with backmarkers, but that's racing. If you are an expert passing backmarkers shouldn't prove too difficult, however if it does perhaps that is something you could work at improving. As long as the racers are consistent with their actions on the track, getting by the slower ones should be a matter of picking the right time and place. (As an extra benefit, the slower rider being lapped should then recognize areas of the track that can be negotiated with higher speed and improve as a result. Maybe? Maybe not?) I was not on the track so I do not have the personal experience to say for certain that the racing was safe, but as a spectator I can attest that the action was fun to watch and never appeared unsafe. Maybe one of the top finishers from that race could chime in with their opinion on the safety of the combined grid?
I ended up watching quite a few races this year and thought they were fantastic. There are some good comments here. My favorite so far is, "We all want what works for us as individuals. The club has to find some way of keeping us all happy enough to stay." from Reckless. This is the key for club racing IMO. Working towards creating a club that has exciting and fun racing for it's members in what ever form they come. We need to increase the membership and encourage new riders. Our long term pro riders have provided us and our spectators with many weekends of fun racing to watch. We should all work hard to develop their level of skill and determination while remembering why we come to the track...to have fun with our racing buddies while trying to beat them.
I am wondering if someone can answer a question for me on this issue as I believe some posts have been removed and I can't find the answer. If the intermediate class is eliminated, then those riders who are currently intermediate will be competing in the expert classes, but likely at the back. Will there be more classes created to give those riders a chance to be competitive? Or are those slower "old" intermediate riders expected to find an SV and race in middleweight twins? I don't really understand the contingency stuff all that well, but would those racers who have potentially "lost" a class (say intermediate superbike) now not have much of a chance to win any contingency $$? This is all assuming that an "old" intermediate doesn't change their bike due to the new class rules. I really think that the bottom line for many racers is $$. Whether that is a free bike to ride to a superbike championship, cheaper race fees, contingency payout or a cheap bike to race for shits and giggles. Also, attrition is a normal process in any organization. Losing the experts seems to me to be a fact of life. We are lucky that there are some extremely good racers that still come out to Mission and put on an amazing show. The club finds new racers in novice and hopefully the rate of losing experts (and many intermediates for that matter) is slower than the addition of novice racers. For those young, dumb and full of $%# guys and gals who want to prove themselves on a bigger stage, Mission won't hold them no matter what the club does to attract them.
And sometimes it even has the correct gearing. For the life of me, I can't understand how Gail didn't catch that much, much sooner.
Yup. I offer the suggestion to the Race Director if grids are small for him to ponder. If we're running really late we might do it as well, if the grids are small enough. If we want to try to beat some bad weather, I might suggest it to him. We also have the option of doing 2 waves with the combined classes if we want some separation. With the grids on the WCC weekend, it wasn't going to happen. We jut hoped that everyone was going to play together nice.
