Spring Fling 2005 ?

[mpalikko]

Am I missing something or is Spring Fling 2005 not scheduled yet ?

[Red Barchetta]

At the last CTA general meeting I heard it was cancelled. Don't know why though.

[Trackside]

My guess would be lack of interest.

Last year I think the BIG group of the weekend was maybe 10 cars. Questionable weather at that time of year makes it a bit challenging. I have stood out in wind, rain, snow and combinations there of. So far the only weather condition we haven't had to endure was excessive heat

[Gunter Schmidt]

Two reason for not having Spring Fling:

1) The to “many events” story. Now we have one less.

2) Low participation in last few years - SMP and CASC-OR did not recover enough money to keep it going.

[rmicroys]

Too many events? I never event considered Spring Fling "an event". There are still too many points events. ie, 9 OCC events (no change from last year!)

[malcolm]

rob, unless you posted that before the posted schedule revision, there are only 8 events in 2005 for OCC, which I think is quite reasonable. (the cascar event is non-points)

[rmicroys]

I will disagree. Like many of the other groups that have already split out of the OCC - I think that 6 championship points events is the right number. Reduction of 1 points event for the sprints is called fewer championship events? ya, by definition, sure. But by most people's standards who only go to 4 events anyways (which is actually most of the drivers in the region) - that's still a lot of events.

[malcolm]

but as long as the clubs are making money, why not have more events? I heard that one club had a loss of $3000 or so last year by putting on an event at shannonville (can't remember which). an excellent point was brought up that only 10 more cars needed to show up in order to make it break even, and 10 more cars on top of that would have make $3000 profit.

Perhaps the CASC realized that there are enough racers with a lower level of dedication that they will naturally spread their chosen events out over a season, that reducing the number of events by such a degree wasn't called for. Besides, those drivers that only make 4 out of nine events (plus 2 pro events) in a year are likely the ones that would only make 2 or 3 out of 6 events if that was the new schedule.

They can't adapt an entire schedule to those who aren't dedicated enough to make an entire season (that's not meant as a put down). The ones who are dedicated enough to make all the races they can are likely the ones who will stay in road racing the longest, and support CASC the most. A balance needs to be found, and I think the CASC is very close to that now.

[rmicroys]

Then answer me why two groups have split off from CASC-OR to enforce a 6 event season? Do you they think they did it so that people would only go to 2/6 events because they thought there were too many events? The success of the grids in FF1660 is an example the other classes should take from them.

Not to take anything away from the sense of accomplishement of Jay Fieger, Tom Lang, or Jeff Homes, but I think that the #1 spot should be contended for. There should be good competition. There should be a battle down to the last event of the year. They were the only ones in their classes who showed up to all the events to win their championships - a couple of them DESTROYED the next nearest competitors in terms of points winning their first in class titles with ease. Heck I lied even, Tom even ran a class faster at the last event.

Currently we're risking having a class being dropped from eligibility. GTA and GTB have the luxury of making up a larger proportion of the field.

Fine, then lets have 12 events a year! If BARC and BEMC can pull it off on their own, why not - sure! Better yet, if we even move all the events to Toronto - and scrub the last two remaining ones at SMP (which are barely break even events sometimes) then the clubs can make money at Mosport because all the more racers from Toronto will be encouraged to come out - as we all know that the intense gravity well from the centre of the universe makes it pretty hard to get out of GTA to go racing. ;)

[malcolm]

Do you they think they did it so that people would only go to 2/6 events because they thought there were too many events? The success of the grids in FF1660 is an example the other classes should take from them

Different circumstances. Many of those competitors in those classes didn't compete as much because of much larger costs as well as a lack of competition.

With closed wheel, it's only down to costs, or other personal interests coming in conflict with their racing schedule. I doubt it is down to competition because there is always a decent field in closed wheel (not amazing, but decent). We all know that costs in running a closed wheel car in GTC or GTD are much lower than a FF1600, so I doubt that's the issue.

I am sure more people would race at shannonville if the run-off wasn't so bad. The track is quite narrow, and it's hard on cars. Trust me, when Calabogie is up and running, people will start to escape the intense gravity of the GTA because there will be a track worth running on.

Ok, if you think clubs should start dropping events, then why don't I see many volunteers to give one up? If they are making money, and enjoying the race, and if racers are coming out, then why not? Just because there are people that aren't willing to come out to all the events, that doesn't mean we should cater to them.

As far as championships go, yeah, it would be great to have more of a battle for the top spot, but if it doesn't happen, oh well. It's not that big of a deal. I think it's more important to look at each event by itself, and work on those events. Right now, with the slight revisions, I think it's just about right. We'll have enough of a grid each event to make it profitable. Who cares if the grid for the next race is totally different? As long as the dedicated racers have someone to race against each weekend, be it the same cars, or different cars race to race, that's all that matters.

A series with a shootout at the end would be able to achieve both aims... lots of events, with an option to only have one event count for the championship. Even the racers with hardly any dedication would have a shot. However, in my opinion I like to see some dedication required to win a championship. I hate "shoot-outs" because if one thing goes wrong, that is your season down the drain. I don't want to see one guy/girl come out, and through luck be the champion (other cars crashing, mechanical failures, etc), and the racers that put out the dedication to be there the whole year and support the clubs gets nothing. I think the person with the most dedication should win. If two people have that same level, then it's a battle to see who's better. That's my opinion on the matter. ;)

[Bruce Mills]

Originally posted by rmicroys
Too many events? I never event considered Spring Fling "an event". There are still too many points events. ie, 9 OCC events (no change from last year!)

You could be correct after all, some times even 5 events are one to many.

[malcolm]

You could be correct after all, some times even 5 events are one to many.

and by that logic, sometimes even 15 events is one too few. :D

[vintagemini]

I would like to take exception to the idea that a level of commitment is the reason behind people not showing up for races,
I have two kids and a morgage, my level of commitment to the sport has not changed but the funds to actually do anything about it are in short supply, do not confuse commitment with lack of financial backing, if you have the means to run all races, great, glad for you but I am still trying to find the money to put my car back together so please consider the real reason behind people not showing up, namely time and/or money

[Steve Moore]

So true.....

For 15yrs, I drove my father's race car and he paid the bills. We often competed in anywhere from 10-12 events a year, from Mosport, Mid Ohio, The Glen.

When the bills became my responsibity I was luck to get 2 events per year, while having a young family, mortgage and busy career. Its taken me 3yrs to save up for my current car and hopefully have some left over for next years racing costs.

Dedication comes at a price, very few in here gets a free ride, have a huge imcome or a career that lets you race when ever you want. Then add in the family obligations.....

My Brother in Law, who comes out and marshals, built his own race truck and tries to get out at least once a year....to me thats dedication, not the number of events you do per year!



:)

[malcolm]

do not confuse commitment with lack of financial backing

I didn't. Re-read my posts and you'll notice I used an "or" in there.

I have two kids and a morgage, my level of commitment to the sport has not changed but the funds to actually do anything about it are in short supply,

I never intended to imply that racing should be more important than family. Family takes a higher priority than any hobby (and most racers in ontario are hobby racers... only a handful, if that are making money out of it, or aim to in the future). You, and people in similar situations can't commit fully to a season of racing because of outside circumstances. If you can't commit to a full season of racing, then by definition you have a lower level of commitment than someone who can contest all the events. That's not a bad thing. It's just a part of life.

If someone could only make one event a year, for whatever reason, should we then decide that our season should consist of one event? If there is someone who wants to race 30 times a year, should we strive to put on 30 races a year? Both are extremes, and it's obvious that a balance needs to be found. Like I said before, I think that the CASC, by making a few little revisions, is very close to finding that ultimate balance.

Despite what people say, there isn't a huge crisis going on. All that's needed are subtle revisions, and as far as I can see, that's what is taking place. From what I've been told, the CASC is doing just fine, and our region is nowhere near collapse.

edit: yeah, I should have used "commitment to the number of events" rather than dedication... If I slip up, and use the wrong word, it's not meant as a put down. :P

[GR8 Ride]

Guys,

I also have to question the logic of "too many events"? Try being from western Canada, where events (and tracks) are few and far between at all.....having the choice of running any of up 10-12 events per year is a huge blessing. And I'd be willing to support more, if more were around to do so.

Having more events gives me more of a choice in terms of which events to attend when time and money permits.

Rob, the constant whining about there being too many events to suit you smacks of you wanting to punish the rest of us for having the time, energy and finances to chase after more events. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed to see LESS events this year than last year. I like big grids as much as anybody, but I'd rather see 12 well attended events, than 6 massively attended events in which you never get any free space on the track.

Not all of us come out to race purely for the points, nor do we all come out with the intention of winning an annual championship. We come out to race, have fun, share some camaraderie with our fellow drivers, and drink a beer or two on Sunday night after it's all said and done.

Let's keep a couple of things perfectly clear here. One, there is no big prize money up for grabs by winning the annual GT-ABCD or TGTC championship. It's a nice plug and all, but that and $3.95 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks.

Two, most of us are here for the fun of it, and simply don't have the budget to win races time and time again anyway. So an annual championship isn't going to be in the cards anyway.

Guys, we've beat this topic to death in several threads, give it a rest.

The Puresport guys managed to combine both last year. Run a series in which you have 4 or 5 points paying events, and if people wanted to run more than that, they could.

Rob, you could always create your own series, and go about it that way. Why lobby to change something that doesn't suit you at the expense of everyone else?



Pat

[John Powell]

I think that so far the proponents of both sides are right - and no, I'm not waffling. The situation is a compicated one, and the reasons for not running all events are many and varied.

There are those who have the dedication but:
- who's finances are, for various reasons, lacking or weren't firmed up in time to run a full season (e.g. me in 2004)
- who suffer a major mechanical or who have a serious "off" which takes time to fix (e.g. again me in 2003)
- who encounter medical issues that must be resolved before than can pass the medical exam again (this is getting monotonous but, probably me again in 2005)
- who encounter family emergencies, and ...
Well, you get the drift by now.

On the other hand, there are definitely some who do lack the ultimate level of committment. To such people, racing is only one of their past-times - something nice to do when it doesn't take time or money away from their other hobbies or interests, when it's not too much time or trouble, or doesn't interfere with acquiring ameneties that "improve their quality of life." And there are also many who are in between the dedicated and those with the much lower level of committment noted above. They wouldn't mind doing or would like to do more races, if only there wasn't (insert reason here) to consider.

As for events at Shannonville, it's not my favourite track either. It's flat and uninteresting, and doesn't seem to "flow" like a real road coarse. For those of you who remember Harewood, I think that it was better in this regard, even though it was also flat, being laid out on an old airfield. Added to that is that Shannonville is about 1 1/2 hours further from the GTA than Mosport, so only the dedicated GTA racers or those who need to go to get points show up there, so this may be one of the reasons for lower entries there. For those of us in the hinterlands of Eastern Ontario, however, it's our closest track, so we're more likely to race at Shannonville regardless of our opinion of the track.

As for the number of events per year, in the final analysis I agree with Malcolm. We should run as many events as will attract sufficient entries to make them financially viable, which at the present time seems to be between eight to ten per year. Most of those who are fully dedicated but who are prevented by their circumstances from running the full calendar would probably not begrudge the fact that others in better circumstances could run all events. I know that I don't. As for those who don't want to run the full slate, they could still run as few events as they wished without limiting the participation of others, and if this limits their championship chances, well I'm afraid that's the price of their choice. This may seem harsh, but consider this. Racing events are consumable products produced by organizing clubs and a share of each is consumed by each racer. If there enough consumers to purchase a given output of the product, it doesn't make economic sense to reduce the output as long as there's a positive return on investment at such given output. This way, consumers are free to purchase as many or as few shares of the product as they are willing or able to consume, i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number of people. :D

[malcolm]

yeah, what Mr. Powell said!

(that's the wavelength I was trying to be on, but he said it much more effectively than I did)

:D

[John Powell]

Mr. Powell Come now Malcolm, so formal. To my friends in racing, it's just plain John. And I guess you're up late with nothing to do tonight as well. :D

[malcolm]

up late? haha, I'm in university, so 11:30 pm is early... ;)

ps. avoid looking of this post!
pps. even the libraries are open until 2am during exams, and seats are hard to come by!

[rmicroys]

Pat,

I don't see you coming out to too many events? Now the question is, why did the committee recommend fewer events? The recommendation didn't come from the race director, it didn't come from the organizing clubs, so who generated the information that would lead the committee to that conclusion?

Hmmm... Have you asked any of the other drivers ? Try asking Mike Thornley, Ian Madden, Jeff Lorriman and others how many events there should be. And these are the guys that go to every event! You'll find that I'm not alone. For someone who doesn't even race as often as I do in the past year, you're not one to talk. I've seen you whine as much as I do ;)

It's not the finances of racing that drive me to not come out to every race. There are a lot of reasons, I've listed them before so there's no point in going in to this farther. Certainly those who want to race every weekend, can do so without having to only race in Ontario. There are lots of other events in the FAQ and State side that can occupy one's time too.

I would create my own series, but the problem is that tin top drivers aren't as fraternized as the open wheel classes, and the effort to band forces to make a competitive and full classes would probably bust. I was hoping that the efforts of the committee would influence the ORO more so, but again, like I already said, it's hard to make change.

Why do some of the other groups reduce their race counts? Especially the FV1200s? It's not because of cost. Those are the cheapest cars to run!

I agree with both John and Malcolm... there are a number of sides. A> give me lots of events so I can go when I choose or to all of them B> people who want good busy fields. Personally, ya, I'd love both, lots of big quality fields, but if I had a choice - I'd rather have more cars per event... what is astonishing is that the fields in which you'd expect cheaper operating costs (GT-C and GT-D) there are few cars competing than ever.

Regardless, as Gunter says, you can't make everybody happy. No. You certainly cannot. I wonder who is really satisfied? Now that would be a good question to answer. ;)

Oh well... Like I think we've all agreed, enough of this. I'll see all you GTC pokes out there next year. Catch me if you can.

Merry Jingle and Happy Ho-Ho to all. Best wishes to you and your family for the holiday season!

[Shark]

I don't think we should gear the whole series on the fact that some folks can't do them all. You do as many as you can afford to do. That's the way it is all over the world.
You don't bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator. If there were a person who can only do 2 events, why don't we shrink down to just 2. What's the point??????

[Crusher45]

35% or respondants wanted less events. Does that mean 65% want more?

[John Powell]

35% or respondants wanted less events. Does that mean 65% want more? It could be, BUT it depends on what they responded to. If it was the Task Force request for input or their Report, or an "opinionaire" on this forum, it was hardly a statistically sound survey. I'd be hesitant in making any policy decisions in either direction on such flimsy evidence. Getting valid results from a poll or survey is a black art which can only be exercised by experts, and I haven't seen such a poll yet. The only evidence we have to go on at the moment is historical data regarding the entry levels at various events under the circumstances applicable to each one. This, plus a healthy gut feeling based on knowledge of the sport, is what I presume was used by Gunter et al in developing the 2005 schedule. As I said previously, the ideal number of events is that which will attract sufficient entries to make them financially viable, and I think the 2005 schedule is the current best estimate of what that number is, and although it's a couple fewer than I would have liked, I'm willing to accept their judgement.