Endurance Race 2011

twidders

Member
OK Racers...this is your chance to get your voice heard.

With the 2011 season right around the corner, we are looking to make some improvements to our Endurance Race.

We want to get more teams interested in this race.

So we need your help!!!

What is holding you back? We want to know your reasons for not taking advantage of this exciting last race of the season?

Give us suggestions that would make it more appealing to you.

Thanks for sharing your ideas :D

Trina
EMRA Exec
#28
 

Spooner

Active Member
Have a reason for red numbers to join the race. As the endurance race stands now, its an expert race only. Odds of a red numbered team even coming close to winning are very nil...

I'd say make every team have a team have a rider who always rides is in "b" group during race rounds. Ie. really no faster than the odd 1:03:00

~S
 

oldskool

Active Member
I agree with Scott, who wants to pay alot of money for no likely chance at a win (or second/third). It would add alot to the enjoyment to both particpate and or watch, if there is 'some what' of a race.
 

yak

Well-Known Member
I'm really interested to see more comments.

Do other people feel the chance to win is important? Would this change if we lowered the price and canceled the prize payout?

Are there other factors driving this?

(Personally I would really like to see a grid of 10 to 15 bikes. How can we get there? If we had that many bikes we could run a couple of classes based on bike or rider classification. Thoughts?)
 

kawasaki

Member
The cost is definetley the factor that keeps most people out. I love the race and have placed two out of three times entering however my wife hates it because of the cost and we all know that at the very end of the season trying to justify riding time to the spouse can be difficult. At the moment she is busy forbidding me to enter it if I have to put out any money to do so. If you do not place it costs about 300$ per person for a three man team. Tires will run 400$ no matter what, and the oil change and fuel won't change from the 150$ or so that it always is so even if the entry price was half the change to the overall cost per person would not be great.

Perhaps int and expert could be separatley scored and have the possibility of more payouts of less money so more people could have the chance to place?

I would be good with no payout if it led to a better chance of placing and more bikes on the grid.
 

nac.00

EMRA Executive Member
Staff member
Totally agree with Scott. Have a mixed team...at least one amateur/intermediate rider on the team....that would make things much more interesting and I would FOR SURE do it!

Also if we reduce the cost and pay out according to how much money was received for entrance fees to the endurance race...
Some contingency for the endurance races would be good too, I know the USA clubs have it for most endurance race (this isn't the clubs responsibility, tire manufactures need to step up)
 
Last edited:

jetfixer15

Active Member
I seem to remember intermediates doing just as well as experts in the Endurance race over the years and it was a team comprised of one expert & one intermediate rider that won it two years in a row. I don't think making expert and intermediate classes within the race or mandating the team have at least one intermediate rider will make any difference. Lowering the entry fee might get a few more teams to enter (maybe by lowering the prize payouts). It would be great to see tire contingency too, which is not likely unfortunately. Since we have a new #1 plate (blue) for the person who gets the most points that year, perhaps include the endurance race as a points gathering race for that. The venue is limited as to changes that can be made. It's a pile of fun to do, and I have done it on a SV, knowing darn well I don't stand a chance.
 

Planepower

Active Member
Another suggestion is to change the date of the Endurance race.
The day directly AFTER round 6 is a tough sell as most everyone wants to head home after a successful season. Cost is somewhat a factor after a whole season racing, but not unrealistic if you factor in price per lap. So deferring the date will allow racers to allocate funds for the Endurance race (track days seem good after Rnd 6). Maybe the following weekend or 2 is practical. Understandable that weather and light is tough to depend on that time of year - just a thought.
 

Spooner

Active Member
I'd say make every team have a team have a rider who always rides is in "b" group during race rounds. Ie. really no faster than the odd 1:03:00

As I said before. My proposal would be that a team would have to recruit a "B" rider. True, red numbers have done well in the past but those riders also got bumped up the following year. Hence they're really not intermediates.

The date of the race imo is also an issue. End of season is a bad time to shell out substantial cash to race one last time in Edmonton. Though, its a little late for this year...

~S
 

twidders

Member
Thanks everyone for the input, keep it coming. Even if you agree with what has been said already, as we want to gather a general consensus from everyone.

Remind your fellow racers who don't frequent this forum to sign in and help instigate some changes.

Trina
 

sv-racing-parts

Well-Known Member
:) Having more Classes and more prizes so that the winner is not a forgone conclusion is the ticket to more teams.

At least separate the Experts and Intermediates if you go to classes.

More prizes could also mean, the paying the usual 1,2, 3, positions just pay them less and then have cash prizes top twin, top 600 all intermediate team etc, so that there are more prizes for more teams,

Within those guidelines who rides the bikes really should be up to to the team and bike owner.

We have fielded a team several years now and it would be nice to have a shot at placing somewhere.

It would be great to have the hoped for 10 - 15 bike field,

It would be great for that to be this year,

Enjoy the ride, and best regards,
Blair
 

racer51

Active Member
An old man's perspective

The idea of mixing intermediate and expert on a team seems appealing. I have no visions of grandeur in winning, either at my age or my bikes age. I stopped competing in the endurance race because it was a forgone conclusion that Ian and anyone with him who could lap sub 1:03 would win. Not too many bikes explode these days.

What this means beyond Ian, Pete, Jason, Justin etc. being phenomenal racers, I don't know. Put Ian and Pete deGraff on a single team on a liter bike...and for me the fun goes out of racing, unless you enjoy counting the number of times they are going to lap any other team. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for these aces to practice their hobby...but not at my literal expense. Perhaps bike classes would deal with part of this issue.

Would eliminating payouts and dropping entry fees help? I suspect it would. We would then see if the local superstars have the same motivation as us "also rans" who make up the majority of every grid, in getting out "for the love of racing" and for having some fun with their racing buddies. As it stands under the old formula, it just seemed that the less talented riders like me, were only there to pay for the winners to walk away with a profit...along with maybe 25-30 more laps of racing than my team.

I'd come back under a more equitable cost structure that eliminated cash prizes. A new formula that perhaps offered some other incentives for the superstars to compete for, that weren't directly paid for by my entry fee. 2-3 Bike classes would make it more appealing still, and some sort of age allowance or calculation would enhance a team's chances even more. Add the age of the riders and their bike, along with handicaps for expert vs. intermediate, for some kind of overall placement formula.

Just some thoughts for consideration.
 

Planepower

Active Member
The idea of mixing intermediate and expert on a team seems appealing. I have no visions of grandeur in winning, either at my age or my bikes age. I stopped competing in the endurance race because it was a forgone conclusion that Ian and anyone with him who could lap sub 1:03 would win. Not too many bikes explode these days.

What this means beyond Ian, Pete, Jason, Justin etc. being phenomenal racers, I don't know. Put Ian and Pete deGraff on a single team on a liter bike...and for me the fun goes out of racing, unless you enjoy counting the number of times they are going to lap any other team. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for these aces to practice their hobby...but not at my literal expense. Perhaps bike classes would deal with part of this issue.

Would eliminating payouts and dropping entry fees help? I suspect it would. We would then see if the local superstars have the same motivation as us "also rans" who make up the majority of every grid, in getting out "for the love of racing" and for having some fun with their racing buddies. As it stands under the old formula, it just seemed that the less talented riders like me, were only there to pay for the winners to walk away with a profit...along with maybe 25-30 more laps of racing than my team.

I'd come back under a more equitable cost structure that eliminated cash prizes. A new formula that perhaps offered some other incentives for the superstars to compete for, that weren't directly paid for by my entry fee. 2-3 Bike classes would make it more appealing still, and some sort of age allowance or calculation would enhance a team's chances even more. Add the age of the riders and their bike, along with handicaps for expert vs. intermediate, for some kind of overall placement formula.

Just some thoughts for consideration.

I suspect thats pretty much the case for all that finish below third place, or even intermediate racers when up against said individuals (no disrespect intended).
I thought of a formula to increase participation - points as well as payout.
Points on individual riders in thier classes they particpated in (be it sportsman, vintage, motard or sportbike). Seeing as its end of year; points could help those persons (think of it as a bonus) climb their class standings (regardless of machine used in endurance race only).
Example;
Rider A is in 4th overall in his class he has participated in all year (Sportsman), Rider B is expert class and is easily in top position. Rider C has entered multiple classes (17th in superbike and 8th in sportbike intermediate). Rider D is expert level in 3rd in superbike.
Rider D could ask B to team up and ensure a victory, and everyone else could watch them win (to the dismay of other teams, and as Rick described).
Or...rider A could team up B, rider C could entice D and now we have a competition as thier point standings could increase (multiple class rider would have to pick where to apply points). This could easily upset the standings after round 6.
Also, we could incorporate the 'blue plate' points as well in this formula.

Just a thought.
 

nac.00

EMRA Executive Member
Staff member
Both very good write ups. Something for sure has to be done... 4 teams is not enough.

I think the payout should be something like the way fast25 works.... Have a cheaper entrance fee and have the winnings reflect the total entrance money.

When you think of 350$ just to enter the race... deff scares me away

keeping the teams from being "stacked" is deff something we should deal with. Its natural that the two fastest riders will try to get together to increase thier chance of winning.
 

yak

Well-Known Member
It's interesting to see the comments.

Do people think we could get a 10 bike field with the following setup?

2 classes: Expert and Intermediate (mixed teams to run as Expert)
team entry fee: $300
prizes: gift cards for a team supper or equivalent value idea
1st place: The Keg Level ~$50 per team member
2nd place: The ? Level ~ $25 per team member
3rd place: The McDonald's Level ~$10 per team member
points: for club blue plate only

Just asking.
 

YZF1000jon

Well-Known Member
It's interesting to see the comments.

Do people think we could get a 10 bike field with the following setup?

2 classes: Expert and Intermediate (mixed teams to run as Expert)
team entry fee: $300
prizes: gift cards for a team supper or equivalent value idea
1st place: The Keg Level ~$50 per team member
2nd place: The Kelseys Level :D~ $25 per team member
3rd place: The McDonald's Level ~$10 per team member
points: for club blue plate only

Just asking.

I like it. we could go with the beer equivalent
1st=Keg (no coincidence there)
2nd=Flat
3rd=6pack

;)
 

racer51

Active Member
My thoughts were around a points formula for placement determination.

The variables would include:

Total age of riders = X points (encourages more riders on each team)
Age of bike = 10X points
Engine displacement handicap = subtract X points
Total laps ridden multiplied by some factor to keep them relevant (ie. laps x 3 for 3xlap points)
Handicap for each rider's class (each expert -50, each intermediate -25)

Examples:
Team #1
4 riders total age: 100 points
2 year old bike: 20 points
600cc engine: -300 points
200 total laps ridden in 4 hours: 600 points
2 experts and 2 intermediate riders: -150 points

Team point total: 270

Team #2
4 riders total age: 150 points
5 year old bike: 100 points
600cc engine: -300 points
190 total laps ridden in 4 hours: 570 points
1 expert and 3 intermediate riders: -125 points

Team total: 395

Team #3
2 riders total age: 50
10 year old bike: 100 points
1000 cc engine: -500 points
180 total laps ridden in 4 hours: 540 points
2 intermediate riders: -50 points

Team point total: 140

In this hypothetical example Team #2 scores higher even though they have older riders and an older bike, as well as more intermediate riders. They even got lapped 10 times by Team #1.

This is just an example of a formula that would obviously be open to negotiation.

It encourages several key variables:

More riders
More intermediate riders
Smaller displacement bikes
Older bikes
More laps commonly known as "racing to win"

It also discourages:

Stacking teams with experts
Stacking teams with "young guns"
Larger displacement bikes

Intermediates make up the majority of riders and paradoxically experts are the most motivated to continue racing at season's end. The executive or race committee could also adjust the points handicap for experts to encourage even more intermediate involvement.

I predict experts creating teams with what they view as the most promising/talented intermediates, using smaller displacement bikes, with the same emphasis on racking up laps and winning the race.
 
Last edited:

Fireman

Well-Known Member
I don't think you would want to base any emphisis on the bike that is ridden. It is difficult enough getting people to offer up their bikes.
 

jetfixer15

Active Member
Perhaps the only way to get completely random teams is a draw, with an individual entry fee of something like $80. Anyone willing to enter their bike pays $40 and stays with their bike. Teams to have 3 rider minimum. If 10 people enter their bikes, then 20 more entrants would be required, in addition to the 10 entering their bikes. Put the 20 names into a container and then draw them one at a time assigning them to each bike entered in numerical order of the bikes number plates. Each teams entry fees would total $200. Total entry fees collected would be $2000 (with a 10 team field). Pay down to 5th place: 1st - $500, 2nd - $400, 3rd - $300, 4th - $200 and 5th - $100.

There would be a good mix with regards to the racers age, experience and bike age and sizes. I would suggest the draw be done the morning of the race. The cost of tires is about $400, so each team member would have to contribute $133.33 for that. The total cost for each person (that didn't supply a bike) on a non-winning team would be $213.33.
 
Top