Time Trial on Shenandoah Circuit at summit Halloween weekend

[mrevilracing]

Thanks for the info Matt and Thor. I could see a doubling of the entry fee and a $300 transponder rental an issue that would stop folks from participating.

Steve, it's not a $300 transponder rental. That to buy one. And you might br suprised how many thru have to rent. Now is $300-350 a weekend for everything too much? It's actually not outa line IMO

I certainly don't think $300-350 for a weekend is bad at all. For the amount of track time you'd get I think it would be pretty cool. And dropping one of the Jefferson runs would be fine with me, especially for a larger track that is more challenging. Or better yet, maybe conjure up another hillclimb.
Maybe get a general consensus thru the '10 season on those issues?
But as Matt suggested, we could just go do some other regions' event for that type of track time.

[Rich Rock]

I'm not in favor of expanding the PHA schedule for anything other than a hillclimb. I can see the creation of a new organization, similar in concept to the PHA, but with a Track Trial focus, though.

As for cutting one Jefferson event and replacing it with a TT on Shenandoah or the Main track, the first thing that would have to happen is for either one of those tracks to actually be available on the traditional weekends.

Rich Rock

[jerdeitzel]

Rich, I completely agree with not adding any more events to the PHA series. In fact, if we do find another hill I'd be up for skipping one of the Jefferson events to fit that in.

Now as for replacing one of the Jefferson events. You are correct, the first step would be making sure the track is available on the same weekend. (I don't remember anyone on that track this past fall). Now Is the time to do that tho, if we even want to think about it for 2011. ( or the small chance of 2010)

As for a new race series. I like the idea but I'm not completely sold on getting enough participants to make it feasible. We have NJMP event, the WDCR event, and hopefully a Beaverun event next year already. We just need the regions to get together and discuss the possibility of a series. It could only help all regions involved.

[jgrausa]

As for a new race series. I like the idea but I'm not completely sold on getting enough participants to make it feasible. We have NJMP event, the WDCR event, and hopefully a Beaverun event next year already. We just need the regions to get together and discuss the possibility of a series. It could only help all regions involved.

Now there is a thought - TT Series - 5 event competition
1)March NJMP
2) April/May Summit Point (main or Shenny)
3) Memorial Day - Summit Point Jeff (CW)
4)June/July Beaver Run
5) Sept Summit Point Jeff (CCW)

4 SCCA Regions all get more participants
1) BMR/NER get more drivers for Jeff events
2) S Jersey and WDC get participants to help defray costs of PDX

Coordination between the Regions is probabaly the biggest challange.

Joe

[FV95]

Many good ideas here. But, I have one concern: Safety standards. The PDX participants often like to exercise new found skills in the level 2 TT. We do not want to send any signal at all that one can enter a PHA event w/o meeting our level of safety equipment. Should such scheduling occur, would the Jefferson event count toward the proposed TT series AND the PHA series? If so, can we insist on proper safety equipment? We should. I guess I am concerned about long sleeved shirts, no rollbar and a borrowed motorcycle helmet being acceptable, even for a level 2 TT. One can get motoring along on the flat tracks, and yes there is runoff room, but I have seen cars rollover at an autocross. OK so I am an old crumudgeon, but if you are going racing, regardless of the speed and course, get a cage, a good hat and full attire.
John

[jgrausa]

would the Jefferson event count toward the proposed TT series

YES
AND the PHA series?
NO

I thought TT safety levels were determined by the class of event, either level 1, 2 or 3. If you run Jeff Spring/Fall, you need to meet SCCA Level 3 safety requirements, nothing would change.

Joe

[RX-Midget]

As for a new race series. I like the idea but I'm not completely sold on getting enough participants to make it feasible. We have NJMP event, the WDCR event, and hopefully a Beaverun event next year already. We just need the regions to get together and discuss the possibility of a series. It could only help all regions involved.

Now there is a thought - TT Series - 5 event competition
1)March NJMP
2) April/May Summit Point (main or Shenny)
3) Memorial Day - Summit Point Jeff (CW)
4)June/July Beaver Run
5) Sept Summit Point Jeff (CCW)

4 SCCA Regions all get more participants
1) BMR/NER get more drivers for Jeff events
2) S Jersey and WDC get participants to help defray costs of PDX

Coordination between the Regions is probabaly the biggest challange.

Joe

That sounds like a cool idea Joe!
PHA could try to farm people from the Level 2 events into this Level 3 series and then into Hillclimbs. Souneds like a nice series to add to the progresion of the PDX and TT levels of competition (and safety requirements).

[Rich Sweigart]

Joe,

You have a few issues with this.
1. You need organizers of both Jefferson events to agree, plus the other organizers to join up.
2. If the Jeff events stay at level 3 and are not PHA events, and not enough level 2 drivers make the commitment to the level 3 safety, where are the drivers going to come from?
3. The big question has to be are PHA drivers going to run 2 events that have no points towards the championship and is not a hillclimb, plus still be successful, events for NEPA and BMR.

I think that a series that you propose would be more successful as just a level 2 series.

Rich Sweigart

[wolf44]

And where do you get all the extra corner workers from we barely have enough to staff Jefferson most weekends and the Hillclimbs. Shenandoah needs alot more than Jefferson to run it.

[jgrausa]

Joe,

You have a few issues with this.
1. You need organizers of both Jefferson events to agree, plus the other organizers to join up.
2. If the Jeff events stay at level 3 and are not PHA events, and not enough level 2 drivers make the commitment to the level 3 safety, where are the drivers going to come from?
3. The big question has to be are PHA drivers going to run 2 events that have no points towards the championship and is not a hillclimb, plus still be successful, events for NEPA and BMR.

I think that a series that you propose would be more successful as just a level 2 series.

Rich Sweigart

Hi Rich:
A few thoughts. I think the most effective means of organizing a TT Series is the simplest plan. The simplest plan is to not change anything that BMR, NER WDCR or SNJR are doing with their current programs. In other words, there is no requirement for any Region to make any change to their existing Level 1, 2 or 3 program. My proposal is that if the Regions having PDX/CT events want to defray costs associated with their events, they can advertise their CT to PHA style TT licensed drivers IF the event is organized as WDCR and SNJR have done. That is, incorporate a CT with their PDX and have an appropriate amount of track time for TT drivers to compete.

If Jeremy wants to organize a PDX/CT at Beaver Run, I would suggest he follow a similar schedule as done by WDCR, and choose a date that does not conflict with other CT/PHA events should he desire to get participation from outside of Steel Cities.

Safety rules are in place already (be the event Level 1, 2 or 3). Regions do not need to agree to have a Series. All that need happen is someone tract the results (which are already published by each Region for each of their events). I don't see workers being an issue any more than it is now. Both WDCR and SNJR solicit their membership for workers. This past weekend there was no worker issue at the WDCR event.

As a test, I did this proposed TT series in 2009 ( as a 4 event Series). I ran NJMP in March with SNJR, Spring Jefferson, Fall Jefferson and last week WDCR at Shenandoah. Plenty of seat time at each event, lots of fun, relatively inexpensive compared to road racing. All I need are a few like minded TT drivers that enjoy a race track. I see no reason why other PHA drivers could not take advantage of additional "track" opportunities, if they only knew about them. BTW, I intend on doing all 4 events again in 2010 (and maybe Beaver Run should Jeremy have an event).

Joe

[TKnorr]

There appears to be misunderstanding by some regarding the role of PHA in determining which tracks will be run with either a level 2 or 3 time trial. Regions select the venues and sanction the events, not PHA. PHA of course determines whether any event is part of the series and coordinates the schedule.
I am sure any region would be open to the input of the participating drivers, but ultimately the decision is made by the sanctioning region. Participation rates and overall expenses must be considered. If an event loses money, PHA does not take the loss, the region does.
Tom Knorr
RE NEPA

[dspgti]

Consider this. Any santioned event could have muliple points series or non points series participate. A Jefferson event could proclaim having points count toward a PHA Hillclimb series and/or a MID-Atlantic Track Trial Series. I don't remember the statistics but maybe half the entrants at any given event aren't in it for a points race. Having a points series doesn't insure an events success, it is just a tool to encourge repeat turnout. SJR is going to have a PDX and time trial wether PHA is in or not as well as WDCR, SCR and all the other regions will have their own events. The other regions are asking the question, "How can we get more PHA drivers interested in our events?" PHA should be asking the question, "How can we get more of their drivers interested in our events?"

Dave Y

[Matt Rowe]

I disagree. PHA should only be concerned about making sure drivers are interested in the PHA series. Other organizations can build their own series that hopefully mesh well with the same market if drivers.

What PHA shouldn't forget is the market for entries is not infinite. If another series is begun it may bring in new enthusiasts but those new events also compete for entries from the same pool of people. If PHA were to successfully help develop a new series we might find we put our own series in jeopardy. We need to keep in mind PHA is not a timetrials group or a NEDIV group, it is a hillclimb group.

[Sue Salsburg]

Thank you Matt! Sometimes, I feel like I'm the only one who thinks our emphasis should be on hills. Wouldn't trade that perfect line thru 8 at Rose Valley for all the "track" time in the world! Sue( Yeah I know I'm a dinosaur)

[jerdeitzel]

I agree that most likely the hills would suffer alittle with another TT series around. But as I said. The PHA is a remarkable example of what all regions would like to have as far as organized series. It bring in drivers to events that would suffer without them.

Now as for "were hillclimbers". Well, why not try and help
out the southern hillclimbs by putting an event or two in our schedule instead of jefferson's? I kno, I kno, it's alittle far. But I'm sure they would love to have a chance to entice our drivers to come down. And if it was part of PHA. Well it would give people a better reason to attend. ( if it wad for points and such)

don't take this as a serious debate. Were just throwing out ideas and talking about some new ones. Nobody wants to hurt or change the PHA.

And this really is about running the shenny. (still not a bad idea IMO)

[mrevilracing]

I completely agree with Matt that we should keep PHA events as PHA events. Although, if we could pick up a hill in exchange for a Jefferson run(Fall Jefferson), I would think is a better deal. I'm not bashing Jefferson. But I'd rather be racing on the street than on a road course. However, if PHA(all regions agreeing, of course) were to trade up to a larger, more challenging road course, for Jefferson, I would prefer that.
One other note....I prefer the counter clockwise direction. But that's just me.

However, with all that said above, would it make sense to do a joint venture with another series for 1 event? It could possibly keep the costs down at a larger track, no?

By the way, how does it look for the Rose Valley run this year? Have those issues been resolved? Or is it something to be discussed at the meeting?