TSRS "Rountable" meeting

[NickHolt]

Now I have an observation. TSRS posted an announcement that the top 10 drivers and car owners are invited to participate in a "Roundtable". Wouldn't you want some of the "bottom 10" to participate too. Your not likely to get as many ideas for change from those who are doing well under the current rules. Or maybe it's best to just have friends in attendance???

[NickHolt]

This response was made by jp17 in another thread. Unfortunately, I messed up when trying to split the topics and this post will look like I posted it when actually jp17 posted it. Sorry for my boo boo.

 

+++++++++++

 

I don' think it was a points issue as much as it was an attendance issue. 10th place marks the last points position for a team that made the effort to attend every race. Granted, three of the top ten also missed at least one race but that appears to be the number they chose. JP

[NickHolt]

This response was made by ChuckLicata in another thread. Unfortunately, I messed up when trying to split the topics and this post will look like I posted it when actually ChuckLicata posted it. Sorry for my boo boo.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

QUOTE (hray @ Nov 12 2003, 12:15 PM)

Now I have an observation. TSRS posted an announcement that the top 10 drivers and car owners are invited to participate in a "Roundtable". Wouldn't you want some of the "bottom 10" to participate too. Your not likely to get as many ideas for change from those who are doing well under the current rules. Or maybe it's best to just have friends in attendance???  

 

HRay,

To follow up on what JP said, I think it's the idea of having the drivers who made an effort to run in each and every single TSRS race this season. And, while I had NO input as to who would be at the meeting, I totally agree with the concept of the Top 10 drivers being at the meeting..

 

As for your comment, "..maybe it's best to just have friends in attendance," let me tell you this. I've already talked to a few of the drivers who will be there, and to Jack Sandefur, who will host the meeting. The feedback is this: The meeting will be a very productive one on both parts--the drivers have some technical issues they'd like TSRS officials to know, and Jack wants to know what's on the drivers' minds. While there will certainly be an "air of cooperation" at the meeting, I'm sure there will be some devil's-advocate discussions that will take place.

 

If we just wanted to host a "feel good" session, then we'd throw a party with no intention on discussing anything. The meeting will be a productive discussion on both sides of the table, and I'm sure both Jack and the drivers will learn more and hopefully come out of the meeting with some good ideas to make TSRS a better series.

 

--------------------

Let's goooooooooo racing!!!

 

Chuck L

[hray]

Chuck,

As I stated, just an "observation". We don't race TSRS so I'm not the one making the decision, but as JP correctly pointed out, 3 of the top 10 DIDN'T show up for all the races; they just did good when they did show up. If I were running a series, I'd want some feedback from those not racing all the races or those not doing so well. The guys doing well are probably going to be there next year unless they move up to a better series, but the ones you are most likely to lose are the "casual" racers (some of which you may WANT to lose), you may need for car count. Remember, they pay the same entry fee and pit fees as the top 10. Maybe you don't have 10 of them, and maybe you pick ones you know are committed to the series, but you need their feedback.

As a businessman, when planning a sales strategy for an account, I want to know ALL the good, but what tells me the most is ALL THE BAD. You may be able to get that from your top 10. I never can.

[VictoryLane]

There were many teams that tryed to run every race but did not have the money to do so.

Some of the bottom Teams should be represented in the round table.

These are the people who try hard but do not have the money or sponsorship.

[jp17]

hray: Why are you concerned about a meeting for a series that you aren't involved with? jp

[hray]

Come on jp, I made an observation about a post on this website that I thought was curious at best. I don't think I have to be a drug addict to make an observation about drug addicts.......or any other topics I find curious or odd.

[jp17]

At first, I found it a little curious and odd that you “observed” who was or wasn’t invited to a meeting for a series you don’t participate in. Then I read some of your other posts and your distaste for TSRS became very obvious. A number of people posted anti-TSRS opinions; you, however, misstated facts and fabricated others to back up your view of the series. You listed six categories of reasons that TSRS should not exist. Lets take a look at them.

 

First, you stated that at pre-season TSRS meeting drivers requested “10 inch tires, 105” wheelbase, quick change, etc” implying they wanted to differentiate themselves from local LM classes. You then stated that Mary Ann went against those wishes and “specifically designed the rules to pick up THR LLM which gave the series instant car count.” Both of those statements are untrue. I was in attendance and actually voted for the 10” tires and 105” car myself. I was out-voted by an overwhelming majority wanting to make as few changes as possible. .

 

Furthermore, instead of plotting to steal THR cars from the onset as you would have us believe, the series actually went to great lengths to encourage it’s drivers to race the weekly THR show. In fact, the series even went so far as to schedule a Friday night THR race and bill it as a two day event to encourage the teams to stay over and race again Sat. with the THR cars. The rules were, from the on-set developed in conjunction with THR to encourage local teams to compete there and the TSRS staff worked diligently to avoid scheduling conflicts. As a result there were very few, if any nights on which TSRS directly competed with THR for cars. These efforts were largely successful because Austin area teams spent more time racing at THR than they did with TSRS.

 

You may not “think it (TSRS) brought in any "new" cars” but simple math refutes this statement as well. 59 different drivers from 8 distinctly different areas of the state competed in the series last year. The vast majority of those cars were not from the Austin area.

 

Secondly you seem to think, “TSRS races really have been a demo derby and fans don't like that.” I wonder how many TSRS races did you attend this year? Have you compared the number of race incidents to those in Romco or TAMS? I have and I’d encourage you to do the same. There isn’t much of a difference.

 

“When TSRS raced last, the fans stayed for ROMCO and about 20 yellow flag TSRS laps and then the stands cleared out. Don't think that goes unnoticed by track promoters. And what about the famous HMP meeting. All the fans and promoter saw was a really crapy (sic) race.”

 

You failed to mention that THR scheduled far more racing than one day could contain and the TSRS race started well after midnight. After 6 hours of the most uncomfortable seating in racing, concessions that were out of everything but tap water, and restrooms that had long since become cesspools, I was inclined to go home myself and I had paid an entry fee!

 

Next you point to “the famous HMP meeting” as a reason TSRS should not exist. I would suggest that if TAMS and Romco were as pro-active about correcting their own dismal nights of racing that race fans would not only take notice but also appreciate it.

 

Third, you state “HMP requing (sic) touring series to pay their own purse, when TSRS runs with ROMCO, the tracks are leased, when they run by themselves the track shares payment of the purse”

 

Would you tell me how that is different than any other series in the state?

 

“The stands were full of fans when ROMCO was there, but were virtually empty when TSRS raced by themselves.” So now TSRS, in it’s first year, must draw in excess of what Romco does in order to be considered successful? What do TAMS, Allison Legacies, Dwarfs, or ARTS alone do for the front or back gate? Not as much as TSRS.

 

“Forth (sic), it is my understanding that not only is THR not going to race TSRS, but neither is SAS or CCS.” Have you seen a 2004 schedule for any of the tracks you mentioned? Have you seen a 2004 schedule for any touring series yet? Is CCS, THR or SAS going to pay any series to compete next year? If you’ll remember, last year SAS announced they were not going to run Romco, and they lived up to it. Why do you think Romco leases the SAS track when they race there? What makes you think that TSRS isn’t capable of doing the same thing and “hiring” TAMS or even Romco to be part of the show? Would the fans stay home because the track didn’t participate in the purse?

 

“In fact, SAS is going to allow the TSRS type cars to run 10" tires and run with LMS cars. Both types will be allowed to run 4412 carbs next year, so the only TSRS races at SAS will be the 2 ROMCO events. That means all but 2 races TSRS will have to have sponsors for the purse.”

 

I ask you who pays the Romco purse now? TAMS purse? Give me a break. Finding sponsors for racing is as old a challenge as racing itself. SAS adjusting their rules to accommodate TSRS cars is nothing but a good thing. The more places these cars have to race the better. That is the principal on which TSRS was founded.

 

Your fifth point is the only one that contains even a hint of truth.

 

“THR and SAS are suffering low car counts and as businesses have to do something about it or suffer financially. When I add this up, it looks like Brian holds the trump card.”

 

No doubt local tracks need help. I would suggest that banning a series that is the only viable means to import the very cars they need is not the right way to go about it though. The simple fact of the matter is that there are not enough cars in the Austin area to sustain the LM class. As a result the track has relied on cars from outside Austin to maintain car counts for the last several years. Do you or anyone else honestly believe that those teams from outside the Austin area will now quit TSRS and start traveling to THR to race? If that were my trump card I’d fold.

 

“Sixth, when ROMCO or TAMS come to a track, they offer something the fans can't see with their weekly series, but, in the eyes of the fans, TSRS is just like what they see every week - just more of them.”

 

Every single Texas touring series is an outgrowth from a failed local class. Asphalt mods were tried and failed at virtually every track in Texas. Fans sure didn’t care much about them then. Romco came to be as the result of not one but two failed local late model classes. Name most any series and some track kicked them out because neither fans nor cars were showing up. TSRS did exactly what Romco and TAMS did, attract cars from an eliminated class. The only difference is that some teams that were once traveling several hours to race occasionally at THR are now doing so with TSRS.

 

That said it does bother me that THR car counts are dropping. Of course it does. I would suggest that a more rational way to remedy that situation is to work closely with the organization that is doing what THR has not been able to do, attract large numbers of LLM type cars. jp

[racerjim2]

Hey guys JP wants racing to survive in Texas he not only thinks about his series but looks a what goes on at the local shows as well.He chooses to race with TSRS because the city he lives in does not race the type of car he has anymore.instead of attacing him you might listen as gaing some insight from his experence.

THR,SAS,CCS,all need to survive if they try different things it is up to them I dont think changing rules are the way to go.The econcony helps dictate the car count and with that in mind chaging rules could cost a track cars because some guys will not step up and purchace parts untill they think the rules have stablized.Consistancy is the key .even if you let the guys run what they have and handycap the advantages with weight thats the economical way out.Dollars are keeping cars away not touring series.

[hray]

I don't know where you get the idea that I think TSRS should not exist. They did save a class that had been cancelled at SAS (the good side) but in doing so, I believe they screwed THR. I was at the planning meetings too and the votes to keep the same basic cars as the SSS and LLM was overwhelming....that still doesn't make it right. If all these cars and drivers exist then why not make the cars distinctly different than the THR LLM's. I'll bet some of those 50+ drivers would go to the new cars and some would go back to racing at their local tracks and who knows, both might flourish.

As far as the varasity of my statements, I'll stick by them as time will be the judge.

[jp17]

I’m not sure what varasity means but if it refers to the tone of your posts about TSRS it must mean extremely negative. On what do you base your belief that “they (tsrs) screwed THR?” Given that you have had ample opportunity to offer evidence to substantiate that claim and have failed to do so I must assume you have none. Lets run with the notion for a few moments though and apply your logic to another series TAMS.

 

I personally think TAMS is a great series and I enjoy watching them race whenever I can. If we were to use your logic wouldn’t it follow that TAMS should cease operations until they can re-write their rules enough to make it difficult for cars to cross compete? After all they are stealing cars from local tracks, many of which have closed their doors. Better yet, shouldn’t the TAMS guys have been happy to stay at the dirt tracks where they “belonged?”

 

There is no doubt that TSRS and THR both have an unusual set of rules that could stand updating. Let’s say we follow your suggestion and mandate TSRS differentiate itself somehow. Wouldn’t THR react by allowing exactly the same thing(s)? It is, after all, the TSRS car that they want. Who wins when race teams have to keep spending money trying to keep up while the track and the series try to “out-rule” each other?

 

I still say a more logical solution would be for the track to exploit the success of TSRS. There is no doubt that a mutually profitable agreement can be reached with any series that regularly brings 30 cars to the track. Once that is done, cross promote and develop incentives to entice TSRS cars to race at THR more often. This past season it wouldn’t have taken much more than phone call from the track for me to do so. I never got one. jp

[direct-flo]

The stands were full of fans when ROMCO was there, but were virtually empty when TSRS raced by themselves.” So now TSRS, in it’s first year, must draw in excess of what Romco does in order to be considered successful? What do TAMS, Allison Legacies, Dwarfs, or ARTS alone do for the front or back gate? Not as much as TSRS.

 

Hey jp17,

 

I agree the TSRS series does bring in a bigger back gate. Just car count alone would prove that, not to mention crew and family. To be honest I have only seen part of 1 race, so PLEASE do not jump my case " for talking about a series I know nothing about". I would like to ask though. does anyone know for sure just how many paying fans any one class or series brings to a track. I am sure that there are loyal fans that may only come out when a favorite class or series is racing.... This would include TAMS, A.L.R.S., Dwarfs, Arts, TSRS, ROMCO, and all local classes. Like any new class or series, sometimes it takes awhile for all the ontrack problems and bugs to be worked out. I am glad that we have race tracks and fans that support us, and provide a place for us to race every sat night.

 

jp17, if everyone hangs in- things will get better.

 

We should all be thankful for the many texas tracks that allow us to race.

 

 

Tom

[NickHolt]

Anybody care to share how the "Roundtable" meeting went?

 

Nick Holt