Length of race

[SAMD]

There seems to be a wee bit of an issue over the length of race on this forum (Historic Racing today) with 'sprint type' 10 lappers being belittled somewhat in favour of say.. 40 minute races. Is the general opinion that longer races are better? In my limited experiance by the end of the second lap barring mechanical failure most races have been decided and the sprint type 10 lap race is almost too long! as the rest of the race can become quite processional. Although perhaps this is not a bad thing. I imagine that traditionally the races were longer, perhaps this is what counts?

[Lancsbreaker]

Probably not the best qualified to comment, as I've only raced in 40 minute races - almost exclusively with CSCC - and as a shared drive - so effectively a (nearly) 20 minute race each.....but even at my level of expertise that can provide a fair amount of reasonable racing throughout the field - yes sometimes you find yourself on your own, but usually I've found someone - admittedly often in a different class - and had an enjoyable time.

TBH if you reckon that after two laps its all over, I really don't quite see the point of racing at all - you might as well go and do track days...

[Peter Mallett]

I don't think there's any issue, there are two views though. Those who prefer the short duration sprint races, generally fall into the "it's cheaper" camp. Frankly I don't mind either but my preference is for longer races which provide better entertainment for the driver. As Lancsbreaker says, there's usually someone to race with.

[Mike Bell]

I don't think either is right or wrong- the important thing is that we have a choice!

[Al Weyman]

I am not interested in the 40 minute races, I find them boring to watch and boring to participate in. I have heard comments from CSCC competitors complaining that the pitstop can and often does spoil the flow of the race. For example I have been told of occassions when a driver has been having a damned good race with some other clsely matched cars then either he or they have to pull in to do a driver change never to see the opposition again and end up having a totally boring second half of a race. Once you are out in any race even a 10 lapper and find yourself in that awful limbo land of no chance of catching the slowly disappearing car infront and no one to be seen behind and you are literally trundling around wasting petrol, tyres and wearing out components and maybe waiting to be humilated by being lapped, you may just as well pull over then and there for what the thrill factor is worth.

No sorry you can keep the 40 minute plus races I am simply not interested and I dont buy the tracktime argument making longer races a 'bargain'.

[zefarelly]

I've grown to like shorter races, another major factor is circuit, Lydden, Brands indy and the stupid Silverstone layout, 15 minutes is more than enough . . . .but get to a proper GP circuit and anything less than 30 minutes feels like you've been robbed.

[Adam43]

Long circuits need longer races, I agree.

For me, even, a 40 minute race is too short for pitstops, but the benefits are giving more people a go. So fair enough. A pit stop can make a race exciting as well as make it boring.

Racing is fun and the best bit. However what is the worse that happens? You are on your own driving a cool car on a circuit? I happen to find that fun too! Trying to be better every lap, or consistent, or maybe a little over-exuberance will help relieve the monotony.

[MartinSmith]

I think Mr Bell is right, at least we have a choice...thats the important thing. some like long, some like short, some argue about costs per minute, others like doing ten races accross different circuits....its horses for courses...etc

I will hopefully find out which one i prefer to race in because my paperwork has come through and my ARDS is booked!!!! cannot wait!

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

I don't think either is right or wrong- the important thing is that we have a choice!

I concur.

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

I am not interested in the 40 minute races, I find them boring to watch and boring to participate in. I have heard comments from CSCC competitors complaining that the pitstop can and often does spoil the flow of the race. For example I have been told of occassions when a driver has been having a damned good race with some other clsely matched cars then either he or they have to pull in to do a driver change never to see the opposition again and end up having a totally boring second half of a race. Once you are out in any race even a 10 lapper and find yourself in that awful limbo land of no chance of catching the slowly disappearing car infront and no one to be seen behind and you are literally trundling around wasting petrol, tyres and wearing out components and maybe waiting to be humilated by being lapped, you may just as well pull over then and there for what the thrill factor is worth.

No sorry you can keep the 40 minute plus races I am simply not interested and I dont buy the tracktime argument making longer races a 'bargain'.

The problem I have with this post is that its saying three things, first that organisers are doing things you don't like; second you can't be arsed to try to beat the car in front and third there is cost but no benefit to be had in longer races.

First point: Anthony Robinson had a whale of a time running his A35 in the CTCRC sprint races at Mallory last year. Bearing in mind his experience prior to that was 45mins races. But likewise he had a great time in the B in the Spa 6hrs, for different reasons. So if organisers aren't doing what you want don't complain just don't enter, I'm sure nobody will mind. But don't try to justify a position based upon cost, the V8 races are offering value for money for those who want to do them.

Second point: If a person really can't be arsed to try even though he/she may fail then they perhaps shouldn't be racing, possibly track days would provide the answer.

Third point: Longer races need a different approach. I spent quite a bit of time bottled up behind a Dolomite (Tony Crudgington) at Brands last year and I knew the only answer was to wait for the pit stops. He blinked first and after my stop I was ten seconds ahead (which demonstrates by how much he was holding me up. It also allowed me to overtake the car that was leading the class (on the track) and although the race was red flagged I won the class quite comfortably. But I had a great time trying different lines to get past Tony and even if his defence was robust, it was never dangerous or unfair. Wouldn't have had a chance to win in a ten lapper.

Claire; good luck to you I wish you well.

[Cliff Ryan]

Peter, strangely for once I find myself completely agreeing with your post

I would add that imho you need to have a different mindset for sprint races than you do for endurance racing, each of which can be entertaining and at the end of the day its a hobby, so each to his own

[Al Weyman]

The problem I have with this post is that its saying three things, first that organisers are doing things you don't like; second you can't be arsed to try to beat the car in front and third there is cost but no benefit to be had in longer races.

Not a question of cant be asked, if the car or I simply dont have the legs whats the point in fact thats the whole real stupid thing about the entire sport??? I do try to the best of my and the cars ability.

[terence]

Originally Posted by ClaireSmith

I think Mr Bell is right, at least we have a choice...thats the important thing. some like long, some like short, some argue about costs per minute, others like doing ten races accross different circuits....its horses for courses...etc

I will hopefully find out which one i prefer to race in because my paperwork has come through and my ARDS is booked!!!! cannot wait!

I agree with Mike,good to have the choice but my own preference is for the longer races,cant stand having an awfully long 'hang around'all day for a last race of 15min or so.Really do not see the point,car still needs the same prep etc etc.

[Eddy V]

I think it all depends on how you feel about racing.
I couldn'd stand long races to race in, I prefered the short, all or nothing, 12 or so lappers. I did some longer races but after an hour or so I was bored.
Unlike the rallying I did, but basically that consists of lots of short blasts on the stages over a whole day.
I don't mind spectating longer races, marshalling at them is again leaning towards the boring (as in long) side.

[Tim Falce]

For me it depends on the circuit, places like Brands Indy and 10 or 15 minutes is enough, Silverstone GP you need half an hour and Spa is half an hour before I even settle down so an hour is ideal, just my opinion though and others will differ.

[compte deGraves]

I have driven everything from 15 minute races through to long distance sports car races (with, amoungst others, the internationally famous Iain Rowley as a co driver). Iain used to hate dusk at Nurburgring!

My favourite is a 20 minute race at an HSCC event. Well run, not too exhausting for us oldies, and very friendly competitors. What more could a boy ask want?

[johngee]

I'm going to sound like an even more grumpy John Ruston ...... but what a pointless discussion. Some people like and/or have the cars and/or personal stamina for one or the other. As Mike Bell has already said, there is a choice -just go for what suits you and leave others to enjoy what they want. There is no right or wrong.
Personally, as organiser/clerk, I love races of 6 hours or more - anybody follow the Dubai 24 hours? Fantastic race but if your thing is 20 minute sprint races, it won't be your liking.

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by johngee

I'm going to sound like an even more grumpy John Ruston ...... but what a pointless discussion. Some people like and/or have the cars and/or personal stamina for one or the other. As Mike Bell has already said, there is a choice -just go for what suits you and leave others to enjoy what they want. There is no right or wrong.
Personally, as organiser/clerk, I love races of 6 hours or more - anybody follow the Dubai 24 hours? Fantastic race but if your thing is 20 minute sprint races, it won't be your liking.

You dont sound like a grumpy John Ruston (He isnt grumpy...he is the Scarlet Pimpernel!) no in actual fact, what you are saying is absolutely correct

"I like short races....but i like long races......,mmm short races or long races....but ...which one is best....theres only one way to find out!!!!!"


lol...seriously its like saying "What is better...Toffee or Fudge"

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by ClaireSmith

lol...seriously its like saying "What is better...Toffee or Fudge"

I think toffee is better providing it's not too hard although fudge can be nice as long as it's rum and raisin.

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by Tim Falce

I think toffee is better providing it's not too hard although fudge can be nice as long as it's rum and raisin.

Are you coming to Race Retro?...I miss your humour!!!

[Alan Morgan]

I've recently been looking back at some 1970's results from when Iain and I were doing F4. In those days races were defined by number of laps (often 10). 10 laps of Lydden in an F4 took less than 8 minutes and 10 laps of Brands Club took less than 9. It wasn't a lot of track time for someone like Alex Lowe who'd driven down from Liverpool! I guess there's a happy medium for everyone.

[Tim Falce]

Originally Posted by Alan Morgan

In those days races were defined by number of laps (often 10). 10 laps of Lydden in an F4 took less than 8 minutes and 10 laps of Brands Club took less than 9. It wasn't a lot of track time for someone like Alex Lowe who'd driven down from Liverpool! I guess there's a happy medium for everyone.

So what's wrong with two or three races at eight or ten minutes?

[Tom Walker]

Shorter the better. Ten minutes in the Well'ard and I'm totally ********ed. How DO you spell ********t?

[graham bahr]

as others have said the circuit make a HUGE difference, 15mins round lydden seems a long while, i remember doing 20 mins races there (and silverstone stowe) and it felt like you were out there all day, on the other hand brands gp 15mins is gone in a flash.

having mainly only done 10-15 mins with an occassional 20 min race, im looking forward to doing something a bit longer next year, and the idea of a pit stop makes it all the more interesting,

as someone said earlier in the thread having a choice is the important bit, there is no right/wrong, dont like the format, go elsewhere! if teh support for a format dissppears then so will the format

[delta]

Unlike mon amie John Smith,I think this a good topic to discuss.Back in the 80's/90's when I was involved with 750 M/C we decided that the paying spectator enjoyed watching the starts of a race when attending race meetings,bit like F1 today.I guess this is why Touring cars are having 2/3 races in a day.
We then decided too have more "short races" on the day then give the competitors double headers, this then led on to the "racing ahead" method of starting races much the same as HSCC today.If you have ever been to a bike meeting they can run some 20 plus races during the day.
When I read motor racing books about racing back in the 50/60's there would often be a long distance race for some classes and then later in the day another sprint race for the same competitors.
As for me if I am at the front "which is not often these days"I would like a short race but to be honest I do prefure long distance races ,it gives you more time to look at the car in front ,see where what lines he is taking,braking points ect, then pounce when the time is right.
Too sum up "its all about money".

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by delta

I do prefure long distance races ,it gives you more time to look at the car in front ,see where what lines he is taking,braking points ect, then pounce when the time is right.

Hmm, I recall a race like that at Spa a few years ago, when I did just that to get past a recalcitrant barge, er Galaxy.