2013 Rule Change Suggestions CLOSED

[TRK]

http://smiliesftw.com/x/rules.gif

Suggestions for the 2013 rulebook are now open and will be accepted until Monday October 1st, 2012 (rules suggestions will not be accepted after 2400hrs on October 1, 2012) Once the list is compiled, the proposed rule changes will be sent out to all members. Rule changes can be submitted to myself, the VP of Rules and Tech, or to any rider representative. The preferred method would be for racers to submit rule changes via this thread.

We've changed the venue(and scenery) this year for the Annual Rule Change Meeting. We will be at Tilted Kilt on 16th Street in Downtown Denver on Saturday November 3rd at 2pm. We will be in their private banquet room.

Tilted Kilt
1201 16th Street #120
Denver, CO 80202


The rule change meeting is open to all members and will be held to discuss the proposed 2013 rule changes. The members attending this meeting will be encouraged to give input on the changes that should be presented to the MRA board for approval.* I would like to have finalized rule changes for the 2013 season in place before the end of the year.

When making your suggestion, be sure to cite the existing rule and what changes you are suggesting. If it is a new rule, please use the exact wording as you would like it to appear at the rule change meeting and possibly the rulebook.

If you want to discuss your rule change proposal, please start a separate thread.

If you have any questions please shoot me a PM.

[Smitty]

5.3 Number & Display Regulations

D. Colors - all Expert competitors will use black numbers on a white background.
Numbers must be approximately 8” high and 1” wide, of standard block lettering
with no shading or outlining. Novices will use black numbers as specified above,
but the numbers shall be on a yellow background. Expert class champions
from the previous MRA season are permitted to use white numbers on a black
background with the same size and style restrictions.

The height of the numbers should be changed from 8" to something smaller like 5" or 6". It doesn't seem possible on the newer bike to fit an 8" number and have them legible from the front and sides. Thanks!

[peteyt328]

FOR SUPERSPORT CLASSES

2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
G. Only DOT approved tires or non-DOT full rain tires may be used. The original molded tread pattern cannot be modified. Non-DOT slicks and non-DOT intermediate tires are not allowed.

**NEW**
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
G. There are no restrictions on tires. Non-DOT slicks and intermediate tires along with full rains may be used.

[T Baggins]

From Frank Diranna:

2.5.1 Requirements

Modern Vintage motorcycles must use a frame and engine case 10 years old or older, as determined by manufacturer’s model year. For 2011, the model year must be 2001 or prior.

Change to:

2.5.1 Requirements

Modern Vintage motorcycles must use a frame and engine case for a model started in production 10 years or older, as determined by manufacturer's model year.

For example for 2013, a yamaha 2003 R6 model started 10 years ago is legal, also should be legal are the 2004 and 2005, as they are the same model with no updates that are not currently banned from updating the 2003 model to.

[Throttleroller277]

From Frank Diranna:

2.5.1 Requirements

Modern Vintage motorcycles must use a frame and engine case 10 years old or older, as determined by manufacturer’s model year. For 2011, the model year must be 2001 or prior.

Change to:

2.5.1 Requirements

Modern Vintage motorcycles must use a frame and engine case for a model started in production 10 years or older, as determined by manufacturer's model year.

For example for 2013, a yamaha 2003 R6 model started 10 years ago is legal, also should be legal are the 2004 and 2005, as they are the same model with no updates that are not currently banned from updating the 2003 model to.

the 2005 R6 has inverted forks, larger brake rotor on the front, and different Master Cyl.

[Throttleroller277]

FOR SUPERSPORT CLASSES

2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
G. Only DOT approved tires or non-DOT full rain tires may be used. The original molded tread pattern cannot be modified. Non-DOT slicks and non-DOT intermediate tires are not allowed.

**NEW**
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
G. There are no restrictions on tires. Non-DOT slicks and intermediate tires along with full rains may be used.


Now that's funny!!....

Here we go AGAIN.... :roll: 8) Thanks Pete

[KFinn]

FOR SUPERSPORT CLASSES

2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
G. Only DOT approved tires or non-DOT full rain tires may be used. The original molded tread pattern cannot be modified. Non-DOT slicks and non-DOT intermediate tires are not allowed.

**NEW**
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
G. There are no restrictions on tires. Non-DOT slicks and intermediate tires along with full rains may be used.


Now that's funny!!....

Here we go AGAIN.... :roll: 8) Thanks PeteIt is his inner cheater coming out. Stepping up to a 1000 and now wanting tires too.... geez, needy.

[T Baggins]

From Frank Diranna:

2.5.1 Requirements

Modern Vintage motorcycles must use a frame and engine case 10 years old or older, as determined by manufacturer’s model year. For 2011, the model year must be 2001 or prior.

Change to:

2.5.1 Requirements

Modern Vintage motorcycles must use a frame and engine case for a model started in production 10 years or older, as determined by manufacturer's model year.

For example for 2013, a yamaha 2003 R6 model started 10 years ago is legal, also should be legal are the 2004 and 2005, as they are the same model with no updates that are not currently banned from updating the 2003 model to.

the 2005 R6 has inverted forks, larger brake rotor on the front, and different Master Cyl.

Right... but since Mod Vintage is a Superbike class - you COULD put a 2005 front end on a 2003 or 2004 (or 1999 for that matter) if you wanted anyway...

I think this would be hard to police. I have another suggestion which I'll post later.

[Fastt Racing]

Moved to a new post

[spideyrdr]

Removed

[TRK]

if you guys want to debate the proposed rules open a new thread.

[T Baggins]

Modern Vintage

Same proposal as Frank above for 2.5.1 but with a few exceptions:

Ten MODEL YEAR rule - with frame and engine as the sole determinant. Since the forks and everything else are open for swap anyway, who cares...? The '99 thru '02 R6 would be considered a '99 model year. The '03 thru '05 as well as ALL R6S's (regardless of year) are all identical frame and engine, so they would all be considered '03 model year. I use R6 as the example because thats the bike I know...

I would combine the two classes simply into Modern Vintage Open. Currently there are only a handful of bikes in each class and a well ridden 600 could still win the class anyway. If signups warrant, we could run them in two waves as we did in the past. MVO in the front, MVU second wave.

Additionally I would suggest we "freeze" it at 2003 model year for five years and then in 2018 change the rule to a 15 model year rule because the 2005 model year bikes are & 2006 are currently competitive in all of our Modern Classes. This is no longer in the spirit of Modern Vintage imo...

This change would make as much as 1/3 of the bikes in our paddock eligible for modern vintage, and give our guys on older (but not yet old) bikes a place to run competitively.

[T Baggins]

New Class suggested by Martin Jarusek

Formula Main Jet

Only rule - Bikes must have been originally produced carbureted, and STILL be carbureted. Everything else is wide open.

If we also combined the two MV classes as I've suggested above, then there would be an open spot in one of the two-wave classes that the MV classes ran in. That's where FMJ would go...

[Peanut_EOD]

Can we get some new allowances for the 250's? Maybe a 250GP class added?

[T Baggins]

Proposed revision to 250 Production Cup:

New name "Production Cup"

two waves, two classifications - would run in current 250 production cup slots.

400
&
250

Otherwise same rules.

This is to allow for the coming of the KTM 350 & 390, as well as the new Ninja 300 & 400 - and any other surprise little bike that might appear in the next few years. Honda and Yamaha have little bikes that are hot in other markets.. who knows they just might end up over here.

[JWinter]

I got a couple of rule change suggestions:

1) existing rule for Superbike class requirements 2.3.1.A. Frame and engine cases must be from the same production model motorcycle, except for single cylinder motorcycles, which may use any frame.

Change to: Frame and engine cases must be from the same production model motorcycle, except for twin and single cylinder motorcycles, which may use any frame.

2) existing rule for Technical requirements 5.2.2.P. Supercharging (including turbo charging and blowers) is not allowed, except in Race of the Rockies.

Change to: Supercharging (including turbo charging and blowers) is not allowed, except in Grand Prix (section 2.4) classes.

[rybo]

Remove section 2.3.1 D

Reducing engine size of machines from stock displacement to meet lower class displacement limits is NOT allowed. (e.g., a bike that is a Heavyweight in origin can NOT be re-sized for Middleweight competition.)

[TRK]

7.3 Point Awards
Points will be awarded by the following formula:

1st 36 16th 15
2nd 32 17th 14
3rd 29 18th 13
4th 27 19th 12
5th 26 20th 11
6th 25 21st 10
7th 24 22nd 9
8th 23 23rd 8
9th 22 24th 7
10th 21 25th 6
11th 20 26th 5
12th 19 27th 4
13th 18 28th 3
14th 17 29th 2
15th 16 30th 1



Suggested change:
7.3 Point Awards
Points will be awarded by the following formula:

1st 60 16th 15
2nd 50 17th 14
3rd 42 18th 13
4th 36 19th 12
5th 32 20th 11
6th 30 21st 10
7th 28 22nd 9
8th 26 23rd 8
9th 24 24th 7
10th 22 25th 6
11th 20 26th 5
12th 19 27th 4
13th 18 28th 3
14th 17 29th 2
15th 16 30th 1

[TRK]

I would like to have a quick discussion on flags, so I can clean up the rulebook.

[TRK]

2.2.2.C.l

Construction must be of plastic or fiberglass composites, but not other fiber composites such as carbon or aramid fiber

Suggestion: Delete this requirement all together. Modern fiberglass bodywork is as light or lighter than any other material.

[rohorn]

Delete 5.2.2-S, since it is the same as 5.2.2-D. Unless, of course, it is twice as important as the rest of the rules in 5.2.2.

[Mforza]

New Class suggested by Martin Jarusek

Formula Main Jet

Only rule - Bikes must have been originally produced carbureted, and STILL be carbureted. Everything else is wide open.

If we also combined the two MV classes as I've suggested above, then there would be an open spot in one of the two-wave classes that the MV classes ran in. That's where FMJ would go...

Thanks Tony :D
I will have hard time to write this down in proper English :)
Hope this and the combined MV classes will get some support!

[DOUBLE A]

I vote to change/bend the rule that says if any racer falls down during a race you cannot rejoin that race.

This rule would only be for expert racers in the ROR class only, the rider must be able to continue safely & must have an MRA official in some fasion or cornerworker visually check out your motorcycle for obvious leaks or damage that would make contining an issue.

[T Baggins]

Get rid of the Heavyweight classes altogether.

HW End
HWSS
HWSB

grids are 99.99% 600's anyway....

then, in theory we could run

LW End
MW End
Open End

as separate classes and still be done same time on Saturday which would please everyone (but most especially Corner Workers).

Of course we'd have to look at revenue and see if that would be shooting ourselves in the foot - but seems weird to have classes that nobody actually makes/owns bikes for any more...

[JimWilson29]

I'll take Tony's suggestion one step further and post what I proposed 2 years ago which is getting rid of the HW classes and adding an additional MW and Open class to balance out any revenue loss:




Proposed MRA Class Changes

(Current) Section 1 – RACE CLASS LIST
The MRA will run the following classes at each regular event. (Classes may be combined
into a single race but will be scored separately.):
Novice (GTO/GTU)
Amateur (GTO/GTU)
• Modern Vintage (GTO/GTU)
• Middleweight Supersport & Superbike
• Heavyweight Supersport & Superbike
• Open Supersport & Superbike
• Lightweight Grand Prix
• Super Twins (GTO/GTU)
• Colorado Class
• Race Of the Rockies (GTO/GTU)
• Ladies Of the Rockies
• Endurance Classes (Lightweight, Middleweight, Heavyweight, and
Open)
• Sportsman
• Superstreet class

(Proposed) Section 1 – RACE CLASS LIST
The MRA will run the following classes at each regular event. (Classes may be combined
into a single race but will be scored separately.):
Novice (GTO/GTU)
Amateur (GTO/GTU)
• Modern Vintage (GTO/GTU)
• Middleweight Supersport, Modified Production & Superbike
• Open Supersport, Modified Production & Superbike
• Lightweight Grand Prix
• Super Twins (GTO/GTU)
• Colorado Class
• Race Of the Rockies (GTO/GTU)
• Ladies Of the Rockies
• Endurance Classes (Lightweight, Middleweight, Heavyweight, and
Open)
• Sportsman
• Superstreet class

(Currently)2.1 Sprint class general guidelines
A. Expert classes are designated as Supersport, Superbike, Grand Prix, and Modern
Vintage GTO and GTU.
B. Amateur classes are designated as GTO and GTU.
C. Novice classes are designated as GTO and GTU.
D. Novice racers may enter and be scored in Novice and Amateur classes.
E. Beginner classes are designated as Superstreet classes.
F. Displacement, engine, chassis configuration, age, and the original
manufacturer’s intended use and availability determine motorcycle eligibility for
a given class.
G. A motorcycle may only be entered in a class in which all eligibility requirements are met.
H. If a motorcycle is entered in more than one class, it must conform to the
requirements for each class in which it is entered.
I. It is the racer’s responsibility to only enter classes in which his or her
motorcycle is eligible.

(Proposed)2.1 Sprint class general guidelines
A. Expert classes are designated as Supersport, Modified Production, Superbike, Grand Prix, and Modern
Vintage GTO and GTU.
B. Amateur classes are designated as GTO and GTU.
C. Novice classes are designated as GTO and GTU.
D. Novice racers may enter and be scored in Novice and Amateur classes.
E. Beginner classes are designated as Superstreet classes.
F. Displacement, engine, chassis configuration, age, and the original
manufacturer’s intended use and availability determine motorcycle eligibility for
a given class.
G. A motorcycle may only be entered in a class in which all eligibility requirements are met.
H. If a motorcycle is entered in more than one class, it must conform to the
requirements for each class in which it is entered.
I. It is the racer’s responsibility to only enter classes in which his or her
motorcycle is eligible.

(Current)2.2.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits*SUPERSPORT
A. Middleweight Supersport
• Up to 600cc four cylinder
• Up to 650cc pre-1984 four cylinder
• Up to 750cc three cylinder, four stroke
• Up to 850cc two cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 904cc two cylinder, four stroke, two valves per cylinder, air cooled
• Unlimited displacement pushrod, two cylinder, four stroke, two valves per
cylinder, air cooled
B. Heavyweight Supersport
• Up to 750cc four cylinder
• Unlimited displacement three cylinder four stroke or two cylinder air cooled
four stroke
• 1125cc or less two cylinder, liquid cooled, four stroke
C. Open Supersport
• Unlimited displacement

(Proposed)2.2.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits*SUPERSPORT
A. Middleweight Supersport
• Up to 600cc four cylinder
• Up to 650cc pre-1984 four cylinder
• Up to 750cc three cylinder, four stroke
• Up to 850cc two cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 904cc two cylinder, four stroke, two valves per cylinder, air cooled
• Unlimited displacement pushrod, two cylinder, four stroke, two valves per
cylinder, air cooled
B.Open Supersport
• Unlimited displacement

(New)2.3 Modified Production classes(*Current classes starting with 2.3 Superbike will be moved down in rulebook i.e. 2.4 Superbike Classes)

(New)2.3.1 Class Requirements
Modified Production motorcycles shall be limited to those manufactured for street use in the United
States. Such motorcycles must be readily available to the general public from established
manufacturers, distributors and/or dealers. Motorcycles must comply with manufacturers' published
specifications for given models and be fitted with all original equipment. Along with the following
items, all Motorcycle Technical Requirements and Supersport rules shall apply.
1. Modifications introduced by a manufacturer to a basic model configuration subsequent to the
original introduction of the model may be fitted within the limits of normal assembly procedures.
External welding, brazing or machining for this purpose is not permitted.
2. Modification of engine case(s) and/or cylinder castings is prohibited, except for the repair of crash
damage.
3. Internal engine modifications are permitted as long as the class displacement limits are not
exceeded and the stroke is not changed. Internal transmission ratios may not be changed.
4. Clutch lining material and number of plates may be changed.
5. The exhaust system may be repositioned for ground clearance or an aftermarket racing exhaust
may be fitted.
6. The ignition coil, condenser and related wiring and fittings may be changed. Accessory electronic
ignition systems may be used provided they are available to the general public. Generators and
alternators may not be removed and must be in working order (individual part failure during event
weekend exempt). Starter may be removed.
7. Chain and/or sprockets (including sprocket material) may be changed. Ring and pinion assemblies
may be changed.
8. Instruments may be added, removed, or modified.
9. The handlebar type may be changed, but they must mount in the original manner. Handlebars and
tank must have a minimum of one (1) inch clearance at full lock.
10. The seat may be changed. Footrests may be changed (rear sets allowed) or modified.
11. Bodywork is open, providing 5.2 Motorcycle Technical Requirements are followed including use of any
windshield.
12. Aftermarket wheels may be fitted if they are compatible with the original, unmodified brake
components. Rear Sprocket hubs and wheel spacers provided with approved aftermarket wheels
are allowed, unless the swing arm, forks, or brake mounting require modification to accommodate
their use. Slight chamfering of spacers, calipers, caliper mounts, forks, or chain adjusters for the
sole purpose of smooth wheel changing is allowed. Wheel size is open.
13. Stock brake calipers specific to model are required. Stock rear brake rotors may be drilled and/or
machined. Aftermarket rotors replicating o.e.m. diameter may be used. (Ex.: Wave Rotors)
14. Brake lining material may be changed and brake hub assemblies may be drilled for ventilation.
Braided steel brake lines are allowed.
15. Brace tubes and gussets may be added to the frame or swing arm, but no original tubes may be
removed or bent.
16. Rear swing arm may be stiffened and the swing arm pivot may be modified, but the frame may not
be altered, except as provided in #15 above.
17. Carburetors may be up‐dated or backdated to any applicable manufacturers' specifications for
that basic model. Turbo‐charging and/or changes to the basic type of fuel induction (fuel injection
vs. carburetors) are not considered such updating or backdating.
18. Carburetor bodies may not be modified but may be fitted with normally replaceable components
for jetting purposes.
19. Air box may be modified or removed. Air cleaners and intake ducting may be modified, added,
replaced, or removed. Velocity stacks may be fitted.
20. Oil injection pumps may be removed.
21. Brake calipers, discs, and fork tubes may not be exchanged for aftermarket or larger model
assemblies (such as 1000cc front end on a 750cc bike).
22. Tires are open; D.O.T. or racing slicks is permitted.
23. Aftermarket triple clamps made for the specific model of bike may be used. (Stock forks as above
in #21 must be utilized).

(New)2.3.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits
A. Middleweight Modified Production
• Up to 600cc four cylinder
• Up to 650cc pre-1984 four cylinder
• Up to 750cc three cylinder, four stroke
• Up to 850cc two cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 904cc two cylinder, four stroke, two valves per cylinder, air cooled
• Unlimited displacement pushrod, two cylinder, four stroke, two valves per
cylinder, air cooled
B. Open Modified Production
• Unlimited displacement

(Current)2.3.2 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits **Superbike
Class displacement limits are set as follows:
1. Middleweight Superbike
• Up to 640cc four cylinder four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 850cc two cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 750cc three cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Unlimited displacement two or three cylinder four stroke, two valves per cylinder
• Up to 250cc one or two cylinder two stroke, water cooled, unlimited origin
• Up to 1050cc four cylinder four stroke, two valves per cylinder
• Up to 510cc two or more cylinder two stroke, water cooled
• Unlimited displacement two stroke, air cooled
• Unlimited displacement single cylinder
2. Heavyweight Superbike
• 390cc to 750cc four cylinder four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Over 390cc four cylinder four stroke, two valves per cylinder
• Over 485cc three cylinder four stroke
• Over 485cc two cylinder air cooled four stroke
• Over 485cc and 1125cc or less two cylinder, liquid cooled, four stroke
• Over 330cc two or more cylinder two stroke
• Over 450cc single cylinder four stroke
3. Open Superbike
• Over 485cc two or more cylinder

(Proposed)2.4.2 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits **Superbike
Class displacement limits are set as follows:
1. Middleweight Superbike
• Up to 640cc four cylinder four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 850cc two cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Up to 750cc three cylinder, four stroke, three or more valves per cylinder
• Unlimited displacement two or three cylinder four stroke, two valves per cylinder
• Up to 250cc one or two cylinder two stroke, water cooled, unlimited origin
• Up to 1050cc four cylinder four stroke, two valves per cylinder
• Up to 510cc two or more cylinder two stroke, water cooled
• Unlimited displacement two stroke, air cooled
• Unlimited displacement single cylinder
2. Open Superbike
• Over 485cc two or more cylinder


To sum this up, I am proposing we remove Heavyweight Supersport & Superbike and replace with 2 new classes: Middleweight Modified Production and Open Modified Production. The motorcycle requirements for these 2 new classes fall between supersport rules and superbike rules. Basically you are allowed engine modifications but must keep stock displacement, you can run after market wheels and slicks but must keep stock forks and calipers.
My reasoning for this is that this past season we averaged one 750cc bike and two 999cc vtwins in the HW classes. The grids were basically all 600's. Open Supersport had 600 riders too. By doing this we provide another true Middleweight class plus an additional Open class. 600 riders will still have the same number of classes they can run but 1000 riders will have an additional class they can run.
Tell me what you think.

[nobasin]

Proposed change for SuperSport section 2.2 C:

"All motorcycles must display a vehicle identification number on the main frame."

Change to:

"All motorcycles must display a vehicle identification number on the main frame. Frames without vehicle identification number are allowed only if they are stock production frames without modifications of any type."

[KFinn]

Tony / Jim - Can you open up a discussion thread on it? I have some questions and concerns and don't want to clog up this thread as this is supposed to be limited only to suggestions and not discussion.

[T Baggins]

Tony / Jim - Can you open up a discussion thread on it? I have some questions and concerns and don't want to clog up this thread as this is supposed to be limited only to suggestions and not discussion.

Nope.

:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[aspenbum]

I suggest that there be a rule that states:

In order for a rider to successfully complete a SuperStreet class, that rider may not crash at all during the SuperStreet Event. If the rider crashes during the race, he/she may continue to ride during the remainder of the race, pending tech approval/new rider director approval, but his/her SuperStreet credit towards a provisional novice license is disqualified. In order for a rider to apply for a Novice Race license, they must have completed two SuperStreet Events without crashes in either one.

If the rider crashes during the practice/instruction period then the rider must start in the back of the grid of the Super Street Race regardless of registered grid position pending tech/new rider director approval.

[Kingpin]

Suggest chage to section 2.2.3 Class displacement and configuration limits.

Section A: Middleweight super sport

Suggest changing From up to 600cc four cylinder
To. 640cc four cylinder

Reason is to allow for potential of 2013 zx6r just in case some one wants to buy one.
(P.S. no I'm not buying one) but thought it would be good not to restrict their new bike offering.

[TRK]

If we need to kill a class, and I don't think we need to.
Kill Thunderbike.

See remarks in HW discussion.

[Peanut_EOD]

Change the Ninja 250 Production Cup to the Ninja Cup. Allow the Ninja 300 to compete with the production restrictions and allow the 250's to use pod filters, unrestricted electronics, unlimited suspension, brakes, and unrestricted tires.

[Jon]

Kill Thunderbike? Personally and Ive been told by numerous people had some of the best racing of the weekend and seeing how the rules seem to be shaping up with the Pierobon being excluded from Middle weight SB I'm pretty sure that if that were to happen Id just find myself dropping out of the MRA. I think the class has been a brilliant addition to the club. I would hope for its continuing for years to come.....where else are you going to see a Shepherd 1000?

[TRK]

Like I said, I don't like the idea. I just put it out there in response to the HW suggestion.

[Jon]

I guess that sounded rather bad as we need to look at what's best for the whole and probably shitcan classes that aren't well attended and Thunderbike probably falls into that catagory. So you've got my blessing in 86ing it. My apologies and if you know me Ill race the open classes if I have to. One thing I's like to see is maybe the MWSB opened up to allow the Pierobon. As with 113 hp regardless of the torque I don't see it as a overdog.

[rybo]

Hey Jon

Your bike is already legal in MIddleweight Superbike

Section 2.3.2

Unlimited displacement, two or three cylinder, four stroke, two valves per cylinder

[sheispoison]

I'm sure there are less attended classes than Thunderbike.

[Jon]

It's funny as all the classes were added over time to allow everyone, their girlfriend and thier mother a class to race in and now that everyone and their mother has a place to race it's time to start cutting back. Damn gotta love success! Maybe it's time for a three day racing weekend.......kidding

[The GECCO]

7.3 Point Awards
Points will be awarded by the following formula:

1st 36 16th 15
2nd 32 17th 14
3rd 29 18th 13
4th 27 19th 12
5th 26 20th 11
6th 25 21st 10
7th 24 22nd 9
8th 23 23rd 8
9th 22 24th 7
10th 21 25th 6
11th 20 26th 5
12th 19 27th 4
13th 18 28th 3
14th 17 29th 2
15th 16 30th 1



Suggested change:
7.3 Point Awards
Points will be awarded by the following formula:

1st 60 16th 15
2nd 50 17th 14
3rd 42 18th 13
4th 36 19th 12
5th 32 20th 11
6th 30 21st 10
7th 28 22nd 9
8th 26 23rd 8
9th 24 24th 7
10th 22 25th 6
11th 20 26th 5
12th 19 27th 4
13th 18 28th 3
14th 17 29th 2
15th 16 30th 1

What is the reasoning behind this change?

I suspect the reasoning is to help people recover from a missed or poor round. If this is the case, the better method would be to keep the existing points structure and mandate that everyone drop their lowest round. I'm not suggesting this should be done, just saying that it's a better way to achieve the goal.

Why? Because allowing everyone to drop their lowest round provides everyone the same opportunity to recover, AND it doesn't necessarily over reward someone who is dominating a class.

However, this new points structure ONLY helps you recover from a poor round faster if you are finishing in the front. If you are finishing 5th-11th the difference is meaningless (2 point spread per position versus 1 point spread, it takes a long time to make up 60 points one at a time). If you are finishing 12th or lower this new structure actually has a negative effect on your ability to recover from a poor finish because there is still a one point difference between positions, yet because more points were awarded at the round you missed it will take more rounds to make up the deficit.

I would vote no.

[Jon]

Why might I ask would we ever after paying to play (race) buying tires,entry, fuel and etc. choose to drop a round?
If you screw up you screw up. That's just racing and racing is expensive. Dropping around is like throwing money away or am I missing something here? I personally think it senceless to do such along with changing the point strucure. The point structures been in place since about the mid nineties where prior to that the points only gave points to the first 15 finishers the same as MotoGP and WSB

[JimWilson29]

First post updated with Rules Meeting location and date.

[TRK]

A change in the point system was suggested from numerous racers and multiple board members who felt the current system was unfair and seemingly based on a 10 or more round series.

The proposed point system is mainly based on the FIM system (and a 7 round series). It was doubled in an effort to provide points to 30th position. There were concerns that only providing points to 15th place (as the FIM does) would be discouraging to racers and it wouldnt provided the gridding system the points needed for future grids.

There is a pretty good article about the old AMA system and Ben Bostrom possibly losing the championship. It describes how the points structure played a role. If anyone is interested you should find and read the article.

[The GECCO]

A change in the point system was suggested from numerous racers and multiple board members who felt the current system was unfair and seemingly based on a 10 or more round series.

The proposed point system is mainly based on the FIM system (and a 7 round series). It was doubled in an effort to provide points to 30th position. There were concerns that only providing points to 15th place (as the FIM does) would be discouraging to racers and it wouldnt provided the gridding system the points needed for future grids.

There is a pretty good article about the old AMA system and Ben Bostrom losing the championship. It describes how the points structure played a role. If anyone is interested you should find and read the article.

Any points system with graduated awards will ALWAYS play a role. If your intent is to eliminate that factor then the points system needs to be non-graduated and have the same points gap all the way down the line.

How is going from a 35 point difference between 1st and 30th, to a 59 point difference, more fair?

[Jon]

Please include the article concerning Ben Bostrom losing a championship in an FIM series as from the time Bostrom joined the AMA in the mid to late nineties and won the AMA Superbike Championship through the time he raced WSB then returned to the AMA series I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what FIM championship he came within a few points of winning? I'm lost and hell I remember him when he raced the Ill fated and very boring Harley Twins series with Aaron Yates and Co. to his days in the Supersport series riding the Zero Gravity bike one thing rather intesting about he and his brother is that they never club raced.
Regardless, I just don't understand the motivation or need to give points as far down as 30th place nor the need to drop rounds that people are paying to compete in

[TRK]

I will bring up the suggestion at the rules meeting for a 30-29-28-27-26........1 point system when we discuss modifying the points system at the rules meeting.

Jon this is the article. It also addresses some of the concerns many of the racers and board members have.


AMA Motorcycle Racing Points Don’t Add Up
A long-standing pet peeve in American motorcycle racing is the irritating AMA points systems. The worst case is, of course, the AMA Superbike series. (Or at least that’s what it used to be called…)

Ben Bostrom was the most dominating rider during the 2008 Supersport Championship, winning 5 races and settling for second three times. But one DNF and his title would have been long gone.
Complaining about the AMA Superbike points system is nothing new. Everyone shares the same gripes – everyone except the organizers it would seem. The problem is the system is far too generous to mediocrity and undervalues race wins.

The winner of an AMA Superbike race gets 36 points, plus two potential extra points – one apiece for pole position and leading the most laps. Second gets 32 (with the possibility of those two points as well.) Then points keep on rolling: 10th-place gets 21 points, while 20th-place gets 11 – almost a third of the points awarded to the winner!.

The idea, I assume, is to reward the backmarkers that put in the effort to fill the AMA grid. The ultimate consequence, however, is AMA Superbike championships are often won by the best rider who doesn’t get a DNF that season. Too many times a thrilling championship is spoiled by one mistake, as collecting 0 points in one round is almost always irredeemable.

(The AMA Supercross and Motocross points system is better, by far, but still curious. Case in point, during the opening round of the 2009 season in Anaheim James Stewart finished 19th, yet still earned two championship points. On top of the podium the separation between first and second is only three points (25 to 22) – third-place gets 20 points.)

Hopefully the new DMG-owned/promoted AMA Roadracing series will make some progressive changes – like adopting the points system of MotoGP and World Superbike.

The standard FIM road-racing points spread of 25, 20, 16 for the top three positions makes the most sense. It gives more value to race wins, and a rider could make up for a DNF faster too. The incentive of a five point gain or loss also spurs better racing on the track, a benefit for the fans.

At least that’s the argument.

[The GECCO]

I will bring up the suggestion at the rules meeting for a 30-29-28-27-26........1 point system when we discuss modifying the points system at the rules meeting.
Actually, I'm not suggesting that. I think it would be too much of a swing the other direction, I was just making a point.



The ultimate consequence, however, is AMA Superbike championships are often won by the best rider who doesn’t get a DNF that season.
So the points system rewards consistency...that doesn't sound so bad.

Also, contrary to the AMA system of 2008, the MRA does not award zero points to a rider that crashes. In the MRA a crasher gets last place points, which would only be zero in the event that there are more than 30 riders in the class, and that isn't a problem we currently have.

[Jon]

Not meaning to be a pain in the arse concerning points or anything else for that matter, but the system currently in place in the MRA was to allow people who finished worse than 15th to get some reward. The system replaced the FIM system of 25,20,17 and etc. that was previously used by the MRA and seems to me to be best as it's been used for years. It's easy to understand and works by allowing people who have an off to make up for it, as does the currently used MRA system. I just for the life of me can't see how we're going to improve on either system and it seems like you're going to be there all day and half the night trying. One day maybe in the distant future the club will return to 10 or better events per season and then do we start all over or come up with still another method of scoring hell, I guess we should all hope to again have that problem!
BTW Thanks Shannon for including the article and now I remember the season though I didn't relize that the AMA is FIM sanctioned.

[TRK]

Not sure if the AMA is FIM sanctioned, but the scoring is different and the article was trying to make that point.

The new point system is essentially FIM x 2 with a tweak for the 7 rounds.

[Scored51]

There isn't a way to negate the damage of a missed round between first and second place within a points system without greater side affects. I submit this for scrutiny.

Unless every step down in points is equal to the fractional equivalent of the missed round against the total number of rounds, the point gap is too great to overcome. This means for our 7 race season it at least 1/7th less points for second place need to be awarded so that 6 "wins" beats 7 "seconds". This 1/7 fraction translates to 17.25% more points for each finishing position ahead of the previous finisher with rounding and the need to have at least one point difference between each finishing position. (YES, I'm trying to confuse everyone.) Applying this formula to our current system, these are the minimum values needed for awarding 30 finishing position with points.

http://mra-racing.info/misc/30.jpg

The problem with having large point differences between positions is that it stratifies the championship results. Meaning there is little movement in the championship from position to position as the season progresses without a catastrophic event (like missing a round). However, the point values can be significantly reduced, and the gaps between them, if the number of positions that receive points is lowered. If we awarded points back to 15th place the scheme would look like this:

http://mra-racing.info/misc/10.jpg

This would more than satisfy the number of riders who compete for a championship in ANY class in the MRA. In most class championships there are riders in the top ten of every year who have missed at least one round during the season. In the Race of the Rockies, a rider finishing in last place in every race would have finish between 11th and 13th place in any ROR championship since 2003. However, the major issue with altering the points in this manner is it encourages the membership to skip a round, thereby lowering club revenues. Additionally, if the championships do become stratisfied even more will become discouraged without the opportunity to move up in the points late in the season.

If there is a need to sort those in a championship without any season points, it could be done by lowest average finish if needed. (sum of the finishing positions / number of rounds competed) Of course leaving a larger portion of racers without points might encourage them to sign up earlier for a better grid position.

Hope this helps,

[nobasin]

re: points system - this seems like a solution looking for a problem to me.

[Jon]

I just want to know when the round everyones going to skip, miss or drop is. Currently I've decided the one that's the same weekend as MotoGP at Laguna.
Wouldn't it make even more sense to just have a 6 round series though like the USBA?

[Jon]

The solution boys and girls is to have a one event, winner take all series. All the contingency, all the purse. One set of tires, one entry fee, No need to worry and bicker over anything but what track and where.
My opinions to have it at HPR North course. Early July. No need to have the corner workers sweat it out all semmer, no need to have the board work their arses off all year long.
Summers are for vacations and family fun. Let's all realize what fun REALLY is. Lake Powell here I come!

[TRK]

Chris like we discussed this is the current AMA SBK scoring system.
30 25 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

It only rolls 15 placed deep, but addresses some things

[Scored51]

Here is a summary of a few different points systems and if they would cover a zero point round in the seven planned for 2013. We need to look at the information carefully as automatically covering the spread at every position may not be the best idea. It builds in a mulligan for everyone in the championship. Possibly the best business sense will be to make it close, but not quite 100% assurance since mathematical possibilities are not always reality.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to push a new scoring system onto the club or say mine is better than any other plan. Since this will be discussed at the rules meeting, I thought it would be helpful to be able to visualize some of the data that will be thrown around at the meeting. Personally, I feel as though the points system perfect, but it ain't broke either. A lot like the red flag rules: the least of all evils. But it is a good exercise to explore different options and allow the membership to voice its opinions. At least one racer has perceived a problem with the scoring system as it stands. We owe it to ourselves to make an honest attempt at creating a better plan. Even if nothing changes in the rulebook, the improvement will be an educated membership as to why the points system exists as it does.

http://mra-racing.info/misc/cover.jpg

[rybo]

Chris -

For a heads up comparison can you do the same chart with the current MRA points system and the current system with double points at the last round?

Thanks

Scott

[Scored51]

http://mra-racing.info/misc/mrapts.jpg

[TRK]

Chris, I dont think that is what Rybo was getting at.

[gsnyder828]

While I love Chris's analysis... I'm missing something

What's the problem we're trying to solve here?

I've read the current system's unfair, it's designed around a 10 round season, etc. but I've missed a statement of the problem we're looking to solve.

Is the problem that our current point system does not allow a racer to miss a round and still win a championship if there's a consistent rider who places 2nd in every race?

If so - that doesn't seem like a problem to me. 8)

[TRK]

No that is not the problem we are trying to solve. We are trying to create a fair and equitable point system that rewards and challenges racers over the course of a seven race season. The reason we had a double points round this year, is the current system does not do that.

Chris Dale came up with the parity throughout the field on his own and I am in no way suggesting that we have parity from top to bottom. Others have suggested this is about giving riders the option to miss a round. I am not suggesting we give riders an opportunity to miss a round. I am suggesting we come up with a system that challenges racers and rewards them appropriately.

I did state that if one of our racers wins 6 of 7 rounds he or she should win a championship and I stand by that. This doesn't mean everyone should have the ability to miss a round or there should be parity between every position. Please read the article posted earlier.

I looked at the scoring system organizations are running throughout the world, and why. Most run the FIM/AMA spread, because it challenges and rewards racers.

I think the AMA point structure would be perfect, for our seven round season even though it only provides points 20 spots deep. Several board members have also run scenarios through the scoring systems, in an effort to evaluate the results of a new system.



I am sure we will come up with a fair and challenging system at the rules meeting.

[Mforza]

The solution boys and girls is to have a one event, winner take all series. All the contingency, all the purse. One set of tires, one entry fee, No need to worry and bicker over anything but what track and where.
My opinions to have it at HPR North course. Early July. No need to have the corner workers sweat it out all semmer, no need to have the board work their arses off all year long.
Summers are for vacations and family fun. Let's all realize what fun REALLY is. Lake Powell here I come!

:D :D You are right Jon, let's run it like the European Championship :D
They also have 1 race - winner is the European Champion :D
It used to be very nice championship back in the days :(

[nobasin]

I am suggesting we come up with a system that challenges racers and rewards them appropriately.


shannon, could you further explain or give more of your insights as to why you think the current system does not do this? some have pointed out that if somebody misses a race or round for whatever reason they could lose a championship. but it seems like that is just an inherent and essential part of a championship points series; if you crash, if you have a mechanical, if you miss a race, isn't that a key component and part of what can happen over the course of a season championship? it seems like trying to protect racers from the core parts of what makes racing, racing.

[Jon]

That's my thoughts as well. For instance Dani Padrosa being taken out at Misano is a result that he will either make up or not regardless of the fact that Lorenzo had a similar instance earlier in the season. I always thought racing rewarded those who were consistant, well prepared and present for the season regardless of how long or short that season is.
I guess with such a short MRA season, we need to figure out how to keep all the racers eligitable to win regardless if they are present or not? I for the life of me don't see why that's imporatant as there will always be obligations that force certain people to miss a round. I for instance put getting married and having a honeymoon in front of winning another championship. Others, Otis and Donna for instance, choose to get married at the track and have thier honeymoon elsewhere. I am sure that there's a way and maybe if the racer who is present and finishes well all season long is asked or required to give up his worst result in order to let the one who finished well in spite of missing a round we can acomplish that but it just for some reason doesn't seem quite fair.

[TRK]

Jon, like I said before this has nothing to do with making a system so you don't have to race 7 rounds.

The article I posted pretty much sums up my thoughts. The changes proposed makes the scoring almost the same over a 7 race season as our current system is with a 10 race season. If you want talk about it give me a call. And Jon, Moto GP runs the FIM point system.
AMA is close. I am unsure what the attachment is to using the current system over a 7 race season (one in which we tried to make a double points equalizer and caused all sorts of drama).

I am off to enjoy my weekend.

Have a good weekend. Hit me up at the General Meeting or call me if you want to discuss.

Thanks everyone for taking a interest!!!

Mohammer

[The GECCO]

In an effort to provide some real world data (and to prove I'm just as big a geek as Chris), here are some examples of how some of this years classes would have turned out under the various point structures.

Each spreadsheet has four sections. The first shows how the points ended up this year. The second shows how the same results would have been scored under the AMA structure. The third is the FIM structure. The fourth is the structure Shannon is proposing.

Each of the new structures highlights in green where a rider would have advanced in the standings, and in red where he/she would have finished lower in the standings.

Here is MWEND:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/TheGECCO/MWEND.jpg

You can see that Keith Easton (#7) missed two rounds and finished 5th overall. Under the proposed system (and the other two) he would have finished third overall.

Also look at Peter Tabor (#599). He only ran two of the eight rounds (remember the 7th counted twice) and finished 23rd overall. However, when he DID run, he did very well and under the FIM system he would have finished 13th overall - a ten place improvement. Under the proposed system, he would have improved to 19th.

Using Peter as an example, when he ran he averaged 22.5 points. Lets pretend he ran a third round and earned 22 more points. Under the FIM system he would have had 67 points and finished in 7th place overall. Under the proposed system he would have earned 165 points and finished 9th. In a class where 59 people earn points someone who skipped more than 50% of the events finishes in the top ten?

MWSB:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/TheGECCO/MWSB.jpg

RoR GTO:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/TheGECCO/RoRO.jpg

AM GTO:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/TheGECCO/AMO.jpg

Here's an interesting case - MWSS:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/TheGECCO/MWSS.jpg

Here we actually see an instance where changing to the FIM structure would have effected who won a championship, but the proposed system would not have. In all the other examples neither of the top 2 riders have a "0" round, but here we do. Under FIM, the championship changes, but not under the proposed system.

This boils down to a single decision - do we want a points system that rewards consistency, or flashes of brilliance?

If I am an average rider and I know that in a "heads up" race I simply cannot beat Rider X and the points system overwhelmingly rewards wins, then I'm pretty much screwed. However, if Rider X has a tendency to either "win it or bin it" then I know that I have a reasonable shot at beating him in the standings by simply being consistent. I think the professional organizations are justified in using a system that places a premium on winning races. However, at the club level I think consistency should count just as much. I think this is a better incentive to keeping participants coming back and filling the grids.

The other point goes back to what a few people have asked - what is the problem we are trying to solve? I will also add - will the proposed solution solve the problem? Granted, I didn't run every MRA class, but I tried to pick those that are more populated and more competitive, and looking through the examples above, the proposed change would not effect who is winning championships.

So, is this change even worth making? I think this is a solution in search of a problem. And if there IS a problem, this doesn't fix it.

[Jon]

Here as I see it is what I think the problem is but I surely could be wrong with this assumption.
The membership is missing races during the season and once they do the board believes they are losing interest and therefore their missing further rounds losing revenue for the club. Is there a way to the membership to not become disinterested and still be able to compete for a championship once you miss a round?
I'll say this. This year I missed a couple rounds, but knew if I did compete, remained consistant and did really well at the last round I'd move up and finish top five in my two classes.
So that's what I did and after missing the rounds I did was rewarded with top three in one, 4th in the other. I really never would ask or expect to do any better than that as I know if you miss races, miss having your head down you aren't going to win a championship but being there in the end rewards being in it.
As we see there are numerous people who are interested in this discussion but we're not trying to cause an argument but would ask that the problem that we're trying to solve be clearly stated so we can work together to do so if it's actually possible. Is the probelm what I state above or another?

[oldtimer]

Would the number of red flags be reduced if we didn't pay points for a DNF?

Yes I know the unfair side is if you get taken out. Just thinking about the points discussion. :-k

[The GECCO]

Would the number of red flags be reduced if we didn't pay points for a DNF?

Yes I know the unfair side is if you get taken out. Just thinking about the points discussion. :-k

Doubt it, most racers don't have that thought factoring in when they're making the decision that results in a tumble.

Besides, I like the idea of paying points even if you don't take the checkered. If I spend all the time and money (supporting the club and the vendors) to come out and race and then I fall down on the last corner of the last lap, I should get SOME reward for that effort. To go home with the same amount of points as the guy who stayed home in bed just doesn't seem right to me.

[Fastt Racing]

One more great point Glenn. I believe strongly that there is a big difference in the points structure needed for AMA Superbike than the one we need at the MRA club racing level. I agree with basically everything that you have stated about this topic,and can only imagine it is likely due to our experiences with different types of racing clubs (local and national). Clubs that made it, and clubs that didn't survive as well. Thank you for running the scenerios with some of our class results. I think they show the points structure we have still works well with a seven race season, and will work even better when we go back to eight.

One final thought I had is that it seems some may have won so many races over the years that they are now undervaluing "a" race win. This may be an incorrect interpretation. When you win a race you get contingency money, a thoughtfull trophy, bragging rights, as well as a great cool down (victory) lap. A championship win should be about a lot of the factors of a racing effort, not solely about race wins as those are rewarded seperately every round!

[T Baggins]

Here as I see it is what I think the problem is but I surely could be wrong with this assumption.
The membership is missing races during the season and once they do the board believes they are losing interest and therefore their missing further rounds losing revenue for the club.

In my opinion, Jon, this is a significant part of the problem that we are trying to solve. Let's be honest - As racers, we're all a bunch of fatheads with big egos... :D and for some - once they know they're "out of it" for the championship they bail on the season. This is hurting the club financially for sure.

That's a big part of why we did DOUBLE points at the last round this year... To get people who otherwise would have skipped it to come out. And guess what - IT WORKED! We had people come out of the woodwork to finish the year on a good note, or to start off 2013 with some points in the bag for preferential gridding.

It would be nice to have a set points structure in place that automatically set up the same scenario without having to be "gimmicky" like a double points round.

I think another part of it is this...

Let's say, for example, that you HAVE to miss a round due to a wedding, funeral, graduation, Pikes Peak Hillclimb, illness, accident, mechanical, blah blah blah... Under the current system there is NO way you can make that up. If you win 6 and get zero for one - and the other guy wins the ONE you miss and takes Second the other Six times... you have no chance at a championship. 228 pts to 216 pts

Maybe that's ok, and the way it should be... Maybe it isn't. We are club racers after all, this isn't MotoGP.

That's the other part of the equation in my mind - and what we need to work out at the meeting.

[Jon]

Boy that's a tough call and I wouldn't want to be on the decision side of that one. I just feel the club doesn't have the hardcore racers like the oldtimes and that's one of the reasons for the decline and of course the increasing cost associated with a whole season.
Regardless, I'm the type who decides early in the season if I'm going to be running for a championship. I plan the summer, plan on making every round and hope the stars align themselfs to allow me to do so. I've fallen down through the years and still won championships and so far I've never needed a points system to help but if we can come up with one that allows for such things to happen as missing rounds, falling down and etc. I'm all for it but presently just not seeing it happen in a 7 round season. My hats off to the job you guys have done to this point and I'll trust you with this new math to make it happen.

[Fastt Racing]

I finally don't agree with Tony on something,Lol. I don't believe that we are using real data to make these assumptions. Tabor, and a couple others are the only front runners that missed a race or two. The majority of poor paticipation and people that bailed on the season were not people that were finishing 1st or 2nd. A points structure like Moham's proposal only hurts the top 5 or top 10 riders more by creating a larger gap between 5th and 4th, or 6th and 7th in the championship chase after a few races. Look at the numbers. I believe we need to reward the mid pack, and keep them in the hunt for a top 7 in the championship to keep there ego's bringing them out every round.

[dave.gallant]

The majority of poor paticipation and people that bailed on the season were not people that were finishing 1st or 2nd.

Really? I must be the minority (as usual)?

[KFinn]

I spent hours reviewing the thread related to the points systems and combed through all of the results that Glenn posted for each system. Here is what I have come to as a conclusion in a summary format and let the examples of current classes and number crunching to the resident number nerds (Glenn, Chris and Shannon).

FIM:
This system rewards flashes of brilliance much more than consistency at the mid pack (around 4th) all the way down to the lower levels of points. Therefore I feel it highly encourages the win it or bin it mentality all the time or the strategic skipping of classes on various weekends. This also penalizes a rider that races 100% of the rounds but always finishes in the back of the pack. Ex going from 10th to 22nd in this system. This does seem to appropriately address the top 5 or less riders that have bad luck once in the season but ride very well otherwise. Points go down to 15th place

Moham proposal:
This system seems to reward people that finish well but race rarely to still be able to manage a lower top 10 finishing position. (More flashes of brilliance) whereas it penalizes active riders that are consistently finishing and with some points. The affect on the top 6 riders seems ok and logical to reward the faster riders that earn a championship but have rare incidents that cost them to lose points. Points go down to 30th place.

AMA:
The AMA proposal seems to appropriately address champions with one bad weekend to remain a champion. It also supports the mid to lower pack of riders that ride well for their group and also have an off weekend. Again rewarding the faster riders with some leniency for bad luck. Points go down as far as 20th place.

Misc Info:
On the whole regardless of system though it does seem to be that from the mid pack back, many riders skip numerous rounds. Thus no system will 'fix' their position if they ultimately don't attend more rounds.

Also I did spot a possible issue with our 4 hour endurance and how it affects the points. I think we should address it to fix it for coming years. What I found was that in all of the systems, a rider that only races the 4 hour endurance is better rewarded for a local rider that races all 6 normal endurance's and finishes in the mid to back pack. Rather than rewarding 4 hour endurance participants with a 1st place points system. We should give them a single point. This would reward someone that races all 6 normal rounds better than the visitor or local that only does the 4 hour. It also rewards the 6 round person more than someone that races the 4 hour plus a round or two of the normal endurance. Lastly, it also rewards the person that does all 6 in the back and the 4 hour endurance more than the individual that only does the 4 hour. This should 'fix' virtually all issues created by awarding so many points as we do today.

My Personal Opinion:
I am in favor of 3 options. First and foremost I think regardless of which system change we make, that fixing the 4 hour endurance is a must.

I don't see a need to give points down to 30th. Typically the only needs are points are: podiums at each round, Top five or 6 for season plaques, top 5 for graduating out of the Amateur classes, Top 10 for graduating out of Novice classes. Only giving points down to 15th doesn't seem to help the consistent mid to near the back of the pack finisher for still collecting enough points to finish top 10 and graduate. Going as far as 30th seems like an overkill solution that doesn't actually work to the converse of 15 position. Therefore 20 seems like it is a decent compromise.

My first preference, if we really do want to reward a champion over our current system, then I would vote for the AMA version. It seems to carry the least amount of negative effects.

Then second in line would be a very minor tweak to the AMA version (only if needed beyond the current AMA system) to help ensure a winner is the champion by changing the 1st place points only. Maybe 32 instead of 30? Again, this option is only needed if we are still a point or two away from making the change work as intended.

Otherwise my 3rd vote is to keep the system as it is today as it has the next least negative affects if we want to put focus on rewarding consistency, prudence and attendance. As mentioned above, we still need the 4 hour endurance change.

I wanted to ensure I got my summary posted several days before the meeting so that others have a chance to digest the info, research my thoughts and validate or bust my overall outlook on the differences. This way we can all come better prepared to the meeting to hopefully make a better decision for the club and all the members.

I did do my own example for only the AMA number version to help give me an idea if it really did fix the perceived problem.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r108/craigslistnut/Linked%20Misc%20Photos/AMAChampion.jpg