Suggestions for the 2014 rulebook (closed).

[TRK]

Suggestions for the 2014 rulebook are now open and will be accepted until Tuesday October 1st, 2013) rules suggestions will not be accepted after 2400hrs on October 1, 2013). 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 for the rule change meeting over the last few years, so I am up for suggestions on where to have it. The rule change meeting will take place late October or early November.

The rule change meeting is open to all members and will be held to discuss the proposed 2014 rule changes. The members attending this meeting will be encouraged to give input on the changes that will be presented to the MRA board for approval. I would like to have finalized rule changes for the 2014 season firmed up 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.

[peteyt328]

In the spirit of Pete Tabor's controversial rule change requests:

2.2 Supersport classes
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
C. The following items may be replaced by parts of unrestricted origin
h. Rear shocks (linkage must remain stock)

Proposed:

2.2 Supersport classes
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
C. The following items may be replaced by parts of unrestricted origin
h. Rear shocks and shock linkage

[Fastt Racing]

2.2.2.F.c. Existing Rule:
2.2. Supersport Classes
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
F. "Engine Modifications"
c. Cam timing may be altered by modifying or replacing sprockets, substituting adjustable sprockets, or other means such that the original camshaft, including lift, duration, profile and weight are not altered.

2.2.2.F.c. Propposed Rule Change/Addition:
2.2 Supersport Classes
2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements
F. "Engine Modifications"
c. Cam timing may be altered by modifying or replacing sprockets, substituting adjustable sprockets, or other means such that the original camshaft, including lift, duration, profile and weight are not altered. Camshaft timing is to remain fixed while engine is operating, unless originally equipped with variable cam/valve timing. A camshaft chain tensioner of stock or aftermarket origin may be installed.

[oldtimer]

Existing Rule
2.2 Supersport Classes
2.2.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits
A. Middleweight Supersport
--Up to 600cc four cylinder

Proposed Rule
2.2 Supersport Classes
2.2.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits
A. Middleweight Supersport
--Up to 636cc four cylinder

[Peanut_EOD]

Existing Rule
2.2 Supersport Classes
2.2.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits
A. Middleweight Supersport
--Up to 600cc four cylinder

Proposed Rule
2.2 Supersport Classes
2.2.3 Class Displacement and Configuration Limits
A. Middleweight Supersport
--Up to 636cc four cylinder
=D> This! \:D/

[Ray-Ray]

Proposed Rule - New Rule
10.L - The use of anything over your leathers and helmet prohibited. Such and Tu-tu's, furry arm bands and Mohawks. Exception to the rule is jackets and or rain gear.

[Jon]

Ah come on Ray I was looking for the person to be the first to wear a tux, some pumps or perhaps a pair of fuzzy slippers. Seriously though, I'm in full agreement and find these Tutu's, furry armbands and etc to be a distraction and really take away from the image that I thought the MRA wished to project. Though we aren't a "professional" organization I would hope that we could at least try and project a somewhat professional image at least going forward.

[polar x]

Not sure about this....there is no rule that pertains to this as it is procedural.

Proposal/New rule: When rider(s) miss third call and start from pre grid for a 2 class race, they are to be released at the end of their class/group. NOT at the end of the entire grid. Case in point, MWEND/LWEND rider is in MW and starts at pregrid. Said rider(s) will be released as the last rider in MW passes whatever plane/line/corner that would effect a normal release as it is set up now. Instead of waiting for LW to pass. It is with regard to safety that said rider(s) are allowed to be at the back of thier respective group without interfering with the slower group they would be merging into.

The affected rider(s) are still penalised by being at the back of their respective grid (same as a single class race) and in front of the slower group thus not causing issue at the start of a race where the group is bunched up tightly.

[Peanut_EOD]

2.10 Production Cup Classes
C. The stock airbox, air box cover, air filter and intake snorkel must remain in place and connected as they came from the factory. The air box drains may be sealed for fluid retention. No other modifications of the airbox, air filter or intake snorkel is permitted.

New Rule
2.10 Production Cup Classes
C. The stock airbox, air box cover, and intake snorkel must remain in place and connected as they came from the factory. The stock air filter may be replaced with an OEM style replacement. The air box drains may be sealed for fluid retention.

2.10 Production Cup Classes
I. Suspension may be modified with different springs, valves and oil. The stock rear shock body and stock fork tubes must be retained and unmodified.

New Rule
2.10 Production Cup Classes
I. Suspension may be modified with different springs, valves and oil. The stock rear shock may be changed or modified but must remain the same type as original.

2.10 Production Cup Classes
N. Tires must be DOT rated tires only.

New Rule
2.10 Production Cup Classes
N. Tires may be replaced with tires of unlimited origin. Rain tires may be used if a race is declared to be a wet race.

[T Baggins]

Production Cup Rule

new Rule

Passenger footpegs and brackets may be removed, and may be cut off at the subframe or mount point if they are not able to be unbolted.

[jmaher]

2.10 Production Cup Classes

New Rule
2.10 Production Cup Classes
I. Suspension may be modified with different springs, valves and oil. The stock rear shock may be changed or modified but must remain the same type as original.



This may sound dumb, but what do you mean same "type"?

Joe

[Peanut_EOD]

2.10 Production Cup Classes

New Rule
2.10 Production Cup Classes
I. Suspension may be modified with different springs, valves and oil. The stock rear shock may be changed or modified but must remain the same type as original.



This may sound dumb, but what do you mean same "type"?

Joe

Same configuration. Meaning no custom mount points or anything other than a bolt on replacement or modifying the stock shock.

[jplracing]

I would like to propose the following change to the Supertwins GTU class. Section 4.2.1 item 3
As it currently reads:
SuperTwins GTU
• Up to 750 cc two cylinder, four-stroke (excluding Ducati 749R)
• Up to 250cc two-stroke
• Up to 995cc two cylinder, four-stroke, two valves per cylinder, air-cooled
• Unlimited displacement single cylinder, four-stroke

I propose the rule read:

SuperTwins GTU
• Up to 850 cc two cylinder, four-stroke
• Up to 250cc two-stroke
• Up to 995cc two cylinder, four-stroke, two valves per cylinder, air-cooled
• Unlimited displacement single cylinder, four-stroke

[MadVlad]

Multicolored checkered that corner workers can wave at racers during the cool down lap at the end of race, make it more cool in a congratulatory sense and style. Just a suggestion, be kind of cool.

[TRK]

I like it!

[nobasin]

Formula 40 current rules;
• Unlimited displacement and origin
• Racer must be 40 years of age or older on the day of the event
• Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous
season are ineligible to race Formula 40 that season (see section 4.2 C).

Proposed:
Create two Formula 40 classes to be run at the same time, similar to how we run the different endurance classes at the same time:
Formula 40 GTU and Formula 40 GTO.

eliminate any restrictions on ROR racers entering Formula 40 to make it open to any racer 40 or older. amateur class and superbike rules apply.

[rohorn]

Multicolored checkered that corner workers can wave at racers during the cool down lap at the end of race, make it more cool in a congratulatory sense and style. Just a suggestion, be kind of cool.

Not the rainbow flag, right?

Not sure if this is a good idea or not: Replace the entire cornerworker crew with novices for the SuperStreet final "hour" in exchange for an hour of volunteer time.

[oldtimer]

eliminate any restrictions on ROR racers entering Formula 40 to make it open to any racer 40 or older. amateur class and superbike rules apply.

Technically the class is currently under Grand Prix rules as opposed to Superbike rules. I would vote to continue it as a GP class, but I suspect that's what you intended anyway. :wink:

[MadVlad]

Multicolored checkered that corner workers can wave at racers during the cool down lap at the end of race, make it more cool in a congratulatory sense and style. Just a suggestion, be kind of cool.

Not the rainbow flag, right?

Not sure if this is a good idea or not: Replace the entire cornerworker crew with novices for the SuperStreet final "hour" in exchange for an hour of volunteer time.

No rainbow lol... maybe even like blue white flag.

[Ray-Ray]

Multicolored checkered that corner workers can wave at racers during the cool down lap at the end of race, make it more cool in a congratulatory sense and style. Just a suggestion, be kind of cool.

FYI... This would not be a "rule change" this would be a "procedure change" That you will need to discuss with the new track marshal.

[nobasin]

eliminate any restrictions on ROR racers entering Formula 40 to make it open to any racer 40 or older. amateur class and superbike rules apply.

Technically the class is currently under Grand Prix rules as opposed to Superbike rules. I would vote to continue it as a GP class, but I suspect that's what you intended anyway. :wink:

yes, GP rules, not superbike. oops.

[MadVlad]

Multicolored checkered that corner workers can wave at racers during the cool down lap at the end of race, make it more cool in a congratulatory sense and style. Just a suggestion, be kind of cool.

FYI... This would not be a "rule change" this would be a "procedure change" That you will need to discuss with the new track marshal.

okay, thanks.

[TRK]

Add the new Ducati 899 to Thunderbike

[TRK]

An add in for the production cup changes:

Brake rotors may be replaced with aftermarket products of OEM material, steel, or iron but must have the same outside diameter as the OEM part. Brake lines and pads may be of any origin.

[NossLou]

Well I wasn’t originally going to suggest it since I did not see much support for it when asking around, but here it goes. Not sure what section this technically applies to for ROR, and may be considered more of a schedule change, but I would like to see RORO and RORU split into two different races instead of a combined class. Yeah I know it’s a crazy idea. I personally think it would generate more participation in both classes. Those who currently run in O would also have the option of running a 600 in U as well. (I would race in both if I had the option) I personally think it would simply generate more participation. I know this creates a nightmare for overall plate number points and what not, and that’s why it seems to lack support, but I figured I’d bring it up. I could care less about a #1 plate at the end of the year, but that is me and I know a lot of others do care.

Each class would carry the additional ROR fee on top of the other races, which would apply to the overall purse for each class. I also think 1st place purse amount should cover the set of tires and tank of race fuel. Being our premier class bumping up the purse a couple hundred bucks may generate more incentive and competition within the class.

I have heard the argument multiple times that bumping the purse would cause out of town money chasers to start showing up. That being said, good I hope it does! The more fast guys to compete with is a good thing instead of the same crew year after year. Also, I highly doubt it really generate significant interest going from $300 to say $500(just for example) for first place, the bump hardly covers diesel to travel a long distance. I know the extra say 1400$ x 2 classes for the purse bump would come out of the clubs additional funds generated over the year, but say you pick up 4 or 5 racers for each class it pays for itself. I know there is a bunch of “in between the lines info” I may be missing, I just wanted to see if there is any support in the matter.

Not to come off as whining, but it sure would be sweet to run the big bikes against the big bikes and the 600’s against the 600’s. It would eliminate the pain of getting your doors blown off on the straights and then freight training around the corners behind the big bikes. I know the correct answer to this issue is to get faster, and clean the sand out, but for those who have been out there on a 600 I think you know what I’m talking about… I just think it would make for two ridiculously competitive classes, and may generate more participation. That is all…

[rybo]

Novice Service Hour Requirements:

In recent years we've had a number of Novice racers finish inside of the top 10, but that may not be ready to graduate to the expert classes or status. As such I propose the following rule change:

Current Rule:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Proposed Change:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, First Season Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

[bcmoore]

Novice Service Hour Requirements:

In recent years we've had a number of Novice racers finish inside of the top 10, but that may not be ready to graduate to the expert classes or status. As such I propose the following rule change:

Current Rule:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Proposed Change:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, First Season Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

I second this rule change.

[gsnyder828]

Novice Service Hour Requirements:

In recent years we've had a number of Novice racers finish inside of the top 10, but that may not be ready to graduate to the expert classes or status. As such I propose the following rule change:

Current Rule:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Proposed Change:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, First Season Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Scott - sorry if I'm being dense. But what's this suggested change designed to accomplish?

Your first paragraph makes it seem like you're looking to remove the automatic advancement to expert for top 10 Novice finishers... but the rule change suggested doesn't seem to do that. (4.6.G still forces advancement, no?)

[rybo]

Your first paragraph makes it seem like you're looking to remove the automatic advancement to expert for top 10 Novice finishers... but the rule change suggested doesn't seem to do that. (4.6.G still forces advancement, no?)

Geoff -

Thanks for the clarifying question

The purpose of the proposed change isn't to negate the automatic advancement portion of being a novice, but rather to NOT penalize multi season novice racers for making a decision to remain a novice.

I see several instances where this could be effective

The most obvious is the Top 10 novice who petitions to remain a novice. This happens from time to time, especially when novices that finish in top 10 don't complete their service hours and are removed from the points. Then someone who didn't ACTUALLY finish in the top 10 (and may not have finished in the top 10 at any individual race) is ranked in the top 10, and thereby subject to automatic advancement. A couple of years ago we clarified a provision in the rulebook that make it clear that a rider in this circumstance may petition to remain a novice and that the decision was at the discretion of the new rider director. I would like to remove any financial penalty to a rider for making this decision for the right reasons.

I can think of several riders in our club who have raced with us for YEARS. They have developed skill, but still do not finish in the top 10 in the novice category. It's completely suitable for these riders to choose to remain novices as it opens up additional classes for them to race in where they feel comfortable. In this case too, I would like to see us remove the financial (or service) requirement from riders choosing this course.

Better?

Scott

[gsnyder828]

Got it. Thanks.

g

[TRK]

If this becomes a novice hours debate, make a thread.

FYI advancement is based on the point standings at the end of the year. Awards and recognition are based on the final standings to include novice hours.

[TRK]

Discuss the number plate requirements.

[Kingpin]

Rule book section 4.3D

For safety purposes suggest to change the wording from it is recommended to it is required that riders must have lap times at 109% of current class lap record. (Currently the rule states recommend at 115%)

Just for context on the long HPR course if we use a 1:45.1 lap record then at 115% the cutoff would be roughly a 2:00.75
For 109% it would roughly be at 1:54.45

If the 109% seems to strict, then just enforcing the 115% would be my recommendation.

A.

[Kingpin]

Perhaps not really a rule but I would like to suggest some method to classify practice groups by lap times.

For me the issue is with Medium Expert class. (Seems too big and too large of speed difference)
I don't want to get in the way of the fastest experts but feel penalized by having to practice with Slow experts where the closing speeds are way to big of a difference. (For the combined practices 2x Saturday, 1x Sunday..)

Not to pick on the 250's, but this has become more of an issue in the last few years. The 250 theme is cheap racing, and some racers haul ass on them and others, well they are just learning.

I understand the slow experts have just as much a right to be on the track as all of us, however I see a major issue coming at us if we allow this to continue. Thus a 2:20 lap time to be practicing with a 2:00 or less lap time (50% speed difference!)

Can we find a way for folks to feel safer?

Maybe we can get rid of the slow/Med/fast thing and just go by lap times instead. Maybe call it group A, B, C, D
A = 1:55 or less
B = 2:00 avg
C= 2:10 avg
D = 2:20 avg

Times are not hard suggestion, just an example. We would have to analyze the lap times to see if this makes sense with the number of bikes on the track at one time...etc..

A.

[DOUBLE A]

I agree w/ Aaron

[JimWilson29]

Rule book section 4.3D

For safety purposes suggest to change the wording from it is recommended to it is required that riders must have lap times at 109% of current class lap record. (Currently the rule states recommend at 115%)

Just for context on the long HPR course if we use a 1:45.1 lap record then at 115% the cutoff would be roughly a 2:00.75
For 109% it would roughly be at 1:54.45

If the 109% seems to strict, then just enforcing the 115% would be my recommendation.

A.

IMHO, 109% of a lap record at HPR set by a former AMA and WSBK racer is too strict for ROR. I'm not for deterring newer experts that might be on that the verge of breaking that lap time bubble from running the class just so the top 3 or 4 ROR riders can have a clear track.

We could use each weekend's pole position time and go back to the 112% we initially used a few years back. This would put the cutoff at HPR Full Course around 1:59

[JimWilson29]

Perhaps not really a rule but I would like to suggest some method to classify practice groups by lap times.

For me the issue is with Medium Expert class. (Seems too big and too large of speed difference)
I don't want to get in the way of the fastest experts but feel penalized by having to practice with Slow experts where the closing speeds are way to big of a difference. (For the combined practices 2x Saturday, 1x Sunday..)

Not to pick on the 250's, but this has become more of an issue in the last few years. The 250 theme is cheap racing, and some racers haul ass on them and others, well they are just learning.

I understand the slow experts have just as much a right to be on the track as all of us, however I see a major issue coming at us if we allow this to continue. Thus a 2:20 lap time to be practicing with a 2:00 or less lap time (50% speed difference!)

Can we find a way for folks to feel safer?

Maybe we can get rid of the slow/Med/fast thing and just go by lap times instead. Maybe call it group A, B, C, D
A = 1:55 or less
B = 2:00 avg
C= 2:10 avg
D = 2:20 avg

Times are not hard suggestion, just an example. We would have to analyze the lap times to see if this makes sense with the number of bikes on the track at one time...etc..

A.

This is a procedural issue. I don't think we can fit 4 separate expert practices in each morning as you suggest but we can discuss splitting the Slow/Medium practices.
Setting lap time suggestions for each is reasonable but we don't have the resources to monitor it for every practice. The riders can police themselves. If they feel that another rider is too slow for the practice they are running, they can bring it to the Track Marshal's, or other Board Member's attention and it will be addressed.

[rybo]

What about dropping the novice/expert designation from practice and just practicing by group based on the suggested times?

[The GECCO]

^^^^
What he said

[oldtimer]

What about dropping the novice/expert designation from practice and just practicing by group based on the suggested times?


This is what Aaron intended in his practice group proposal. Eliminating nov/expert separate practices and creating new practice groups by general times. I like the idea of 4 groups, but any combination of times/# of groups could be discussed. Obviously there will still be the fastest and slowest in each timed group, but maybe we can create a closer range of laptimes?

The slow/medium expert practices have developed a big disparity in lap times because the 250s are so popular (250s are good, the mixed practice is kind of crazy). And I believe a number of medium experts have migrated to the fast ex group to get away from the slow/med combined practice. We also saw some 250 novices migrate to slow expert early to get out of novice practices--which also have big disparity in lap times.

The AFM assigns practice groups with race registration, could we implement this?