Suggestion for the 2018 Rulebook

[TRK]

Suggestions for the 2018 Rulebook

Suggestions for the 2018 Rulebook are now open and will be accepted until Sunday October 1, 2018 (rules suggestions will not be accepted after 2400hrs on October 1st). Once the list is compiled, the proposed rule changes will be sent out to all members. Rule changes can be submitted to Shannon Moham, Brett Leveque or any rider representative. The preferred method would be for racers to submit rule changes via the rule change thread on the MRA forums.

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 most likely take place in November.

The rule change meeting is open to all members and will be held to discuss the proposed 2018 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. Finalized rule changes for the 2018 season should 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 on the forum.

If you have any questions please contact Shannon Moham TRKWILLYS@aol.com

[Schrems1968]

I would like to suggest running stock fuel tanks in the 4hr endurance race. It seems to have become a fuel mileage competition rather than a race.
Thanks for consideration

[zhimsel]

I would like to suggest running stock fuel tanks in the 4hr endurance race. It seems to have become a fuel mileage competition rather than a race.
Thanks for consideration

Additionally/alternatively, restricting fuel tank sizes to a certain range, based on engine configuration (and keeping stock fuel tank sizes in consideration).

[gestaltabilly]

Existing rule Section 10 B: The responsibility for the decision to pass rests with the overtaking rider, as does the obligation to do so safely.

Suggested New Rule: The responsibility for the decision to pass rests with the overtaking rider, as does the obligation to do so safely. If a pass is initiated after the passed rider has turned in to enter a corner the passing rider may not interfere with the line that the passed rider has chosen.

[Ducdreamin]

While not in the rulebook, warm-up sessions are a concern. There is a huge disparity in the speed of the novices. Experts, who should be experienced in riding/racing with riders of different speeds and abilities, have 3 warm-up sessions. Novices, who range in times and experience of Matt Neuberger, who runs at expert-fast speeds, to first-year racers or those who just don't run at that pace, are in the same warm-up session. If you can only accommodate 4 sessions, then please consider 2 novice and 2 expert sessions or eliminating the plate designation, altogether, and go strictly by lap times. This is for the safety of the riders, not convenience.

[scott_tiller]

While not in the rulebook, warm-up sessions are a concern. There is a huge disparity in the speed of the novices. Experts, who should be experienced in riding/racing with riders of different speeds and abilities, have 3 warm-up sessions. Novices, who range in times and experience of Matt Neuberger, who runs at expert-fast speeds, to first-year racers or those who just don't run at that pace, are in the same warm-up session. If you can only accommodate 4 sessions, then please consider 2 novice and 2 expert sessions or eliminating the plate designation, altogether, and go strictly by lap times. This is for the safety of the riders, not convenience.



This was brought up last year and the only thing that was changed was a time limit for expert fast.

[fosbibr]

Production Cup Rule Changes:

2.10.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.

Change to: Unlimited changes of Airbox.

2.10.M Hand and foot controls, rear sets, handlebars, throttle, and levers may be replaced
with parts of unlimited origin. Brake master cylinders must remain stock.

Change to: Hand and foot controls, rear sets, handlebars, throttle, and levers may be replaced
with parts of unlimited origin.

Strike the the brake master cylinder as many of us are having issues with the stock master cylinder setup (and we've requested this in the past).

[Ducdreamin]

I understand the desire for a better braking system on all bikes & we want everyone to be safe. However, I was of the understanding that Production Cup was designed to be an entry-level class, where one could buy a bike, prep it, and race without dumping a ton of money into parts and modifications, just to be competitive. It seems to me that we're losing site of that. I would oppose any modifications to production cup bikes.

[tecknojoe]

2.4.1 section 3 - Supertwins GTU

Modify Supertwins GTU to match the Moto America Pro Twins class.
Up to 850cc twin (excluding the 848)
Weight restrictions for 800cc and above

If we choose to modify only one class, STGTU makes more sense than LWGP because whatever bike you race in the Pro Twins ruleset will also be good for Thunderbike and STGTO, both on Sunday.

[Ducdreamin]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

[big_sur]

I understand the desire for a better braking system on all bikes & we want everyone to be safe. However, I was of the understanding that Production Cup was designed to be an entry-level class, where one could buy a bike, prep it, and race without dumping a ton of money into parts and modifications, just to be competitive. It seems to me that we're losing site of that. I would oppose any modifications to production cup bikes.

Nobody runs up front in prod cup without spending a ton of money in parts and mods. We should just make it supersport 300 to align with FIM.

[zhimsel]

While not in the rulebook, warm-up sessions are a concern. There is a huge disparity in the speed of the novices. Experts, who should be experienced in riding/racing with riders of different speeds and abilities, have 3 warm-up sessions. Novices, who range in times and experience of Matt Neuberger, who runs at expert-fast speeds, to first-year racers or those who just don't run at that pace, are in the same warm-up session. If you can only accommodate 4 sessions, then please consider 2 novice and 2 expert sessions or eliminating the plate designation, altogether, and go strictly by lap times. This is for the safety of the riders, not convenience.

I'd like to second this. Have opt-in (or self-designated) practice groups based on lap times only. Maybe slow/med/fast, independent of license type (expert/novice)?

[zhimsel]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

I like the idea of this rule, but as long we understand that the "zero exceptions" is only for intentional contact. Sometime accidents happen, and there should be an accepted process to contest an ejection if it can be proved or argued that it was an accident with no major repercussions.

[T Baggins]

Nobody runs up front in prod cup without spending a ton of money in parts and mods. We should just make it supersport 300 to align with FIM.

I run a $1300 1992 Suzuki GS500 with almost NO mods, and I am competitive. Won the 500 Prod championship 2 years ago on it. No changes to Production are needed or warranted.

[big_sur]

I run a $1300 1992 Suzuki GS500 with almost NO mods, and I am competitive. Won the 500 Prod championship 2 years ago on it. No changes to Production are needed or warranted.

Maybe you're competitive in a straight line, I hear that's your specialty these days :P

[Redline]

Has the subject of Blue flags ever been brought up? Why was that turned down as an option?
I had some really frustrating and dangerous situations arise this weekend that could have possibly been avoided with blue flags.
Passing an R3 that is way back in last place in AM GTO on the outside of T12 at high speed is stupid and dangerous.
Now that I mention it, why is an R3 even allowed in Amateur GTO?

I would be fine with them racing in other classes, but would require BLUE flags. It is really a problem for all riders involved when front guys are battling for position and run into a prod bike. Would be a safe addition to have warning flags so at least it increases the chances of safe passes.

[shRED]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.

[shRED]

2.4.1 section 3 - Supertwins GTU

Modify Supertwins GTU to match the Moto America Pro Twins class.
Up to 850cc twin (excluding the 84
Weight restrictions for 800cc and above

If we choose to modify only one class, STGTU makes more sense than LWGP because whatever bike you race in the Pro Twins ruleset will also be good for Thunderbike and STGTO, both on Sunday.

Respectfully, I disagree that Supertwins GTU needs modification. This is precisely what the Thunderbike championship is for. Smaller than Supertwins GTO, bigger than Supertwins GTU.

Personally I am about 100 days away from having everything done for 2018 (all parts in and all vendors ready to go), and guessing others are in the same boat. Our whole program is built around 700 cc's, to change this soon before 2018 could cause a major drop off in attendance in an already small class. At a minimum any consideration of this should be for 2019.

Further, there are 10 different classes you can run a 600cc bike in, but really only 2 you can run a 700cc bike in and be competitive to win. Now we are going to get rid of one of those two classes? I think Thunderbike is perfect for those AMA legal twins to earn a championship. Chris Fillmore didn't have any trouble running his twin in RORO. Increasing the size of Supertwins GTU puts that and Thunderbike too close together in classes we already struggle to fill.

[Jim Brewer]

... I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.


To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.

I agree with Jason. We used to have rules in the rulebook that were very specific on penalties with no allowance for the judgment of officials. Those created so many problems that we changed & added sections to enable discretion. For this one in particular, I think it would be almost impossible to determine intent. Like shRedman mentions, there are methods to complain about rough riding and I know for sure that the board has taken action toward riders who exhibit bad track behavior.

Besides, as they say, "rubbin's racin'" (;) for the humor impared)

And I know I've touched Tony Baker intentionally (and usually inappropriately).

[tecknojoe]

Respectfully, I disagree that Supertwins GTU needs modification. This is precisely what the Thunderbike championship is for. Smaller than Supertwins GTO, bigger than Supertwins GTU.

Personally I am about 100 days away from having everything done for 2018 (all parts in and all vendors ready to go), and guessing others are in the same boat. Our whole program is built around 700 cc's, to change this soon before 2018 could cause a major drop off in attendance in an already small class. At a minimum any consideration of this should be for 2019.

Further, there are 10 different classes you can run a 600cc bike in, but really only 2 you can run a 700cc bike in and be competitive to win. Now we are going to get rid of one of those two classes? I think Thunderbike is perfect for those AMA legal twins to earn a championship. Chris Fillmore didn't have any trouble running his twin in RORO. Increasing the size of Supertwins GTU puts that and Thunderbike too close together in classes we already struggle to fill.

I suggested STGTU because the Ducati 749s won it last year - ~110hp. Pro Twins bikes will still struggle to reach that level of performance, but will be close.

LWGP could be a different candidate, because the pro twins rules are aimed at people building up their SV, FZ, 650, etc. Like Tony's bike.

The 675 and 848 in thunderbike are a higher level of performance than any pro twins bike will be.


edit - suggest weight limit for 750cc and above, not 800cc and above

[fosbibr]

This plenary power

.....and I learned something today.....

[WCook]

Race Day Schedule change
MW, LW and ULW Endurance race,

MW bikes because of speed differential should be grouped with HW for safety (especially on the short courses)

- HW/MW endurance races together
- ULW/LW endurance races together

We have allowed ourselves to get into a situation where you have rider/bikes capable of 1:50s running and lapping bikes that putting down 2:50s

[jplracing]

I would be fine with them racing in other classes, but would require BLUE flags. It is really a problem for all riders involved when front guys are battling for position and run into a prod bike. Would be a safe addition to have warning flags so at least it increases the chances of safe passes.


Jon and Jared

I totally understand you ideas of "blue flags". Speed differential has always been a concern in the club

The problem I see with waving a flag at a slower rider to move out of the way of a faster rider, is that from the beginning the MRA, HPR and ever other race/track day org I am familiar with places the responsibility to pass with the overtaking rider. We are to hold the "line" at all times.

By now instructing a slower bike/rider to move out of the way when a flag is shown goes against what is the standard practice of riding/racing on the track...Too me this is asking for too many problems.

IMO Jon's suggestion for minimum engine displacement is a better idea (even thought there will still be slower riders, etc..)

[oldtimer]

Race Day Schedule change
MW, LW and ULW Endurance race,

MW bikes because of speed differential should be grouped with HW for safety (especially on the short courses)

- HW/MW endurance races together
- ULW/LW endurance races together

We have allowed ourselves to get into a situation where you have rider/bikes capable of 1:50s running and lapping bikes that putting down 2:50s

The discussion about separating the LW/ULW Endurance bikes from MW is reasonable. But then what do you guys propose to do with the Open Endurance class? Blob MW/HW/Open Endurance?

[gsnyder828]

The discussion about separating the LW/ULW Endurance bikes from MW is reasonable. But then what do you guys propose to do with the Open Endurance class? Blob MW/HW/Open Endurance?

Get rid of HWEnd?

It's pretty much MWEnd.2 anyway. Have the 1 or 2 actual HW bikes run in Open E and run MW/Open Endurance together

[fosbibr]

Rule Change Suggestion:

Motorcycles competing in Amateur GTO shall have a minimum displacement of 500cc.

Against. The size of the bike isn't necessarily resulting in a slower rider. If you want to go that route, we should just exclude all the little bikes from all classes except production, ULWE, LWGP and Formula Colorado. One of the benefits of racing a little bike is it opens more classes to "race" in (we could all argue if the little bike is really racing competitively in AMO....). If you want to go another route, just say that you can't run in the classes unless you are able to get a certain time. Even if you did that, a good chunk of the grid would be excluded.

[bjackson]

I'd like to propose a change to rule number 2:10 (Production Class Requirements). These bikes are overheating a lot. I lose coolant every time on on track. The KTM 390s are blowing up a lot. The CBRs and the R3s all run very hot. They aren't supposed to be run as hard as we run them. I've discussed this with several people and they all agree (except Ryan) about allowing larger radiators or pony radiators. These are not typically very expensive and are a true safety enhancement. The proposal is to allow radiators of unlimited origin in production class.

[bjackson]

Related to combining MW Endurance with HW Endurance rather than keeping it with LW and ULW Endurance. I concur. I would race endurance but don't because of this issue. Its dangerous and it will bite us one day soon... I did read that some riders see the "Sketchiness" as a challenge. Sounds like a recipe for disaster...

[WolFeYeZ]

I think we need some data on this ULW/LW/MW/HW/O Endurance issue, to bring things into perspective. This isn't perfect data, but it might give you an idea of the breakdown of riders. Below is the best I have access to, the number of riders who have scored points this season in each of these 5 races:

Open Endurance: 30
Heavyweight End: 27
Middleweight End: 39
Lightweight End: 12
Ultra Lightweight: 23

Looking at this, it looks like there are more Middleweight riders than Lightweight and Ultralightweight combined.

[fosbibr]

I'd like to propose a change to rule number 2:10 (Production Class Requirements). These bikes are overheating a lot. I lose coolant every time on on track. The KTM 390s are blowing up a lot. The CBRs and the R3s all run very hot. They aren't supposed to be run as hard as we run them. I've discussed this with several people and they all agree (except Ryan) about allowing larger radiators or pony radiators. These are not typically very expensive and are a true safety enhancement. The proposal is to allow radiators of unlimited origin in production class.


Concur. Who cares what Ryan thinks....

[bjackson]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

Totally agree. Touching the controls of another riders motorcycle should be made illegal. It is a safety concern, not funny, and should be a common sense rule. The only exception being when a crashed riders bike needs to be turned off.

[bjackson]

To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.

I actually complained to Jim Wilson about this at HPR as my bike was turned off on the cool down lap leaving me in a dangerous situation. Nothing was done.

[bjackson]

I run a $1300 1992 Suzuki GS500 with almost NO mods, and I am competitive. Won the 500 Prod championship 2 years ago on it. No changes to Production are needed or warranted.

I have less than $3K invested in my 2008 ex500 and won 500 Prod last year and am leading it this year. Don't need a lot of money to run up front. I agree with Tony. Most suggestions for allowable mods are for safety concerns, not performance.

[shRED]

I actually complained to Jim Wilson about this at HPR as my bike was turned off on the cool down lap leaving me in a dangerous situation. Nothing was done.

1. It is illegal, it is dangerous riding. 2. "Nothing was done" or you did not directly see what was done? Those can be very different things.

Or you could just pin your on/off switch and be done with it.

[TD675]

Pinning the switch open is also a safety hazard for many reasons as it nearly negates the point of having one there. I had noticed a few riders doing this last year and brought it to the club's attention. It is not recommended to do this.

[JohnnyMac]

After thinking about it and reading the thoughtful responses, I take back my two suggestions:

1. Blue Flags - Too difficult to implement, and safe passing is the responsibility of the passing rider. I am OK with that.
2. 500cc Minimum for Amateur GTO - It is really the same thing as blue flags in the sense that the passing rider should do so safely. Anyone can run anything in that class.

I deleted my original posts.

[JohnnyMac]

Regarding Sub-Frames for Supersport Classes


The late model Yamaha R1 has a cast magnesium subframe, which shatters in even a seemingly minor low-side crash.
After witnessing several riders shattering their sub-frames, I would like to be able to replace mine with an aluminum one for better crash protection.
I don't believe that the aluminum one would be a lot lighter (if at all), but it would make the bike safer and more durable.
There are currently riders racing with broken magnesium subframes on their R1s because they don’t want to violate supersport rules.


The current rule for subframe on page 8 of the rulebook (section 2.2.2 C,I) reads:
"i. Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material as the original part."


Suggested Change:
"i. Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material. Cast magnesium OEM subframes may be replaced with aluminum subframes for durability.”

[bjackson]

I'd like to make a suggestion to remove the KTM 690 from the Colorado class and Ultralight classes. They are clearly way more powerful than anything else in the Formula Colorado class. Since we use Colorado class rules for Ultralight, they would both be affected by removing them from the Formula Colorado class.

[Redline]

You are totally correct sir, I didn't think about that! The biggest problem is when a rider is in the back either due to lack of experience or speed their lines are far less stable or consistent so maybe we can coach them to just maintain their lines better ( or take the race line.... ) LOL.

[shRED]

I'd like to make a suggestion to remove the KTM 690 from the Colorado class and Ultralight classes. They are clearly way more powerful than anything else in the Formula Colorado class. Since we use Colorado class rules for Ultralight, they would both be affected by removing them from the Formula Colorado class.

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for Colorado Class: Against. This bike is exactly what a Supermono should be and in my view exemplifies what the class should aspire to. This is the premier supermono bike in Europe at present, built with good horsepower and significantly lighter (stock) than similarly powered twins. This engine platform is the future of Supermono: Kraemer is making bespoke race bikes around the KTM 690 engine and they are sweet.

Also, any major class change like this should come with a one year notice period so affected racers could modify their race program accordingly. Changing class requirements willy nilly isn't a great way to build a long-term base of racers for a club, and is really only a good way to eliminate, rather than bolster, competition.

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for ULW Endurance: Support. This was raised by the affected parties last year, should be raised again. I agree the KTM 690 should not qualify as ULW.

[singletrack_mind]

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for Colorado Class: Against. This bike is exactly what a Supermono should be and in my view exemplifies what the class should aspire to. This is the premier supermono bike in Europe at present, built with good horsepower and significantly lighter (stock) than similarly powered twins. This engine platform is the future of Supermono: Kraemer is making bespoke race bikes around the KTM 690 engine and they are sweet.

Also, any major class change like this should come with a one year notice period so affected racers could modify their race program accordingly. Changing class requirements willy nilly isn't a great way to build a long-term base of racers for a club, and is really only a good way to eliminate, rather than bolster, competition.

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for ULW Endurance: Support. This was raised by the affected parties last year, should be raised again. I agree the KTM 690 should not qualify as ULW.

I'm with shRED on this. I race a 690, and the Colorado Class is it's natural home. The original purpose of the class was to be a venue for single cylinder racers; other bikes have been added over the years as they become uncompetitive elsewhere. The Colorado Class should be the place for no-holds-barred single cylinder bikes. If 690s come to dominate the class so be it: It happens to be the best single cylinder racing engine out there right now. On the other hand, I do agree that it's a little out of place in Ultra Lightweight Endurance. I race it there because the rule book says I can, but if I am required to switch to Lightweight Endurance I will, and I think that's fair enough.

Stephen Husbands
MRA 30

[aspenbum]

Current rule: 2.7.A Endurance races consist of amateur classes including ultra lightweight, lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight, and open categories. Unlimited frame and engine combinations are allowed. Displacement specifications for ultra lightweight (based on formula colorado section 2.4.1.2), lightweight (based on lightweight grand prix section 2.4.1.1), and for other classes (middleweight, heavyweight, and open classes section 2.3.2).

New Rule: 2.7.A Endurance races consist of amateur classes including ultra lightweight, lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight, and open categories. Unlimited frame, engine combinations, and modifications are allowed. Displacement specifications for ultra lightweight (based on production cup 500 section 2.10), lightweight (based on lightweight grand prix section 2.4.1.1), and for other classes (middleweight, heavyweight, and open classes section 2.3.2).


Current Rule: 2.7.B Points will accumulate throughout the year toward class championships.

New Rule: 2.7.B Points will accumulate throughout the year toward class championships. If the MRA decides to host a 4-Hour Endurance race, all racers who wish to earn points for the regular Endurance Championship must compete in the 4-Hour endurance. If competing as a solo endurance rider (iron butt) you must finish at least 50% of the classes winning lap amount to earn points. If competing as a team endurance rider (True Endurance or Pony Express) you must finish at least 25% of your teams total lap count in order to earn points. All riders that meet the points requirements for the 4-hour endurance will receive 25 points towards their respective endurance championship for their participation.


Current Rule: 2.10.G Fuel injected motorcycles may utilize an aftermarket tuning device for the purpose of fuel management only.

New Rule: 2.10.G Fuel injected motorcycles may utilize an aftermarket tuning device for the purpose of fuel, ignition, and rpm management only.


Current Rule: 2.10.J Rear Shock may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin.

New Rule: 2.10.J Rear Shock may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin, frame trimming allowed to fit shock. (See Also 2.10.S)


Current Rule 2.10.S Parts which are not critical to bodywork or integral support may be removed, but they must be removed at the stock mounting or bolting point. Cutting of materials or frame is prohibited with the exception of the kickstand bracket and rear foot peg brackets which may be removed for safety and ground clearance. The countershaft sprocket cover may also be modified or removed.

New Rule: 2.10.S Parts which are not critical to bodywork or integral support may be removed, but they must be removed at the stock mounting or bolting point. Cutting of materials or frame is prohibited with the exception of the rear shock mount, kickstand bracket and rear foot peg brackets which may be removed for safety and ground clearance. The countershaft sprocket cover may also be modified or removed.


Current Rule 2.10.U none

New Rule 2.10.U Cooling systems must remain stock with the exception of aftermarket radiator caps.


Current Rule 7.1.J When restarting or scoring a red-flagged race, racers will be re-gridded or scored as to their running order at the completion of the lap preceding the lap in which the red flag was displayed. If the race is restarted, racers who crash or retire from a race before or during the red flag lap will be re-gridded at the back of the grid behind all non-crashing/non-retiring racers in the order in which they last crossed start/finish. If the race is determined to be complete and the race was stopped due to a rider(s) crash, the rider(s) involved will finish at the back of their respective lap group. i.e. a rider causing the red flag was in 5th place at the time of the red flag, there were 10 riders on the lead lap, and 15 riders started the race. The involved rider would be scored in 10th place.

New Rule 7.1.J 7.1.J When restarting or scoring a red-flagged race, racers will be re-gridded or scored as to their running order at the completion of the lap preceding the lap in which the red flag was displayed. If the race is restarted, racers who crash or retire from a race before or during the red flag lap will be re-gridded at the back of the grid behind all non-crashing/non-retiring racers in the order in which they last crossed start/finish. If the race is determined to be complete and the race was stopped due to a rider(s) crash, the rider(s) involved will finish in last place regardless of their position in the race at the time of the crash. (See 7.2.2.B for points allocatoin)


Current Rule 7.2.2.B Any rider who does not complete the full race distance for any reason will be awarded a finish position based on the distance they completed.

New Rule 7.2.2.B Any rider who does not complete the full race distance for any reason other than crashing will be awarded a finish position based on the distance they completed. If you crash out of the race you will be awarded 0 points regardless of your finish position.


Current Rule 10.L none

New Rule 10.L The race surface is defined as any area of the race track inside of the the walls/fence that separates the racers from the spectators. This includes hot pit lane during the race.


Current Rule 10.M none

New Rule 10.M The start of the race is defined by when the the grid marshal allows bikes to be on the track for the warm up lap. While not a scored lap, the warm up lap is considered to be a part of the race and all of the race rules apply to the warm up lap.

[Electroman]

Regarding the ULW/LW/MW/HW/O Endurance issue, I propose no change to running ULW/LW/MW together. Yet, LW and ULW riders must be experts, or obtain approval by the New Rider Instructor.
The intent of this restriction is to keep brand new riders just of the street from running a Ninja 250 and mixing it up with the 600s.

[Electroman]

I propose running an endurance race with a LeMans Start for at least one race next season.

[WolFeYeZ]

Current: 2.2.2-C-i- Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material as the original part.
Suggestion: 2.2.2-C-i- Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material as the original part. OEM subframes of magnesium material may downgrade to aluminum subframes.

Remove: 12.3.F “Except under extraordinary circumstances (as determined by the MRA
board)”

Add: In the area of 12.2 Inspection Covenants, it would be great to have more documentation behind supersport and production tear downs. At the very least, it would be best to have some written documentation surrounding the posting of teardown results.

Current: 2.2.2-C-r - Standard fasteners may be replaced with after-market fasteners of the same
material and design. Fasteners may be drilled for safety wire but intentional weight-saving modifications are not permitted. Fairing/bodywork fasteners may be changed to quick-disconnect type.
Suggetion: 2.2.2-C-r - Standard fasteners may be replaced with after-market fasteners of the same
material and design. Aluminum fasteners may be downgraded to steel fasteners. Fasteners may be drilled for safety wire but intentional weight-saving modifications are not permitted. Fairing/bodywork fasteners may be changed to quick-disconnect type.