PDA

View Full Version : Rule Change Suggestions for 2009



dave.gallant
August 26th, 2008, 11:41 AM
OK - Here is the 2009 thread.

Please, cite existing rule if applicable and your additions/edits to that rule.

If you want to discuss it (argue about it), that is fine but your "rule change suggestion" needs to cite the actual rule as it exists today or you are wasting everyone's time.

clowe
August 26th, 2008, 04:20 PM
G. Only DOT tires may be used.
4. Grooved DOT’s are allowed for wet conditions. Trimming tires for
clearance purposes is prohibited.


Please, please, please for the love of all that holy please let's start allowing rain tires in SS if the race is deemed wet (this should be up to the TM). Next season we may well have four race tracks to race at. On three of them we should be able to race in the rain. We can argue about safety, cost, Supersport being a stock class but why don't we cut through the BS. We all come to the track to race, not pussyfoot around turning 1:30 minute lap times in to 2:15 minute lap times because you can hardly lean the bike over. We have a very good chance of racing in the rain next year. Those of you who have never raced in the rain at all and plan on racing Supersport next year should really pay attention to this. Riding around on DOTs on a 185HP SS 1000 is not safe or very fun. Try it on a 125 HP 600 and it is not much better. I don't care what anyone has said in the past, racing dangerous but using rain tires helps us to minimize the risk. Think of it is as for the same reason you wear a helmet. Riding with one is dangerous too, but which is more dangerous, with a helmet or without? I won't ride without one!

Wild Cheetah 612
August 26th, 2008, 06:54 PM
At least two tracks. AMA didn't run PPIR in the rain.

Crash,
Put in the wording you'd like to see in the rulebook.

benfoxmra95
August 26th, 2008, 11:21 PM
G. Only DOT tires may be used.
4. Grooved DOT’s are allowed for wet conditions. Trimming tires for
clearance purposes is prohibited.


Please, please, please for the love of all that holy please let's start allowing rain tires in SS if the race is deemed wet (this should be up to the TM). Next season we may well have four race tracks to race at. On three of them we should be able to race in the rain. We can argue about safety, cost, Supersport being a stock class but why don't we cut through the BS. We all come to the track to race, not pussyfoot around turning 1:30 minute lap times in to 2:15 minute lap times because you can hardly lean the bike over. We have a very good chance of racing in the rain next year. Those of you who have never raced in the rain at all and plan on racing Supersport next year should really pay attention to this. Riding around on DOTs on a 185HP SS 1000 is not safe or very fun. Try it on a 125 HP 600 and it is not much better. I don't care what anyone has said in the past, racing dangerous but using rain tires helps us to minimize the risk. Think of it is as for the same reason you wear a helmet. Riding with one is dangerous too, but which is more dangerous, with a helmet or without? I won't ride without one!

#-o

clowe
August 27th, 2008, 09:52 AM
Oh, I forgot about PPIR. So that would make three tracks that we can run in the rain and two we don't. I am assuming that both new track in Colorado get built and we are able to race at both of them.

Exact wording to come.

The GECCO
August 27th, 2008, 11:17 AM
At least two tracks. AMA didn't run PPIR in the rain.

They didn't? I don't recall that they ever got rained out there, but I know the MRA has run PPIR in the rain.

Either way, my opinion (and Crash and I have had this debate more than a couple times) on the rain tires is that it shouldn't be called a safety issue. You can go FASTER on rain tires, yes, but that doesn't make it safer. Whether or not you fall is still up to the skill of the rider, and with rain tires you'll be going faster and slide further when you fall. This is like saying that racing slicks are safer than street tires. The different tire only changes where the traction limit is, it has nothing to do with the rider's ability to find that limit without exceeding it.

To take it to an absurd comparison - if we raced on bare wheels it would be very safe because no one would get going fast enough to get hurt when they fell, but the best rider would still win.

I don't really have a dog in that fight, I just wanted to put forth another opinion that is held by at least a few of the top riders.

dave.gallant
August 27th, 2008, 04:59 PM
I am not a top rider. (We only have 1 top rider btw)

It is my opinion that at my skill level (and the skill level of 99% of the people in our organization), I have less of a chance of wadding up my bike and hurting myself while riding in the rain on rain tires than on modern DOTs.

If you think it is "not safer", stop invalidating an MRA members opinion and feel free to ride DOTs in the rain. It would still be legal to do so.

FWIW: If I had to purchase a set of rain tires, it would have cut my DOT tire bill by 50-60% for a given weekend. The "costs too much" argument does not fly for the people it would effect most.

Ray-Ray
August 27th, 2008, 05:50 PM
Glenn -

The AMA wouldn't race at PPIR in the rain. Something to do with the banking. I remember waiting out the rain while corner working. And as long as I've been around the MRA has not raced in the rain there either.

The GECCO
August 27th, 2008, 05:54 PM
Glenn -

The AMA wouldn't race at PPIR in the rain. Something to do with the banking. I remember waiting out the rain while corner working. And as long as I've been around the MRA has not raced in the rain there either.

I'll have to ask Jim, I seem to remember him telling me that he won a rain race at PPIR and it was his only win at that track.

Ray-Ray
August 27th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Glenn -

The AMA wouldn't race at PPIR in the rain. Something to do with the banking. I remember waiting out the rain while corner working. And as long as I've been around the MRA has not raced in the rain there either.

I'll have to ask Jim, I seem to remember him telling me that he won a rain race at PPIR and it was his only win at that track.


That must have been in a "wet dream" OR i just suffer from CRS!!

Hotrod
August 27th, 2008, 08:24 PM
I cornerworked a race at PPIR that was such a downpour that Jim Brewer pulled his truck out onto the track to give the cornerworkers some shelter while we set up for the motard event.
It dumped all afternoon, and we didn't stop till the break before motard.
As soon as we were all set, we let the dingdongs on dirtbikes have at it in the rain too. :lol:

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
August 28th, 2008, 12:48 AM
I'll have to ask Jim, I seem to remember him telling me that he won a rain race at PPIR and it was his only win at that track.
Bite my butt. I have a few 1st place trophies from PPIR - mostly on my Ape, some on my TLR.

But yes, the MRA has *always* raced in the rain at PPIR - there isn't a reason not to. I don't know what you're remembering, Ray. I know we waited out the storm a couple times, but if it was constantly raining, we kept racing.


As soon as we were all set, we let the dingdongs on dirtbikes have at it in the rain too.
Ha! I remember that, Lincoln. The motos were leaving 2 foot wakes through the 5-6 esses section. That was cool.

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
August 28th, 2008, 12:58 AM
Back on topic - I have a couple questions for Davey and Crash.

If we allow rain tires in SS, do we want to declare the race a "wet" race (as Crash suggests)?

If so, how much time do we allow for people to switch out their DOT's for rains? I'd suspect some if not most SS racers don't carry around 2 sets of OEM wheels.

If not, we'll have to write the rules such that non-DOT tires can be used at any time. Or we'll have to spell out what exactly we mean by a "rain" tire - compound, tread, carcass, etc. Or would we allow cut slicks? If so, how cut do they have to be? (I remember the AMA 600 SS Pirelli tire fiasco @ Daytona back in '96)

As a point of reference, I've raced a few wet races on DOT's and on rains. I don't understand the "safety" argument - rains give more grip than DOTs, but they're both predictable. Predictably less grip doesn't make riding unsafe, unpredictable grip makes it unsafe.

dave.gallant
August 28th, 2008, 08:08 AM
Don't declare a race to be anything different than it already is. If a rider wants to show up on a dry track with rain tires, so be it. If a rider wants to show up ON TIME for a race in the wet on rain tires, so be it.

We shouldn't allow time to switch out tires due to the weather. At 3rd call, no matter what the weather is doing, either you are on the grid or you are not.

This doesn't mean you need a spare set of wheels; it means you have to be prepared to ride at the same time everyone else is and we can not hold up the race day (except at Pueblo) due to rain. Everyone mounts super soft DOTs now for the rain anyways at places like Hastings, and some of the "top" riders have impossible-to-find real DOT legal rain tires which makes the playing field even less level.

Rain tires can be ANY tire obviously designed for wet weather. Avon has one that is DOT legal to boot, Bridgestone has a (great) rain race tire, Pirelli, Dunlop, Michelin - everyone has what we refer to as a "rain tire", and if we need to we can come up with very specific language to describe what it is and how it is recognized.

No slicks. No cut slicks. No hand cut rain tires of any origin, rain or not. No extra grooving to a DOT.

Since Senator Crash came up with this legislation, he really should put it in the form of a Bill so that it can be discussed at length (again) at the rules meeting this fall. :)


Back on topic - I have a couple questions for Davey and Crash.

If we allow rain tires in SS, do we want to declare the race a "wet" race (as Crash suggests)?

If so, how much time do we allow for people to switch out their DOT's for rains? I'd suspect some if not most SS racers don't carry around 2 sets of OEM wheels.

If not, we'll have to write the rules such that non-DOT tires can be used at any time. Or we'll have to spell out what exactly we mean by a "rain" tire - compound, tread, carcass, etc. Or would we allow cut slicks? If so, how cut do they have to be? (I remember the AMA 600 SS Pirelli tire fiasco @ Daytona back in '96)

As a point of reference, I've raced a few wet races on DOT's and on rains. I don't understand the "safety" argument - rains give more grip than DOTs, but they're both predictable. Predictably less grip doesn't make riding unsafe, unpredictable grip makes it unsafe.

dave.gallant
August 28th, 2008, 08:18 AM
As a point of reference, I've raced a few wet races on DOT's and on rains. I don't understand the "safety" argument - rains give more grip than DOTs, but they're both predictable.

Safety by definition is a subjective thing that is based on opinion. Statistics might be used to describe potential for accident, but "level of safety" is generally described by a person as a "feeling", not a fact. (eg: "...something felt safer...")

Overall though, I don't even care if rains are "safer" than DOTs and you guys can argue about that point all you want. I have raced many times in the rain on both, and in my opinion the margin for error is higher on rains. The thing I care most about is getting myself and my bike back home Sunday night in one piece. I mean, this is "club racing" after all and getting hurt sucks no matter what the situation.

I am not sure how rain tires could spoil the sanctity of Supersport racing considering an un-obtanium traction control system or a engine bottom end that will last 3 races is perfectly acceptable (and found on our grids whether you like it or not)

In fact, my next rule suggestion will be what I suggested in '04 - Showroom stock except for tires, ground clearance items, and suspension internals...I am sure it will be "booooed" again this year. :)

clowe
August 28th, 2008, 10:04 AM
Ummmm......Dave, I don't think I could have said it better.

Race often comes down to choices. If we are racing at Hastings and I choose to put rain tires on (definition to follow) and I head out to the grid and it does not rain, I took my chance and it went the wrong way. We are talking about 7 and 8 lap races, not 45 lap races, there is pretty small window. As Dave said, we can argue the safety thing all day but it is very subjective at best. I think the fact that you can find and by strange, one-off, DOT (REAL) rain tires makes the whole thing silly. I, like Dave and I think everyone else in the club, do not want to tear my equipment up any more than I have to. Current DOT tires are almost identical to slicks in every way, with just very small grooves and they do not heat up in the rain and they do not dissipate water which is what is needed to keep our two very small contact patches on the pavement. I think it is very simple as well, rain tires or DOTs, period. I will try and define it and we can stick with it.

Racing in SS with rain tires does not take away from the spirit of SS any more than quickshifters, TC or putting on a $2500 shock. Just like riding with a helmet does not take away the freedom of riding a motorcycle.

The GECCO
August 28th, 2008, 10:18 AM
Just like riding with a helmet does not take away the freedom of riding a motorcycle.

Here we go.....don't get me started about how much safer it is to ride without a helmet! :shock: :lol:

clowe
August 28th, 2008, 11:33 AM
I knew someone would say that!!!

:-(0)

DingleBerns
August 28th, 2008, 01:11 PM
G. Only DOT tires may be used.
4. Grooved DOT’s are allowed for wet conditions. Trimming tires for
clearance purposes is prohibited.


I don't run supersport, but I'm in favor of just deleting "G" and "4." This would mean that any racer can run rain's or dot's rain or shine.

On the safety subject, I would feel mentally safer on rains than dot's in the rain....cheaper as well.

my cent of two

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
August 28th, 2008, 02:34 PM
don't get me started about how much safer it is to ride without a helmet!
http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/kicknuts.gif

dragos13
August 28th, 2008, 02:39 PM
G. Only DOT tires may be used.
4. Grooved DOT’s are allowed for wet conditions. Trimming tires for
clearance purposes is prohibited.


I don't run supersport, but I'm in favor of just deleting "G" and "4." This would mean that any racer can run rain's or dot's rain or shine.

On the safety subject, I would feel mentally safer on rains than dot's in the rain....cheaper as well.

my cent of two

The problem with deleting G is that it would open up the ability to run non-DOT tires, ie slicks.

We will need to modify the rule to say that you can run DOT tires ONLY, with the exception of rulebook defined "rain tires" (which I'm sure Crash will come up with the correct wording for this).

I'm all for allowing ALL MANUFACTURE TYPE of rains. Right now, to allow AVON rains only, you almost screw over the rest of us that dont have an extra set. So it gives a bonus to those with more money, again something supersport "shouldn't" do. To make the money issue more fair, allow Bridgestone, Michelin, etc. made rain tires.

As for safety, sure we'll be going faster. We will also be in more control due to the fact of actually having grip on the track. +1 for ALL BRAND RAINS to be allowed.

Throttleroller277
August 28th, 2008, 03:14 PM
As for safety, sure we'll be going faster. We will also be in more control due to the fact of actually having grip on the track. +1 for ALL BRAND RAINS to be allowed.

I can see both sides of this subject, either way.

But I have a problem with the above statement Dragos.....

Yes, you will be going Faster.....True

In more Control due to having more grip.......? I don't agree.
Look at it on the Dry side.....you can tuck the front on a street tire, you can tuck the front on a Race DOT, you can tuck the front on a Race Slick......each one just going faster than the other.

So how are you in more control? Faster....Yes....More Control???????

I have raced in the rain on both DOT's and Rains several times, so I agree on the speed increase, not the Idea of not being able to "loose it" 8)

Just my 2 cents....

dragos13
August 28th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Well good point Brownie. The way I see it, during a race you are going to push the limits as much as possible without crashing. On DOTS in the rain, the limit is lower then on rain tires. Say the guy in front of you is on AVON rains, are you going to be safer trying to keep up on DOT's or on Michelin rain tires? Maybe my logic is wrong on this topic, but I think running DOTS in the rain will be slower and less predictable, then running a faster pace with rains. Yes you are faster on rains then DOT's, but that is due to feeling more comfortable. Running DOTS in rain, makes you slow down to stay in the comfort limit. I guess either way its in the rain so maybe going faster is more dangerous no matter what?

Clarkie
August 28th, 2008, 07:20 PM
I have a 12 year old set of Pirelli 'DOT Rains' so I dont care if the rule gets changed or not :D

Seriously though, i have ridden on my DOT rains on a wet track and while they arent anywhere near as good as full rains they are 1000 times better than the current type of DOT race tires. But is it fair that I get to ride on these tire and someone else has to run their DOT race tires? Not really but right now the rule says i can so I will take advantage of the rule (FWIW I have had these tires for 2 years and never gotten the chance to use them in a race)

You can also go and buy a set of normal all weather street tires, these may or may not be better than a DOT race tire, the problem lies in that a couple of manufacturers make 'DOT Rains' and as per the rules you cannot ban them, so if you want 'fair' racing you really need to either open the rules up to allow full rains or just never race in the wet (which i think is a bad thing to do)

Another problem is that some of us have signed tire contracts, I have a 12 year old set o DOT rains because if i went and bought a new set of Avons I would be breaking my contract and that's not something I am prepared to do.

I dont agree with the idea that if everyone is on DOT race tires it is safer than if everyone was on full rains, you can claim the speeds are slower etc etc and on paper it may work out but in reality it doesnt work that way. It's supposed to be a race not a parade, rigth now people just do a couple of laps and pull off to get points or just ride around hoping they wont fall off, sorry but to me that's not a race

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
August 28th, 2008, 10:33 PM
Yipee -- time to pick on Clarkie http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/bannana.gif


I have a 12 year old set of Pirelli 'DOT Rains' so I dont care if the rule gets changed or not :D
Hmm... the same ones that Yves used at Daytona?


... the problem lies in that a couple of manufacturers make 'DOT Rains' and as per the rules you cannot ban them, so if you want 'fair' racing you really need to either open the rules up to allow full rains or just never race in the wet (which i think is a bad thing to do)

So if a couple of manufacturers make DOT Rains (like MT-60R) why do we have to open up the rules to allow full rains? There's no rule that says you can't use two different manufacturer's tires. You guys with contracts have a problem - but us normal folks can pick whatever works best for the conditions.


I dont agree with the idea that if everyone is on DOT race tires it is safer than if everyone was on full rains, you can claim the speeds are slower etc etc and on paper it may work out but in reality it doesnt work that way.
I wouldn't argue that the DOTs are safer - mostly because I think the contention of one being safer than the other is hogwash. Safety is about predictable grip, not absolute grip. Otherwise flat track racing wouldn't be safe.


It's supposed to be a race not a parade, rigth now people just do a couple of laps and pull off to get points or just ride around hoping they wont fall off, sorry but to me that's not a race
I don't understand why allowing full rains would change that. People will still go slow and pull off early.

Clarkie
August 29th, 2008, 07:07 AM
So if a couple of manufacturers make DOT Rains (like MT-60R) why do we have to open up the rules to allow full rains? There's no rule that says you can't use two different manufacturer's tires. You guys with contracts have a problem - but us normal folks can pick whatever works best for the conditions.


And yet if we allow full rains EVERYONE will have a choice of rain tire, not just those who dont have a tire deal, and there are a lot of people in the paddock that have tire deals with Michelin/Dunlop/Pirelli/Bridgestone :wink:


I don't understand why allowing full rains would change that. People will still go slow and pull off early.

how do you know, people have never been able to use rains in a DOT race so at best it is speculation on your part :D

If I wanted to ride in a parade I would buy a v-twin.... (sorry Jim couldnt resist :lol: ) So if you are saying there wont be adifference between dot's and full rains in a rain race (that has been declared a 'wet race' by the track marshall), why not give us the choice of what tire we run?

There is a myth that rain tires are more expensive than any other tire and once they are used they are too be thrown away, my rain tires are a set Scott gave me that had a full Superbike race on them from Road America last year. Most racers that have a set of rains aren't worried about when they were built, buy one set and they are good for many years.

If you want to ride around at 80% in the wet there is less chance of crashing on rains compared to DOT's, crash damage can add up to a lot ore than a set of rain tires.

Obviously this can go round and round and both sides have good arguments, and it will be a good reason to turn up and vote at the rules meeting 8)

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
August 30th, 2008, 11:11 AM
And yet if we allow full rains EVERYONE will have a choice of rain tire, not just those who dont have a tire deal, and there are a lot of people in the paddock that have tire deals with Michelin/Dunlop/Pirelli/Bridgestone :wink:

http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/touche.jpg


how do you know, people have never been able to use rains in a DOT race so at best it is speculation on your part :D

Ok, this is going to be rude, but since the MRA has shyed away from rain racing for years, most of our racers have never done it and thus likely not very good at it. So yes, it is speculation.


If I wanted to ride in a parade I would buy a v-twin.... (sorry Jim couldnt resist :lol: )

Oh, that stings! http://users.frii.com/jjb/emote/bitchslap.gif

Wait .. wasn't it you who talked me into that damn Ape thing in the first place!? :-k



There is a myth that rain tires are more expensive than any other tire and once they are used they are too be thrown away, my rain tires are a set Scott gave me that had a full Superbike race on them from Road America last year. Most racers that have a set of rains aren't worried about when they were built, buy one set and they are good for many years.

You're right. I had a set that I'd bought 3 years before using them. Then I used them 3 times (with other clubs) finally finishing them off during the 2nd Creek endurance. They were still working fine.

IMHO, rain racing is all about preparation (anti fog, RainX, waterproof glove & boot liners), riding technique, and patience. In club racing, it seem to be a race of attrition.


Obviously this can go round and round and both sides have good arguments, and it will be a good reason to turn up and vote at the rules meeting 8)
Mission accomplished.

JimWilson29
September 8th, 2008, 10:14 AM
Addition to 2.4.1 Class Limits

5. RACE OF THE ROCKIES GTU
• If RoR GTU rider's lap times are not less than or equal to 115% of current class lap record for 3 consecutive laps, the rider can be black flagged. (This would be around 1:42 at Pueblo)

6. RACE OF THE ROCKIES GTO
• If RoR GTO rider's lap times are not less than or equal to 115% of current class lap record for 3 consecutive laps, the rider can be black flagged. (This would be around 1:39 at Pueblo)


It would be the Track Marshall's responsibility to visually identify a rider that could possibly be lapping too slow and creating a hazard and then check with timing for that rider's lap times.

polar x
September 8th, 2008, 03:18 PM
Addition to 2.4.1 Class Limits

5. RACE OF THE ROCKIES GTU
• If RoR GTU rider's lap times are not less than or equal to 115% of current class lap record for 3 consecutive laps, the rider can be black flagged. (This would be around 1:42 at Pueblo)

6. RACE OF THE ROCKIES GTO
• If RoR GTO rider's lap times are not less than or equal to 115% of current class lap record for 3 consecutive laps, the rider can be black flagged. (This would be around 1:39 at Pueblo)


It would be the Track Marshall's responsibility to visually identify a rider that could possibly be lapping too slow and creating a hazard and then check with timing for that rider's lap times.

Better yet, have Chris, who is watching the times, tell the track marshal we have rider xxx lapping at 1.40 for 3 laps then the TM can make the call. Or he could be given cart blanch (sp?) and just tell Bob number xx needs to be meatballed and tell him his/her race is over.

T Baggins
September 8th, 2008, 03:27 PM
I like the idea because it takes the whole "turning practice in to qualifying" out of the equation.

Post a maximum allowable lap time.
Allow anyone (who meets the other requirements) to enter.
If they lap too slow, for 3 laps in a row, they get meatballed.
No refunds, you knew the deal when you entered.

Pretty simple, no?

Jon
September 8th, 2008, 03:39 PM
I'm all for a 10 minute qualifying session run in the morning first practice. Get the oil dry and ambulances ready! :lol:

dimick27
September 8th, 2008, 04:20 PM
in addition to the maximum lap time proposal, i think there needs to be an exception somewhere in the rulebook when it comes to rider eligibility for the ROR classes.

how is it that the last race weekend i did at hastings, riders were able to compete in RORU that were nearly 10 seconds off pace, just because they have had atleast one year experience in the "expert" class. and the person that turned the fastest lap time of the whole race got DQd becasue of lack of "experience at the expert level" with the mra.

i completely understand the rule and think its a great rule to make sure inexperienced riders dont jump into a class thats out of their league becuase if they do it could put them and other riders in harms way. but there has to be some exceptions.

if the particular rider holds an AMA PRO LICENSE in one or more different racing disciplines, if lap times are competitive, if the rider is not riding over their head to keep up... these are all things that can be taken into consideration and be decided by the board at the race.

for example, i just got back from racing at miller with MOM and like the MRA, MOM has a money paying expert class called KOM with a similar rule. when i asked them about sign up they took everything into consideration and said they couldnt make a call until they saw my lap times and riding...

with all the racing background that the MRA has on the board i think they could very easily make a smart/saffe decision on whether or not a rider is capable of competing in that class.

plus dont the same 20 guys that compete in mwss and mwsb comete in roru? the only difference is the money factor and more laps. if the rider is capable of riding the class i say let them. its more money for the mra and more money for other riders if he/she doesnt do well.

just my two cents, in no way shape or form am i mad about the situation im just giving my opinion. after all i did bring it upon myself by signing up when i knew it was a nono :lol: i just think it would be good for more up and coming riders or out of state guys for next year.

wording it in the rule book would be kinda tricky but you guys are the experts and im sure you could come up with something good!

see yall at ppir!

motobum
September 8th, 2008, 04:36 PM
if the particular rider holds an AMA PRO LICENSE in one or more different racing disciplines, if lap times are competitive, if the rider is not riding over their head to keep up... these are all things that can be taken into consideration and be decided by the board at the race.

mmm... wonder who your talking about

polar x
September 8th, 2008, 04:44 PM
Jims rule suggestion makes the most since, it puts the policing of riders times on the rider and not the club to make room for qualifiers. You, the rider, will know what you are capable of before entering and paying extra to run it. The Mra just oversees your times and boots your ass if you are outside the times. Like Tony said, you knew the rules before you entered and paid to play. so sorry too bad.

Running qualifiers takes up more time in the day that we don't have so this is pretty fair and straight across the board.

dimick27
September 8th, 2008, 05:17 PM
chris i understand i "paid to play" i wasnt complaining at all i knew what the risk was. like i said i put it upon myself... im just saying for future references.

i didnt read the whole forum so i didnt catch jims suggestion so ill go back and look at that, maybe i jumped the gun a little my bad.

polar x
September 8th, 2008, 06:25 PM
chris i understand i "paid to play" i wasnt complaining at all i knew what the risk was. like i said i put it upon myself... im just saying for future references.

i didnt read the whole forum so i didnt catch jims suggestion so ill go back and look at that, maybe i jumped the gun a little my bad.

Was'nt directed at you. sorry if you took it that way. I was in the same situation my first year as a expert and got booted for the last two races.

I was just saying how I thought it would be better and why. I cast no stones in this house. :lol: :lol:

dimick27
September 8th, 2008, 06:35 PM
ya my i didnt read the whole forum so i took it the wrong way. but i def agree with both jims and tonys ideas!

froth
September 14th, 2008, 08:01 AM
Not to throw a wrench in here, but, here's a question.

If while running RORO, and getting meatballed out, would a rider still get payout if getting meatballed out resulted in say, am 11th place finish? Or, if meatballed out, and a faster rider goes down, can the meatballed rider come back in. After all, the slower rider didn't biff? Just curious.

Scored51
September 14th, 2008, 09:03 AM
Just catching up with this so here are my thought on a class I'll never run. I could certainly monitor the lap times and pull whoever isn't running fast enough. However, running a 1:40 around Pueblo in ROR would just get you lapped at the end of a fourteen lap race. If this is the case, we could just pull lapped riders as done in bicycle racing. Of course the other option is to use one of the fast practice sessions on Sunday morning as a qualifier. Maybe not to set the grid, but to remove anyone unable to keep up with the pace that will be set.

The other thought I had was that if the eligibility rule was changed to remove the required one year as an expert with the MRA it would open the door to any and all of the contingency hunters. Meaning MRA money (and points towards the number one plate) would be leaving the MRA.

Hope this helps,

Clarkie
September 14th, 2008, 09:15 AM
lappers are part of the game, and i think it is a bad idea to pull people from the race. As one of the 'fast guys' I have never had a problem with any lappers riding out of control, usually everyone is just out there doing their own thing and riding in control, well except for that Jim Brewer guy, he is a pain in the ass :D

If you start restricting who can enter (or finish) the ROR races you will have less people enter and the grids will shrink. Racers get faster by following faster racers, so if people want to pay to enter ROR (remember the club needs all the money it can get right now) let them race.

polar x
September 14th, 2008, 06:32 PM
lappers are part of the game, and i think it is a bad idea to pull people from the race. As one of the 'fast guys' I have never had a problem with any lappers riding out of control, usually everyone is just out there doing their own thing and riding in control, well except for that Jim Brewer guy, he is a pain in the ass :D

If you start restricting who can enter (or finish) the ROR races you will have less people enter and the grids will shrink. Racers get faster by following faster racers, so if people want to pay to enter ROR (remember the club needs all the money it can get right now) let them race.

Though I agree with most of your post, the fact remains that if you are getting lapped within the first half of the race by the top 8-10 guys then you probably are not going to learn much from the faster guys. There comes a point where the closure speeds are so drastic that it does become a safety issue. Atleast in my eye. But I don't have that much experience so I might be acting like a big wuss.

JWinter
September 14th, 2008, 08:09 PM
Oops, I meant to put this in this thread but pushed the wrong button and ended up making a new thread (I am technologically challenged).

2.4.1 Grand prix motorcycle class limits

Current STGTU limits:
Up to 750 cc twin cylinder, four stroke
up to 125 cc single cylinder, two stroke
Unlimited displacement, two cylinder, two valve, air cooled

Add:
Unlimited displacement single cylinder, four stroke

My four stroke single competes against 99% of the bikes in this class in the LWGP class anyway. Plus it will help keep the grid filled for contingency as well.

rybo
September 22nd, 2008, 08:58 AM
Modern Vintage Rules - I'd like to propose a change that would allow a few more bikes into the class while not really affecting the purpose of the rule. I don't have the exact wording, but the case that comes to mind is the 1999 R6. 99-02 bikes have the exact same frame and engine cases, so there is no reason one could garner an advantage by running an 02 model vs. a 99.

Current:

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 2008, the model year must be 1998 or prior.

Revised

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 2009, the model year must be 1999 or prior. An exception will be made for motorcycles that are mechanically identical to the 10 year old model, allowing them into the class.

[/i][/u]

Lel399
September 22nd, 2008, 10:30 AM
1) I propose the creation of a 'Rules committee' that consists of 3 NON board members and 2 board members.

The purpose of the the rules committee will be to adjust or amend rules MID YEAR if an issue arises that is found to be antiquated or obsolete so we dont have to 'wait until the end of the years rules change process' as we do now. All other professional or amatuer organizations I ahve been a part of (outside or including roadracing) have some sort of rules process that can be adjusted mid year.

The purpose of a 3 non board member, 2 board member is that it is still goverened by the board, but the 'riders' have the final say. The riders must be active racing members, and could either be nominated in the beginning of the year (10 people for the 3 person slot in case either 1) there is a conflict of interest or 2) people cant always participate) or in the case of an immediate action, the 3 riders could be drawn out of a hat from the ama release slips for riders that were at the weekend until 3 are found that want to participate and do not have a conflict of interest.

Addendums to the rules would be available at sign in each weekend, and would be announeced at the riders meetings the first weekend after a change.


2) Final grids - Final grids will not be posted or considered 'final' until after the first round of the second round of morning practices... (ie on sunday, they would be final after the conclusion of expert fast for the SECOND time) this gives people time to do their first practice, without worrying about tryting to check grids before their first round of practice, and creates a consistant time when they are posted.

On saturday, it would be after the conclusion of the 2nd round of 'novice combined' the grids would be final.

They do not have to be final at that time, but they will not be final prior to the above posted time.

benfoxmra95
September 23rd, 2008, 08:34 AM
Spec fuel proposal:

All classes with the exception of ROR GTO/open superbike and two stroke motorcycles are limited to no more than 91 oct and the specific gravity of pump fuel from local gas stations.



This is a little vague but we can hash out the details of this in the rules meeting.

Scored51
September 23rd, 2008, 10:20 AM
Wow, that would also control the costs of engine builds because you wouldn't be able to built compression past the limit of 91 octane (keeping even more costs down). However, the exception list wouldn't sit well with riders in the small displacement classes (lightweight & middleweight endurance, lightweight grandprix, colorado class, modern vintage GTU & GTO, lightweight grand prix, novice GTU & GTO, amateur GTU & GTO, and middleweight superbike) where two strokes run with non-exempt bikes. If all superbike, ROR, and grand prix classes were exempt, it would only affect experts running super sport classes.

Hmmm...

polar x
September 23rd, 2008, 10:51 AM
Change SEC 13
original reads
A: Unless penalties are otherwise expressly provided for in this rule book, MRA Officials may disqualify or suspend any rider for the remainder of the event for any violation of the rules of competition, insubordination, or any other conduct detrimental to the event. In addition, fines ranging from $25 to $1,000 may be levied. Fined riders are barred from further competition pending payment of the fine, unless there is an appeal in process.

To read


A: It is the sole discreation of the VP of TECH to disqualify, dock laps for said race OR suspend any rider for the remainder of the event OR year for any violation of the rules of competition. Any MRA Official may disqualify or suspend any rider for the remainder of the event or year for insubordination, or any other conduct detrimental to the event. In addition, fines ranging from $25 to $1,000 may be levied. Fined riders are barred from further competition pending payment of the fine, unless there is an appeal in process.

This rule will supersede all previous rules and any conflicting rules.


Or something to the that effect. Basically it needs to give the VP broader ability to punish without being so harsh.

benfoxmra95
September 25th, 2008, 11:04 AM
lappers are part of the game, and i think it is a bad idea to pull people from the race. As one of the 'fast guys' I have never had a problem with any lappers riding out of control, usually everyone is just out there doing their own thing and riding in control, well except for that Jim Brewer guy, he is a pain in the ass :D

If you start restricting who can enter (or finish) the ROR races you will have less people enter and the grids will shrink. Racers get faster by following faster racers, so if people want to pay to enter ROR (remember the club needs all the money it can get right now) let them race.

Though I agree with most of your post, the fact remains that if you are getting lapped within the first half of the race by the top 8-10 guys then you probably are not going to learn much from the faster guys. There comes a point where the closure speeds are so drastic that it does become a safety issue. Atleast in my eye. But I don't have that much experience so I might be acting like a big wuss.


I'll try to keep this short as i don't think this thread is the place for the debate but only rule change suggestions:

this rule proposed by jim about being within 115% of the lap record was something I had cooking up in my mind as well, but my suggestion was going to have a few more teeth, I actually wanted to submit a rule that said if your practice lap time or race times were'nt within 108% of the lap record your were done.

Well today the light bulb came on and I realized that my rule and jims rule can come back and bite us in the ass, here's how:

Average joe racer is at pueblo and he blows a rod out the side of his 198 hp superbike gsxr 1000 with a 8mm stroker crank and titanium rods, 18mm lift cams with this really sick cam timing 85/98, 36mm intake valves, special kit crank with no markings and there's just titanium parts scattered all the way from turn 1 brake marker 1 to turn 2 entrance.... and he's in the points chase for 7th or something like that.

after sobbing like a 16 year old girl on prom night he borrows a gsxr 750 from someone and it's a 2001 crapped out turd that barely makes 112 hp....

anyways i've digressed, you see what Im saying. you get a average joe racer who's within 2 seconds of the bubble but still fast enough to be in it and then he's screwed becuse he can't ride someone elses bike for darn. that's were this rule could bite some veterans in the behind, because there's been a lot of bike borrowing this year.


I suggest that we put the new rider director in charge of more closely monitoring the progress of "expert" riders and maybe coaching them and or helping them with their decisions as to whether or not they should be riding in the big class.

I personnally think the line has to be drawn somewhere, I mean you can't enter an ama race unless you can show your within a reasonable amount of time from the leaders, they do it for reason.

and coonshead is right, you learn nothing by riding with fast riders when they are gone within one turn of passing you.

polar x
September 25th, 2008, 06:04 PM
=D> 8)

froth
September 25th, 2008, 07:46 PM
Ben: one thing to think about. AMA is big money, and although we do have a few folks who actually don't have huge dollars going outbound on a race weekend, most of us will never get rich (or even very lower middle class) on what we bring in on a weekend.

If someone wants to pony up the dough, I think letting them spend it with us is the way to go. There will be a suggestion coming for a modification of an existing class which may make the club a small bit more money while having a very fun mix of bikes.

While I was laughingly thinking of running "mighty thundar" in RORU next year, I know I'd get smoked, to put it mildly. However, if someone wants to pony up the bucks, I think if they are basically qualifies, they should be allowed to run. If I pays my moneys, and gets my chain yanked, for me, I'd be spending my money elsewhere. Lots and lots of places like the cash. And, if a guy runs slowly, yet finishes, I seem to remember a fable about a tortise and a hare.

See ya at PPIR!

benfoxmra95
September 25th, 2008, 08:05 PM
fred money's shuold not be the issue here.

safety.

if safety wasn't an issue then we'd let novices run in ror and in other expert classes, and gain their extra entry fee money.



Here's the deal, some racers love lapped riders (like clark) because he can navigate them effectively and use them to his advantage when someone's on his ass.

Some racers hate lapped riders, because, they aren't willing to hang it out on line like clark, they are more cautious trying to get around them and it slows their lap times way down.


again let's keep the debate for the rules meeting.

froth
September 26th, 2008, 06:00 AM
Valid point Ben. As a lappee, believe me, it doesn't bother me to get nuked. I simply look at it as someone trying to show me a fster way around the track. And it's actually rather interesting to see how they view it by how they do it. T-Bag, believe it or not, is very methodical and leaves a set amount of space. Shannon leave more space, and waves. I enjoy the daylights out of it.

TRK
September 28th, 2008, 08:59 AM
I would like to see the class champion for a given class be invited back to race the specific class that they just won a championship for free the following year. A good incentive to bring back your class champions.

And RORU should be given the same deal as RORO.

Scored51
September 28th, 2008, 10:33 AM
This equates to a potential loss of $38,390 in registration fees for 2009.

This number figured by using current fees multiplied by the proposed eleven race season for 2009. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the bank balances of the club were reported to be approximately $1,500 at the last general meeting. Just thought you'd be interested in the economics of such a suggestion.

TRK
September 28th, 2008, 11:14 AM
Explain your math, use only expert races, and don't include the extra charge for practice or endurance. WERA does it and I thought it would be cool to incorporate.

TRK
September 28th, 2008, 11:27 AM
My other rule suggestion is the ability for racers to drop a race over the course of an 11 race season.

Scored51
September 28th, 2008, 03:25 PM
Explain your math, use only expert races, and don't include the extra charge for practice or endurance. WERA does it and I thought it would be cool to incorporate.

The math was very basic, and applied to all classes. I didn't think you'd discriminate against the novice, amateur, and endurance classes. Why pay an incentive to those you know are already commited to racing a full season? This is also a worst case scenario as accounting must always identify the extent of a potential loss.

20 sprint classes @ $160 = 3,200
4 endurance classes @ $50 = 200
ROR surcharges per event = 90
TOTAL PER RACE = $3,490

2009 proposed 11 race season = $38,390

Adjusting to expert only, the total figure is reduced to $27,390 based on 15 expert sprint classes. It could also potentially be reduced by those riders winning multiple classes using the registration fee structure in place. BTW, there is no longer a Saturday morning practice fee. It is included with registration of any race for the weekend.

How many classes does WERA run with this rule in place? What percentage of the overall revenue is it for the them on any given event weekend? I don't have any of the answers to these questions for the MRA, but just thought it would be a good idea to shed some light on what it might cost the club to implement such an idea. Of course we could also vote to increase the cost of everyone else's registrations to pay for it.

benfoxmra95
September 28th, 2008, 08:26 PM
My other rule suggestion is the ability for racers to drop a race over the course of an 11 race season.

#-o ](*,)

Were you not at the riders meeting at pueblo?

It's been a few years since we've had a "every other weekend" race season. so I'm not 100% sure anyone quite remembers what it's like.

There won't be much time in the summer for keepin you grass cut at your house. And you'll be trying to continually recover monatarily on a weekly basis. the weekends you have off you'll b spending getting ready for the next weekend.

Now this is if you plan on racing for the season points championship.

I personally voted to be able to drop a race out of your points for next year, because I fully remember racing 11 race seasons and what a toll it takes on you, your wallet and your family, but, there was ridicule from the crowd on the fact that we'd even consider such a poposterous idea,of the ability to drop one race weekends points.... wtf? it could work to your advantage, mabye you could race all 11 and crash one weekend, and that's the weekend you could drop. look at it that way....

11 sets of tires = $4400
race fuel = $1980 (15 gal. per weekend at $12/gal.) run pump gas and you could reduce this to $610 :shock:
race entry fees = $2750
total =$9130


That doesn't even include, food, logding, fuel for your tow rig to and from the track, oil changes for your bike, oil changes for you truck, brake pads, and all the hundreds of other dollars for ancillary stuff throughout the season. Your budget should be in the $15k-$20k range for a full successful season.

Even after 9 races this year I hear lots of people moaning about how they wish it were over, and are broke.

Im not against 11 races but, I'd like the ability to eliminate 1 weekend during the summer so I could go on vacation with my family.

TRK
September 28th, 2008, 09:22 PM
Yes I was at the riders meeting....and I was down for dropping a race. I don't think that meeting was a reflection of the entire club.

benfoxmra95
September 29th, 2008, 10:06 AM
agreed.

TRK
September 29th, 2008, 10:12 PM
I just think a lot of the racers that were in or could be in the mix at the end of the year are out of it because of that one time mid year incident that kept them out of racing for a championship, or a top (?) place. I think the ability to drop a race would actually help fill the grids come the end of the year.

cakake
October 1st, 2008, 01:15 PM
The math was very basic, and applied to all classes. I didn't think you'd discriminate against the novice, amateur, and endurance classes. Why pay an incentive to those you know are already commited to racing a full season? This is also a worst case scenario as accounting must always identify the extent of a potential loss.

20 sprint classes @ $160 = 3,200
4 endurance classes @ $50 = 200
ROR surcharges per event = 90
TOTAL PER RACE = $3,490


This is based upon the assumption that the "free" race is the first one entered (and thus the most expensive). I'd make the "free" race the last one entered, and then it's much more likely to be a loss of $20 or $40 per sprint class rather than $160 since I bet most class champions enter more than 1 class each weekend.

So in reality it's more likely to be $400-800 loss per weekend for the sprint classes (plus endurance and ROR).

Still a decent amount of money for the club though over the season, given our financial situation.



Eric
#73

DingleBerns
October 1st, 2008, 10:50 PM
with the current rulebook, novices and amateurs can't race again in their class they won the championship.....what about them?

benfoxmra95
October 2nd, 2008, 08:29 AM
with the current rulebook, novices and amateurs can't race again in their class they won the championship.....what about them?

they'd get their entry fees free for one of their new classes for the following season...

TRK
October 13th, 2008, 11:41 AM
Class Limits

2.4.1 Paragraph 3
STGTU class limits - Eliminate the 749 from STGTU (these things are faster than some 600's)
Possibly make the class up to 748cc two cylinder fourstroke.


2.4.1 Paragraph 5
Allow the 848 in RORU

thanks!

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 12:13 PM
Here is the first of many:

I believe this suggestion would need to be an amendment to the bylaws as I do not see in the rulebook a section that outlines how officials are elected to MRA Board positions:

Election candidate requirements for MRA VP of Rules & Tech:

To be eligible for nomination for VP of Rules & Tech, candidate may not present a conflict of interest between the duties of the position and a source of financial income.

In other words:

If you own, work for, or otherwise have financial interest in a motorcycle performance speed shop, you are not eligible to run for VP of Rules & Tech.

If you distribute or service motorcycle race tires, you are not eligible to run for VP of Rules & Tech.

If any measurable source of income independent of on-track racing activities is sourced through motorcycle sales, performance, or accessories, you are not eligible to run for VP of Rules & Tech.

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 12:17 PM
Section 2.4.1

Item #3.

Change:

Up to 750 cc two cylinder, four stroke (current)

to:

Up to 683 cc two cylinder, four stroke (proposed)


Let me remind you I can propose any rule change I want. If you don't like it, show up at the rules committee meeting with your reasoning and don't bother with your worn-out flame attempts here.

dragos13
October 13th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Currently Reads: Section 13- Penalties:

C. Upon entering a motorcycle in any MRA class, the rider is responsible for their
motorcycle meeting class requirements. If at any time the entered motorcycle is
found to be illegal for the entered class, the rider will forfeit points and monies
earned in that class for that day, and all points earned previously that year in that
same class.

D. Violations of technical and safety requirements judged by MRA Officials to
gain a performance advantage will result in the rider forfeiting points and
monies earned in that class for that day, and all points earned previously that
year in that same class. Violations judged to not result in a performance
advantage will results in fines and/or suspension.

Should Read: Section 12- Penalties

C. Upon entering a motorcycle in any MRA class, the rider is responsible for their
motorcycle meeting class requirements as defined in Section 2- Class Definitions.
If at any time the entered motorcycle is found to be illegal for the entered class,
the rider will forfeit points and monies earned in that class for that day, and all
points earned previously that year in that same class.

D. Violations of technical and safety requirements as defined in Section 6- Technical
Inspection judged by MRA Officials to gain a performance advantage will result in
the rider forfeiting points and monies earned in that class for that day, and all points
earned previously that year in that same class. Violations judged to not result in a
performance advantage will results in fines and/or suspension.

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 12:23 PM
Section 2.2.2

Section F

Item 14:

Currently:

Modifications are permitted as follows:
a. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting ignition trigger
mounting plate or replacing stock ignition rotor with an aftermarket
rotor.
b. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with after-market
parts.
c. The rev limiting system must be in proper working order.
.
d. Electric ignition cutout shift devices are permitted. These devices may
not physically operate the shift lever or shifting mechanism.


Proposed:

Modifications are permitted as follows:
a. Ignition timing may be altered by slotting ignition trigger
mounting plate or replacing stock ignition rotor with an aftermarket
rotor.
b. Spark plugs and plug wires may be replaced with after-market
parts.
c. The rev limiting system must be in proper working order.
.
d. Electric ignition cutout shift devices are permitted. These devices may
not physically operate the shift lever or shifting mechanism.

e. Electronic devices capable of dynamic rev-limiting or ignition cut out external to the OEM ECU are NOT PERMITTED.

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 12:26 PM
Section 2.2.2

Suggest the following:

Supersport machines must utilize OEM Engine Control Unit manufactured specifically for machine make and model. Aftermarket ECUs are not permitted in Supersport.

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 12:32 PM
6.2.6

Current:

Motorcycle must meet track sound level regulations. A motorcycle not meeting
sound level regulations will not be allowed to continue until that motorcycle
meets required sound levels.

Suggest:

First, we must define decibel rating requirements, and measuring method:

"As measured at start finish at a distance of no more than <n> feet"

Then:

Motorcycle must meet track sound level regulations. A motorcycle not meeting sound level regulations will not be allowed to continue until that motorcycle meets required sound levels, and will forfeit all purse, contingency, and points earned in class when violation occurred. If violation occurs during a practice, competitor is required to pay a $50 fine and required to prove changes have been made before continuing.

rybo
October 13th, 2008, 01:14 PM
Section 2.4.1

Item #3.

Change:

Up to 750 cc two cylinder, four stroke (current)

to:

Up to 683 cc two cylinder, four stroke (proposed)


Let me remind you I can propose any rule change I want. If you don't like it, show up at the rules committee meeting with your reasoning and don't bother with your worn-out flame attempts here.

Hey Dave,

Can I bring an "all new and improved" flame attempt?

Scott

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 01:15 PM
Section 2.4.1

Item #3.

Change:

Up to 750 cc two cylinder, four stroke (current)

to:

Up to 683 cc two cylinder, four stroke (proposed)


Let me remind you I can propose any rule change I want. If you don't like it, show up at the rules committee meeting with your reasoning and don't bother with your worn-out flame attempts here.

Hey Dave,

Can I bring an "all new and improved" flame attempt?

Scott

Absolutely!!! 8)

dave.gallant
October 13th, 2008, 01:19 PM
Propose adding a new class definition:

SuperTwins GTL

• Up to 677 cc two cylinder, four stroke
• Unlimited displacement & configuration single cylinder
• Unlimited displacement, two cylinder, two valves per cylinder, air cooled

TRK
October 13th, 2008, 10:36 PM
why 673CC

bluedevil
October 14th, 2008, 06:23 AM
why 673CC

Im guessing to keep the Triumph 675 out of there?

T Baggins
October 14th, 2008, 08:09 AM
6.2.6

Current:

Motorcycle must meet track sound level regulations. A motorcycle not meeting
sound level regulations will not be allowed to continue until that motorcycle
meets required sound levels.

Suggest:

First, we must define decibel rating requirements, and measuring method:

"As measured at start finish at a distance of no more than <n> feet"

Then:

Motorcycle must meet track sound level regulations. A motorcycle not meeting sound level regulations will not be allowed to continue until that motorcycle meets required sound levels, and will forfeit all purse, contingency, and points earned in class when violation occurred. If violation occurs during a practice, competitor is required to pay a $50 fine and required to prove changes have been made before continuing.

FWIW, AMA is lowering the sound limit for 2011. Perhaps we should attempt to comply with that? Stolen from the press release:

"Most notably, the 2008 AMA Congress passed a 94 dB(a) standard for all amateur and Pro-Am motocross and off-road competition, effective in 2011. The new standard will not apply to land-speed racing, speed trials or drag-racing events.

The new level mirrors both the 2009 standard for professional motocross and Supercross racing in the United States, as well as the level mandated by the FIM (Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme), which governs international motorcycle competition. Currently, sound limits for amateur motorcycle competition are 99 dB(a) for closed-course competition and 96 dB(a) for cross-country racing."

Doesn't define how and where to measure the sound from - but gives at least a number to shoot for...

dave.gallant
October 14th, 2008, 08:16 AM
Another option for measuring is:

"...no more than <n> decibels as measured at <n> feet perpendicular to motorcycle with an engine RPM at half of redline"

( R6 @15k - 7K, SV @9k, 4.5k, R1 @12.5k, 6.5k - etc )

dave.gallant
October 14th, 2008, 08:33 AM
why 673CC

677, however am now tempted to write another suggestion and suggest 650cc.

Two reasons for the 677:

677 is a 2mm overbore in an SV and has been proven to be more reliable. If you want a middleweight bike, buy a Ducati and race with the other 1 bike in SuperTwins U. 3mm (693) means rods in addition to everything else, and the gasket sealing area is so small there is always some sorta issue with the headgaskets at that size. It can be made to work; it is just disproportionately more work.

EX650s can not (as easily I am told) go as big as the SVs. This attempts to provide more than a single competitive bike for the class and allows there to be an actual race for manufacturer contingency $ instead of the normal blow out. (Yes; there is $$ available racing new lightweight twins!)

And, since most people out there refuse to read what I actually write, I will help spell out something yet again this suggestion period: I have nothing against the Ducati 748/749 line of motorcycles and fully believe they are within the same performance index of a good SV650. If anything, a built SV is somewhat better than a non-R 748.

The 748R/S and the 749R are the bikes that should not be out there in "U" type classes, but since people can't seem to tell the difference between the two, I am going to make blanket suggestions that target everything over 700cc to make it easier.

:roll:

TRK
October 14th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Class Limits

2.4.1 Paragraph 3
STGTU class limits - Eliminate the 749 from STGTU (these things are faster than some 600's)
Possibly make the class up to 748cc two cylinder fourstroke.


2.4.1 Paragraph 5
Allow the 848 in RORU

thanks!

After listening to Dave, something a rarely do :shock: make the class a 700cc limit

Ray-Ray
October 14th, 2008, 10:23 AM
Class Limits

2.4.1 Paragraph 3
STGTU class limits - Eliminate the 749 from STGTU (these things are faster than some 600's)
Possibly make the class up to 748cc two cylinder fourstroke.


2.4.1 Paragraph 5
Allow the 848 in RORU

thanks!

After listening to Dave, something a rarely do :shock: make the class a 700cc limit


NO!!! Keep the 748 in U

rybo
October 14th, 2008, 11:05 AM
why 673CC

And, since most people out there refuse to read what I actually write, I will help spell out something yet again this suggestion period: I have nothing against the Ducati 748/749 line of motorcycles and fully believe they are within the same performance index of a good SV650. If anything, a built SV is somewhat better than a non-R 748.

The 748R/S and the 749R are the bikes that should not be out there in "U" type classes, but since people can't seem to tell the difference between the two, I am going to make blanket suggestions that target everything over 700cc to make it easier.

:roll:

Now Dave, I've read every word you've typed on this subject...

I obviously have a horse in this race since I have a 748 that I raced in Twins U this season. I agree with you, Dave, that a well built SV is an equal or better bike than the one I'm riding. Shannon's SV is easily as fast as my bike and he's a better rider, so he won this season. I could pull Ray's (close to) stock SV on the straight at Pueblo, and at Hastings we battled back and forth pretty well. I would have liked to have seen the match up at PPIR, but my being injured prevented me from going all out.

Given this info I'd hate to see a rule that prevented me from riding my bike in Twins U again next year. It's not really competitive in any other class. I can finish mid pack on it in Am U, and do OK in twins O, and it's not LWGP legal, so I can't play there. I suppose since mine is 10 years old I could go and play in Vintage U, but then I couldn't race Twins O because they run at the same time. I like the rule the way it is, and there is a loophole for the 749R. I'm not sure if there is any way around this except to say that the homologation "specials" are not allowed. This would disqualify the 749R and the previous generation RS.

Have no fear! I'll be at the rule change meeting to express my opinions!

scott

dave.gallant
October 14th, 2008, 11:08 AM
I am just lighting the fire here.

Everyone who has any interest in this should show up to the rules meeting, or provide their opinion to an MRA Board member so it can be presented there.

TBSgraphics
October 14th, 2008, 09:12 PM
All bikes and classes must be 2-strokes... :lol:

rybo
October 15th, 2008, 08:44 AM
Production Class Racing (amateur)

Propose 2 new categories:

Middleweight Production
Open Production

MIDDLEWEIGHT PRODUCTION
Up to 600cc four cylinder
Up to 750cc two or three 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

OPEN PRODUCTION
Unlimited displacement

Supersport motorcycles must meet the following requirements in addition to the requirements in Section 5 - Technical and Safety Requirements.

The intent of this class is to reduce the ongoing costs of racing and bring close competition. As such only minimal modifications may be made to the motorcycle with the intention of making it track worthy. In the production class the stock ECU, Airbox, Air Filter and Exhaust system must remain in place.

For production class racing only the following modifications may be made. No other changes/modifications are allowed:

1)Bodywork may be changed for plastic or fiberglass bodywork of similar appearance and dimensions to the stock body. Aftermarket ram air tubes and windscreens are permitted.

2)Case covers may be replaced with reinforced covers for the purpose of fluid retention

3)Hand and foot controls may be changed, but the stock master cylinder(s) must be used

4)Insturment/fairing brackets may be changed

5)Fork springs may be changed, no other modification of the stock forks is allowed

6)The rear shock may be changed to a commercially available aftermarket unit. The linkage must remain stock

7)Brake pads and brake lines may be changed.

8)Fluids may be changed

9)Tires must be a brand / model that is available to all racers throughout the season. Rain tires will be allowed.





Thanks Benny...I think including the bit about section 5 should cover steering dampers

motobum
October 15th, 2008, 11:04 AM
Production Class Racing (amateur)

Propose 2 new categories:

Middleweight Production
Open Production

MIDDLEWEIGHT PRODUCTION
Up to 600cc four cylinder
Up to 750cc two or three 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

OPEN PRODUCTION
Unlimited displacement

The intent of this class is to reduce the ongoing costs of racing and bring close competition. As such only minimal modifications may be made to the motorcycle with the intention of making it track worthy. In the production class the stock ECU, Airbox, Air Filter and Exhaust system must remain in place.

For production class racing only the following modifications may be made. No other changes/modifications are allowed:

1)Bodywork may be changed for plastic or fiberglass bodywork of similar appearance and dimensions to the stock body. Aftermarket ram air tubes and windscreens are permitted.

2)Case covers may be replaced with reinforced covers for the purpose of fluid retention

3)Hand and foot controls may be changed, but the stock master cylinder(s) must be used

4)Insturment/fairing brackets may be changed

5)Fork springs may be changed, no other modification of the stock forks is allowed

6)The rear shock may be changed to a commercially available aftermarket unit. The linkage must remain stock

7)Brake pads and brake lines may be changed.

8)Fluids may be changed

9)Tires must be a brand / model that is available to all racers throughout the season. Rain tires will be allowed.

that sounds cool!

you forgot steering dampers

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
October 19th, 2008, 09:22 PM
Production Class Racing (amateur)
<snip>
The intent of this class is to reduce the ongoing costs of racing and bring close competition.
<snip>
5)Fork springs may be changed, no other modification of the stock forks is allowed

6)The rear shock may be changed to a commercially available aftermarket unit. The linkage must remain stock


It seems a little strange to limit fork mods so much (which would be pretty hard to enforce), but allow essentially unlimited shock mods. I would suggest saying that any internal mods are allowed, but the stock forks and stock shock must be used. That would keep the cost down (people wouldn't be able to spend $$$ on aftermarket shocks) and would make the rule easy to police via visual inspection.

I'd suggest looking at the AFM production rules as a model -- http://www.afmracing.org/content/view/31/49/

rybo
October 19th, 2008, 09:50 PM
Jim,

The thought behind the suspension requirements came after talking with Dave a bit.

His thoughts were as follows.

1) A large number of the OEM forks on bikes right now don't have the ability to change internal valving as many of the parts are pressed together. This means that to change valving in the forks you would need to buy 25mm cartridges which cost in the $1500 range. The fork springs are the most important part to be able to change, so since this is possible with all stock forks then we are good to go with stock internals.

2) There are a large number of rear stock shocks where the spring is either an unusual size or cannot be replaced. Again, since the spring is the most important part of suspension set up the best answer to this question is to be able to replace the entire shock.

That was the thinking, I'm interested in seeing where the discussion around this class goes.

P.S. When is the rule change meeting?

Scott

JWinter
October 20th, 2008, 10:30 PM
Currently reads: 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.)

Propose one of two possible changes:

1. drop the rule completely.

Or

2. read as follows: 2.3.1. D. Reducing engine size of machines from stock displacement to meet lower class displacements is not allowed in 2.2 (supersport) classes only. Superbike and Grand Prix classes (2.3-2.8) are exempt. Engines that have been reduced in displacement WILL BE allowed to race in any upper displacement classes except ROR GTO and 2.2 all supersport classes.
Example: Ducati 848cc reduced to 750cc would still be able to race in Middleweight, Heavyweight, and open superbike and GTU classes.

Reasons for this suggestion: The current GSXR 750 and 600 share the same frame. Other bikes could be de-stroked in super twin classes to allow closer competition with SV's or many clubs allow SV 650's to be de-stroked to 500cc and these bikes could compete in the Colorado class.

cromer611
October 21st, 2008, 01:24 AM
im ok with a stock rear shock. *glares at bike*

tcrump711
November 21st, 2008, 10:40 PM
E. Any novice racer who finishes in the top 10 in overall points in either Novice GTU or Novice GTO will be ineligible to compete as a Novice in the future unless they do not race for 3 or more seasons and are subject to the requirements
of 4.3.C.

I would like to suggest that this rule be amended to include Am U, Am O and any endurance classes.
If we force a top ten Novice to move to expert, how can we not hold a novice finishing top ten in an Am class to the same standards. I would think that it would be more difficult to finish top ten with experts mixed in.

DingleBerns
November 22nd, 2008, 12:06 AM
ummm...i believe that rule suggestions have ended...

dingle

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
November 22nd, 2008, 08:46 AM
ummm...i believe that rule suggestions have
Yup, see http://forums.mra-racing.org/viewtopic.php?t=7555

I can queue it up for next year.

BTW, the reason I have an end to the time to submit suggestions is so people will have a very good idea on what's being proposed for the rule committee meeting (today). Having people surprised at the last minute for a rule change isn't cool.

And I try to get it all done before the end of the year so everyone has enough time to make decisions on what they want to race next year.