PDA

View Full Version : Rule Committee Recommendations / Suggestions



Jim 'smooth' Brewer
October 31st, 2009, 11:14 PM
Hi everyone,

Below is a link to the rule committee suggested changes & recommendations.

Highlighted in GREEN are the recommended changes.

Highlighted in YELLOW are changes that were moot - due to other changes voted for or against.

Highlighted in RED are changes recommended against.

These now go to the MRA board for ratification, which will happen at the board meeting on November 9th.

The link to the recommendations is here - http://users.frii.com/jjb/MRA_rules/suggestions.htm

You can still voice your opinion or ask questions on this basenote or in a separate post.

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
November 1st, 2009, 11:09 AM
Here's a quick summary of the changes that were recommended. See the link in the previous post for the details..


Combining RoRU & RoRO back into one RoR class
Qualifying for RoR
Streetbike class for Sat afternoon
StGTU & LWGP restructuring
Endurance -> 35min
Idea of one 4 hour pony express event

rybo
November 2nd, 2009, 05:51 PM
I'm conflicted about the "thunderbike" category in general.

Here are my concerns / questions about this upon further thought after the committee meeting:

1) The Nuclear Arms Race that was Twins O in 2009 will migrate to Twins U in 2010. In 2009 to be competitive in Twins O you pretty much HAD to have a built 1098R. Case in point, even a FANTASTIC rider like Shane on a somewhat lesser bike couldn't overcome the 1098R.

2) It takes a small bike / gentleman's class and makes it significantly more expensive. This is somewhat contrary to the direction the club needs to go. In many ways I feel like we (as a whole) need to be mindful of the added cost that this presents. Currently a well built and ridden SV is competitive in both LWGP and Twins U. If we make this change the SV is now only competitive in one class. There are a couple of possible bikes that are real killers in the Thunderbike Class: a) The 675 built to superbike spec. or b) the 749R built to WSS or FX spec.

The current (2008) 848 is probably a reasonable bike in the class as it makes about the same power as a 749R and there aren't many "kit"parts available to build it. That being said, if you let the 848 into the mix then you also open the door for the WSS or FX 749R in, and those bikes are easily capable of 140 HP. Same is likely true of a 675, but I don't have any specific knowledge of that bike and what it's capable of in superbike form.

On a totally personal note it makes my bike a complete non factor in a class where it really should do well. I'll give that my bike is old and slow (like it's rider), and maybe it's a totally selfish statement.

So, I would like to se the board carefully consider the full ramifications of this kind of rule change before accepting it. In general I know that racing a smaller bike is cheaper than racing a big bike, and this rule change reduces the number of classes where the little bike can be competitive.

IF the board decides to go forward with this rule change please consider making the upper CC limit for 2 cyl, 4 valve, water cooled engines 855cc so that the 853 kit for the old, slow 748 would be legal.

Scott

Munch
November 2nd, 2009, 06:27 PM
Scott, I happen to agree with you. Do we have a head count on # of SV650 riders? I was curious when I heard about this suggestion if it would kill most of the class except for maybe Shannon.

I know Mark, Ray and I are running true 749 cc bikes. I personally bumped upto the expert race STGTU just to help keep the grid full and contingency inplace. I'd hate to see it lost due to a rule change.

Trust me, I'd love to have Brian drop in a big bore kit and get my 140 hp :) I'd also like to be able to afford to race every event in 2010.

Desmodromico
November 2nd, 2009, 07:00 PM
Scott, valid points all however one thing to keep in mind is that most people don't field multiple bikes, and the main reason people have come in with 749R's or 675's and the spirit of my initial suggestion was to allow someone who rides a twin or triple to be competitive against the I-4 600's in the other classes with the same bike, not to trounce people in the twins class.

Even though the twins are expert classes a good chunk of the grid at most races was made up of novices who also rode Nov U and/or Nov O on the same bike.

rybo
November 2nd, 2009, 11:24 PM
Scott, I happen to agree with you. Do we have a head count on # of SV650 riders? I was curious when I heard about this suggestion if it would kill most of the class except for maybe Shannon.

I know Mark, Ray and I are running true 749 cc bikes. I personally bumped upto the expert race STGTU just to help keep the grid full and contingency inplace. I'd hate to see it lost due to a rule change.

Trust me, I'd love to have Brian drop in a big bore kit and get my 140 hp :) I'd also like to be able to afford to race every event in 2010.

Munch,

By my count the season in twins U broke down as follows:

SV- 8
749 - 4
GP bike- 3
Other - 2 (748, 1000SS)

dave.gallant
November 3rd, 2009, 10:01 AM
You guys are missing the point regarding SV riders. More may race if it wasn't such a waste of $ and time to try and compete in the Ducati cup.

Specifically, I would race an SV and spend money with the MRA each and every weekend if I was not pissing it away attempting to race a 71HP motorcycle versus a 130+ horsepower motorcycle. It just doesn't make sense for me (or others) to waste their time racing an SV that even resembles 650cc in mild supersport build form.

After all these years I suggest just making one big twins class, tell everyone to save their tire money, and he who buys the most expensive motorcycle simply gets the trophy at the end of the year without actually having to get on the track.

:roll:

Scored51
November 3rd, 2009, 04:59 PM
The intention of this rule change suggestion was to successfully create a three tiered twins structure of the machines that are already racing with the MRA. The "Thunderbike" class is just Super Twins with the Triumph triples added and a reclassified TZ250. (Therefore, it can't be called a twins class). The fast bikes are already in this class, aka 749R. The addition of the Triumph triples and the TZ250 should not create a new "must have to win" scenario, but could be largely competitive. I base this statement on how many times I watched a 749R keeping pace with different 1098R's (that's supposed to be plural) in Super Twins GTO at different tracks during the past season. However, by my reckoning, it could add 8 entries to that grid for next season (based on the bikes we saw racing in 2009). Furthermore, it does not stop any of the SV650's or other true lightweight twins from riding up into the class. If the Shannon factor is removed from the SV formula there wasn't one SV within sight of a Ducati 749R in Twins GTU this past year. Nothing has really changed in that regard.

The Lightweight Twins class also benefits from these suggested changes because it removes the middleweight Ducatis and TZ's from stealing positions in the only class they can receive manufacturer contingency money. Suzuki and Kawasaki I believe both were offering contingency on the SV650 and EX650 respectively. The only bikes that have been removed from the class definition are the 4 cylinder 560cc four strokes and the TZ250 has been reclassified to a more appropriate middleweight designation. The losses to this grid with the aforementioned suggested changes will be 3 (based on the bikes running in 2009). The three bikes I'm referring to would of course just be reclassified to the middleweight ranks. I can only believe this proposal will encourage riders to race with us under the banner of running a true lightweight twins class. John Q. Rider would be more apt to run with other 650 twins than have to fight with Italian twins with a 100cc more displacement.

I am truly sorry and I do feel your pain, Scott, for making proposed changes that seem to eliminate your eleven year old bike from competing against faster, lighter, better handling, and more powerful machinery. I do have a couple of questions though. First, how much money would you estimate it would cost to increase the size of your Ducati by nearly 15% and keep it running for an entire season? I have to believe it would be less expensive to buy a used SV650, change the suspension to suite you, put a pair of FCR carbs on it, and start bagging gears. Second, why would you do this to your Duc as it would make you ineligible for Modern Vintage GTO where it might be a better fit for your twin? We all run classes where we are either competitive, or use the race to gain track time.

rybo
November 3rd, 2009, 10:25 PM
Chris,

I'm sorry if you view my post as only being about me/my bike. It really isn't.


The point is this. The "fast bikes" AREN'T already in the class, but they will be if this rule change is implemented. There are two WSS or FX spec 749R's on the club (848) that aren't presently racing in Twins U because their riders are honorable people and aren't cheating. These bike would be legal in the class. I'm not against the thunderbike proposal and I can't argue with most of your logic. At the same time I can't argue with Mr. Gallant's logic either.

The other bike that would enter the class would be the 675. This bike currently holds class records in ROR GTU.

I'm not sure that your number, +8, is really accurate as I think you'll lose a number of riders currently on SV's to this change. Currently the SV is THE MOST popular bike in the twins U class.

Let me make another suggestion, and maybe it's crazy, but there are a couple of things that make it possible.

1) Modify the LW GP rules to exculde the big ducati air cooled bikes and the TZ's

2) Keep the Twins U category and allow the TZ's in. Shannon and Tony proved that a prepped SV and a TZ can be highly competitive together.

3) ADD the Thunderbike class and see how it shakes out.

With the gap in the schedule left by ROR U going away, and a minimal add of time for ROR qualifying (essentially an added 15 min practice) it should be possible to add the class and see what happens.

s

benfoxmra95
November 3rd, 2009, 11:29 PM
a great discussion here, but....

the "suggestion" has been already voted upon and to be presented to the board.

There's no modifing at this point.

Now 2011, is open to suggestion, but only after we find that we have totally screwed up and no races twins anymore....lol dont think that will happen though.


BTW....I saw the 675 being thrown aroud in discussio that it was "a lap record holder" well yes it is, but with brad riding it. just because you have a 675 doesn't gurantee you to blow the doors off everything out there. Dave gallant rode a stock 78hp ducati a shit ton faster than alot of people awhile back.

gixxermike
November 4th, 2009, 01:40 AM
And we want to see him do it again...come on Dave get another duc :D



Dave gallant rode a stock 78hp ducati a shit ton faster than alot of people awhile back.

rybo
November 4th, 2009, 07:56 AM
a great discussion here, but....

the "suggestion" has been already voted upon and to be presented to the board.

There's no modifing at this point.

A fair point Ben...sorry, I may have gotten carried away. I also understand that the rule change process is such that we as members make "suggestions". Really the board is free to do whatever they want with them and in the opening post on this thread Jim invited futher discussion, opinions etc. I'm just providing mine.



BTW....I saw the 675 being thrown aroud in discussio that it was "a lap record holder" well yes it is, but with brad riding it. just because you have a 675 doesn't gurantee you to blow the doors off everything out there. Dave gallant rode a stock 78hp ducati a shit ton faster than alot of people awhile back.

Also a fair point, but here is my point in that regard. Shane Turpin rode a "not as good" bike in twins O this year and COULDN'T win based on the nuclear weapon that the 1098R was in that class. The 749 R built to FX spec (848) and the 675 built to SB spec as Brad's was could be this kind of weapon in Thunderbike.

Again, I'm not against this plan and I don't want it to be all about me and my 13 year old 748, I just want to consider what's best for the club and it's riders. I've been thinking a lot about this category and it's overall impact since the rule change meeting and wanted to share my thoughts.

benfoxmra95
November 4th, 2009, 08:32 AM
A fair point Ben...sorry, I may have gotten carried away. I also understand that the rule change process is such that we as members make "suggestions". Really the board is free to do whatever they want with them and in the opening post on this thread Jim invited futher discussion, opinions etc. I'm just providing mine.

Also a fair point, but here is my point in that regard. Shane Turpin rode a "not as good" bike in twins O this year and COULDN'T win based on the nuclear weapon that the 1098R was in that class. The 749 R built to FX spec (848) and the 675 built to SB spec as Brad's was could be this kind of weapon in Thunderbike.

Again, I'm not against this plan and I don't want it to be all about me and my 13 year old 748, I just want to consider what's best for the club and it's riders. I've been thinking a lot about this category and it's overall impact since the rule change meeting and wanted to share my thoughts.


The class structure should be a continual progression that reflects the majority of the bikes that are showing up.

As much as I hate it, the 748/916/996 series of bikes just aren't showing up any longer, I saw yours and one other last year.

As much as it sucks for you to be racing against 848 and 749r's, that's where it's headed as they are trickling in.

the same can be said about my 998 that I have, it's not competative against 1198's

There has to be a dividing line somewhere that spreads these bikes out enough to make everyone happy but not so much that we have 20 different twins classes for every bike on the planet.


I am not on board at all with singling out bikes like what your saying about the 675 and 749r's in conversation, there will always be a bigger badder bike out there. We just need to group them together as best as possible.

benfoxmra95
November 4th, 2009, 08:35 AM
Really the board is free to do whatever they want with them and in the opening post on this thread Jim invited futher discussion, opinions etc. I'm just providing mine.


BTW....the board is not "free" to do whatever they want, they either accept the suggestion. or decline it. It's not open season on the rule book when the board discuss's the suggestions.

dave.gallant
November 4th, 2009, 12:11 PM
FWIW, pretty much across the board here I support Ben with the above (and with what has yet to be said).

There is no simple or "fair" answer here; we just have to do what supports the best competition and largest grid sizes.

(If that Ducati made 78 HP, I would be surprised, but my god do I love a real Ducati chassis....)

Scored51
November 4th, 2009, 02:27 PM
Chris,

I'm sorry if you view my post as only being about me/my bike. It really isn't.

I didn't really take it that way, but couldn't figure out how to politely say that time marches on and bikes get bigger and faster. It's happened to me.

My original proposal was more like what you've suggested here. However, those that are smarter than I am in attendance at the meeting voted to bump displacements here and there. I guess it was done in order to make a broader swath for a middleweight twins classification. So we have what we have, and suggestion for 2011 will be here in only eight more races.

Your points are interesting about the TZ/SV competition. The asterisk that must punctuate the Tony/Shannon battles is that Shannon can also ride that same SV650 more than half the way up a middleweight supersport/superbike field. No other SV has come close to this. While I can't knock Tony (cause he's a lot faster than me), he hasn't learned to wield the TZ to the same level of expertise Shannon has with his SV. How many times have the stories been told about Don Hough starting at the back of the grid in ROR and finishing on the podium? The track record at HPR for a 250GP bike is roughly 3.3 seconds faster than Shannon's record in Twins GTU. (Which is actually held by an SV over any of the 749R that were on track at the same time in Twins GTU.)




The other bike that would enter the class would be the 675. This bike currently holds class records in ROR GTU.

I'm not sure that your number, +8, is really accurate as I think you'll lose a number of riders currently on SV's to this change. Currently the SV is THE MOST popular bike in the twins U class.

I took the 3 bikes that were booted from lightweight ranks (1 Bimota, and 2 TZ250's) and added the five Triumph's that ran last year. But it is only speculation as people are always selling, buying, and borrowing bikes.

I can't believe that it will discourage people from running SV's because the proposal to alter LWGP into a lightweight twins class REMOVES the bigger twins and four cylinder machines. Which BTW, if the rules don't go through, you can still worry about someone destroking an R6 by less than 2.5 mm and showing up in Lightweight GP next year. Please Dave, come back and remind us how the rules can be exercised!

Maybe next year we can add a new Lightweight GP class, but I specifically tried to better organize the twin ranks without creating or losing any classes for us to run in an already cramped schedule.

That's my .02, and hopefully I'll see you on Sunday!

Jim 'smooth' Brewer
November 9th, 2009, 06:12 PM
You guys are all making good points.

As far as the board revamping suggestions - they certainly can if they want, but the whole point of having a rule committee process was to prevent that. The suggestions can be "tweaked" a little (bumping the Thunder class to 855 would be a tweak) but completely ignoring a suggestion and creating another class would be over the top, IMHO, and I wouldn't support it. It'd be back to the "5 guys in a smoke filled room" building the rules type of behavior.

There's a pretty long history of trying to build small bike classes with MRA rules and I think the best we've ever done is only average. Regardless of how we try to make it even, someone always seems to show up with a Thermonuclear Weapon (nice analogy, Scott). For example, last year I would have never imagined we'd see a $31K Bimota DB5 in LWGP this year.

Frankly, I think the only way we could really make an SV competitive class would be to make an SV spec class. Nobody suggested that for this year, however.

Anyway, back to procedural stuff for rules, the board will be voting on whether to accept or reject the suggestion, and then on any minor tweaks. BTW, the current thinking is that we'll get the new board in place starting Wed night, then have both the new and old boards together in Dec to vote on the rule suggestions.