PDA

View Full Version : Rule Change Suggestion for 2011



chrobis
November 15th, 2009, 05:19 AM
At the rule change meeting, while talking about the proposed changes to the Novice classes, the possibility of eliminating NGTO was very briefly discussed. The idea was (I believe) to encourage folks to start out smaller and work on their skills first.

The idea was shelved as 'too late for 2010 - people may already be getting their 1000 ready to race'. If the rule change meeting is too late to discuss this for the next season, where and when would it be appropriate to discuss for the season after next?

How about introducing a novice lightweight class, which could either be run in addition to the ngtu/o classes, or instead of ngto?

(And yes, I am aware that the board hasn't even met on the rule change suggestions for 2010... :lol: )

dragos13
November 15th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Its never too early to start discussing ideas for rule changes. As you said, it would be a rule voted on at the end of 2010 and possibly go into the book for 2011. When the rules suggestions open up for next season, we can just bump this thread back up to the top.

With that said, I think the idea of taking out the GTO classes for novices will only decrease the grids. I am 100% for a new rider to start out on a 600cc or less, however many already have 1000cc bikes and converting them over is easier then being forced to sell and re-buy.

Keeping the structure as it is, the 1000cc bikes already have a disadvantage in the amount of classes they can run. I think this gives the notion for a rider to ride a 600, but doesn't force it to be that way.

Moto-Mania
November 15th, 2009, 02:55 PM
I agree with the logic here.
But sometimes logic doesn't jibe with reality.
Novices on liter bikes might seem like a formula for mayhem.
On the other hand, the NGTO grids are usually pretty full.
Should probably leave as is.

N1K
November 29th, 2009, 10:30 AM
Leave it. The grids looked pretty full. If ya got a 1k and cant afford another let umm race it

hcr25
November 29th, 2009, 03:20 PM
The novice GTO grid looked full because it was. Full of 600's. my guess would be that there were less then 10 novices who race the majority of the season on a 1000cc bike.

If you would ask any expert who has been racing for a few years I would bet most if not all would say you will learn more and get fast quicker on a 600.
Or the flip side is stay on your big bike and keep getting beat by 600's anyway. :lol:

The GECCO
November 29th, 2009, 03:53 PM
If you would ask any expert who has been racing for a few years I would bet most if not all would say you will learn more and get fast quicker on a 600.

So true, I raced a 600 for a couple seasons, then a 750. It wasn't until this year, my 9th season, that I felt I was ready to try to use all that a 1000 has to offer. It turned out pretty well, too!

Moto-Mania
November 29th, 2009, 05:29 PM
I believe everything said up to this point is absolutely true. But it's good to have two novice classes and, based on the size of the grids, I think most novices would agree. If most novices only have one race bike and it's a 600, then what do we replace NGTO with that brings in the same or more entry fees? Conversely, how many novices only have liter bikes and will be shut out entirely, except for AGTO?

Besides, what am I going to do with that R1 that nobody wants to buy?
:wink:

marty
November 29th, 2009, 09:04 PM
why not just have two open novice classes. Nov1 and Nov2, if you crash in one, you can still chase a championship in the other.

in my limited experience with the club, a liter bike doesn't typically guarantee a top finish in any novice class.

Moto-Mania
November 30th, 2009, 06:24 PM
why not just have two open novice classes. Nov1 and Nov2, if you crash in one, you can still chase a championship in the other.

in my limited experience with the club, a liter bike doesn't typically guarantee a top finish in any novice class.

Thanks, Marty.
I think you just made a most compelling case to "leave as is".
Unless, of course, the board outlaws novices on liter bikes.

The GECCO
November 30th, 2009, 07:25 PM
why not just have two open novice classes. Nov1 and Nov2, if you crash in one, you can still chase a championship in the other.

in my limited experience with the club, a liter bike doesn't typically guarantee a top finish in any novice class.

On the other hand, if that's the solution - what's the need for two classes? Just have "Novice" and be done with it.

marty
November 30th, 2009, 08:55 PM
why not just have two open novice classes. Nov1 and Nov2, if you crash in one, you can still chase a championship in the other.

in my limited experience with the club, a liter bike doesn't typically guarantee a top finish in any novice class.

On the other hand, if that's the solution - what's the need for two classes? Just have "Novice" and be done with it.

more races for novices to enter and be competitive amongst other novices. with 2 nov classes, we could also split the two classes between sunday and saturday. if we did away with am o and u and had two am open classes, we could also split between sat and sunday. this may help some of the guys and gals that work at dealerships also.

i have no dog in this fight, just brainstorming :wink:

The GECCO
November 30th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Hmmmm.....So, would you propose two championships (Novice Combined 1 and Novice Combined 2)? Or a single class that is essentially a double header at each round?

marty
November 30th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Hmmmm.....So, would you propose two championships (Novice Combined 1 and Novice Combined 2)? Or a single class that is essentially a double header at each round?

'IF' we had room in the schedule to have sat nov and sunday nov, i think it may be more appealing to new riders to be able to chase two championships.

or if you could only make one day, like the dealership folks, you could chase sat or sunday nov.

if you didn't want to combine and split am between two days, a new nov rider would also be able to ride endurance on saturday, and ride am on sundays. this would give a new rider 3 classes per day (i am counting end as 2 races due to track time)

loujr
December 14th, 2009, 06:02 PM
what about the "beginner" class for newer racers and a novice class for those who have raced for a couple years and for whatever reason have not advanced to expert status in the club and leave the displacement up to the riders, these classes would replace the NovO and NovU classes now. Keep AMO and AMU, as this gives novices exposure to expert riders.

nwatkins176
January 3rd, 2010, 12:17 PM
Last season was my rookie season and I raced both Nov 0 and Nov U. I know the majority of the field on Nov 0 was 600's but there were a couple of 1000's out there.

I race both, but I enjoyed Nov U a lot better because I didn't have bikes shotgunning past me on the straight at Pueblo and then throwing out the Novice anchor at turn 1 through 9. Short answer don't make Novice an open class, I like not having 1000's in at least one race.

Scored51
January 3rd, 2010, 03:17 PM
So with the perception the Novice GTO fields are mostly comprised of 600s, the club is effectively already running a Novice GTU 1&2 series. The exceptions being the few who run 1000cc bikes in GTO. If the club voted to ban novices from the liter bikes, not much would change according to the rhetoric here.

I think the motivations of the proposal need to be explored. They may be honorable and well intended, but enforcement may only prove the "honorable death" of the few members who want to race their beloved big bikes and won't renew their licenses. Those who do realize the benefits of smaller bikes will make the move on their own regardless of mandate. Heck, if the smaller is better for novices let's vote to have all novices on 125GP bikes to really teach about corner speed and conservation of energy. Or if we want to simply slow them down, start them all out on a 650cc twin, and that definitely costs less than a 1000 or 600 four cylinder.

snay
January 3rd, 2010, 09:12 PM
What about the fat boys that weight 250 + put on a back pack and add weight so you are at 250 260 and ride your 600 bet you would love that o bike we all are not 5'6 145 just my op!!

CO750
January 3rd, 2010, 09:45 PM
I'm not trying to talk smack, but a lot of novices gave input last year on what they would like to see happen with novice classes and none of it was implemented. I think the last thing any novice wants is to have fewer races and be even more limited on what bike they can ride.

If a novice wants to race up to GTO on a 600 then let him, if he wants to ride anything other than a 600 then let him do that too. Don't forget that GTO is the only class for a novice to run bikes bigger than a 600 but not necessarily a liter bike. GSXR 750 or 848 come to mind even if it isn't prevalent.

Was there some big issue caused last year by a novice on a liter bike that I didn't hear about? Or why the sudden need to "regulate" novices?

snay
January 3rd, 2010, 11:26 PM
The novice GTO grid looked full because it was. Full of 600's. my guess would be that there were less then 10 novices who race the majority of the season on a 1000cc bike.

If you would ask any expert who has been racing for a few years I would bet most if not all would say you will learn more and get fast quicker on a 600.
Or the flip side is stay on your big bike and keep getting beat by 600's anyway. :lol: Yup seen Dalton do it in ROR-O :mrgreen:

chrobis
January 15th, 2010, 09:39 AM
The impetus for this thread wasn't anything but what I put in the initial post. There was no 'event' that brought this up, there was no desire to 'limit novice choices' for the sake of limiting novice choices. But consider:


If you would ask any expert who has been racing for a few years I would bet most if not all would say you will learn more and get fast quicker on a 600.


So true, I raced a 600 for a couple seasons, then a 750. It wasn't until this year, my 9th season, that I felt I was ready to try to use all that a 1000 has to offer. It turned out pretty well, too!


Heck, if the smaller is better for novices let's vote to have all novices on 125GP bikes to really teach about corner speed and conservation of energy. Or if we want to simply slow them down, start them all out on a 650cc twin, and that definitely costs less than a 1000 or 600 four cylinder.

Clearly, people who have been doing this for a while believe that they know what is best for beginner racers. Just as clearly the club has decided that we will respect the free will of the individual and will therefore suspend our view of reality and let new racers compete on whatever bike they want. (But we are 'mericans, and all 'mericans know that bigger is better, right? :wink: ) I certainly don't want to squash anyone's fun -


What about the fat boys that weight 250 + put on a back pack and add weight so you are at 250 260 and ride your 600 bet you would love that o bike we all are not 5'6 145 just my op!!
, but I do wonder if we are doing new racers a disservice by not giving them a shot at competitively racing a cheaper, more forgiving lightweight. I typically promote 600's to people who approach me on the topic, for the two most common reasons: they aren't as intimidateing as a 1000 and allow for double the entries - with a reasonable level of competitiveness in GTO. A 650 twin is less intimidating, but is far less competitive in GTO. If there were a NL class I would definitely promote the 650's over the 600's, because they would be absolutely competive in the lightweight class (duh), and quite competitve in GTU. The added bonus of a third class (GTO, where they would still be spanked by the 1000's) would be gravy (cold, but gravy).


Those who do realize the benefits of smaller bikes will make the move on their own regardless of mandate.

If that disservice to the new racer results in them quitting either because of the cost of competing on a 1000, or because they scare the bejesus out of themselves on that 1000 before they come to 'realize the benefits of smaller bikes', we are really doing that disservice to the club.

As an aside, its good to see that there are ideas floating around to take a more active role in shepherding new racers, via more mentoring and the superstreet class. On the flip side, what about exit interviews for people that quit after their first season, to find out why they chose not to return to the finest entertainment available to humans?

Scored51
January 15th, 2010, 05:45 PM
Those who do realize the benefits of smaller bikes will make the move on their own regardless of mandate.

If that disservice to the new racer results in them quitting either because of the cost of competing on a 1000, or because they scare the bejesus out of themselves on that 1000 before they come to 'realize the benefits of smaller bikes', we are really doing that disservice to the club.

Have you ever potty trained a child? I don't mean to be rude, but the similarity here is even after a child has mastered the mechanics of using a toilet there is still a time period of getting them to use the correct facilities instead of their diaper because you think it's the right thing to do. The same situation exists with incoming racers. They tend to resist the advice being given to them and race what's comfortable (aka the bike they already ride on the street).

The next time you have the opportunity presented in a conversation to suggest what a prospective rider should ride, tell them a 650 twin (SV or EX) instead of a 600 and watch the response. More times than not it will shut down a conversation or you'll get an earful of how they are a much better rider than that. The truth of the matter is more than half of our club that currently competes on a 600 can't beat an SV650.

It is a disservice to the club that a modern 600 four cylinder is considered an entry level machine as we could have far more racers filling the grids on cheaper machinery learning a craft if money really is the root of the problem. However, I don't believe creating mandates in a small club will increase its active membership.

marty
January 15th, 2010, 06:00 PM
Have you ever potty trained a child? I don't mean to be rude, but the similarity here is even after a child has mastered the mechanics of using a toilet there is still a time period of getting them to use the correct facilities instead of their diaper because you think it's the right thing to do. The same situation exists with incoming racers. They tend to resist the advice being given to them and race what's comfortable (aka the bike they already ride on the street).


whats wrong with diapers, they come in all kinds of sizes?


http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1845/calender013sm.jpg

The GECCO
January 15th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Have you ever potty trained a child?

Just Tony...

dave.gallant
January 15th, 2010, 06:38 PM
Have you ever potty trained a child?

Just Tony...

What a mess that was...

chrobis
January 15th, 2010, 07:54 PM
Chris -

But you have potty trained your daughter, haven't you (or are actively working towards that)? You didn't just tell her "go wherever you want, I will respect your decision".

The similarity that I see is that the elders have a responsibility for stacking the deck towards the best possible outcome, be that 'the human race is elevated by you not pissing in the corner' or 'the MRA is strengthened by you starting out in a venue that isn't over your head'. The fact that your daughter will then have a chance of dating guys of a caliber higher than the typical MRA member, or that the new racer may well have a longer and more enjoyable career, are serendipity.

Only one of my survey options could be considered a mandate - the 'replace NGTO with NL', and it has gotten zero votes. I am surprised that 'add NL to NGTU & NGTO' has only gotten a third of the 'don't change nutin' votes.

gsnyder828
January 16th, 2010, 01:10 AM
I'm confused... :?

are the Chris's arguing that they agree with each other?

(Who knows... maybe I was distracted by that picture.) :shock:

chrobis
January 16th, 2010, 07:24 AM
Geoff -

This is not an argument. (Yes it is...)

The distinction that I see between the two of us is that Chris's line of reasoning is of a more laissez-faire bent - be it out of prinicple or frustration - whereas mine is more paternalistic. (The odd thing is that I am not a father, but he is...)

Of course, it could be that Chris is just being contrarian for its own sake.

(For the most part I think that we are just marking time until May 1.)

Scored51
January 16th, 2010, 05:21 PM
Geoff,

Chris is right (no he's not :lol: ) I think that we are ideologically in agreement that we both wish novices would start out on smaller machinery than they typically do in the MRA. However, the gap between us is in how to accomplish this. Just like all politics.

The good news is the ranks of small bikes in LWGP, Colorado Class, and STGTU have grown recently. Furthermore, the MRA has provisions already within the rules to create a new class simply with enough people coming forth and say they would like it created. I'm not sure of the specifics (how many riders and when it can/can't be done), but if enough novices came forward to say, "Hey, we would like to have a lightweight novice class created so we don't have to run with the 600's" it can be done. It just hasn't happened yet.

I also believe the Twins rules were changed during the off season, but we'll need to wait until publication to find out exactly what bikes will be running where. These changes could potentially make it easier for a novice lightweight rider to gain an "exception" into the new classes if he/she is grouped with similar make/model bikes and there is less chance of being a hazard on an EX500 against a Ducati 749R. Just for example.

Mandating a rule change would only seek to remedy a problem that doesn't exist within the current ridership. I suspect the new super street class will be a goldmine of opportunities and feedback for all kinds of information, and I'm very interested to see what type of bikes show up to run. It is possible if we effectively petition them to join as regular members and nurture their need for speed, we could see some class restructuring in the near future to accommodate their needs. Maybe we will see a lightweight novice class or Tony's "Ape Hanger" class. Heck, the MRA used to run a vintage class (I think until 2000), but it fell off the schedule due to lack of participation. The sky as always is the limit, but we need to have the riders to put it together first.

My .02 (+ the other .02, and the next .02)

Scored51
January 16th, 2010, 05:22 PM
Geoff,

Chris is right (no he's not :lol: ) I think that we are ideologically in agreement that we both wish novices would start out on smaller machinery than they typically do in the MRA. However, the gap between us is in how to accomplish this. Just like all politics.

The good news is the ranks of small bikes in LWGP, Colorado Class, and STGTU have grown recently. Furthermore, the MRA has provisions already within the rules to create a new class simply with enough people coming forth and say they would like it created. I'm not sure of the specifics (how many riders and when it can/can't be done), but if enough novices came forward to say, "Hey, we would like to have a lightweight novice class created so we don't have to run with the 600's" it can be done. It just hasn't happened yet.

I also believe the Twins rules were changed during the off season, but we'll need to wait until publication to find out exactly what bikes will be running where. These changes could potentially make it easier for a novice lightweight rider to gain an "exception" into the new classes if he/she is grouped with similar make/model bikes and there is less chance of being a hazard on an EX500 against a Ducati 749R. Just for example.

Mandating a rule change would only seek to remedy a problem that doesn't exist within the current ridership. I suspect the new super street class will be a goldmine of opportunities and feedback for all kinds of information, and I'm very interested to see what type of bikes show up to run. It is possible if we effectively petition them to join as regular members and nurture their need for speed, we could see some class restructuring in the near future to accommodate their needs. Maybe we will see a lightweight novice class or Tony's "Ape Hanger" class. Heck, the MRA used to run a vintage class (I think until 2000), but it fell off the schedule due to lack of participation. The sky as always is the limit, but we need to have the riders to put it together first.

My .02 (+ the other .02, and the next .02)