Proposed change for SuperSport section 2.2 C:
"All motorcycles must display a vehicle identification number on the main frame."
Change to:
"All motorcycles must display a vehicle identification number on the main frame. Frames without vehicle identification number are allowed only if they are stock production frames without modifications of any type."
Tony / Jim - Can you open up a discussion thread on it? I have some questions and concerns and don't want to clog up this thread as this is supposed to be limited only to suggestions and not discussion.
Kevin #28
'07 Yamaha R6
Nope.Originally Posted by KFinn
:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Tony Baker #21
Sponsored by:
Vickery Motorsports, Short Bus Race Team, 406 Racing Michelin, Vortex, PitBull, Driven, Third Bridge Wines, Imodium A-D
I suggest that there be a rule that states:
In order for a rider to successfully complete a SuperStreet class, that rider may not crash at all during the SuperStreet Event. If the rider crashes during the race, he/she may continue to ride during the remainder of the race, pending tech approval/new rider director approval, but his/her SuperStreet credit towards a provisional novice license is disqualified. In order for a rider to apply for a Novice Race license, they must have completed two SuperStreet Events without crashes in either one.
If the rider crashes during the practice/instruction period then the rider must start in the back of the grid of the Super Street Race regardless of registered grid position pending tech/new rider director approval.
Where the beer flows like wine and the women flock like the salmon of Capistrano, I'm talkin about a little place called... Asssspen!
MRA #934
www.carbon-smith.com
Suggest chage to section 2.2.3 Class displacement and configuration limits.
Section A: Middleweight super sport
Suggest changing From up to 600cc four cylinder
To. 640cc four cylinder
Reason is to allow for potential of 2013 zx6r just in case some one wants to buy one.
(P.S. no I'm not buying one) but thought it would be good not to restrict their new bike offering.
Aaron Fisk #125
MRA Vice President (2014-2016)
MRA Rider Rep (2010-2013)
If we need to kill a class, and I don't think we need to.
Kill Thunderbike.
See remarks in HW discussion.
Change the Ninja 250 Production Cup to the Ninja Cup. Allow the Ninja 300 to compete with the production restrictions and allow the 250's to use pod filters, unrestricted electronics, unlimited suspension, brakes, and unrestricted tires.
Kill Thunderbike? Personally and Ive been told by numerous people had some of the best racing of the weekend and seeing how the rules seem to be shaping up with the Pierobon being excluded from Middle weight SB I'm pretty sure that if that were to happen Id just find myself dropping out of the MRA. I think the class has been a brilliant addition to the club. I would hope for its continuing for years to come.....where else are you going to see a Shepherd 1000?
Like I said, I don't like the idea. I just put it out there in response to the HW suggestion.
I guess that sounded rather bad as we need to look at what's best for the whole and probably shitcan classes that aren't well attended and Thunderbike probably falls into that catagory. So you've got my blessing in 86ing it. My apologies and if you know me Ill race the open classes if I have to. One thing I's like to see is maybe the MWSB opened up to allow the Pierobon. As with 113 hp regardless of the torque I don't see it as a overdog.
Hey Jon
Your bike is already legal in MIddleweight Superbike
Section 2.3.2
Unlimited displacement, two or three cylinder, four stroke, two valves per cylinder
MRA Expert #69
Sponsored by: Chicane Instruction
STM Suspension, Speedin' Motorsports
Northern Colorado Euro Motorcycles
Boulder Motorsports, Sol Performance Pirelli
Angry Marmot Motorsports
Sarah, Aaron and David
I'm sure there are less attended classes than Thunderbike.
http://wolfbrigade217.blogspot.com/
2014 VP of Rules & Tech
MRA#217
Th'ink Tank Tattoo, The Walnut Room, Rocky Mountain Kawasaki, STM Suspension, Sol Performance, Pirelli, Speedmetal, BloodNickel, MadMoto, Puma, Woodcraft, Armor Bodies, VonZipper, and
Lacy
It's funny as all the classes were added over time to allow everyone, their girlfriend and thier mother a class to race in and now that everyone and their mother has a place to race it's time to start cutting back. Damn gotta love success! Maybe it's time for a three day racing weekend.......kidding
What is the reasoning behind this change?
I suspect the reasoning is to help people recover from a missed or poor round. If this is the case, the better method would be to keep the existing points structure and mandate that everyone drop their lowest round. I'm not suggesting this should be done, just saying that it's a better way to achieve the goal.
Why? Because allowing everyone to drop their lowest round provides everyone the same opportunity to recover, AND it doesn't necessarily over reward someone who is dominating a class.
However, this new points structure ONLY helps you recover from a poor round faster if you are finishing in the front. If you are finishing 5th-11th the difference is meaningless (2 point spread per position versus 1 point spread, it takes a long time to make up 60 points one at a time). If you are finishing 12th or lower this new structure actually has a negative effect on your ability to recover from a poor finish because there is still a one point difference between positions, yet because more points were awarded at the round you missed it will take more rounds to make up the deficit.
I would vote no.
The GECCO
You begin your racing career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
Why might I ask would we ever after paying to play (race) buying tires,entry, fuel and etc. choose to drop a round?
If you screw up you screw up. That's just racing and racing is expensive. Dropping around is like throwing money away or am I missing something here? I personally think it senceless to do such along with changing the point strucure. The point structures been in place since about the mid nineties where prior to that the points only gave points to the first 15 finishers the same as MotoGP and WSB
First post updated with Rules Meeting location and date.
MRA #29
A change in the point system was suggested from numerous racers and multiple board members who felt the current system was unfair and seemingly based on a 10 or more round series.
The proposed point system is mainly based on the FIM system (and a 7 round series). It was doubled in an effort to provide points to 30th position. There were concerns that only providing points to 15th place (as the FIM does) would be discouraging to racers and it wouldnt provided the gridding system the points needed for future grids.
There is a pretty good article about the old AMA system and Ben Bostrom possibly losing the championship. It describes how the points structure played a role. If anyone is interested you should find and read the article.
Any points system with graduated awards will ALWAYS play a role. If your intent is to eliminate that factor then the points system needs to be non-graduated and have the same points gap all the way down the line.
How is going from a 35 point difference between 1st and 30th, to a 59 point difference, more fair?
The GECCO
You begin your racing career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
Please include the article concerning Ben Bostrom losing a championship in an FIM series as from the time Bostrom joined the AMA in the mid to late nineties and won the AMA Superbike Championship through the time he raced WSB then returned to the AMA series I'm racking my brain trying to figure out what FIM championship he came within a few points of winning? I'm lost and hell I remember him when he raced the Ill fated and very boring Harley Twins series with Aaron Yates and Co. to his days in the Supersport series riding the Zero Gravity bike one thing rather intesting about he and his brother is that they never club raced.
Regardless, I just don't understand the motivation or need to give points as far down as 30th place nor the need to drop rounds that people are paying to compete in
I will bring up the suggestion at the rules meeting for a 30-29-28-27-26........1 point system when we discuss modifying the points system at the rules meeting.
Jon this is the article. It also addresses some of the concerns many of the racers and board members have.
AMA Motorcycle Racing Points Don’t Add Up
A long-standing pet peeve in American motorcycle racing is the irritating AMA points systems. The worst case is, of course, the AMA Superbike series. (Or at least that’s what it used to be called…)
Ben Bostrom was the most dominating rider during the 2008 Supersport Championship, winning 5 races and settling for second three times. But one DNF and his title would have been long gone.
Complaining about the AMA Superbike points system is nothing new. Everyone shares the same gripes – everyone except the organizers it would seem. The problem is the system is far too generous to mediocrity and undervalues race wins.
The winner of an AMA Superbike race gets 36 points, plus two potential extra points – one apiece for pole position and leading the most laps. Second gets 32 (with the possibility of those two points as well.) Then points keep on rolling: 10th-place gets 21 points, while 20th-place gets 11 – almost a third of the points awarded to the winner!.
The idea, I assume, is to reward the backmarkers that put in the effort to fill the AMA grid. The ultimate consequence, however, is AMA Superbike championships are often won by the best rider who doesn’t get a DNF that season. Too many times a thrilling championship is spoiled by one mistake, as collecting 0 points in one round is almost always irredeemable.
(The AMA Supercross and Motocross points system is better, by far, but still curious. Case in point, during the opening round of the 2009 season in Anaheim James Stewart finished 19th, yet still earned two championship points. On top of the podium the separation between first and second is only three points (25 to 22) – third-place gets 20 points.)
Hopefully the new DMG-owned/promoted AMA Roadracing series will make some progressive changes – like adopting the points system of MotoGP and World Superbike.
The standard FIM road-racing points spread of 25, 20, 16 for the top three positions makes the most sense. It gives more value to race wins, and a rider could make up for a DNF faster too. The incentive of a five point gain or loss also spurs better racing on the track, a benefit for the fans.
At least that’s the argument.
Actually, I'm not suggesting that. I think it would be too much of a swing the other direction, I was just making a point.
So the points system rewards consistency...that doesn't sound so bad.
Also, contrary to the AMA system of 2008, the MRA does not award zero points to a rider that crashes. In the MRA a crasher gets last place points, which would only be zero in the event that there are more than 30 riders in the class, and that isn't a problem we currently have.
The GECCO
You begin your racing career with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
Not meaning to be a pain in the arse concerning points or anything else for that matter, but the system currently in place in the MRA was to allow people who finished worse than 15th to get some reward. The system replaced the FIM system of 25,20,17 and etc. that was previously used by the MRA and seems to me to be best as it's been used for years. It's easy to understand and works by allowing people who have an off to make up for it, as does the currently used MRA system. I just for the life of me can't see how we're going to improve on either system and it seems like you're going to be there all day and half the night trying. One day maybe in the distant future the club will return to 10 or better events per season and then do we start all over or come up with still another method of scoring hell, I guess we should all hope to again have that problem!
BTW Thanks Shannon for including the article and now I remember the season though I didn't relize that the AMA is FIM sanctioned.
Not sure if the AMA is FIM sanctioned, but the scoring is different and the article was trying to make that point.
The new point system is essentially FIM x 2 with a tweak for the 7 rounds.
There isn't a way to negate the damage of a missed round between first and second place within a points system without greater side affects. I submit this for scrutiny.
Unless every step down in points is equal to the fractional equivalent of the missed round against the total number of rounds, the point gap is too great to overcome. This means for our 7 race season it at least 1/7th less points for second place need to be awarded so that 6 "wins" beats 7 "seconds". This 1/7 fraction translates to 17.25% more points for each finishing position ahead of the previous finisher with rounding and the need to have at least one point difference between each finishing position. (YES, I'm trying to confuse everyone.) Applying this formula to our current system, these are the minimum values needed for awarding 30 finishing position with points.
The problem with having large point differences between positions is that it stratifies the championship results. Meaning there is little movement in the championship from position to position as the season progresses without a catastrophic event (like missing a round). However, the point values can be significantly reduced, and the gaps between them, if the number of positions that receive points is lowered. If we awarded points back to 15th place the scheme would look like this:
This would more than satisfy the number of riders who compete for a championship in ANY class in the MRA. In most class championships there are riders in the top ten of every year who have missed at least one round during the season. In the Race of the Rockies, a rider finishing in last place in every race would have finish between 11th and 13th place in any ROR championship since 2003. However, the major issue with altering the points in this manner is it encourages the membership to skip a round, thereby lowering club revenues. Additionally, if the championships do become stratisfied even more will become discouraged without the opportunity to move up in the points late in the season.
If there is a need to sort those in a championship without any season points, it could be done by lowest average finish if needed. (sum of the finishing positions / number of rounds competed) Of course leaving a larger portion of racers without points might encourage them to sign up earlier for a better grid position.
Hope this helps,
re: points system - this seems like a solution looking for a problem to me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote