Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Formula 40 Rule Change Discussion

  1. #1
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,533

    Formula 40 Rule Change Discussion

    Formula 40 current rules;
    Unlimited displacement and origin
    Racer must be 40 years of age or older on the day of the event
    Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous
    season are ineligible to race Formula 40 that season (see section 4.2 C).

    Proposed:
    Create two Formula 40 classes to be run at the same time, similar to how we run the different endurance classes at the same time:
    Formula 40 GTU and Formula 40 GTO.

    Eliminate any restrictions on ROR racers entering Formula 40 to make it open to any racer 40 or older.
    I'm quoting Mike's post in the general rule change thread to open the discussion. Thanks Mike!! 8)

    The above proposed rule change is how I originally proposed F40 when we created it. F40 GTU and GTO, 2 separate grids scheduled together. Open to every racer including all the old ROR guys. The rules committee at the time voted in a modified version.

    I support the idea if we have enough people in each of the 2 new groups, GTU and GTO. The grid this year was decent, but dividing it in half makes each class small. Is this a good idea?

    Also I would like to see the 2 waves/classes start at the same time if they're separate.
    #145 Wyeth Jackson
    720-299-1390
    Wyeth Homes Real Estate www.WyethJackson.com
    G-Force Powersports, Pirelli & Sol Performance, CT Racing, Kawasaki, Bell Helmets, TCX Boots, Vortex, Racers Edge, Un!nk Printworks, Motul, Vortex, Rising Sun Cycles, CHR, Attack Performance, NinjaTech
    Friend me on Facebook www.facebook.com/wyeth.jackson.1

  2. #2
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    Honest Q - what's the intent of the rule proposal vs. the intent of the class?

    I thought the intent of the class was to provide a class for those of us distinguished** types to wander around the track in a gentlemanly/gentlewomanly fashion without young/fast hotshots making us look bad in front of our better halves/families.

    I jest a wee bit - but if I recall it was originally framed as an Amateur Class - i.e. no ROR participants. Then ROR grids shrank suddenly when the older, non podium contenders figured out they could battle for a trophy in F40 instead of for 8th or 10th or 15th in ROR - so the current rule was put in place as a compromise to allow slower ROR folks to fill both grids.

    In that sense I like the current rule structure - as it limits the top end a bit and is thus less intimidating for the most distinguished** riders among us. Sure it has loopholes as shown this year (assuming my memory of the intent is correct). Feels to me that making it an ROR warm up might discourage participation rather than attract it, no? I mean other than Tabor the ROR top 10 looks... um... very experienced***. :shock:

    I guess I'm unclear on the intent of opening it up to all ROR racers?

    I can understand the GTU/GTO argument - and if that brings more trophies and another trophy sponsor that seems ok.

    I like keeping it a GP class... I have a dream of building a bike someday that would need a GP class. :twisted:

    g

    ** distinguished = old & slow
    *** experienced = old & fast

  3. #3
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    375
    geoff, thanks for the background info on the original intent for the formation of the class. my suggestions may stray from what that intent may have originally been. wyeth and i were discussing this at the last round and as she mentioned in the thread had similar ideas back when the class was proposed.

    most important to me is if this change or any other takes away from the quality of the racing in this class, then it shouldn't happen. this was my first year racing this class and it was really great racing every round and tons of fun. i wouldn't want that to change obviously.

    that being said, my intent in allowing ROR riders in was simply to add more of the fastest racers to the class to just make it that much more of a fast class for even those racers like me who aren't running at the front of that pack. when you have ricky, christman and travis graham in there already, it doesn't seem like a stretch to let any of the ROR racers in there if they were interested. but i do recognize good reasons for keeping this a more 'amateur' class in spirit like geoff mentioned.

    as far as the form 40 gtu/gto idea, it stems from basically trying to make the class competitive for the 600 riders as well. the top 7 bikes basically every round were all liter bikes, with mostly 600's and a few slightly slower 1000's or similar bringing up everything behind those bikes so it wouldn't change a whole lot for the liter bike riders and would make for some more competitive racing and chances for podiums for the 600s. it isn't just about a chance for a podium although i know that drives a lot of decisions for racers as to what classes to enter. but if both classes continued to have the good turnout that this year had, i think a GTU/GTO division could be something that could attract even more riders to the class. wyeth brings up a great point though about grid size, and there is certainly some question as to whether or not there would be enough overall participation to split it into U and O. i also agree that if it does become a split class that it should still just be a single wave start with both O and U together, unless the grids become big enough to warrant 2 waves.

    if there are compelling arguments that this change will negatively impact the basic intent of the class or the quality of the racing, then we should keep it as is. i will still gladly enter this class next year and beyond if it stays unchanged. this class was never about the podiums for me, just a chance to race against the fastest and most experienced in the club since i don't feel comfortable entering ROR at this stage of my own racing experience.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    375
    as per wyeth's comment in the rule change suggestion thread, class should stay as GP class as it currently is, not change to superbike. i guess i should actually read the rule book. ;-)

  5. #5
    Resident T-Bagger Expert T Baggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between here and Elizabeth
    Posts
    5,163
    GTO & GTU would attract more riders imo... I support that change.

    Opening up the class to all ROR riders over 40 would basically kill the class. I don't even like that you can race "BOTH" classes under the current rules. I think you should decide if you're old OR fast. You don't get to be both.
    Tony Baker #21

    Sponsored by:
    Vickery Motorsports, Short Bus Race Team, 406 Racing Michelin, Vortex, PitBull, Driven, Third Bridge Wines, Imodium A-D

  6. #6
    Senior Member Expert DOUBLE A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by T Baggins
    GTO & GTU would attract more riders imo... I support that change.

    Opening up the class to all ROR riders over 40 would basically kill the class. I don't even like that you can race "BOTH" classes under the current rules. I think you should decide if you're old OR fast. You don't get to be both.
    :lol: :lol: PERRRFECT! :lol: :lol:
    AMA #395 / AARONHERSH.COM / SCORPION EXO / Madmoto / MOTOREX / WICKED PHOTOS / GEARZY / Vortex / OGIO / Leo Vince / Galfer / Pilot / MotionPro / Chicken Hawk / ODI Grips
    "The faster I go the prettier the girls look" - Nicky Hayden

  7. #7
    Ex-President Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    4,348
    Hersh, get out of this thread! You have almost 8 years to go before you have any say so in this! :lol:
    MRA #29

  8. #8
    Senior Member Expert DOUBLE A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brighton
    Posts
    677
    :lol: Old racers never die, they just create their own race class & use more vulgar language than they used to! lmao :lol:
    AMA #395 / AARONHERSH.COM / SCORPION EXO / Madmoto / MOTOREX / WICKED PHOTOS / GEARZY / Vortex / OGIO / Leo Vince / Galfer / Pilot / MotionPro / Chicken Hawk / ODI Grips
    "The faster I go the prettier the girls look" - Nicky Hayden

  9. #9
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    374
    I agree with the O/U concept. I enjoy good fast racing, but also agree that the original intent of the class has been lost.

    Joe
    MRA # 157
    2010 Ducati 1198S
    2009 Indian Chief Roadmaster
    2012 Ducati 796 Monster
    2013 Ninja 300
    SW Scooternews, Sol Performance/Pirelli, Rudy Project, TYGA Performance, Boulder Motorsports, Woodcraft, Nitron Racing Shocks, Shorai

  10. #10
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547
    What if we changed:

    -- Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous season are ineligible to race Formula 40 that season (see section 4.2 C).

    to

    -- Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous season or hold a top 10 position in the current season ROR Overall Championship are ineligible to race Formula 40...

    So current or past season top ROR racers couldn't race F40, but anyone outside the top 10 could. If someone missed some races mid season and dropped out of the top 10 in ROR they could race both. If someone got better as the season went on and clawed their way into the top 10 in ROR they'd have to drop F40. (Might be good to have wording that would allow them to make a choice between the 2... or maybe forcing them up to ROR is better?)

    Thoughts?

    g

  11. #11
    Senior Member Amateur Snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    134
    As a racer on a stock 600 and no where near the skills to turn a 2 minute lap at HPR. I would have no problem racing against anyone from ROR as long as they know a racer like me will also be out there.

    One reason I have wanted to race this class, was because it did contain several of the faster racers in our club. What other sport will let you go up against the best on equal terms?

    I would ask if the single wave start have the GTO bikes up front with the GTU bikes in rear?
    Randall "Snowman" Turner
    MRA No.427 - Honda CBR600rr Fireblade

  12. #12
    Mohammer Time! Expert
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,217
    Yes it would and I am sure a single wave start would run only if the grid size was appropriate.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Honest Q - what's the intent of the rule proposal vs. the intent of the class?

    I thought the intent of the class was to provide a class for those of us distinguished** types to wander around the track in a gentlemanly/gentlewomanly fashion without young/fast hotshots making us look bad in front of our better halves/families.
    Yes F40 was originally proposed under Amatuer rules, ala our Endurance classes open to everyone. And it was voted in by the rules committee under that format.

    Technically other clubs' Formula 40 rules do NOT restrict fast guys and many F40 champs in other clubs are the fastest racers. But our rules committee voted to restrict. So we're doing F40 our own way and the grid has been strong for 3 seasons. I'm open to why we should or should not allow ROR guys in the class for season 4.

    I like Tony's fast or old idea, but I don't know if it's good for the class. :wink:
    #145 Wyeth Jackson
    720-299-1390
    Wyeth Homes Real Estate www.WyethJackson.com
    G-Force Powersports, Pirelli & Sol Performance, CT Racing, Kawasaki, Bell Helmets, TCX Boots, Vortex, Racers Edge, Un!nk Printworks, Motul, Vortex, Rising Sun Cycles, CHR, Attack Performance, NinjaTech
    Friend me on Facebook www.facebook.com/wyeth.jackson.1

  14. #14
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    In the garage cleaning the dust off.
    Posts
    459
    [quote="gsnyder828"]What if we changed:

    -- Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous season are ineligible to race Formula 40 that season (see section 4.2 C).

    to

    -- Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous season or hold a top 10 position in the current season ROR Overall Championship are ineligible to race Formula 40...

    So current or past season top ROR racers couldn't race F40, but anyone outside the top 10 could. If someone missed some races mid season and dropped out of the top 10 in ROR they could race both. If someone got better as the season went on and clawed their way into the top 10 in ROR they'd have to drop F40. (Might be good to have wording that would allow them to make a choice between the 2... or maybe forcing them up to ROR is better?)

    Thoughts?




    I like it.
    This looks like the best way thus far.
    ILLMATIC Racing
    MRA#503

  15. #15
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    86
    I have no dog in this fight as I'm only 33... but I see a problem with the proposed rule regarding current season standing..

    Lets says old guy X who is not a previous ROR top 10 from last year decides he is going to compete for an F40 championship at the beginning of the year. He also wants to compete in ROR because of the challenge. 4 Races into the season he's 6th in points for F40 and 12th in ROR.. Round 5 turns out to be real good and now he's 10th in ROR and 3rd in F40, but because he's now a top 10 ROR racer he can't compete in F40 in rounds 6 and 7?? Yes, this is a hypothetical scenario.

    Bottom line, I don't think you should use current year standings to determine eligibility for classes.

    -Brian

  16. #16
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by gsnyder828
    Honest Q - what's the intent of the rule proposal vs. the intent of the class?

    I thought the intent of the class was to provide a class for those of us distinguished** types to wander around the track in a gentlemanly/gentlewomanly fashion without young/fast hotshots making us look bad in front of our better halves/families.

    ** distinguished = old & slow
    *** experienced = old & fast
    In looking at the posts, I think Geoff's question gets to the heart of the matter. Original intent. My feeling is that we have gotten away from that. I think we need to decide that first, then change the rules accordingly.

    Joe
    MRA # 157
    2010 Ducati 1198S
    2009 Indian Chief Roadmaster
    2012 Ducati 796 Monster
    2013 Ninja 300
    SW Scooternews, Sol Performance/Pirelli, Rudy Project, TYGA Performance, Boulder Motorsports, Woodcraft, Nitron Racing Shocks, Shorai

  17. #17
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Castle Pines, CO
    Posts
    102

    Formula 40 rule change

    FYI.....

    In any (i think) other club in the country you can race Formula 40 if you are over 40 period.

    I don't think you should be penalized for being over 40 and "fast"

    Does anyone really care about a Formula 40 championship anyway?

    Make an over 50 class and all of us will be in that next year!!!

    I only raced that class for extra set up time in preparation for ROR.

    Some clubs have min lap times to qualify or disqualify you from a certain class????
    Rob Christman, MRA #19
    Roadrace Factory, Danny "Ninja Tech" Anderson, STM Suspension, King GM, Pirelli, Sol Performance (Oscar), Motul, Tri City Cycle (Rex, Adam), Bell Powersports, Yoshimura

  18. #18
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    374

    Re: Formula 40 rule change

    Quote Originally Posted by Christman29
    FYI.....

    In any (i think) other club in the country you can race Formula 40 if you are over 40 period.

    I don't think you should be penalized for being over 40 and "fast"
    I kinda agree, but that was not the original intent of the class. I think we should either make it a "gentlemen/women's class" (wasn't this going to kind of replace the old Sportsman's class?), or remove the ROR rule.

    Or we could limit it to over 40 and over 75% grey hair.

    I am still in favor of the GTU/GTO rule either way.

    Joe
    MRA # 157
    2010 Ducati 1198S
    2009 Indian Chief Roadmaster
    2012 Ducati 796 Monster
    2013 Ninja 300
    SW Scooternews, Sol Performance/Pirelli, Rudy Project, TYGA Performance, Boulder Motorsports, Woodcraft, Nitron Racing Shocks, Shorai

  19. #19
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    547

    Re: Formula 40 rule change

    Quote Originally Posted by Christman29

    Does anyone really care about a Formula 40 championship anyway?
    Everything's relative. :lol: :lol:

    g

  20. #20
    Mohammer Time! Expert
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,217
    Yea the guys racing it sure as hell do (most of em do anyway).

  21. #21
    Senior Member Amateur Snowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    134
    I don't think it will make a difference in the grid size if the top 10 ROR racers were allowed to race. The number of people who would not race would be about the same number as the ones in the top 10 in ROR that would race.

    For those people who won't race because they wouldn't have a chance at a podium, we could create a participation ribbon... Problem solved
    Randall "Snowman" Turner
    MRA No.427 - Honda CBR600rr Fireblade

  22. #22
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,826
    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only the ROR O top ten who are not legal, us scooter riders are? Not that I would as I'm too old to be fast :cry:

  23. #23
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,826
    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only the ROR O top ten who are not legal, us scooter riders are? Not that I would as I'm too old to be fast :cry:

  24. #24
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    83
    "For those people who won't race because they wouldn't have a chance at a podium, we could create a participation ribbon... Problem solved"

    Damn, if we had only handed these out this year!!!

    Would we be required to buy our own ribbons????





    Put whoever you want in F40 - I'll still race it.

    I'll have to have Nate make me up a special set of Evel leathers with a blue cape/flag so Rob, Ricky, eh, the whole field; knows to be careful when they're passing me.
    #373

  25. #25
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it only the ROR O top ten who are not legal, us scooter riders are? Not that I would as I'm too old to be fast :cry:
    Yep currently just top 10 plate holders are banned. The discussion is whether to allow more or less people into the class.

    Why aren't you running F40 Jon? Not old enough yet??
    #145 Wyeth Jackson
    720-299-1390
    Wyeth Homes Real Estate www.WyethJackson.com
    G-Force Powersports, Pirelli & Sol Performance, CT Racing, Kawasaki, Bell Helmets, TCX Boots, Vortex, Racers Edge, Un!nk Printworks, Motul, Vortex, Rising Sun Cycles, CHR, Attack Performance, NinjaTech
    Friend me on Facebook www.facebook.com/wyeth.jackson.1

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 6th, 2012, 11:29 PM
  2. Rule change schedule for 2009 - Rule Committee date & ti
    By Jim 'smooth' Brewer in forum Rules & Tech
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2008, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •