Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: Suggestion for the 2018 Rulebook

  1. #1
    Mohammer Time! Expert
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,113

    Suggestion for the 2018 Rulebook

    Suggestions for the 2018 Rulebook

    Suggestions for the 2018 Rulebook are now open and will be accepted until Sunday October 1, 2018 (rules suggestions will not be accepted after 2400hrs on October 1st). Once the list is compiled, the proposed rule changes will be sent out to all members. Rule changes can be submitted to Shannon Moham, Brett Leveque or any rider representative. The preferred method would be for racers to submit rule changes via the rule change thread on the MRA forums.

    We've changed the venue and scenery for the rule change meeting over the last few years, so I am up for suggestions on where to have it. The rule change meeting will most likely take place in November.

    The rule change meeting is open to all members and will be held to discuss the proposed 2018 rule changes. The members attending this meeting will be encouraged to give input on the changes that will be presented to the MRA board for approval. Finalized rule changes for the 2018 season should firmed up before the end of the year.

    When making your suggestion, be sure to cite the existing rule and what changes you are suggesting. If it is a new rule, please use the exact wording as you would like it to appear at the rule change meeting and possibly the rulebook.

    If you want to discuss your rule change proposal, please start a separate thread on the forum.

    If you have any questions please contact Shannon Moham TRKWILLYS@aol.com

  2. #2
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9
    I would like to suggest running stock fuel tanks in the 4hr endurance race. It seems to have become a fuel mileage competition rather than a race.
    Thanks for consideration

  3. #3
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Schrems1968 View Post
    I would like to suggest running stock fuel tanks in the 4hr endurance race. It seems to have become a fuel mileage competition rather than a race.
    Thanks for consideration
    Additionally/alternatively, restricting fuel tank sizes to a certain range, based on engine configuration (and keeping stock fuel tank sizes in consideration).

  4. #4
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    29
    Existing rule Section 10 B: The responsibility for the decision to pass rests with the overtaking rider, as does the obligation to do so safely.

    Suggested New Rule: The responsibility for the decision to pass rests with the overtaking rider, as does the obligation to do so safely. If a pass is initiated after the passed rider has turned in to enter a corner the passing rider may not interfere with the line that the passed rider has chosen.

  5. #5
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11
    While not in the rulebook, warm-up sessions are a concern. There is a huge disparity in the speed of the novices. Experts, who should be experienced in riding/racing with riders of different speeds and abilities, have 3 warm-up sessions. Novices, who range in times and experience of Matt Neuberger, who runs at expert-fast speeds, to first-year racers or those who just don't run at that pace, are in the same warm-up session. If you can only accommodate 4 sessions, then please consider 2 novice and 2 expert sessions or eliminating the plate designation, altogether, and go strictly by lap times. This is for the safety of the riders, not convenience.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducdreamin View Post
    While not in the rulebook, warm-up sessions are a concern. There is a huge disparity in the speed of the novices. Experts, who should be experienced in riding/racing with riders of different speeds and abilities, have 3 warm-up sessions. Novices, who range in times and experience of Matt Neuberger, who runs at expert-fast speeds, to first-year racers or those who just don't run at that pace, are in the same warm-up session. If you can only accommodate 4 sessions, then please consider 2 novice and 2 expert sessions or eliminating the plate designation, altogether, and go strictly by lap times. This is for the safety of the riders, not convenience.


    This was brought up last year and the only thing that was changed was a time limit for expert fast.

  7. #7
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    79
    Production Cup Rule Changes:

    2.10.C The stock airbox, air box cover, air filter and intake snorkel must remain in place and
    connected as they came from the factory. The air box drains may be sealed for fluid
    retention. No other modifications of the airbox, air filter or intake snorkel is permitted.

    Change to: Unlimited changes of Airbox.

    2.10.M Hand and foot controls, rear sets, handlebars, throttle, and levers may be replaced
    with parts of unlimited origin. Brake master cylinders must remain stock.

    Change to: Hand and foot controls, rear sets, handlebars, throttle, and levers may be replaced
    with parts of unlimited origin.

    Strike the the brake master cylinder as many of us are having issues with the stock master cylinder setup (and we've requested this in the past).
    #373

  8. #8
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11
    I understand the desire for a better braking system on all bikes & we want everyone to be safe. However, I was of the understanding that Production Cup was designed to be an entry-level class, where one could buy a bike, prep it, and race without dumping a ton of money into parts and modifications, just to be competitive. It seems to me that we're losing site of that. I would oppose any modifications to production cup bikes.

  9. #9
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Highlands Ranch
    Posts
    70
    2.4.1 section 3 - Supertwins GTU

    Modify Supertwins GTU to match the Moto America Pro Twins class.
    Up to 850cc twin (excluding the 848)
    Weight restrictions for 800cc and above

    If we choose to modify only one class, STGTU makes more sense than LWGP because whatever bike you race in the Pro Twins ruleset will also be good for Thunderbike and STGTO, both on Sunday.
    - Joe
    #703

  10. #10
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11
    While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

  11. #11
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducdreamin View Post
    I understand the desire for a better braking system on all bikes & we want everyone to be safe. However, I was of the understanding that Production Cup was designed to be an entry-level class, where one could buy a bike, prep it, and race without dumping a ton of money into parts and modifications, just to be competitive. It seems to me that we're losing site of that. I would oppose any modifications to production cup bikes.
    Nobody runs up front in prod cup without spending a ton of money in parts and mods. We should just make it supersport 300 to align with FIM.
    #917

  12. #12
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducdreamin View Post
    While not in the rulebook, warm-up sessions are a concern. There is a huge disparity in the speed of the novices. Experts, who should be experienced in riding/racing with riders of different speeds and abilities, have 3 warm-up sessions. Novices, who range in times and experience of Matt Neuberger, who runs at expert-fast speeds, to first-year racers or those who just don't run at that pace, are in the same warm-up session. If you can only accommodate 4 sessions, then please consider 2 novice and 2 expert sessions or eliminating the plate designation, altogether, and go strictly by lap times. This is for the safety of the riders, not convenience.
    I'd like to second this. Have opt-in (or self-designated) practice groups based on lap times only. Maybe slow/med/fast, independent of license type (expert/novice)?

  13. #13
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducdreamin View Post
    While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.
    I like the idea of this rule, but as long we understand that the "zero exceptions" is only for intentional contact. Sometime accidents happen, and there should be an accepted process to contest an ejection if it can be proved or argued that it was an accident with no major repercussions.

  14. #14
    Resident T-Bagger Expert T Baggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between here and Elizabeth
    Posts
    5,163
    Quote Originally Posted by big_sur View Post
    Nobody runs up front in prod cup without spending a ton of money in parts and mods. We should just make it supersport 300 to align with FIM.
    I run a $1300 1992 Suzuki GS500 with almost NO mods, and I am competitive. Won the 500 Prod championship 2 years ago on it. No changes to Production are needed or warranted.
    Tony Baker #21

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

  15. #15
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by T Baggins View Post
    I run a $1300 1992 Suzuki GS500 with almost NO mods, and I am competitive. Won the 500 Prod championship 2 years ago on it. No changes to Production are needed or warranted.
    Maybe you're competitive in a straight line, I hear that's your specialty these days :P
    #917

  16. #16
    Junior Member Novice
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyMac View Post
    Has the subject of Blue flags ever been brought up? Why was that turned down as an option?
    I had some really frustrating and dangerous situations arise this weekend that could have possibly been avoided with blue flags.
    Passing an R3 that is way back in last place in AM GTO on the outside of T12 at high speed is stupid and dangerous.
    Now that I mention it, why is an R3 even allowed in Amateur GTO?
    I would be fine with them racing in other classes, but would require BLUE flags. It is really a problem for all riders involved when front guys are battling for position and run into a prod bike. Would be a safe addition to have warning flags so at least it increases the chances of safe passes.
    Jared Dear - MRA #556

    Quik Cycles, Sol Performance, Pirelli tires, Comet Racing Leathers, HDX hydration, Shorai batteries

  17. #17
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Welby, Colorado
    Posts
    177
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducdreamin View Post
    While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.
    To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.
    MRA No. 51

    Thanks 2016 Sol Performance / Pirelli * GF&R Tax * Damage Control * Suomy * AGV Sport * RYNOPower * Smith Optics * SIDI * AXO * Shorai * Virus * Motorex * Slick * * GoPro * Honey Stinger

  18. #18
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Welby, Colorado
    Posts
    177

    Modifications to Supertwins GTU

    Quote Originally Posted by tecknojoe View Post
    2.4.1 section 3 - Supertwins GTU

    Modify Supertwins GTU to match the Moto America Pro Twins class.
    Up to 850cc twin (excluding the 84
    Weight restrictions for 800cc and above

    If we choose to modify only one class, STGTU makes more sense than LWGP because whatever bike you race in the Pro Twins ruleset will also be good for Thunderbike and STGTO, both on Sunday.
    Respectfully, I disagree that Supertwins GTU needs modification. This is precisely what the Thunderbike championship is for. Smaller than Supertwins GTO, bigger than Supertwins GTU.

    Personally I am about 100 days away from having everything done for 2018 (all parts in and all vendors ready to go), and guessing others are in the same boat. Our whole program is built around 700 cc's, to change this soon before 2018 could cause a major drop off in attendance in an already small class. At a minimum any consideration of this should be for 2019.

    Further, there are 10 different classes you can run a 600cc bike in, but really only 2 you can run a 700cc bike in and be competitive to win. Now we are going to get rid of one of those two classes? I think Thunderbike is perfect for those AMA legal twins to earn a championship. Chris Fillmore didn't have any trouble running his twin in RORO. Increasing the size of Supertwins GTU puts that and Thunderbike too close together in classes we already struggle to fill.
    MRA No. 51

    Thanks 2016 Sol Performance / Pirelli * GF&R Tax * Damage Control * Suomy * AGV Sport * RYNOPower * Smith Optics * SIDI * AXO * Shorai * Virus * Motorex * Slick * * GoPro * Honey Stinger

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ducdreamin View Post
    ... I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.
    Quote Originally Posted by shRED View Post
    To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.
    I agree with Jason. We used to have rules in the rulebook that were very specific on penalties with no allowance for the judgment of officials. Those created so many problems that we changed & added sections to enable discretion. For this one in particular, I think it would be almost impossible to determine intent. Like shRedman mentions, there are methods to complain about rough riding and I know for sure that the board has taken action toward riders who exhibit bad track behavior.

    Besides, as they say, "rubbin's racin'" ( for the humor impared)

    And I know I've touched Tony Baker intentionally (and usually inappropriately).

  20. #20
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Highlands Ranch
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by shRED View Post
    Respectfully, I disagree that Supertwins GTU needs modification. This is precisely what the Thunderbike championship is for. Smaller than Supertwins GTO, bigger than Supertwins GTU.

    Personally I am about 100 days away from having everything done for 2018 (all parts in and all vendors ready to go), and guessing others are in the same boat. Our whole program is built around 700 cc's, to change this soon before 2018 could cause a major drop off in attendance in an already small class. At a minimum any consideration of this should be for 2019.

    Further, there are 10 different classes you can run a 600cc bike in, but really only 2 you can run a 700cc bike in and be competitive to win. Now we are going to get rid of one of those two classes? I think Thunderbike is perfect for those AMA legal twins to earn a championship. Chris Fillmore didn't have any trouble running his twin in RORO. Increasing the size of Supertwins GTU puts that and Thunderbike too close together in classes we already struggle to fill.
    I suggested STGTU because the Ducati 749s won it last year - ~110hp. Pro Twins bikes will still struggle to reach that level of performance, but will be close.

    LWGP could be a different candidate, because the pro twins rules are aimed at people building up their SV, FZ, 650, etc. Like Tony's bike.

    The 675 and 848 in thunderbike are a higher level of performance than any pro twins bike will be.


    edit - suggest weight limit for 750cc and above, not 800cc and above
    Last edited by tecknojoe; September 20th, 2017 at 11:50 AM.
    - Joe
    #703

  21. #21
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by shRED View Post
    This plenary power
    .....and I learned something today.....
    #373

  22. #22
    Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    70
    Race Day Schedule change
    MW, LW and ULW Endurance race,

    MW bikes because of speed differential should be grouped with HW for safety (especially on the short courses)

    - HW/MW endurance races together
    - ULW/LW endurance races together

    We have allowed ourselves to get into a situation where you have rider/bikes capable of 1:50s running and lapping bikes that putting down 2:50s

  23. #23
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Parker, CO
    Posts
    910
    Quote Originally Posted by Redline View Post
    I would be fine with them racing in other classes, but would require BLUE flags. It is really a problem for all riders involved when front guys are battling for position and run into a prod bike. Would be a safe addition to have warning flags so at least it increases the chances of safe passes.

    Jon and Jared

    I totally understand you ideas of "blue flags". Speed differential has always been a concern in the club

    The problem I see with waving a flag at a slower rider to move out of the way of a faster rider, is that from the beginning the MRA, HPR and ever other race/track day org I am familiar with places the responsibility to pass with the overtaking rider. We are to hold the "line" at all times.

    By now instructing a slower bike/rider to move out of the way when a flag is shown goes against what is the standard practice of riding/racing on the track...Too me this is asking for too many problems.

    IMO Jon's suggestion for minimum engine displacement is a better idea (even thought there will still be slower riders, etc..)
    Imperial Sportbikes | Performance Cycle | Galfer | Factory Effex | Motorex | AXO | Racer Gloves USA | Chicken Hawk Racing | Shorai | Woodcraft | Armour Bodies | Sol Performance Pirelli | Speed Mob

  24. #24
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by WCook View Post
    Race Day Schedule change
    MW, LW and ULW Endurance race,

    MW bikes because of speed differential should be grouped with HW for safety (especially on the short courses)

    - HW/MW endurance races together
    - ULW/LW endurance races together

    We have allowed ourselves to get into a situation where you have rider/bikes capable of 1:50s running and lapping bikes that putting down 2:50s
    The discussion about separating the LW/ULW Endurance bikes from MW is reasonable. But then what do you guys propose to do with the Open Endurance class? Blob MW/HW/Open Endurance?
    #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

  25. #25
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NoBoCo
    Posts
    539
    Quote Originally Posted by oldtimer View Post
    The discussion about separating the LW/ULW Endurance bikes from MW is reasonable. But then what do you guys propose to do with the Open Endurance class? Blob MW/HW/Open Endurance?
    Get rid of HWEnd?

    It's pretty much MWEnd.2 anyway. Have the 1 or 2 actual HW bikes run in Open E and run MW/Open Endurance together

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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