Suggestion for the 2018 Rulebook

[Jim Brewer]

... 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.

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).

[fosbibr]

This plenary power

.....and I learned something today.....

[bjackson]

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 actually complained to Jim Wilson about this at HPR as my bike was turned off on the cool down lap leaving me in a dangerous situation. Nothing was done.

[shRED]

I actually complained to Jim Wilson about this at HPR as my bike was turned off on the cool down lap leaving me in a dangerous situation. Nothing was done.

1. It is illegal, it is dangerous riding. 2. "Nothing was done" or you did not directly see what was done? Those can be very different things.

Or you could just pin your on/off switch and be done with it.

[bjackson]

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.

Totally agree. Touching the controls of another riders motorcycle should be made illegal. It is a safety concern, not funny, and should be a common sense rule. The only exception being when a crashed riders bike needs to be turned off.

[WCook]

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

[oldtimer]

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?

[gsnyder828]

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

[bjackson]

Related to combining MW Endurance with HW Endurance rather than keeping it with LW and ULW Endurance. I concur. I would race endurance but don't because of this issue. Its dangerous and it will bite us one day soon... I did read that some riders see the "Sketchiness" as a challenge. Sounds like a recipe for disaster...

[WolFeYeZ]

I think we need some data on this ULW/LW/MW/HW/O Endurance issue, to bring things into perspective. This isn't perfect data, but it might give you an idea of the breakdown of riders. Below is the best I have access to, the number of riders who have scored points this season in each of these 5 races:

Open Endurance: 30
Heavyweight End: 27
Middleweight End: 39
Lightweight End: 12
Ultra Lightweight: 23

Looking at this, it looks like there are more Middleweight riders than Lightweight and Ultralightweight combined.

[TD675]

Pinning the switch open is also a safety hazard for many reasons as it nearly negates the point of having one there. I had noticed a few riders doing this last year and brought it to the club's attention. It is not recommended to do this.

[JohnnyMac]

After thinking about it and reading the thoughtful responses, I take back my two suggestions:

1. Blue Flags - Too difficult to implement, and safe passing is the responsibility of the passing rider. I am OK with that.
2. 500cc Minimum for Amateur GTO - It is really the same thing as blue flags in the sense that the passing rider should do so safely. Anyone can run anything in that class.

I deleted my original posts.

[JohnnyMac]

Regarding Sub-Frames for Supersport Classes


The late model Yamaha R1 has a cast magnesium subframe, which shatters in even a seemingly minor low-side crash.
After witnessing several riders shattering their sub-frames, I would like to be able to replace mine with an aluminum one for better crash protection.
I don't believe that the aluminum one would be a lot lighter (if at all), but it would make the bike safer and more durable.
There are currently riders racing with broken magnesium subframes on their R1s because they don’t want to violate supersport rules.


The current rule for subframe on page 8 of the rulebook (section 2.2.2 C,I) reads:
"i. Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material as the original part."


Suggested Change:
"i. Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material. Cast magnesium OEM subframes may be replaced with aluminum subframes for durability.”

[Electroman]

Regarding the ULW/LW/MW/HW/O Endurance issue, I propose no change to running ULW/LW/MW together. Yet, LW and ULW riders must be experts, or obtain approval by the New Rider Instructor.
The intent of this restriction is to keep brand new riders just of the street from running a Ninja 250 and mixing it up with the 600s.

[WolFeYeZ]

Current: 2.2.2-C-i- Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material as the original part.
Suggestion: 2.2.2-C-i- Sub frame, but must be constructed of the same material as the original part. OEM subframes of magnesium material may downgrade to aluminum subframes.

Remove: 12.3.F “Except under extraordinary circumstances (as determined by the MRA
board)”

Add: In the area of 12.2 Inspection Covenants, it would be great to have more documentation behind supersport and production tear downs. At the very least, it would be best to have some written documentation surrounding the posting of teardown results.

Current: 2.2.2-C-r - Standard fasteners may be replaced with after-market fasteners of the same
material and design. Fasteners may be drilled for safety wire but intentional weight-saving modifications are not permitted. Fairing/bodywork fasteners may be changed to quick-disconnect type.
Suggetion: 2.2.2-C-r - Standard fasteners may be replaced with after-market fasteners of the same
material and design. Aluminum fasteners may be downgraded to steel fasteners. Fasteners may be drilled for safety wire but intentional weight-saving modifications are not permitted. Fairing/bodywork fasteners may be changed to quick-disconnect type.

[Redline]

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.

[jplracing]

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..)

[Redline]

You are totally correct sir, I didn't think about that! The biggest problem is when a rider is in the back either due to lack of experience or speed their lines are far less stable or consistent so maybe we can coach them to just maintain their lines better ( or take the race line.... ) LOL.

[fosbibr]

Rule Change Suggestion:

Motorcycles competing in Amateur GTO shall have a minimum displacement of 500cc.

Against. The size of the bike isn't necessarily resulting in a slower rider. If you want to go that route, we should just exclude all the little bikes from all classes except production, ULWE, LWGP and Formula Colorado. One of the benefits of racing a little bike is it opens more classes to "race" in (we could all argue if the little bike is really racing competitively in AMO....). If you want to go another route, just say that you can't run in the classes unless you are able to get a certain time. Even if you did that, a good chunk of the grid would be excluded.