Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 93

Thread: STGTU class

  1. #1
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527

    STGTU class

    I understand there is/was a motion on the table the let in 848's into the Supertwins GTU class that was voted down. I have no issue with this. I understand the need to grow a class. I also recognize it might effectively kill all our SV650's.

    I also understand there is a motion to remove the 749r from this class.

    I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this.

    The rules of this class have not changed in the last two years (before that I cannot speak). But I started racing and bought my bike because this class existed.

    What I find objectionsable is, you create a class thats been running for some time. People invest in it and the class continues to run. Now, you decide to exclude a bike thats been running it in for the last two years?

    If we're going to do this, you might as well kick everything out except a spec SV650, and call it a day.
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

  2. #2
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Littleton, Co
    Posts
    1,659
    The members did approve the removal of the 749R however the adding of the 848 was largely disapproved.

    It will go to the board next month for final decisions, but most likely will be consistant with what the members wanted.
    Casey D

  3. #3
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527
    Can I ask the reasoning behind the removal?
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

  4. #4
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Littleton, Co
    Posts
    1,659
    I abstained from this vote as being someone who does not run twin classes.

    Hopefully Rybo can chime in and detail the reasons found for removing this bike from TwinsGTU.
    Casey D

  5. #5
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527
    Ok, I don't clearly understand the process, but I didn't see anything like this on your agenda, the only close item was adding 848's, bullet 10.

    10. Allow 850 twins into SuperTwins GTU

    Again, I have no issue with this.

    So when a recommendation gets denied (item 10), anyone can randomly suggest something?
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

  6. #6
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Littleton, Co
    Posts
    1,659
    The two rules were suggested by Scott and Shannon Moham.

    These are only rule suggestions. At the meeting, we discuss each rule and can amend them as seen fit.

    In this particular case, it was approved to remove the 749R but was not approved to add the 848.

    These suggestions will then go to the board for final ratification.
    Casey D

  7. #7
    President Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    4,441
    deleting my post. it's not my place to argue this since i don't run stgtu. i just hope this doesnt have negative impact on entries for the class.
    MRA #29

  8. #8
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Littleton, Co
    Posts
    1,659
    Quote Originally Posted by UglyDogRacing
    Casey this is one we may want to discuss more considering there was only one STGTU rider at the meeting yesterday. I agree with the vote to not allow the 848, but the 749r has been part of that class for years. If we ban it from that class we lose at least 2 riders but do we gain a bunch of SV650 riders? I dont think that will happen. I realize that we did lose 650 riders years ago after we allowed the 749r and the decision back then could be viewed as the wrong decision. The highest finishing 749r was a third at round 5 and overall for the season was 11th. SV650's finished 1st, 3rd and 4th overall for the season.
    I have no dog in this fight but of course it will be discussed further at the board meeting.
    Casey D

  9. #9
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    I was hoping someone would step up and suggest the following instead:

    Transform LWGP into Lightweight Supertwins (and continue to pay Suzuki $ here)
    Transform STGTU into MWSuperTwins

    ..but alas, no one did.

    Specific to the 749R, go stomp everyone in RORU and MWSB! That bike is phenomenal and I have seen first hand just how well both the chassis and motor work at most all tracks.

    Or, if 10 Duc's show up, simply demand your own "Ducati Cup" class and run it concurrently with some other class.
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  10. #10
    Resident T-Bagger Expert T Baggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between here and Elizabeth
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Munch
    Can I ask the reasoning behind the removal?
    Basically because fielding a 120+ hp Duc in a class of 90+/- hp Kawi's and Suzuki's is unfair. Ditto on the Pierobons, and bikes of similar HP advantage. This rule change has been "in the works" for more than 4 years... it's just never passed.
    Tony Baker #21

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

  11. #11
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by UglyDogRacing
    Casey this is one we may want to discuss more considering there was only one STGTU rider at the meeting yesterday. I agree with the vote to not allow the 848, but the 749r has been part of that class for years. If we ban it from that class we lose at least 2 riders but do we gain a bunch of SV650 riders? I dont think that will happen. I realize that we did lose 650 riders years ago after we allowed the 749r and the decision back then could be viewed as the wrong decision. The highest finishing 749r was a third at round 5 and overall for the season was 11th. SV650's finished 1st, 3rd and 4th overall for the season.
    The reason you lost 4 SV650 riders from this class was directly because of the 749R.

    If you continue to allow a 128HP motorcycle in a class originally intended for lightweight twins, many will continue to refuse to spend entry dollars in that class or return to racing SVs.
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  12. #12
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527
    Thanks for the clarification Jim.

    As my dog is in this fight, I guess I have to be clear with my objection. I just don't see how you take away something from the class when it's be there for the last two years.

    If this motion passes in November, I'll be hanging up my MRA license/membership. Financially I cannot run with a group that sets the rules, then changes them on a whim.

    And based on Dave's statement, sounds like it'll be a net gain for the club. So I should remove any objection.
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

  13. #13
    President Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Nunya
    Posts
    4,441
    Quote Originally Posted by dave.gallant
    If you continue to allow a 128HP motorcycle in a class originally intended for lightweight twins, many will continue to refuse to spend entry dollars in that class or return to racing SVs.

    i dont run stgtu so i will keep my mouth shut. for the club's sake i hope we don't lose entries.
    MRA #29

  14. #14
    HOT CARL! Expert sheispoison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by dave.gallant
    I was hoping someone would step up and suggest the following instead:

    Transform LWGP into Lightweight Supertwins (and continue to pay Suzuki $ here)
    Transform STGTU into MWSuperTwins

    ..but alas, no one did.
    I like this idea, the you can call it Middleweight Thunderbike and let the 675s run too!
    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

  15. #15
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Munch
    Thanks for the clarification Jim.

    As my dog is in this fight, I guess I have to be clear with my objection. I just don't see how you take away something from the class when it's be there for the last two years.

    If this motion passes in November, I'll be hanging up my MRA license/membership. Financially I cannot run with a group that sets the rules, then changes them on a whim.

    And based on Dave's statement, sounds like it'll be a net gain for the club. So I should remove any objection.
    I am confused; you are unable or unwilling to race your bike in MWSS, MWSB, HWSS, HWSB, RORU, MWEND, STGTO, AMGTU, or AMGTO?

    What do you think about my suggestion to create a MWTwins class for next year (and simply relabel LWGP to Lightweight Twins but keep the same rules configuration)?
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  16. #16
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by sheispoison
    Quote Originally Posted by dave.gallant
    I was hoping someone would step up and suggest the following instead:

    Transform LWGP into Lightweight Supertwins (and continue to pay Suzuki $ here)
    Transform STGTU into MWSuperTwins

    ..but alas, no one did.
    I like this idea, the you can call it Middleweight Thunderbike and let the 675s run too!
    YES!!
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  17. #17
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527
    I'm ok with this idea.

    Adding more = good.

    Taking away whats already allowed = bad.
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

  18. #18
    HOT CARL! Expert sheispoison's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    537
    Is it way to late to even consider something like this for next season?
    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

  19. #19
    Resident T-Bagger Expert T Baggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Somewhere between here and Elizabeth
    Posts
    5,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Munch
    I'm ok with this idea.

    Adding more = good.

    Taking away whats already allowed = bad.
    Don't feel bad, it's nothing personal... just Damn Ducati won't make a bike that doesn't have a significant power/displacement already built in. They do this with every model, and then beg/coerce/etc... the sanctioning bodies to allow their bikes in to the class that they intend to dominate.

    FWIW, I got kicked out of LWGP (TZ250) last year, but there are still plenty of classes that my bike is eligible in.
    Tony Baker #21

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

  20. #20
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    FWIW: If we do a MWThunderBike some year, I suggest removing the Jurgen rule and allowing the TZs back into Supertwins like they used to be. They are a twin.
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  21. #21
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527
    I guess you're not seeing my point.

    I went out, read the rules, and bought a bike two years ago to come race with the MRA. I spent a lot of money for a race bike that is piloted by an average rider. I'm happy to come in 3rd, 5th, or last. Just as long as I finish the race and go home in one piece. The botton line, I made a serious committment based on your rules.

    It's just a little frustrating that there's a rules issue that you've been dealing with for four years, and out of the blue you decide to deal with it.
    It doesn't sound like had I known about this motion, and had I gone to the meeting yesterday, that I woulda made any difference.

    I know the club is bigger than one person, and people have to worry about how decisions impact themselves. I'm just being honest, I don't think it's fair, and yeah in the end if I don't like the rule changes, I'll can take my ball (and race entry $$) and go home.
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

  22. #22
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by dave.gallant
    I was hoping someone would step up and suggest the following instead:

    Transform LWGP into Lightweight Supertwins (and continue to pay Suzuki $ here)
    Transform STGTU into MWSuperTwins

    ..but alas, no one did.

    Specific to the 749R, go stomp everyone in RORU and MWSB! That bike is phenomenal and I have seen first hand just how well both the chassis and motor work at most all tracks.
    Quote Originally Posted by sheispoison
    I like this idea, the you can call it Middleweight Thunderbike and let the 675s run too!
    This was proposed last year, was largely recommended by the attending rules committee, and was passed on to the board for ratification. What resulted in the rulebook was the expulsion of the TZ250 and the largest of the air cooled Ducati twins (+950cc) from LWGP. The Trumpet 675 was not allowed into STU because it said to "already qualified for eight other classes."

  23. #23
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO
    Posts
    304
    I can see Munch's point as next year I will be an expert slow type guy, you can say the 749R or 675 is eligible for a ton of classes, but me running ROR-U or even MWSB is guaranteeing me a last place with likely no one to even race with. Supertwins typically is a little slower pace and usually some good battles through the pack for every level and less aggressive riding than AM or NOV classes which is why I was bummed I couldn't run it this year.

    I actually looked back and the same discussion was had last year, I brought up the 675 and Thunderbike thing but it was deemed to have too much power. Again that is relative as bikes continue getting bigger with more HP every year, seems the rapid advances of the 600's is a main reason why no one runs a 750 4cyl anymore. The SV would seem to be the bike of choice in LWGP but even removing the 749R from STGTU you could still make a worked standard 749 which could easily have 30hp on an SV if someone really just wanted to work the rules.

    Assuming we add the Ninja Cup I can see where SV guys would feel they got the shaft this year. Maybe we could replace Sportsman with another lightweight class? Can we do a Ninja class and an SV class at the same time in two waves?
    #91 Triumph 675
    Thanks to: Motowheels, Woodcraft, Cogent Dynamics, Toyota, and Nikkie

  24. #24
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    4,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Scored51

    This was proposed last year, was largely recommended by the attending rules committee, and was passed on to the board for ratification. What resulted in the rulebook was the expulsion of the TZ250 and the largest of the air cooled Ducati twins (+950cc) from LWGP. The Trumpet 675 was not allowed into STU because it said to "already qualified for eight other classes."
    An R6 is already legal for every class except RORO (which it will be legal for next year most likely); how does that really matter how many other classes it can run in? A 749R is legal for all of the same classes and is arguably a faster motorcycle.

    There seems to be interest in a MWThunderbike class which would entail 675s,748/9/853/848s/Peironbonbonbons/Buel/other Ducati-CrapBags(tm) as well as anyone from the LWTwins class that would want to play. The 675 may kick the crap out of all of the other bikes in there (especially when ridden by Brad), but I think a 675 versus a well ridden 848 or 749R (Shane) may give him a decent run. At least this proposed class is a great deal more level than a 749R versus a 650cc ladies sport touring machine.

    I don't want to fix something that is not broken nor limit the classes the interesting and unique bikes can run in, but TwinsU was severely broken. These types of discussions are the step needed to grow and adapt as a club. I dislike Hot Carl as much as the next guy, but I think a "Formula Oddball" class would be hella cool. If anyone actually showed up and raced it.

    (You can try and flip me off Carl, but we all know you can't do that with those casts on your fingers. How do you scratch your ass in the morning anyway?)


    Oh, and a note to all new riders who don't know me: Twins, GP bikes, and all other bikes Ben Fox would coin a "turd" hold a special place in my heart and I say everything above with fun and respect. In fact, I would love to ride a 748R, 848, or 675 given the chance, just like everyone else on the grid yet are too embarrassed to admit it.
    dave@MotoSix DOT com | MRA #31, WERA #311

  25. #25
    Senior Member Expert
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Parker
    Posts
    527
    Like I said before, I do not know the policy for how things get changed. I assumed that it had to be brought up (like others were in the Rules and Tech forum), discussed in the rules committee meeting (this past Sunday) and then voted on. Seems like we skipped step 1?

    As as I re-read Casey's post:

    Deadline for suggestions: Oct 1st
    Committee Meeting: Oct 17th 1pm
    Location: Walnut Room

    Shouldn't this be on the agenda for 2011, as it was post-Oct 1 suggestion?

    Here were the rule suggestions I saw, and was referring to:

    Current rule change suggestions:
    1. Allow addition of slipper clutches in Supersport for bikes that don't come with one standard from the factory.
    2. Allow replacement of windscreen with unrestricted origin.
    3. Allow full exhaust pipe wrapping.
    4. Combine ROR GTU and GTO classes and go back to the "One Premier Class" format.
    5. Assign top 10 number plates based on Clubman championship as opposed to ROR GTO finishing.
    6. Creation of Ninja 250 Cup class.
    7. Creation of Formula 40 class.
    8. Remove Sportsman class.
    9. Change 4hr community service requirements.
    10. Allow 850 twins into SuperTwins GTU
    11. Replace HWSB and HWSS with Middle and Open Modified production classes..
    Boulder Motor Sports - RhinoMoto - American Express

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What class do I run?
    By High Roller in forum New Racer Q & A
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 20th, 2011, 07:50 PM
  2. Something else to consider for the 250 class
    By LMsports in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 7th, 2011, 05:54 PM
  3. STGTU rule change
    By JWinter in forum Rules & Tech
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 14th, 2008, 08:23 PM
  4. MRA new class?
    By cromer611 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 26th, 2008, 02:59 AM

Posting Permissions

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