Just to clear up some mis-quoted info that I have seen in this thread by other members.

1. The last rider in row 1 would still be ahead of the first rider in row 2. How else would something like this be set up? No one indicated anything else. Even my cheap little drawing clearly shows that every rider in row 1 would be ahead of all riders in row 2. I thought this was obvious.

2. Will this make racing safe? No. I personally think that it will help spread out the start of the race, and help to avoid 3-wide entries into T1. Of course, crashes are still possible.

3. This will NOT give an advantage to the 4th place rider over 3rd place. An example, rider 1 starts on Pole. Rider 2 is then placed 3ft farther back from start finish then rider 1. Rider 3 is then placed 3ft farther back then rider 2. Rider 4 is then placed at the normal grid spot, being atleast equal to or greater then the gap from rider 1 to rider 2.

I dont know the exact distance that we currently grid so the 3ft used above is for example only.

What are the pro's to keeping it as is? Yes, I know it has worked for years. We have also never qualified for races, however that was recently approved. Was there a problem with gridding by points? NO. Does qualifying make ROR safer? NO. Does the fact that gridding by points in ROR make it the best way of doing things? NO. Did we need to make Endurance 5 minutes longer? Was there anything ever identified that a 30 minute endurance race wasn't working? I can go on and on. I think the idea of staying flexible and adapting to change is key with any business.

So, lets say we try this out for one race weekend and everyone hates it. Does that mean all other clubs are going to look at the MRA and think "what a bunch of clowns. They tried to make a change and look how they failed". I doubt that.