Suggestions for the 2014 rulebook (closed).

[rybo]

Novice Service Hour Requirements:

In recent years we've had a number of Novice racers finish inside of the top 10, but that may not be ready to graduate to the expert classes or status. As such I propose the following rule change:

Current Rule:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Proposed Change:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, First Season Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

[bcmoore]

Novice Service Hour Requirements:

In recent years we've had a number of Novice racers finish inside of the top 10, but that may not be ready to graduate to the expert classes or status. As such I propose the following rule change:

Current Rule:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Proposed Change:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, First Season Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

I second this rule change.

[gsnyder828]

Novice Service Hour Requirements:

In recent years we've had a number of Novice racers finish inside of the top 10, but that may not be ready to graduate to the expert classes or status. As such I propose the following rule change:

Current Rule:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Proposed Change:
Section 4.1

A. In order to qualify for end of season points and standings, First Season Novice racers must complete 4 hours of community service to the club (see Sections 4.6.D-H.)

Scott - sorry if I'm being dense. But what's this suggested change designed to accomplish?

Your first paragraph makes it seem like you're looking to remove the automatic advancement to expert for top 10 Novice finishers... but the rule change suggested doesn't seem to do that. (4.6.G still forces advancement, no?)

[rybo]

Your first paragraph makes it seem like you're looking to remove the automatic advancement to expert for top 10 Novice finishers... but the rule change suggested doesn't seem to do that. (4.6.G still forces advancement, no?)

Geoff -

Thanks for the clarifying question

The purpose of the proposed change isn't to negate the automatic advancement portion of being a novice, but rather to NOT penalize multi season novice racers for making a decision to remain a novice.

I see several instances where this could be effective

The most obvious is the Top 10 novice who petitions to remain a novice. This happens from time to time, especially when novices that finish in top 10 don't complete their service hours and are removed from the points. Then someone who didn't ACTUALLY finish in the top 10 (and may not have finished in the top 10 at any individual race) is ranked in the top 10, and thereby subject to automatic advancement. A couple of years ago we clarified a provision in the rulebook that make it clear that a rider in this circumstance may petition to remain a novice and that the decision was at the discretion of the new rider director. I would like to remove any financial penalty to a rider for making this decision for the right reasons.

I can think of several riders in our club who have raced with us for YEARS. They have developed skill, but still do not finish in the top 10 in the novice category. It's completely suitable for these riders to choose to remain novices as it opens up additional classes for them to race in where they feel comfortable. In this case too, I would like to see us remove the financial (or service) requirement from riders choosing this course.

Better?

Scott

[gsnyder828]

Got it. Thanks.

g

[TRK]

If this becomes a novice hours debate, make a thread.

FYI advancement is based on the point standings at the end of the year. Awards and recognition are based on the final standings to include novice hours.

[TRK]

Discuss the number plate requirements.

[Kingpin]

Rule book section 4.3D

For safety purposes suggest to change the wording from it is recommended to it is required that riders must have lap times at 109% of current class lap record. (Currently the rule states recommend at 115%)

Just for context on the long HPR course if we use a 1:45.1 lap record then at 115% the cutoff would be roughly a 2:00.75
For 109% it would roughly be at 1:54.45

If the 109% seems to strict, then just enforcing the 115% would be my recommendation.

A.

[Kingpin]

Perhaps not really a rule but I would like to suggest some method to classify practice groups by lap times.

For me the issue is with Medium Expert class. (Seems too big and too large of speed difference)
I don't want to get in the way of the fastest experts but feel penalized by having to practice with Slow experts where the closing speeds are way to big of a difference. (For the combined practices 2x Saturday, 1x Sunday..)

Not to pick on the 250's, but this has become more of an issue in the last few years. The 250 theme is cheap racing, and some racers haul ass on them and others, well they are just learning.

I understand the slow experts have just as much a right to be on the track as all of us, however I see a major issue coming at us if we allow this to continue. Thus a 2:20 lap time to be practicing with a 2:00 or less lap time (50% speed difference!)

Can we find a way for folks to feel safer?

Maybe we can get rid of the slow/Med/fast thing and just go by lap times instead. Maybe call it group A, B, C, D
A = 1:55 or less
B = 2:00 avg
C= 2:10 avg
D = 2:20 avg

Times are not hard suggestion, just an example. We would have to analyze the lap times to see if this makes sense with the number of bikes on the track at one time...etc..

A.

[DOUBLE A]

I agree w/ Aaron

[JimWilson29]

Rule book section 4.3D

For safety purposes suggest to change the wording from it is recommended to it is required that riders must have lap times at 109% of current class lap record. (Currently the rule states recommend at 115%)

Just for context on the long HPR course if we use a 1:45.1 lap record then at 115% the cutoff would be roughly a 2:00.75
For 109% it would roughly be at 1:54.45

If the 109% seems to strict, then just enforcing the 115% would be my recommendation.

A.

IMHO, 109% of a lap record at HPR set by a former AMA and WSBK racer is too strict for ROR. I'm not for deterring newer experts that might be on that the verge of breaking that lap time bubble from running the class just so the top 3 or 4 ROR riders can have a clear track.

We could use each weekend's pole position time and go back to the 112% we initially used a few years back. This would put the cutoff at HPR Full Course around 1:59

[JimWilson29]

Perhaps not really a rule but I would like to suggest some method to classify practice groups by lap times.

For me the issue is with Medium Expert class. (Seems too big and too large of speed difference)
I don't want to get in the way of the fastest experts but feel penalized by having to practice with Slow experts where the closing speeds are way to big of a difference. (For the combined practices 2x Saturday, 1x Sunday..)

Not to pick on the 250's, but this has become more of an issue in the last few years. The 250 theme is cheap racing, and some racers haul ass on them and others, well they are just learning.

I understand the slow experts have just as much a right to be on the track as all of us, however I see a major issue coming at us if we allow this to continue. Thus a 2:20 lap time to be practicing with a 2:00 or less lap time (50% speed difference!)

Can we find a way for folks to feel safer?

Maybe we can get rid of the slow/Med/fast thing and just go by lap times instead. Maybe call it group A, B, C, D
A = 1:55 or less
B = 2:00 avg
C= 2:10 avg
D = 2:20 avg

Times are not hard suggestion, just an example. We would have to analyze the lap times to see if this makes sense with the number of bikes on the track at one time...etc..

A.

This is a procedural issue. I don't think we can fit 4 separate expert practices in each morning as you suggest but we can discuss splitting the Slow/Medium practices.
Setting lap time suggestions for each is reasonable but we don't have the resources to monitor it for every practice. The riders can police themselves. If they feel that another rider is too slow for the practice they are running, they can bring it to the Track Marshal's, or other Board Member's attention and it will be addressed.

[rybo]

What about dropping the novice/expert designation from practice and just practicing by group based on the suggested times?

[The GECCO]

^^^^
What he said

[oldtimer]

What about dropping the novice/expert designation from practice and just practicing by group based on the suggested times?

This is what Aaron intended in his practice group proposal. Eliminating nov/expert separate practices and creating new practice groups by general times. I like the idea of 4 groups, but any combination of times/# of groups could be discussed. Obviously there will still be the fastest and slowest in each timed group, but maybe we can create a closer range of laptimes?

The slow/medium expert practices have developed a big disparity in lap times because the 250s are so popular (250s are good, the mixed practice is kind of crazy). And I believe a number of medium experts have migrated to the fast ex group to get away from the slow/med combined practice. We also saw some 250 novices migrate to slow expert early to get out of novice practices--which also have big disparity in lap times.

The AFM assigns practice groups with race registration, could we implement this?