2016 Rulebook Suggestions

[TRK]

Suggestions for the 2016 Rulebook

Suggestions for the 2016 rulebook are now open and will be accepted until Friday October 2nd, 2015 (rules suggestions will not be accepted after 2400hrs on October 2, 2015). Once the list is compiled, the proposed rule changes will be sent out to all members. Rule changes can be submitted to Shannon Moham, Jeff Brown, or to 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 Shannon is 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 2016 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 2016 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 (TRKWillys@aol.com).

[oldtimer]

Quick change axels to be permitted in Supersport classes-- Section 2.2.2 Class Equipment Requirements

Section 2.2.2.B. The following items may be added or replaced with other than OEM parts f. Front and rear axels may be replaced with replaced with aftermarket quick change axel kits

[The GECCO]

I propose a change to section 7.3 Point Awards.

I think our current points system makes it too easy for championships to be locked up and out of reach prior to the end of the season. Under the current points system there is a 17% gap from 1st to 2nd and a 63% gap from 1st to 10th. This is too great a disparity to foster close competition.

It's my understanding that the current system was put in place in order to encourage participation (and financial contribution to the club) by:

1) Awarding points further down in the standings, so that riders in 16th and below actually got points rather than getting zero (as it was under the old system)
2) Encouraging championship contenders to return after a crash/DNF by increasing the rewards of the higher finishes other than the crash/DNF

If the goal is to keep participants coming back, then I agree that we need to award points beyond 15th place. However, I would argue that once a championship is clinched there is far less incentive for ANYONE in the class to continue showing up and spending money. If the goal is to keep people participating (and therefore spending money), then the points should be such that it's harder, not easier, to clinch a championship prior to the final round.

I propose that section 7.3 read as follows:

1st - 40
2nd - 36
3rd - 33
4th - 31
5th - 29
6th - 27
7th - 25
8th - 23
9th - 22
10th - 21
11th - 20
12th - 19
13th - 18
14th - 17
15th - 16
16th - 15
17th - 14
18th - 13
19th - 12
20th - 11
21st - 10
22nd - 9
23rd - 8
24th - 7
25th - 6
26th - 5
27th - 4
28th - 3
29th - 2
30th - 1

This system still provides points and incentives to those that finish below 15th. However instead of the 17% gap to 2nd place and the 63% gap to 10th place, there is a 10% gap to 2nd and a 47% gap to 10th.

I studied the points of two very competitive classes in the MRA - MWSS and RoR Overall. Under the current points, both championships are clinched, the last round doesn't matter. Under the proposed system, however, in both classes not only would 2nd place have a mathematical shot at championship, but the 3rd place participant would only be a single point out of mathematical contention in the final round.

If you want to keep people coming back, and thereby keep the club healthy, then we need to keep more participants "in the hunt" so that the last round actually matters.

[The GECCO]

For clarity, I propose the following addition to Section 7.2.2:

7.2.2.E Any rider who takes the checkered flag by crossing the transponder loop on the hot pit lane (instead of the start/finish line) will be scored as if they crossed the loop at start/finish.

As such, although it maybe should or should not be a RULE, I think riders doing back to back races, especially when swapping bikes, should be encouraged to take the checkered on the hot pit lane rather than doing the cool down lap, etc. This lessens the chances they will feel it necessary to speed in the pits, and also lessens the chances they will be late to grid for the next race while still being able to get a quick drink, refuel or whatever. Obviously if they are in a battle for position on the last lap this may not be feasible, but it should be encouraged when possible.

Obviously this doesn't really apply to Pueblo and the logistics of doing so at PPIR would have to be confirmed because the hot pit loop is located past the break in the wall where you go from hot pit to cold pit. Perhaps it would only be applicable at HPR.

[Jon]

This isn't a rule change proposal but a proprosed name change. If any of you remember back in the early nineties (OK, so many of you weren't even born or out of diapers ) but back in the day. There were riders such as Jim Forrington (RIP), Believe me his antics and abilities are legendary) JT and Dave Terry, Ratt Sonlightner, Donny Hough and others competed in what was then called Formula Colorado now called Colorado Class. It pitted converted dirt trackers and MX bikes, against RS and TZ 125's and numerous other creatively built bikes and good riders and was one of the most popular races watched by all of us as some people drug knees while others slid feet and was kind of the ROR Lightweight class.
Why, when and how exactly over time the name got changed short of a typo I don't know, but personally I think Formula Colorado just sounds a hell of a lot better than Colorado Class and I suggest unless somebodies adamantly opposed and has a good reason, a return to the historical name of Formula Colorado. Thoughts?

[Ray-Ray]

I propose adding a Formula 40 Lightweight class to be ran in conjunction with the other formula 40 races. This will be for bikes that are LWGP legal.

[fosbibr]

2.10 Production Cup Class

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


Delete the requirement that the throttle control must remain stock.

Reasoning: Most of the production bikes have integrated throttle and electronic controls and if they become damaged it is a pain to replace with stock equipment. Additionally, most of the stock throttles are POS and end up twisting and it's a safety concern.

[Jon]

I second Ray's idea and say add a Formula 50 class too.....uh, just kidding, I know this isn't AHRMA but love the idea of Formula 40 lightweight.

[oldtimer]

I propose a change to section 7.3 Point Awards.

I think our current points system makes it too easy for championships to be locked up and out of reach prior to the end of the season.....

I propose that section 7.3 read as follows:

1st - 40
2nd - 36
3rd - 33
4th - 31
5th - 29
6th - 27
7th - 25
8th - 23
9th - 22
10th - 21
11th - 20
12th - 19
13th - 18
14th - 17
15th - 16
16th - 15
17th - 14
18th - 13
19th - 12
20th - 11
21st - 10
22nd - 9
23rd - 8
24th - 7
25th - 6
26th - 5
27th - 4
28th - 3
29th - 2
30th - 1

This system still provides points and incentives to those that finish below 15th. However instead of the 17% gap to 2nd place and the 63% gap to 10th place, there is a 10% gap to 2nd and a 47% gap to 10th.

I studied the points of two very competitive classes in the MRA - MWSS and RoR Overall. Under the current points, both championships are clinched, the last round doesn't matter. Under the proposed system, however, in both classes not only would 2nd place have a mathematical shot at championship, but the 3rd place participant would only be a single point out of mathematical contention in the final round.

If you want to keep people coming back, and thereby keep the club healthy, then we need to keep more participants "in the hunt" so that the last round actually matters.

I second this. Having tried the current point system for a few years, I think we should go back to a closer spread. The above works for me

[Unique RR]

Production Class:

Throttle control may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin.
Battery may be replaced with parts of unlimited

Overall 250r proposal:

To be scored separately in Lightweight Grand Prix and Lightweight/Middleweight Endurance. Simply, because the is no way for any 250 racer to compete for top positions in these classes. 250 riders just run these classes for practice or to spar with other 250 riders. Basically we're just trying to get our money worth, there is really no incentive for us out there in those classes. Maybe create a "ultra- lightweight" class?

~Shawn Parrish #595 ~

[WCook]

Production Class:

Throttle control may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin.
Battery may be replaced with parts of unlimited

Overall 250r proposal:

To be scored separately in Lightweight Grand Prix and Lightweight/Middleweight Endurance. Simply, because the is no way for any 250 racer to compete for top positions in these classes. 250 riders just run these classes for practice or to spar with other 250 riders. Basically we're just trying to get our money worth, there is really no incentive for us out there in those classes. Maybe create a "ultra- lightweight" class?

~Shawn Parrish #595 ~

I second what Shawn stated above

Since woodcraft now sells a cheap key eliminator for the 250, I would also like that to be allowed.

250 racing is still a viable option in our club and a blast, at PPIR the top 10 bikes were all within 2 secs a lap.

I propose next year that the 250 be allowed unlimited mods (superbike), let us develop our bikes and have more fun. Currently, a 215 lb rider cannot compete for a podium against a 140 lb rider, with a superbike the field may get leveled. I have also heard the argument that production racing is meant to be cheap....yeah right, nothing cheap about racing in any class, as I have as much in the 250 as others have in their 600

I also encourage this club to look into a UL weight class in either endurance or by breaking LWGP in two classes to include UL

Warren Cook #823

[ian022]

I would like to second the rule change submitted by Fos for the production classes.
Throttle control assembly may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin.
*The stock throttle assemblies are not well made and don't hold up well with racing abuse, replacement assemblies are expensive and I don't like the idea of trying to glue on a zip tie. A quick turn throttle assembly will not make a huge difference in performance, but it will add reliability and adjust-ability at a reasonable cost. They will also survive the impact of a crash much better.
Ian

[ian022]

One more proposed change and then I'll shut up. Rybo made a suggestion last year for a "Production 600" class. I would like to suggest this class again...I think there is an opportunity to grow the club with this class - I think we might see some of the super street guys move into this class to get started racing. The appeal is the cost factor and it leaves more room for riders to focus on improving their riding and focusing less on buying $3500 worth of suspension mods.
Production 600
4 cyl 600cc
675cc 3 cyl
750cc twin?
Stock fork but valving and spring changes are ok
Stock shock but spring/valving can be changed
Stock wheels
Slip on exhaust
Tuner (pc or bazzaz, etc) no TC, no quick shifter, no blipper
stock braking system, pads and rotors may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin
quick turn throttle ok
Spec tire? I like the idea of a spec tire, IF cost can be brought down. I would like for the club to make suggestions on what would be a good choice for this. I like the idea of a street tire if possible because it eliminates the need for warmers. I don't know if there is a safety problem there, I don't think there is as today's street tires are exceptional.
Please feel free to add to this or discuss.
Ian

[jplracing]

I would like to suggest the addition of a supermoto class.

Simple plateform to build rules from:

All motorcycles must a) be produced as dirt bikes and modified with 17" wheels b) purpose built from the factory as a "supermoto".

Max engine size 701cc single 600cc twin

unlimited modifications allowed (outside of engine size requirements listed above)

*my thought is there are a number of us that already own supermoto bikes that we use to train with in off season and it may draw additional riders for other clubs

[scott_tiller]

This is not a rule change suggestion, but a procedure change. I talked to Jim Wilson and he said to post it here.

I would like to see LOR put back in front of MVGTU. I believe it was changed to the current setup do to the fact that there where not many girls racing and some of the MVGTU class guys were complaining about haviing to pass the girls so quickly. The ladies class has grown quite a bit and they are now having to pass the some of the guys quickly.

[fosbibr]

I would like to suggest the addition of a supermoto class.

Simple plateform to build rules from:

All motorcycles must a) be produced as dirt bikes and modified with 17" wheels b) purpose built from the factory as a "supermoto".

Max engine size 701cc single 600cc twin

unlimited modifications allowed (outside of engine size requirements listed above)

*my thought is there are a number of us that already own supermoto bikes that we use to train with in off season and it may draw additional riders for other clubs

I'm all for the sumo class!!! Many of us own them already, they're relatively easy to maintain, they're a nice cross/transition between the production bikes and middleweight bikes and they can be run (somewhat) competitively in other classes - LWGP and Colorado Class come to mind.

FO$

[tecknojoe]

2.10 Production Cup Class

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


Delete the requirement that the throttle control must remain stock.

Reasoning: Most of the production bikes have integrated throttle and electronic controls and if they become damaged it is a pain to replace with stock equipment. Additionally, most of the stock throttles are POS and end up twisting and it's a safety concern.

I second this

[Electroman]

Regarding Section 3.3 Refund Policies, I propose a clarification to 3.3 E.

Present:
Blah blah blah, ...forfeit all entry fees for that race day if the rider does not cancel by Friday at midnight of the race event weekend by contacting a current MRA Board Member.

Proposed:
Blah blah blah, ...forfeit all entry fees for that race day if the rider does not cancel by Friday at midnight of the race event weekend by contacting a current MRA Board Member via Email, Text, Fax, US Mail or in person ( No phone calls).

Reason for change: A phone call just doesn't work!!!

[Electroman]

Regarding 5.2.1 Technical Requirements for All Motorcycles, change the wording for Section R.

Present:
An MRA provided decal will be displayed on both sides of the bike at least axle line high or higher.

Proposal:
It is recommended a MRA provided decal will be displayed on both sides of the bike at least axle line high or higher.

Reason for change:
MRA decals are not always available. Additionally, this requirement puts a burden on a new racer. They can't get decals. He / She has enough things to think of than this trivial B*** S***.
Let's get the new racer on the track!!

Also, this proposal applies to 5.2.2 section T, which is a rewording of section 5.2.1,section R.

[Electroman]

Regarding 5.2.2 Technical Requirements for Novice, Amateur, and Expert Competition Motorcycles, add a recommendation for a brake lever guard.

This would be similar to the recommendation for a toe guard.

Wording:
On applicable models, a brake lever guard is recommended to prevent accidental application of the front brake when racing in close quarters.

Reason for new recommendation:
This is a safety item. Additionally, this is a requirement when racing nationally.

[blaircsf]

Regarding 5.2.2 Technical Requirements for Novice, Amateur, and Expert Competition Motorcycles, add a recommendation for a brake lever guard.

This would be similar to the recommendation for a toe guard.

Wording:
On applicable models, a brake lever guard is recommended to prevent accidental application of the front brake when racing in close quarters.

Reason for new recommendation:
This is a safety item. Additionally, this is a requirement when racing nationally.

It is there under section Q, although maybe the chain guard and brake guard should be separated into two sections?
Q.
On applicable models, a shark fin or chain guard is recommended to prevent
a rider’s toes or fingers from getting caught in the sprocket. A brake guard is
recommended to prevent accidental contact of the front brake lever.

[Fastt Racing]

Consecutive term limit for Board Members. Limit the time someone can hold a board position to several years in a row. Quantity of years to be discussed. This should be a good way to keep fresh ideas & motivation at high levels. Also it would detour some of the generous folks running the club from burning themselves out in consecutive stretches with no break from duty, or change in scenery.

[Fastt Racing]

Propose slick tires allowed in MWSS & HWSS.

[Fastt Racing]

Propose unlimited battery type allowed in all Supersport classes.

[WolFeYeZ]

Add rule to Supersport: 2.2.2.C The following items may be replaced by parts of unrestricted origin: x - Battery.

Reasoning: Lightweight batteries cost like $40 more than standard and can be much more reliable since we only use our bikes a few times a year. A lightweight battery is not going to change the results of a race, or blow a budget.