2020 Rulebook suggestions

[TRK]

Suggestions for the 2020 Rulebook

Suggestions for the 2020 rulebook are now open and will be accepted until Monday September 30th, 2019 (rules suggestions will not be accepted after 23:59hrs on September 30th). Once the list is compiled, the proposed rule changes will be sent out to all members. Rule changes can be submitted to Shannon Moham, Brett Leveque or 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 I am 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 2020 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 2020 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 Moham TRKWILLYS@aol.com

[ian022]

I would like to propose the following rule change. The idea is to complete more laps in the ROR race, this is the premier class in the MRA and should go as close to full distance as possible while keeping all of the riders safe.

The current rule:
Section 7 - RACE PROCEDURES
7.1 General Procedures
I. When more than 50% of the race is complete and the red flag is displayed, MRA officials may consider the race complete. If determined complete, riders will be scored according to 7.1.J.


The modified rule:
Section 7 - RACE PROCEDURES
7.1 General Procedures
I. When more than 50% of the race is complete and the red flag is displayed, MRA officials may consider the race complete. If determined complete, riders will be scored according to 7.1.J.
During The Race of the Rockies, when more than 75% of the race is complete and the red flag is displayed, MRA officials may consider the race complete. If determined complete, riders will be scored according to 7.1.J.

My modification of letter "I" in this section may not be the best way to word this change, perhaps a new entry or "letter" is more appropriate.

[Jim Brewer]

I agree with Ian, but I would like to suggest a modification to his suggestion to "be more inclusive"

The modified rule:
Section 7 - RACE PROCEDURES
7.1 General Procedures
I. When more than 50% of the race is complete and the red flag is displayed, MRA officials may consider the race complete. If determined complete, riders will be scored according to 7.1.J.
During The Race of the Rockies, when more than 75% of the race is complete and the red flag is displayed, MRA officials may consider the race complete. If determined complete, riders will be scored according to 7.1.J.

How about ..

I. When the leader has fewer than 3 laps remaining and the red flag is displayed, MRA officials may consider the race complete .... bla bla bla ..

So "fewer than 3 laps remaining" means when the red flag is called, the leader has already crossed start/finish and will cross start/finish one more time before being given the white flag.

So for a 7 lap race, the leader finishing lap 4 would trigger this situation. For a 14 lap RoR, the leader finishing lap 11 would be the trigger. For 20-30 minute endurances, I think we would figure out when the leader has fewer than 3 laps to go based on time left and average laptimes.

The reason I suggest this is we should allow endurances to keep going the same way as ROR and it should be a little easier to implement lap counts than calculating percentages of odd or even lap races. Also, for red flag restarts, the same "fewer than 3 laps" rule could apply pretty easily.

[ian022]

Makes sense to me and I think it might be easier to keep track of.

[paulfdunn]

Here are some issues I've noticed:
* 2.4.1.8 says "Based on Race of the Rockies GTU class displacement andconfiguration limits as per 2.4.1.6", but 2.4.1.6 is for ROR GTO, not GTU.

* Class displacement limits in 2.4.1.5 and 2.6.1 are effectively identical (comma missing in 2.4.1.5) with the exception of final statement in 2.4.1.5 regarding ROR drivers must have driven for one year as an expert. Suggestion - only include the table of limits once, and reference it in the other location. Or put the limits in a separate section that is referenced by both 2.4.1.5 and 2.6.1. That last bullet in 2.4.1.5 regarding ROR participation seems like it would be better placed in 7.2.1 ROR Qualifying.

* 9.B there are two hanging paragraphs that look like they should have their own letters. One starts "All racers may be subject to drug testing", and the other starts "Each rider is responsible".

* Note that the last paragraph mentioned above in 9.B is repeated in 9.C; suggestion is to remove one of them.

* 11.D Pets. I've only been to one event (Pueblo round 6), but there were several dogs and none on a leash. Suggestion - remove the rule if there is no enforcement, or add an enforcement clause; refer to section 9.C that says " Any punitive actionsrequired for crew behavior will be levied against the rider. "

* 11 in general these are missing any punitive action. Suggestion - add penalties or remove the rules.

(I've only done 1 SuperStreet, and am considering attending the new racer school come spring. So I read the rules very carefully I hope this helps.

[seniorsehas]

I propose the following change - not necessarily a rule,

Stop putting up pre-grids. Just put up a list of who's in the race initially and then put up the final grid. People not realizing they are in a pre-grid spot is the #1 reason I've seen people lined up incorrectly. Simplify the process so the only grid posted on the day is the correct one?

[gary3000]

Formula 40 Rule Change

From 2019 rule book (page 17):

8. Formula 40 GTU
-- Based on Race of the Rockies GTU class displacement and
configuration limits as per 2.4.1.6
-- Racer must be 40 years of age or older on the day of the event.
9. Formula 40 GTO
-- Unlimited displacement and origin.
-- Racer must be 40 years of age or older on the day of the event.


Proposed 2020 rule change:

8. Formula 40 GTU
-- Based on Race of the Rockies GTU class displacement and
configuration limits as per 2.4.1.6
-- Racer must be 40 years of age or older on the day of the event.
-- Racer in the top 5 of point standings in RORO or RORU is ineligible for the event.
9. Formula 40 GTO
-- Unlimited displacement and origin.
-- Racer must be 40 years of age or older on the day of the event.
-- Racer in the top 5 of point standings in RORO or RORU is ineligible for the event.



Rationale: Formula 40 was structured in the past to limit participation by racers competing in ROR. The reasoning is/was probably similar to the rules governing Amateur GTU and GTO.

[GiXXXer Junkie]

I propose the following change - not necessarily a rule,

Stop putting up pre-grids. Just put up a list of who's in the race initially and then put up the final grid. People not realizing they are in a pre-grid spot is the #1 reason I've seen people lined up incorrectly. Simplify the process so the only grid posted on the day is the correct one?

Actually, the #1 reason riders grid up incorrectly is because they fail to check final grids

[Jim Brewer]

Formula 40 Rule Change
.. snip .. snip ..
-- Racer in the top 5 of point standings in RORO or RORU is ineligible for the event.

Thanks Gary for suggesting this. I think the complexion of the club has changed quite a bit since 2014.

I'd like to propose modifying your suggestion to use the same wording as the 2013 rulebook,

2.4.1.8 Experts who race RoR and are a MRA top 10 plate holder from the previous
season are ineligible to race Formula 40 that season (see section 4.2 C).

What do you think?? We could change it from "who race RoR" to be "who are entered in RoR for that weekend" - basically make it similar to the Amateur GTO/GTU restrictions defined in 4.2.A.

There was quite a bit of previous discussion about this which can be found here
http://forums.mra-racing.org/showthr...nge-Discussion

[Jim Brewer]

Something like this was suggested in 2013 ..

Redesignate

Heavyweight Supersport to be Middleweight Amateur Supersport
Heavyweight Superbike to be Middleweight Amateur Superbike

Remove Heavyweight Endurance


Specifically
2.2.3.A - Middleweight Supersport rules stay the same
2.2.3.B - section is removed
2.3.2.1 - Middleweight Superbike rules stay the same
2.3.2.2 - section is removed
2.7.A - remove "Heavyweight"
4.2.A - Amateur definition (RoR restriction) is applied to Middleweight Amateur Supersport and Middleweight Amateur Superbike classes.

Reasoning -

• There hasn't been and are no "heavyweight only" bikes in the MRA (except for Cindy's) so the classes are duplicates of Middleweight.
• There are enough entries in the heavyweight races to warrant keeping them
• Designating these classes as "middleweight" is just acknowledging reality
• Making them amateur classes will expand trophy and contingency opportunities

Historical discussion can be found at http://forums.mra-racing.org/showthr...cussion-thread

[Jayrz]

2020 Rule Change proposals

First,

I believe at one time ROR Competitors were not eligible to compete in the AMO and AMU classes and also Formula40. I may have been on hiatus because I'm not sure when that changed but it is my belief that having an Amateur level race where experts and novices are mixed together and then also the upper echelon of extremely fast ROR racers is bordering on dangerous. Also in the interest of parity I believe it would make the for more enjoyment of the sport if there were more people actually in a competition for a championship and not simply the same 3-5 people entering everything and taking home trophies.

Therefore:

Rule Change: 1) ROR Competitors are ineligible to compete in the Amatuer Classes "AMO" and "AMU" and "Formula40"

Addressing Thunderbike, the rules in the 2018 Rulebook defining Thunderbike had been in place for quite some time and had resulted in some very good competition.
The "Spirit of the Class" was obviously written for Thunderbike to allow motorcycles which may not, or no longer fit well into other class parameters, a class to compete in in which the performance level was somewhat balanced. This is also a somewhat cost saving measure as it gives these motorcycles a place where they can compete.

Rule Change: 2) Thunderbike definitions revert back to 2018 rule book definitions and we continue to allow the smaller two Panigale 899 and 959 as they are so close in hp anyway.


Thanks

Jay Hollman

#53

[TRK]

Closed

[JimWilson29]

Posted by Robb Weins on Facebook prior to deadline:

1.Rule revision to the 2020 Thunderbike limit engine size to 1000cc. 2.Quite time between 11:00 p.m and 5:00 a.m (No Generators)

[Ice]

...
Reasoning -

• There hasn't been and are no "heavyweight only" bikes in the MRA (except for Cindy's) so the classes are duplicates of Middleweight.
• There are enough entries in the heavyweight races to warrant keeping them
• Designating these classes as "middleweight" is just acknowledging reality
• Making them amateur classes will expand trophy and contingency opportunities

Historical discussion can be found at http://forums.mra-racing.org/showthr...cussion-thread

The smaller Panigales (899 and 959) exceed the displacement limits for middleweight/GTU classes and we usually compete in Heavyweight classes. If we are doing away with Heavyweight, I think we should add them to the middleweight divisions. The 959 generates ~20HP more than a Daytona 675 or Kawi 636. Moving up to open puts them with a 50+HP deficit.

[gary3000]

I think going back to the original rule is fine.

[JimWilson29]

Current minimum age to be compliant with our liability insurance is 13 years old on a Kawasaki Ninja 300 or smaller only. This also currently includes 14 and 15 year olds. Proposed change below corrects the minimum age and will add additional 300cc and smaller Production Cup motorcycles that 13 year olds are permitted to ride. It will also add additional motorcycles that are currently legal in MotoAmerica Junior Cup for riders with a minimum age of 14.

Page 27 Section 4 - Rider Qualifications and Advancement

4.4 Overall racer qualifications
4.4.1 Age

A. Applicants may be of any age, but must be approved by the New Rider Director.
B. Applicants less than 18 years of age, and all applicants below the age of majority
in their home state, must provide a notarized statement of permission from a
legal parent or guardian.
C. Admission as a racer will be scrutinized by skill, not by age. However, denial for
age MAY be a consideration based on specific insurance requirements or track
limitations. The current minimum age due to insurance requirements is 12 years old.
D. Rider must pass MRA rider school and permission is still required by legal
parent or guardian

Proposed change

4.4 Overall racer qualifications
4.4.1 Age

A. Applicants may be of any age, but must be approved by the New Rider Director.
B. Applicants less than 18 years of age, and all applicants below the age of majority
in their home state, must provide a notarized statement of permission from a
legal parent or guardian.
C. Admission as a racer will be scrutinized by skill, not by age. However, denial for
age MAY be a consideration based on specific insurance requirements or track
limitations. The current minimum age due to insurance requirements is 13 years old
on 300cc and smaller Production Cup legal motorcycles covered in Section 2.10, and all
Production Cup legal motorcycles in Section 2.10 for ages 14 and older. Age 16 and
older there are no motorcycle restrictions.
D. Rider must pass MRA rider school and permission is still required by legal
parent or guardian