Suggestion for the 2018 Rulebook

[Ducdreamin]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

[zhimsel]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

I like the idea of this rule, but as long we understand that the "zero exceptions" is only for intentional contact. Sometime accidents happen, and there should be an accepted process to contest an ejection if it can be proved or argued that it was an accident with no major repercussions.

[bjackson]

I'd like to make a suggestion to remove the KTM 690 from the Colorado class and Ultralight classes. They are clearly way more powerful than anything else in the Formula Colorado class. Since we use Colorado class rules for Ultralight, they would both be affected by removing them from the Formula Colorado class.

[shRED]

I'd like to make a suggestion to remove the KTM 690 from the Colorado class and Ultralight classes. They are clearly way more powerful than anything else in the Formula Colorado class. Since we use Colorado class rules for Ultralight, they would both be affected by removing them from the Formula Colorado class.

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for Colorado Class: Against. This bike is exactly what a Supermono should be and in my view exemplifies what the class should aspire to. This is the premier supermono bike in Europe at present, built with good horsepower and significantly lighter (stock) than similarly powered twins. This engine platform is the future of Supermono: Kraemer is making bespoke race bikes around the KTM 690 engine and they are sweet.

Also, any major class change like this should come with a one year notice period so affected racers could modify their race program accordingly. Changing class requirements willy nilly isn't a great way to build a long-term base of racers for a club, and is really only a good way to eliminate, rather than bolster, competition.

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for ULW Endurance: Support. This was raised by the affected parties last year, should be raised again. I agree the KTM 690 should not qualify as ULW.

[singletrack_mind]

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for Colorado Class: Against. This bike is exactly what a Supermono should be and in my view exemplifies what the class should aspire to. This is the premier supermono bike in Europe at present, built with good horsepower and significantly lighter (stock) than similarly powered twins. This engine platform is the future of Supermono: Kraemer is making bespoke race bikes around the KTM 690 engine and they are sweet.

Also, any major class change like this should come with a one year notice period so affected racers could modify their race program accordingly. Changing class requirements willy nilly isn't a great way to build a long-term base of racers for a club, and is really only a good way to eliminate, rather than bolster, competition.

Re: KTM 690 ineligible for ULW Endurance: Support. This was raised by the affected parties last year, should be raised again. I agree the KTM 690 should not qualify as ULW.

I'm with shRED on this. I race a 690, and the Colorado Class is it's natural home. The original purpose of the class was to be a venue for single cylinder racers; other bikes have been added over the years as they become uncompetitive elsewhere. The Colorado Class should be the place for no-holds-barred single cylinder bikes. If 690s come to dominate the class so be it: It happens to be the best single cylinder racing engine out there right now. On the other hand, I do agree that it's a little out of place in Ultra Lightweight Endurance. I race it there because the rule book says I can, but if I am required to switch to Lightweight Endurance I will, and I think that's fair enough.

Stephen Husbands
MRA 30

[aspenbum]

Current rule: 2.7.A Endurance races consist of amateur classes including ultra lightweight, lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight, and open categories. Unlimited frame and engine combinations are allowed. Displacement specifications for ultra lightweight (based on formula colorado section 2.4.1.2), lightweight (based on lightweight grand prix section 2.4.1.1), and for other classes (middleweight, heavyweight, and open classes section 2.3.2).

New Rule: 2.7.A Endurance races consist of amateur classes including ultra lightweight, lightweight, middleweight, heavyweight, and open categories. Unlimited frame, engine combinations, and modifications are allowed. Displacement specifications for ultra lightweight (based on production cup 500 section 2.10), lightweight (based on lightweight grand prix section 2.4.1.1), and for other classes (middleweight, heavyweight, and open classes section 2.3.2).


Current Rule: 2.7.B Points will accumulate throughout the year toward class championships.

New Rule: 2.7.B Points will accumulate throughout the year toward class championships. If the MRA decides to host a 4-Hour Endurance race, all racers who wish to earn points for the regular Endurance Championship must compete in the 4-Hour endurance. If competing as a solo endurance rider (iron butt) you must finish at least 50% of the classes winning lap amount to earn points. If competing as a team endurance rider (True Endurance or Pony Express) you must finish at least 25% of your teams total lap count in order to earn points. All riders that meet the points requirements for the 4-hour endurance will receive 25 points towards their respective endurance championship for their participation.


Current Rule: 2.10.G Fuel injected motorcycles may utilize an aftermarket tuning device for the purpose of fuel management only.

New Rule: 2.10.G Fuel injected motorcycles may utilize an aftermarket tuning device for the purpose of fuel, ignition, and rpm management only.


Current Rule: 2.10.J Rear Shock may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin.

New Rule: 2.10.J Rear Shock may be replaced with parts of unlimited origin, frame trimming allowed to fit shock. (See Also 2.10.S)


Current Rule 2.10.S Parts which are not critical to bodywork or integral support may be removed, but they must be removed at the stock mounting or bolting point. Cutting of materials or frame is prohibited with the exception of the kickstand bracket and rear foot peg brackets which may be removed for safety and ground clearance. The countershaft sprocket cover may also be modified or removed.

New Rule: 2.10.S Parts which are not critical to bodywork or integral support may be removed, but they must be removed at the stock mounting or bolting point. Cutting of materials or frame is prohibited with the exception of the rear shock mount, kickstand bracket and rear foot peg brackets which may be removed for safety and ground clearance. The countershaft sprocket cover may also be modified or removed.


Current Rule 2.10.U none

New Rule 2.10.U Cooling systems must remain stock with the exception of aftermarket radiator caps.


Current Rule 7.1.J When restarting or scoring a red-flagged race, racers will be re-gridded or scored as to their running order at the completion of the lap preceding the lap in which the red flag was displayed. If the race is restarted, racers who crash or retire from a race before or during the red flag lap will be re-gridded at the back of the grid behind all non-crashing/non-retiring racers in the order in which they last crossed start/finish. If the race is determined to be complete and the race was stopped due to a rider(s) crash, the rider(s) involved will finish at the back of their respective lap group. i.e. a rider causing the red flag was in 5th place at the time of the red flag, there were 10 riders on the lead lap, and 15 riders started the race. The involved rider would be scored in 10th place.

New Rule 7.1.J 7.1.J When restarting or scoring a red-flagged race, racers will be re-gridded or scored as to their running order at the completion of the lap preceding the lap in which the red flag was displayed. If the race is restarted, racers who crash or retire from a race before or during the red flag lap will be re-gridded at the back of the grid behind all non-crashing/non-retiring racers in the order in which they last crossed start/finish. If the race is determined to be complete and the race was stopped due to a rider(s) crash, the rider(s) involved will finish in last place regardless of their position in the race at the time of the crash. (See 7.2.2.B for points allocatoin)


Current Rule 7.2.2.B Any rider who does not complete the full race distance for any reason will be awarded a finish position based on the distance they completed.

New Rule 7.2.2.B Any rider who does not complete the full race distance for any reason other than crashing will be awarded a finish position based on the distance they completed. If you crash out of the race you will be awarded 0 points regardless of your finish position.


Current Rule 10.L none

New Rule 10.L The race surface is defined as any area of the race track inside of the the walls/fence that separates the racers from the spectators. This includes hot pit lane during the race.


Current Rule 10.M none

New Rule 10.M The start of the race is defined by when the the grid marshal allows bikes to be on the track for the warm up lap. While not a scored lap, the warm up lap is considered to be a part of the race and all of the race rules apply to the warm up lap.

[Electroman]

I propose running an endurance race with a LeMans Start for at least one race next season.

[shRED]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.

[Jim Brewer]

... I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.

I agree with Jason. We used to have rules in the rulebook that were very specific on penalties with no allowance for the judgment of officials. Those created so many problems that we changed & added sections to enable discretion. For this one in particular, I think it would be almost impossible to determine intent. Like shRedman mentions, there are methods to complain about rough riding and I know for sure that the board has taken action toward riders who exhibit bad track behavior.

Besides, as they say, "rubbin's racin'" ( for the humor impared)

And I know I've touched Tony Baker intentionally (and usually inappropriately).

[fosbibr]

This plenary power

.....and I learned something today.....

[bjackson]

To me this is sufficiently covered by Section 10, item C, which gives MRA officials complete authority to penalize dangerous riding at their discretion without qualification or limitation. This plenary power is more than sufficient to address any circumstance. Writing rules that require mandatory ejection take power away from MRA officials to consider all the facts and circumstances of a case, which I disagree with. Personally, I have heard zero complaints about this actually being an issue in any case, so another rule seems unnecessary since we have such a powerful rule as is.

I actually complained to Jim Wilson about this at HPR as my bike was turned off on the cool down lap leaving me in a dangerous situation. Nothing was done.

[shRED]

I actually complained to Jim Wilson about this at HPR as my bike was turned off on the cool down lap leaving me in a dangerous situation. Nothing was done.

1. It is illegal, it is dangerous riding. 2. "Nothing was done" or you did not directly see what was done? Those can be very different things.

Or you could just pin your on/off switch and be done with it.

[bjackson]

While it seems like common sense, I think it should be stipulated that if you intentionally touch another rider or their bike, you will be ejected for the weekend. Zero exceptions.

Totally agree. Touching the controls of another riders motorcycle should be made illegal. It is a safety concern, not funny, and should be a common sense rule. The only exception being when a crashed riders bike needs to be turned off.