2020 Rule Change Discussion

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations' started by DEFBOY35, Oct 28, 2019.

  1. kawasaki

    kawasaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Cory
    I also support the formula 108 proposal
     
  2. kawasaki

    kawasaki Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Real Name:
    Cory
    Seems like it a common rule elsewhere
     
  3. Cinder

    Cinder Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    16
    Real Name:
    Dom
  4. Ducbert

    Ducbert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Real Name:
    Norbert aka "Jaju"
    I support this idea also.

    When you read most bike comparisons, they compare the SV650, Ninja 650 and FZ-07. I think its a fair inclusion to the race if the CC's are bumped up or the FZ-07 is written into the class specifically and the CC's remain.
     
  5. Ducbert

    Ducbert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Real Name:
    Norbert aka "Jaju"
    I have a few points I'd like to bring up for discussion but not necessarily change.

    Sportsman - With the upcoming years the sportsman grid will change over time, especially with the BMW now being eligible and in a couple years other manufacturers will be added to the grid with the same/similar technology. Do you feel we need to change the sportsman classification? Grid sizes are not a problem for this race.

    Team Championships - Watching this unfold this year, didn't seem like "fair" competition for all. It seemed like riding as many races as possible, stack the points. That approach seems more like a "Blue" plate championship but on a group level. Does anyone else feel like we could make some changes here or leave it as be?

    Senior Open - I know a few people have mentioned they would like to see this changed. What are your thoughts?
     
  6. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    124
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    I think we need to wait and see when they get there stuff together and are on the same page.
     
  7. M87

    M87 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    24
    As an outside observer one of the problems I see with the helmet requirements is that those helmets that are homologated are the European models which are not always exactly the same as those in North America. For example when I was doing research for my last helmet I read several articles which steered me towards a specific Arai model, I believe it was the RX-7V. When I tried to purchase that model in Canada it didn't exist. I bought an Arai Corsair X after contacting Arai because it was the equivalent "but not exactly the same".
    In the past we have had a grace period as well as a degree of flexibility. Snell themselves believes that their 2020 standard is better than the FIM one. Perhaps helmets less than 5 years old and meeting the FIM or Snell 2015/2020 standard would be acceptable.
     
  8. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    124
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    Currently the rule is snell or equivalent and less than 5 years old. Which should bring us all into a snell 2015 equivalent this coming season.
     
  9. blam

    blam Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    199
    Real Name:
    Brian Lam
    although i do like the concept of this, as someone who has dealt with registration, gridding and timing, i don't like the idea of more grids and races. this is actually a lot of additional juggling in the background for the exec and volunteers.
    The people that have moved on from F112 just need to nut up and race with the fast boys in dash for cash. as shane mentioned, this also takes away from the draw of dash for cash by reducing the purse.

    i also don't feel you need to be DQ'd from F112 to join dash for cash, or similarly if 108 was implemented. there are plenty of riders that have never technically DQ'd from 112, but clock a much faster time than the cutoff.
     
    Framer likes this.
  10. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    124
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    Blam. I may be under the wrong impression. But I think that you are automatically dq’d from 112 now if you break out of that time bracket in any race. Not just in that race now. I’d have to look closer at the rule book to be certain though.

    I can’t find the rule book anywhere on the site? Is there a broken link somewhere by chance?
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2019
    2quickrides likes this.
  11. gixxer60_0

    gixxer60_0 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    35
    Real Name:
    Thad Klassen
    I can confirm this as I blew out of it not in that race but in a race where I had a faster time and was DQ'd from Formula 112
     
    DEFBOY35 likes this.
  12. Nevets

    Nevets EMRA Executive Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    29
    Real Name:
    Steve O'Brien
    You are correct Shane, at last years AGM it was voted to change the rule so that anyone setting a time faster than the cutoff would be disqualified from F112.

    It's tough to find, but it's on here:
    http://www.emra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-RULE-BOOK.pdf
    Scroll to the very bottom of the home page, then give it a second, and you'll see the link.
     
    DEFBOY35 likes this.
  13. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    124
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    Ah yes. I was trying to find it under the racer tab. Might be a good idea to put it back there!
     
  14. blam

    blam Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    199
    Real Name:
    Brian Lam
    ah. i missed the AGM last year as i was out of town and the entire season this year for similar reasons so obviously out of the loop.

    good to know.
     
    DEFBOY35 likes this.
  15. Jefferson

    Jefferson EMRA Executive Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    74
    Real Name:
    Jeff sanderson
    As much as this sounds like a great idea in concept, i don't believe its feasible.

    Adding that class would leave between 5 and 9 racers in dash for cash. We are trying to expand the amount of people in each race, small grids waste track time/money, and are boring for the racers and spectators.

    The current schedule is designed to keep anyone who isn't running two bikes having to do back to back races, i think this would cause quite a few people to have do that.

    Trying to keep track of peoples times and where they should be for gridding would be absolute chaos, seeing as we would have to apply the same rule F112 currently has (ANY time put down in ANY race can disqualify you from F112). I know it sounds easy, but its a lot more than people realize.

    As an alternative, We could discuss changing the payout breakdown for Dash for cash, to include more positions due to there being more racers(over 25 now).
     
  16. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    124
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    Grids based of qualifying for dash/f108/112. Would be less work for making the f112 grid as it would no longer be off of points.
    It wouldn’t affect the number of riders vs track time as the two classes would ride together. Might even make the overall number on track larger. Which would make that time slot more beneficial.

    You sign up for dash and get put into the appropriate class based off the qualifying?
     
  17. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    28
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes
    I may make a number of rule change suggestions. But I would first like to acknowledge the great work of the EMRA Executive. This club is very well organized and administered, especially for such a dangerous and logistically challenging sport as motorcycle racing. Well done to everyone involved.

    Waved Starts: This is a procedural suggestion rather than a rule change. Why is there reluctance at this club to provided waved starts when more than one class is on the same grid? I suggest that waved starts help the club to fulfil it's mandate of allowing racers to compete impartially and as safely as possible:
    Safety: It's indisputable that the most dangerous part of a race is the first lap when traffic congestion is high. Providing a wave start eases traffic congestion on the first lap which will improve safety.
    Fairness: Not waving a start can affect the outcome of the race for the class that is gridded behind.

    Example - Middleweight Twins / Lightweight Open:
    Class leading pace for Lightweight Open bikes is in the low 1:30's. This is faster than many of the Middleweight Twins that are gridded in front. If the start is not waved, this creates a dangerous scenario and a fairness issue on the first lap between Turns 7 and 11. If my LW Open competitor gets an opportunity to pass the slower Middleweight bikes here and I don't elbow my way through the same Middleweight bikes to follow him, I'm stuck behind the slower but more powerful Middleweight bikes on the more open parts of the track, my competitor is gone and the outcome of the LW Open race is affected. It's both a dangerous and unfair scenario.

    The same scenario plays out in the Sportsman / Lightweight Superbike race, possibly to a greater extent. There is often 40+ bikes on this grid, with some fast LW Superbikes gridded behind slower Sportsman bikes. Congestion on the first lap is an issue with fast LW Superbikes trying to push through slower Sportsman bikes on the first half of the first lap.

    A direct analogy would be gridding the Expert 600 Superbike race behind the Open Superbike race with no waved start. Jon Bullee and Brian Worsdall's race pace of 1:19 - 1:21 is faster than many of the Open Superbikes gridded ahead of them. If Jon or Brian got through the slower Superbikes on the first lap between Turns 7 and 11 and the other didn't, the outcome of their race would be affected.

    I note that a waved start is provided for the Expert / Intermediate 600 race.

    At other clubs I've visited, waved starts are provided to different classes and it works well. You approach the slower bikes in front of you after the race has settled into its rhythm, and you can pass them in a normal orderly manner.

    I want to know the arguments for not providing waved starts for different classes.
    One argument I've heard is that it reduces the number of lapped riders in a race, so it's safer. This argument doesn't carry a lot of merit. Simple math at Castrol says that in a 6 lap race, you need to be about 15 seconds faster than another bike to lap them. If you are 15 seconds faster, you will pass that bike anywhere on track without issue, especially because you are probably an expert rider and should be able to handle passing a much slower bike safely. How can this be more dangerous than putting two separate races into the tightest and best passing opportunity on the first lap?

    I want to race safely and fairly. What's the story?
     
  18. Ducbert

    Ducbert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    7
    Real Name:
    Norbert aka "Jaju"
    There is no riding with, because coming out of a race doin 27s is not going to be fun when everyone else is riding 23s or lower. I doubt they lack the nuts....

    The idea is to promote riding FOR RIDERS OF VARYING SKILL not just the top few guys so they can have a bigger prize pool. If setting up grids is painful, review the process and improve it.

    The grid won't get smaller it will increase, but the payout for dash may decrease. What's more important Better grid sizes or more $$$ for the top few guys?

    Currently there's no reason to leave 112....go where, to be a pilon in Dash?

    108 has the potential to push people and get them to improve while learning faster lap times. Which should get MORE RIDERS into Dash, sooner. The fastest Dash rider would never lap a 108 rider, so there's also no concern there.

    To address the concern of 5-9 riders remaining, There was on avg 20 riders gridded per dash race from round 4 to 6. If 108 was added over half would remain in Dash as they are 23 or lower. In rd 5, 15 of the 20 RIDERS qualified for Dash.

    As for back to back races, there's already folks doing it. Greed for hardware replaces all kinds of comfort and common sense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2019
    gixxer60_0 and DEFBOY35 like this.
  19. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    619
    Likes Received:
    124
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    Idea to work around the problem of the dash for cash purse dropping by running two classes.
    All dash entrants go towards dash as is.
    All 108 entries. Do a 60/40 split. One portion goes towards the dash purse. (I would say the 60%, because the draw should be to make it to the dash class) the other 40% creates a purse for the 108 to entice higher participation. As there are some people who don’t bother with dash because they don’t feel they even have a shot at the top 5. I’d leave the 108 (or Dash for Change ) with just the round payouts and not the championship payout to not encourage trying to Scotty it in 108 all year.
     
  20. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    28
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes
    Rule Change to Lightweight Superbike:

    Our club is not currently in alignment with other clubs on Lightweight Superbike rules. Our current rules create a Middleweight Superbike class. 650cc bikes are not Lightweight bikes. They are Middleweight bikes with 70+ horsepower. There is a MotoAmerica class and club racing classes for Middleweight bikes.

    LW Superbike is intended to be a class for lightweight GP style bikes (RS 125, RS 250, Moriwaki MD 250, Honda NSF 250R etc), or small displacement production bikes with unlimited mods (Ninja 400, KTM RC 390R, CBR 500 etc).

    Putting a lower displacement limit on the LW Superbike class, and creating a Middleweight Superbike class would add fairness for these classes of bikes. I don't expect to receive much traction for this rule change because of the small grid sizes we have for these classes of bikes, but the proposal is a valid one and brings our club into alignment with other clubs and national/international level racing.

    NOTE: I support the inclusion of the Yamaha FZ-07 to our Middleweight class rules. This brings the club in line with other clubs and the new Twins class in MotoAmerica.
     
    DEFBOY35 likes this.

Share This Page