2021 Rule Change discussion

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations' started by fast316, Oct 22, 2020.

  1. Nevets

    Nevets EMRA Executive Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    45
    Real Name:
    Steve O'Brien
    Hi Tosh,
    There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding.
    Keri wants to increase the CC for Lightweight Superbike, not for Lightweight Open.

    The CC limit for Lightweight Open is already 325cc for 2 cylinder motorcycles.

    The CC limit for Middleweight Twins is 750cc for 2 cylinder motorcycles.
    Both the FZ07 and the Monster 696 are already eligible for Middleweight Twins. I consider this my primary race on the FZ07.

    Middleweight Twins and Lightweight Open grid together on the track with a waved start. There is no opportunity to race in both races.


    The other race in question is Lightweight Superbike, which has a CC limit of 680cc for 2 cylinder engines. This class has historically included SV650s and Ninja 650s.
    There was a lot of discussion last year at the AGM to reduce the CC limit, so that this race is exclusive to lightweights, similar to Lightweight Open. And opposed discussion to increase the CC limit to 700cc to allow the FZ07 and the Monster 696 to compete in this class, the idea being that the FZ07 is competitive with the SV650 and Ninja 650 (I am not familiar with the Monster 696, but when raised at the AGM there was concern that it was a more powerful bike). The vote at the AGM was to let the exec decide the final details at a later date, because the conversation was dragging on too long.
    At the exec meeting where this was discussed, I suggested not to allow the FZ07 as it would appear to be favoritism towards me, but the exec voted to allow the FZ07 by exception.

    Obviously I have a personal interest for this rule, and I am not seeking to influence your opinion, only to clarify which rule Keri has proposed to modify.
     
    skeri and DEFBOY35 like this.
  2. Jeff Marmus

    Jeff Marmus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Real Name:
    Jeff Marmus
    I think this is how the rule should be written.
     
    SetUpSixRR and Fabian Hryniewicz like this.
  3. Jeff Marmus

    Jeff Marmus New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    4
    Real Name:
    Jeff Marmus
    I 100% agree
     
    DEFBOY35 and Fabian Hryniewicz like this.
  4. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    48
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes
    Thanks Steve for clarifying how this process was resolved last year. The perspective I have gathered from owners of lightweight bikes is as follows:

    The EMRA rules don't reflect current production motorcycle racing classes. The EMRA has two Middleweight Superbike classes. Middleweight Twins and Lightweight Superbike are essentially the same rules (excepting the question about the Monster 696 above). Three or more cylinder motorcycles up to 420cc's don't exist.

    Middleweight bikes are generally understood to be twins up to around 700cc (see MotoAmerica Twins Cup)
    Lightweight bikes are generally understood to be bikes under 500cc (see CSBK Junior Cup, MotoAmerica Junior Cup, World Supersport-300)

    If we accept this to be true, then the EMRA Lightweight Superbike class is a Middleweight Superbike class. The success of Ian, Max and myself in the final rankings of Lightweight Superbike is down to riding ability. That aside, if you put a Lightweight bike against a Middleweight bike, it isn't close. A well prepared Middleweight Superbike makes almost double the horsepower of a Lightweight Superbike.

    Lightweight bike owners only have one class at the EMRA - Lightweight Open. Yes, we will continue to compete and be successful in the current Lightweight Superbike class, but the EMRA Executive can acknowledge that when an expert rider choses to ride a Middleweight bike, we know the outcome. Putting these bikes in the same race also creates some uncomfortable scenarios on track. Max and Sean can attest.

    The best solution I can propose is as follows:

    Lightweight Open (keep rules as is), Lightweight Superbike (limited to 500cc) PLUS have two Middleweight Twins races. Middleweight Twins race 1 is on a waved start with LW Open. Middleweight Twins race 2 is on a waved start with LW Superbike. We know this will work because we tried the Race 1 scenario this year and it worked very well, so we know the Race 2 scenario will work well.

    This helps to grow the club by giving two races for all Middleweight bikes, such as the Monster 696 and similar bikes, because they are excluded from LW Superbike under the current rules, AND gives better places for Lightweight bikes to race. Heck, change the name of Middleweight Twins to Middleweight Superbike. This makes sense if we aren't going to have a Middleweight Sportbike class.

    This solution would be fair, and would give a class for the Ninja 400, CBR 500, and any two stroke small bikes. Ninja 400 is the current Lightweight bike and it doesn't fit into our LW Open rules, so this solution would solve three problems - LW Superbike fairness, Ninja 400 issue, and some 700cc bikes being excluded from Lightweight Superbike (they would all have a home in Middleweight Twins).

    I hope the Executive will consider this proposal with all seriousness. It is fair, brings our club into alignment with national series and other club's rules, and most importantly doesn't take any racing away from anyone.

    Matt
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2020
    Framer, 411ninja, skeri and 5 others like this.
  5. Botts

    Botts New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    5
    Real Name:
    Brian Botterill
    Thanks Steve. I'll send you an email as well.

    The potential extension of conflict to friends worries me, as many board members are likely friends with say Cycle Works, or Freight Train. If a decision was to come forward around charging a different rate for sponsorship, or perhaps rates for running a business from the paddock, it is possible the entire board could be conflicted.

    Your summary was in fact correct. I have had the opportunity to meet most of the EMRA board, and I have faith in the decisions of the board as a whole. I have confidence, even if there were to be a "rogue" board member, the remainder of the directors would ensure the society continued in the correct direction. Then at the AGM, the membership would have ample opportunity to make changes.

    In my experience, by the point a conflict motion comes to a vote clarity is key in terms of deciding whether or not an individual has crossed the line. When push comes to shove, and a matter needs adjudication by either the board, or the membership, clarity is going to be key.

    Perhaps we can focus and discuss whether it is better to consider a code of ethics, which can help guide board members, or a conflict of interest provision in the bylaws, which is a more regulatory and perhaps punitive legislative tool. Or both. We could have a broad code of ethics, but tightly defined conflict provisions.
     
    Nevets likes this.
  6. Ducbert

    Ducbert Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    16
    Real Name:
    Norbert aka "Jaju"
    Perhaps what we are after is more policy and code of conduct, rather then a by law.

    For example:
    Conflict of Interest Policy
    A Conflict of Interest policy will clearly state not only what constitutes a conflict of interest, but also how to best disclose the situation to avoid or reduce potential conflict. A Conflict of Interest policy will clearly state not only what constitutes a conflict of interest, but also how to best disclose the situation to avoid or reduce potential conflict.

    Most people think of a conflict of interest policy as something relative to board members only however, a conflict of interest policy can also be developed and applied to employees and direct service volunteers.

    What is a conflict of interest?

    In a broad sense, conflict of interest means that an individual’s private interest differs from his or her professional obligations to an organization. The conflict occurs when the professional decisions made by the individual are questionable. For instance, most nonprofit organizations in Canada specify that their board members cannot gain financially from their involvement with a nonprofit organization.

    The avoidance of conflict of interest is a key legal responsibility of a board member and not just a policy document created for the organization. For board members, this legal responsibility is considered a part of the fiduciary responsibility.
     
    Matt Stokes and DEFBOY35 like this.
  7. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    48
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes

    Norbert is correct on this. Board members need to be guided by the broad fiduciary duty owed to by Board members to shareholders (in this case, EMRA members). I have helped Steve with a simple Conflict of Interest clause that puts a bit of meat on this bone, but doesn't get overly wordy. I would encourage the club to keep it simple. Getting legal and overly specific is a very deep rabbit hole. If you're on the Board, you must act in the best interest of the members.

    If anyone is interested, this is a good summary of Board members fiduciary duties:

    https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/fiduciary-responsibilities-nonprofit-board-directors/

    Let's go racing.

    Matt
     
    Nadine and DEFBOY35 like this.
  8. Scotia

    Scotia Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    12
    Real Name:
    Cam
    Current rule: Novices filter through race school and then -typically- advance to intermediate after successful completion of four clean races.

    Let’s reflect on seasons 2018 and 2019, at Castrol.

    Issues: By mid season (only the third race day) the spectrum of lap times within the intermediate division was 25 seconds (1:21’s - high 1:40’s). By the end of season, there was a grid of well over 30+ in f112 and women’s open, with a spectrum of lap times 30+ seconds; yet only four or five remained to grid in novice.

    As such, the intermediate group grows too quickly and exponentially, with riders who have yet to mature into racers who possess a sufficient proficiency, awareness, and predictability.

    It’s like dangling carrot cake, rather than carrots; we all know that you’ve gotta eat your veggies first ;).

    The aforementioned is exacerbated by the smaller tracks we have the privilege of enjoying. But to this point, think of the inevitable chaos at Strato, had there of been the 100+ active racers per weekend this past season, like before.

    Proposed rule changes: To graduate, rather than “advance”, from novice to intermediate.

    In sequence, I propose that novice riders pass through Race School, complete four clean races, achieve 121% of the current lap record, and have board approval. Otherwise, they complete the entire first race season in novice, and are subsequently promoted with board approval.

    121% equates to 1:35 at Castrol, and 1:10 at Strato. This will allow for safer grid numbers, a tighter spectrum of confidence and capacity, and a fairer approach in regards to intermediate riders who can’t make it to each round, and as such find themselves amongst ten or more -essentially- novice racers, at the back of the pack.

    Thanks for the time and consideration!

    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2020
    Sk8sloppy and Matt Stokes like this.
  9. 2quickrides

    2quickrides EMRA Executive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    66
    Real Name:
    Sean
    What about novices that run lightweights?
     
    Matt Stokes likes this.
  10. Scotia

    Scotia Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    12
    Real Name:
    Cam
    Without any intent of disrespect or condescension, the propensity of a novice on a lightweight is -inevitably and understandably - a slower pace. Otherwise, it’s combining 1:21’s with 1:51’s + at Castrol, and 1:01’s and 1:21’s+ at Strato. Yes - there was a 20 second gap/lap in some races this year, at Strato .

    As I mentioned before, they can stay in novice the first season, and then be promoted afterward. They’re currently being advanced too quickly without the skill or speed required.

    My proposal allows for the experienced outliers to be promoted, while making the nature of the novice class inherently less of a probation and more of a privilege.

    There’ll still be the sense of competition in novice despite the lack of points, and still just as much to learn - as we can all attest to. But this way, it doesn’t overly impinge on every other facet of the intermediate experience.
     
    Matt Stokes likes this.
  11. 2quickrides

    2quickrides EMRA Executive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    66
    Real Name:
    Sean
    Devil's advocate, will this not be a motivator for Novices to start on a faster bike? Opposite of what should be happening?

     
    Matt Stokes likes this.
  12. DEFBOY35

    DEFBOY35 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    640
    Likes Received:
    150
    Real Name:
    Shane C Fraser
    To solve the issue of lightweight etc. could base it off the primary class they would be advancing to. lightweight based off of lightweight times
    600 off of 600ss/sbk times
    1000 off of open/sbk time

    realistically the 600/1000’s could have the same cut offs as they are pretty close on the pointy end of the stick.
     
    Nevets and Matt Stokes like this.
  13. DSmith

    DSmith New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2019
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    3
    Real Name:
    Douglas Smith
    1:10s to get out of novice on a lightweight open bike means you practically need to have expert pace, that's ridiculous and would probably lead to a lot of crashing trying to force a lap time. The better solution to having 15s+ lap differentials in races like Formula Thunder is to give lightweight bikes better places to race instead of them running in the same races as superbikes. Which would encourage people to start on smaller bikes.

    Even take Formula Thunder. That class was probably originally intended for oddball bikes like Buells and old school BMWs and later somewhere for stuff like 1000cc twins to race when they stopped being the standard for superbike, not to be dominated by a pretty large subset of current mainstream superbikes, right? Is there really any bikes showing up that need that class anymore?
     
    sand.man and Matt Stokes like this.
  14. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    48
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes
    Thanks Cam for starting the Novice discussion. You beat me to it. Good points raised by Sean, Shane and Doug above about putting hard lap times on Novice graduation. Shane's proposal makes good sense. Keep in mind that a 1:35 lap time at Castrol on a 300cc bike is reasonably fast...more or less equal to about 1:25 lap time on a 600cc bike. But I agree we can do more to support our Novices.

    I propose we start a mentorship program for Novices. Brad Gavey graciously volunteered to start this last year, and I think we can expand on it. The goal of Novice SHOULD BE to learn and improve. To do this, you need lessons and mentorship.

    The mentorship program could look like this: After race school, each Novice is assigned to a mentor (an Expert or skilled Intermediate). We could assign 2 or 3 Novices to 1 mentor. The mentor meets with the Novices during practice and race days to answer questions and give advice. The mentor does some on-track sessions during the Novice practice sessions. The Mentor does some skills and theory lessons. The mentor is available to answer questions to help Novices prepare (bike prep, registration (the Registrar will like this!!), logistics etc).

    We can create a mentor handbook to guide the program. It can be simple. Just something to guide the mentors so we are all working on the correct things. I would be happy to make the first draft of this, and I would happily volunteer as a mentor. I'm sure others would also volunteer. Good way to meet new friends, and everyone can learn when they teach.

    RE: changes to Novice graduation criteria - The Board likely has the experience to know what is best here, but I would suggest that the recommendation of the Mentor could be part of the Novice graduation criteria. The mentor isn't the gate keeper, but their recommendation is helpful to the Novice's graduation.

    This scenario happened this year: A man completed race school with very little riding experience. Did 2 track days. Crashed in his first race by going 3 seconds faster than his previous personal best. Sold his bike. Never returned. How many things went wrong here??? That cannot be acceptable outcome for the Club.

    During my Novice, I felt alone and nervous. The only people I knew were other Novices. You see experienced guys going fast, and you want to go fast. But you don't have the skills or experience to know how. Pounding out laps working on the wrong things isn't helpful.

    Any golfers in the room? Practice does not make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

    If race school is full every year and the club is not growing, that is a strong sign that we can do better. I'm happy to help with this.


    Matt
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2020
  15. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    48
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes
    Hi Doug. Good points about giving better places for Lightweight bikes to race. Agreed that its not comfortable racing a LW bike with 1000cc superbikes. Working on this, and hope to make progress on it this year. Appreciate your support.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2020
  16. skeri

    skeri New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    3
    Real Name:
    not skeri
    Novice thought:
    -minimum one season in novice for experience and patience to work on improving skill for time improvement
    -at least 4 clean races in a row during this year
    -qualifying time of ~1:40/1:14

    This is a lightweight friendly time that ensures a smaller time spread. This is around 1 lapping by a fast person on a slower person per race when intermediate and expert are mixed. This allows women's open to run with all qualifying ladies.

    Can people be demoted? There are many reasons for people to get slower: you crash and get hurt (mental/physical), new bike, you return from years away with an extra 200lbs, etc.
     
  17. 2quickrides

    2quickrides EMRA Executive Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2015
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    66
    Real Name:
    Sean
    IF we were to base it off of times, it would have to be like this, based on bike classes.

    That is still a relatively quick LWT time, look at what Graham was doing this year riding the wheels off that CBR300.
    For everything else, that's on the slower side. At least 1:12-1:13 would need to be the cutoff for middleweights, 1:10-1:12 ish for 600/1000s for it to have the desired effect everyone is suggesting.

    We do not currently demote people, but if a rule like this was enacted, it would need to be looked at otherwise it would be a pointless endeavor.
     
    skeri likes this.
  18. Scotia

    Scotia Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    12
    Real Name:
    Cam
    Perhaps that’s giving too much credit to the resources of most riders entering into the sport, and not enough to their sense of humility ? Lack of proficiency caused almost every incident this year, not power; were not most crashes and correlating injuries on lightweight and 600 class bikes?

    Ultimately, your question is a psychosocial matter and subjective in nature, meaning it’s highly debatable from multiple facets, based on interpretation, and won’t have a clear cut answer until we try. What we do know is that the current system isn’t working, in this respective regard.
     
  19. Scotia

    Scotia Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    12
    Real Name:
    Cam
    The point is being missed here. Perhaps that’s my inability to properly convey myself. I’ll try again:

    It appears most are focusing on the 121%, 1:35 and 1:10 that I proposed, and not realizing the point that novices should spend their entire first year as a novice, in novice. The goal for them is to learn, rather than to hit that mark in which to advance. That mark should be there and should be hard to reach, so that there is a clear discernible line, should the board choose to grant the privilege of an early promotion to those joining the club with obvious experience and proficiency.

    I’m not saying you have to attain 121%, 1:35 and/or 1:10, respectively, in which to advance to intermediate. I am saying that in your novice year, if you’re not at that speed, predictability and proficiency, you should spend the rest of your first season in novice, and then be granted a promotion to intermediate - regardless of lap time- should the board see you as competent and safe enough.
     
  20. Matt Stokes

    Matt Stokes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    48
    Real Name:
    Matt Stokes
    All good points Cam. I'm hopeful we can provide more support and mentorship to the Novices this year. Brad did a great job with it last year and we can grow on this. I would support time based proficiencies for Novice graduation, but they should be bike specific.

    Matt
     

Share This Page