2017 rule change discussion

majikx

Active Member
The issue is, is that no matter what way the club goes it won't be able to make everyone happy. Period. There will always be a way that one or two people won't like.


Firstly, racing on Sat afternoon isn't a bad idea, but it would eliminate double headers....

Secondly, qualifying on Sundays... due to one or two riders not being able to make Saturday, the exec will have to do alot of work on Sunday mornings.. now I know the exec took a role to run the club but I know that many times multiple members of exec give up practice to get grids and such done, is that fair to them?


Thirdly, Superpole.. this is brought up a few times due to the fact that the afternoon practices are crowded, and closing speeds when the top guys are trying to get the most of a lap are interrupted by a couple riders dogging around.. one day something will happen. this is more applicable the first half of the year when guys are considerably slower then last year.

Fourth, classes.. I know this is club racing and everyone with any bike wants to race.. but even in rule book a class needs 6 riders to be a race. It sucks to think that 1/3 of our classes have less then that. I know racing isn't easy and there are guys that love certain bikes and want to race them, however, if there is less then 6 guys to race that class it needs to be removed, or shortened to 3 laps. If you watch these classes after the 1,2 lap the fields are pretty spread out and positions are sealed. Cut these races down next year to 3 laps.. if they still have low turn out then remove the classes in 18. This gives riders a year to search out a different bike that will work in the other classes.. again you won't make everyone happy but the majority is suffering for the minority.

Fifth, race distance in premier classes.. Superbike 600 and 1000 should be made closer to National length. If and when the nationals come back,I think our local riders deserve the best chance at doing well and doing 6,7,9 lap superbike races (due to races shortened) isn't preparing them for nationals.. getting used to riding longer and setting up bike tire wear ect.

Sixth, novice, int, exp. This is belive should be changed. In my opinion and experience with alot of other clubs, the classes should be broke into novice , those who are learning, once they have learned and are quick enough the proceed to exp. Guys int finishing in top 15 in exp classes is a joke. We have "int" riders running 3 sec off lap records, and we have expert riders running 10 sec slower.. the only reason for int In my opinion is for guys to get a trophy. Guys dog it and try to stay in intermediate to get a trophy instead of wanting to get better at racing and skills. Just my opinion. It would suck for a few the first year, then imo guys would like it. it works in the vast majority of clubs worldwide.

I have some more ideas that I will voice however I'm sure I'll get torn apart so I'll leave it at that..

Mike.
 

DEFBOY35

Well-Known Member
The point of this thread is to create discussion and not tear anybody apart. You have a lot of experience racing with different clubs and your opinions are valuable. If there is any tearing apart , it will be removed. This process needs to remain constructive.

I think by shifting the schedule to a two day is where we will be able to see the ability of extending our premier classes in duration. And I think you make a valid case that if we want to have people who can compete at a national level of and when they make their way back west we need to better prepare our members for success at those distances.
I've also had it mentioned to me a few times that we should shift the SBK races to earlier in the day to give them both the chance of not being the races constantly suffering from being shortened. I'd think having them be the two races after lunch. With one race between for a break to those who choose to do both maybe. It is done this way in other clubs as well.
 

blam

Administrator
but even in rule book a class needs 6 riders to be a race. It sucks to think that 1/3 of our classes have less then that. I know racing isn't easy and there are guys that love certain bikes and want to race them, however, if there is less then 6 guys to race that class it needs to be removed, or shortened to 3 laps.
I hate to see some of the smaller races get axed, but I do agree with you here. despite lower number of racers, these races usually take longer than say an F112 with a bunch of racers. having said that, 3 laps is really short. I feel 4 would be a half decent compromise if less than 6 racers end up on grid.


novice, int, exp. This is belive should be changed. In my opinion and experience with alot of other clubs, the classes should be broke into novice , those who are learning, once they have learned and are quick enough the proceed to exp. Guys int finishing in top 15 in exp classes is a joke. We have "int" riders running 3 sec off lap records, and we have expert riders running 10 sec slower.. the only reason for int In my opinion is for guys to get a trophy. Guys dog it and try to stay in intermediate to get a trophy instead of wanting to get better at racing and skills. Just my opinion. It would suck for a few the first year, then imo guys would like it. it works in the vast majority of clubs worldwide.

IMHO, the F112 race is probably the most fun race I've done which is an intermediate Fast25. I do agree it can be odd to see "int" racers handing it to some of the experts, but i believe the club promotes to expert based on more factors than lap times. (ie. safety, attitude, consistency, crashes etc)

having said all that, there are racers that run 1:35-1:45+ that have been racing for that will do nothing but be beanbags if they race with the experts. I personally love the int. class for that reason. it allows a tighter pack for us slow guys.
 

Jason Henton

Active Member
I'm not sure the rule book states a minimum rider number for a class. I believe it is less than 3 riders there is a 50% reduction in points, and minimum 5 riders for a recordable championship. Either way, the issue isn't really riders per class, it's riders on grid, we run combined grids to maintain healthy numbers on track. Last year I had looked at changing a few grids around, not sure if the numbers still work but I think it's a viable solution. http://emra.ca/forum/showthread.php?p=14970#post14970 When I have some more time I can cross reference the numbers with this years grids.
 

toybm

Member
Sixth, novice, int, exp. This is belive should be changed. In my opinion and experience with alot of other clubs, the classes should be broke into novice , those who are learning, once they have learned and are quick enough the proceed to exp. Guys int finishing in top 15 in exp classes is a joke. We have "int" riders running 3 sec off lap records, and we have expert riders running 10 sec slower.. the only reason for int In my opinion is for guys to get a trophy. Guys dog it and try to stay in intermediate to get a trophy instead of wanting to get better at racing and skills. Just my opinion. It would suck for a few the first year, then imo guys would like it. it works in the vast majority of clubs worldwide..

This was the biggest eye opener when I was moving from Novice to Intermediate...........I didn't really understand how so many people were doing consistent Expert times and still classified as intermediates.

I've taken an excerpt from the 2016 rule book of a ON club I raced in below for reference.

"Section 10: LICENSE CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
1. A Provisional Amateur will automatically be promoted to Amateur after successfully completing his/her first event weekend.
2. An Amateur will automatically be promoted to Professional at season end if he/she has won a race and finished top five in any Amateur class. This rule does not include classes that are mixed license riders such as BOTT, Lost Era, Old Boy, Vintage, Formula Femme, Endurance etc.
3. An Amateur will be promoted mid-season if he/she has shown above average skills and has consistently lapped at a Pro pace. This is solely at the discretion of ---- Officials. This rule is only applied if requested by said rider.
4. A Pro will remain a Pro unless he/she has been shown to have NOT raced for a period of five consecutive years. At that time, he/she could be returned to Amateur until shown to have regained the Pro skill level. See 9(3).
5. Any rider who feels that he/she has been misclassified and wishes to have his/her license status reviewed can apply in writing to ----. A decision will be made within one week following receipt of same. This decision will be considered final and will not be looked at again unless rider’s skill level has significantly been altered.
6. Any rider wishing to be promoted to Pro status can apply with any ---- staff and such determination will be on a case by case basis."
 

blam

Administrator
thats fairly similar to how we do it.

provisional amateur = novice
they say 1 race weekend, we say 4 clean races (2 weekends)

amateur = intermediate
their promotion schedule is just a bit quicker than ours with a top 5 placing, which with our club isn't always helpful since the top 2 guys might significantly outpace the others
 

toybm

Member
thats fairly similar to how we do it.

provisional amateur = novice
they say 1 race weekend, we say 4 clean races (2 weekends)

amateur = intermediate
their promotion schedule is just a bit quicker than ours with a top 5 placing, which with our club isn't always helpful since the top 2 guys might significantly outpace the others

Well Brian not exactly.

This club has a Rookie classification and I believe you need 6 Race weekends to move to Amateur (Amateur is not our Novice). They also have a Rookie (our Novice) cup series that you can race in for 1 season, machinery is capped at 600cc, not unlimited.

Provisional Amateur is when you move from Rookie to Amateur, you have to complete 1 race to the satisfaction of the club.
Promotion from Amateur is a Win AND a Top 5 finish I believe, with a few other scenarios also.
 

blam

Administrator
Well Brian not exactly.

This club has a Rookie classification and I believe you need 6 Race weekends to move to Amateur (Amateur is not our Novice). They also have a Rookie (our Novice) cup series that you can race in for 1 season, machinery is capped at 600cc, not unlimited.

Provisional Amateur is when you move from Rookie to Amateur, you have to complete 1 race to the satisfaction of the club.
Promotion from Amateur is a Win AND a Top 5 finish I believe, with a few other scenarios also.

okay. the excerpt you posted didnt show the rookie class, but good to know.
 

yak

Well-Known Member
The issue is, is that no matter what way the club goes it won't be able to make everyone happy. Period. There will always be a way that one or two people won't like.

Firstly, racing on Sat afternoon isn't a bad idea, but it would eliminate double headers....

Secondly, qualifying on Sundays...

Fourth, classes..

Fifth, race distance in premier classes..

Sixth, novice, int, exp.

Mike.

The devil is often in the details, but I like the highlighted comments made by Mike.

One other thing that I would add is that the less conventional classes space out the schedule a bit for the 600 and 1000 cc classes. (No I didn't call them filler classes. ;))
 

fast316

EMRA Executive Member
I 'think' a schedule that could work:

Senior Open (6 laps)
Novice 1 (5 laps)
Fast 25 (6 laps)
Women's open/Formula 112/lightweight open (6 laps)
600 Super Sport (6 laps)
Formula Thunder (6laps)

Lunch

Open Sport bike (6 laps)
Sportsman/middle weight twins (6 laps)
600 Superbike (9 Laps)
Novice 2 (5 laps)
Intermediate Superbike (12 laps)
Expert Superbike (12 Laps)

Some highlights to this schedule:
-None of the current classes we have get axed
-Adequate spacing between 600 and 1000cc races
-Closing speeds of combined grids is managed
-Saves two time slots (approx 45 minutes) in the afternoon that we could spread out over the afternoon for podium speeches or use to make up lost time.
-This schedule is easily adapted if we start losing time. For example we could start with an even 1 lap cut from every race. If that doesn't get us back on schedule we could cut 600 Superbike race to 6 laps. Cut intermediate and expert Superbike races to 9 laps. Hopefully we would never need to go any further cutting laps.

I'd like to see the Superbike race be the highlight race of the race weekend. I think separate intermediate and expert 12 lap races would take a step in that direction. Any races longer than 9 laps would result in some racers being lapped twice, I think we should recommend racers achieve consistent 1.35 lap times and faster before entering the Superbike race.
 

Ryno

Active Member
Jon that seems like a really good layout for how things could work!
Now that the club is setup at castrol has there been any thought or would there be any interest in an endurance race at the end of the year or potentially a endurance class that could run on the Saturday practice day, similar to the way the Utahsba runs endurance races during the practice sessions in the afternoon on Saturdays. I know this may add another hurdle to the superpole idea.. but it could be another way to generate income for the club on race weekends. I believe the way Utah runs it is the endurance race runs while the practice groups circulate so the owness is on the endurance riders to adjust to each of the different practice sessions on the track... if anyone has any more experience with endurance series it may be good to hear new ideas.
 

mnorton

Member
I'd like to see the Superbike race be the highlight race of the race weekend. I think separate intermediate and expert 12 lap races would take a step in that direction. Any races longer than 9 laps would result in some racers being lapped twice, I think we should recommend racers achieve consistent 1.35 lap times and faster before entering the Superbike race.

Thanks Jon and everyone else for your thoughtful comments. There are several excellent points being presented, two of which I would like to comment on.

1. I too enjoy watching the 1000 Superbike races at the end of the day however, I believe the 600 Superbike races also deserve recognition in the schedule. Castrol is not a large track and there really isn't much difference between the fastest 600's and the fastest 1000's. I also believe that having separate 600 Superbike races (Intermediates/Experts) aligns with the National series, which I hope some day comes back to Castrol. I would like to suggest that we consider having the 600 Superbike races at the end of the day on Saturday and keep the rest of the schedule as presented by Jon (minus the single 600 Superbike race on Sunday).

2. I believe there are several skilled and worthy Intermediates that should become Experts. This year I've seen several that are consistently fast, make safe passes, have well maintained equipment and care about themselves and their fellow riders (we all go to work on Monday!). I believe the Experts will benefit from the addition of these racers by providing closer racing amongst more people and help equal the numbers between the two classes. I quite liked the criteria presented earlier in this post for the decision making process. To me, it made sense, and seemed applicable to our club.
 

simpletty

Member
The issue is, is that no matter what way the club goes it won't be able to make everyone happy. Period. There will always be a way that one or two people won't like.


Firstly, racing on Sat afternoon isn't a bad idea, but it would eliminate double headers....

Secondly, qualifying on Sundays... due to one or two riders not being able to make Saturday, the exec will have to do alot of work on Sunday mornings.. now I know the exec took a role to run the club but I know that many times multiple members of exec give up practice to get grids and such done, is that fair to them?


Thirdly, Superpole.. this is brought up a few times due to the fact that the afternoon practices are crowded, and closing speeds when the top guys are trying to get the most of a lap are interrupted by a couple riders dogging around.. one day something will happen. this is more applicable the first half of the year when guys are considerably slower then last year.

Fourth, classes.. I know this is club racing and everyone with any bike wants to race.. but even in rule book a class needs 6 riders to be a race. It sucks to think that 1/3 of our classes have less then that. I know racing isn't easy and there are guys that love certain bikes and want to race them, however, if there is less then 6 guys to race that class it needs to be removed, or shortened to 3 laps. If you watch these classes after the 1,2 lap the fields are pretty spread out and positions are sealed. Cut these races down next year to 3 laps.. if they still have low turn out then remove the classes in 18. This gives riders a year to search out a different bike that will work in the other classes.. again you won't make everyone happy but the majority is suffering for the minority.

Fifth, race distance in premier classes.. Superbike 600 and 1000 should be made closer to National length. If and when the nationals come back,I think our local riders deserve the best chance at doing well and doing 6,7,9 lap superbike races (due to races shortened) isn't preparing them for nationals.. getting used to riding longer and setting up bike tire wear ect.

Sixth, novice, int, exp. This is belive should be changed. In my opinion and experience with alot of other clubs, the classes should be broke into novice , those who are learning, once they have learned and are quick enough the proceed to exp. Guys int finishing in top 15 in exp classes is a joke. We have "int" riders running 3 sec off lap records, and we have expert riders running 10 sec slower.. the only reason for int In my opinion is for guys to get a trophy. Guys dog it and try to stay in intermediate to get a trophy instead of wanting to get better at racing and skills. Just my opinion. It would suck for a few the first year, then imo guys would like it. it works in the vast majority of clubs worldwide.

I have some more ideas that I will voice however I'm sure I'll get torn apart so I'll leave it at that..

Mike.

Some of us dont want to run a 600 or a litre bike. I dont think that a class should be eliminated and the rider potentially search out a new bike. Ive spent thousands getting what I have ready and would not be looking to ditch what I have and start over. Maybe run the smaller classes right before lunch at a shorter length, but elimination is not the answer in my opinion.
 

S-african

Member
Clarity on rule change please...
Which helmet ratings will be allowed in 2017 on wards (I know it is Snell 2015, but some manufacturers do not do Snell rating - AGV specifically, which rating will be allowed)
Thanks
 
Last edited:

Ryno

Active Member
Also I heard a rumor that the emra will be allowing some snell 2010 helmets if they meet the 2015 standards.. when will that list be out?
 

blam

Administrator
Also I heard a rumor that the emra will be allowing some snell 2010 helmets if they meet the 2015 standards.. when will that list be out?

i believe 2016 was the last year Snell 2010 was allowed.
 

DEFBOY35

Well-Known Member
Jon. One thing I'd like to see changed on the proposed schedule would be to have the 600sbk race be at minimum 10 laps. I'd suggest cutting the intermediate SBK race from the 12 to 10 laps and keep expert SBK at 12 as posted.
 

M87

Active Member
I will limit this post to Formula 112 which is a class I would like to see grow.
(Part 1)
It has been suggested that Formula 112 should include novices, I disagree.
People who race more race better. Novice is not just about how fast you are it’s about how well you circulate the track. Placing novices in with intermediate riders endangers them both because novices have not PROVEN they have the judgement to ride safely with other, often faster, riders. That’s why it doesn’t matter where you finish in novice races it only matters that you finish. Putting novices in a class like Formula 112 could potentially put someone with zero race experience on a race grid with people who have proven they have the judgement to be there but are on slower bikes. That could make the first couple of corners very dangerous.
(Part 2)
I feel that the times for the class should be set at the beginning of the year and left unchanged until the next year. The idea of 112% was set arbitrarily to include a certain segment of racers. I feel that it has served it’s purpose and should be considered a guideline for the spirit of the class. Pick a whole number, maybe 1:29 or 1:30 and use it for the year.
(Part 3)
If, in any race, you run have a lap on the bike you intend to grid in Formula 112, under the class limit, you cannot enter.
I feel this should be a class that attracts riders that have just moved up and want a chance at a podium not a place for people to sandbag.
That doesn’t mean that the fastest experts can’t run in the class, they just better be on 250-300cc four strokes.

Full disclosure, I run in this class quite a bit, I tape over my lap timer so I won’t be tempted to cheat and if the class limit is set to 1:30 I won’t be able to race and that suits me just fine.
 

fast316

EMRA Executive Member
Jon. One thing I'd like to see changed on the proposed schedule would be to have the 600sbk race be at minimum 10 laps. I'd suggest cutting the intermediate SBK race from the 12 to 10 laps and keep expert SBK at 12 as posted.

I personally am not opposed to running a 10 lap 600SBK race. BUT in the past many questions about safety have been brought up, and many hours of discussion have been put into deciding too much lapped traffic is dangerous. The problem is with combined grids and a 10 lap race is you will run into a great deal of lapped traffic. With ten laps you will have some intermediate riders being lapped twice by fast experts.

As for making Intermediate SBK races 10 laps instead of 12 laps like I proposed for Expert SBK. I think all SBK races the same length (12 laps) is nice and simple. I like simple.
 
Top