2020 Rule Change Discussion

blam

Administrator
I get the privacy thing. So why doesn’t the club use this info to pass info on to the membership. Some people didn’t even know about the emra airfence fund raiser this past weekend. This would get the info to all the members for special events and other important events such as AGM.

that's a great question. I feel like we had more presence in the social media in previous years than last. granted, i do not use much personally when it comes to social media (never on FB and hardly on IG these days)

I was not on the exec this year, but i was last year and i can say i did not know about the fundraiser either.

most of the EMRA events seem to be posted primarily on FB so if you dont use that you will miss it. does the club need to hit more social media platforms?

does the general membership have issues with email blasting? will they be read? or fall on deaf ears like tech bulletins? I was really un-involved this year with the club as a whole so i really have no idea what happened this year with the mostly new executive and general membership as a whole
 

DEFBOY35

Well-Known Member
I think the email blast would work. Not everybody does the social media thing. If they skip the email that’s on them and nobody can say well I didn’t see it anywhere. I wouldn’t be shocked if there is a bunch of people not sure of when the agm is
 
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?
With 40+ bikes in the sportsman/LWSB grid I think the grid size is a problem; thus, I support Matt’s proposal for waved starts.
 
Last edited:
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?
I support this proposal
 

Nevets

EMRA Executive Member
I never received anything. Where do you get the email address from?
The email went out to the address you use to login to MSR. If you still haven't received anything there, check your spam filters.

The email definitely went out, because I received it.
 

fast316

EMRA Executive Member
Less than one week to go, get your rule change proposals in. Our tireless secretary Mark will take them out, and put them up for discussion at the AGM. Best to be there in person to support your proposed changes.
 

ehagar

Member
One of the things I find confusing with the rulebook is the competition categories surrounding the 600 class. As it stands right now it is written as follows:
Section 5.1 Competition Categories of the rulebook:
-600 SS - 640cc or less (twins up to 750cc, triples up to 680cc, singles - Open)
Section 5.3 of the rulebook going over the definition of Sportsbike:
Classes: - 600 SS - 640cc or less (twins up to 750cc, triples up to 680cc, Ducati 848, singles - Open)
Section 5.5 of the rulebook defining what a superbike is:
600 Superbike • Engine displacement: four cylinders: 640cc or less, triples up to 680cc, twins up to 750cc, single cylinder – no restriction

My understanding is the Ducati 848 was removed during the last AGM. Although if I was to interpret the above, I suppose you could argue that the 848 is allowed in the Sportbike categories but disallowed in the Superbike catergories. My guess is this was not the intent.

I propose that the wording of section 5.1, 5.3, and 5.5 read:
Engine displacement: four cylinders: 640cc or less, triples up to 680cc, twins up to 850cc, single cylinder – no restriction



This would be in alignment with several other organizations which allow the Ducati 848. For example, the Manitoba Roadracing Association:
CHAPTER 10 600 SUPERSPORT
10.1 Engine Displacement (must be OE in bore and stroke) a) Two cylinder: 850cc maximum b) Three cylinder: 675cc maximum c) Four cylinder: 636cc maximum


Taking a quick look around I could find several other organizations with similar wording (eg WERA, ASRA).
 

Nevets

EMRA Executive Member
One of the things I find confusing with the rulebook is the competition categories surrounding the 600 class. As it stands right now it is written as follows:
Section 5.1 Competition Categories of the rulebook:
-600 SS - 640cc or less (twins up to 750cc, triples up to 680cc, singles - Open)
Section 5.3 of the rulebook going over the definition of Sportsbike:
Classes: - 600 SS - 640cc or less (twins up to 750cc, triples up to 680cc, Ducati 848, singles - Open)
Section 5.5 of the rulebook defining what a superbike is:
600 Superbike • Engine displacement: four cylinders: 640cc or less, triples up to 680cc, twins up to 750cc, single cylinder – no restriction

My understanding is the Ducati 848 was removed during the last AGM. Although if I was to interpret the above, I suppose you could argue that the 848 is allowed in the Sportbike categories but disallowed in the Superbike catergories. My guess is this was not the intent.

I propose that the wording of section 5.1, 5.3, and 5.5 read:
Engine displacement: four cylinders: 640cc or less, triples up to 680cc, twins up to 850cc, single cylinder – no restriction



This would be in alignment with several other organizations which allow the Ducati 848. For example, the Manitoba Roadracing Association:
CHAPTER 10 600 SUPERSPORT
10.1 Engine Displacement (must be OE in bore and stroke) a) Two cylinder: 850cc maximum b) Three cylinder: 675cc maximum c) Four cylinder: 636cc maximum


Taking a quick look around I could find several other organizations with similar wording (eg WERA, ASRA).
Everett you must be looking at an older version of the rulebook. The 2019 rulebook did remove the 848 from all 600 classes as per the membership vote at the AGM. You can find the 2019 rulebook here.

That said, we can still change it to what you're suggesting, provided the membership agrees at the AGM.
 

ehagar

Member
Thanks Steve.

Maybe I am cross-eyed, but section 5.3 on pg 17 of the link you provided says:
' 600 SS - 640cc or less (twins up to 750cc, triples up to 680cc, Ducati 848, singles - Open)'

Anyway... I still propose changing the language of 5.1, 5.3, 5.5 to:
Engine displacement: four cylinders: 640cc or less, triples up to 680cc, twins up to 850cc, single cylinder – no restriction

Whether the motion passes or not, I think the wording will need to be fixed.
 

Nevets

EMRA Executive Member
Thanks Steve.

Maybe I am cross-eyed, but section 5.3 on pg 17 of the link you provided says:
' 600 SS - 640cc or less (twins up to 750cc, triples up to 680cc, Ducati 848, singles - Open)'

Anyway... I still propose changing the language of 5.1, 5.3, 5.5 to:
Engine displacement: four cylinders: 640cc or less, triples up to 680cc, twins up to 850cc, single cylinder – no restriction

Whether the motion passes or not, I think the wording will need to be fixed.
Damnit, you're right.
I missed that one when I updated the rule book last year. Shame on me.
 

kyleducati

New Member
i would also like to revisit the case for 848s in the 600 classes, (new rule no difference in 600, 636, 675, or 848 in any 600 base class events)

id also like to put an endurance race event to a vote! while i'm aware this can be a costly expense to the club, id like to add if this actually does threaten the overall financial stability of the club then it should be recognized and the decision made accordingly. I think this should be a two part process - one to vote for a yes/no despite the cost implications. another open discussion once this is decided for rules and processes, i think our neighbors should be taped (westwood motorcycle racing club) on info and guidance around rules as they have been holding one successfully for a number of years, as a way to "give back" to the riders.
(new rule being new topic of discussion around endurance event)

id like to change our JUMP START penalty to a time base rather that position, "continuous" repeat offenders should be awarded DNF results, this is of course an optional sub-rule if we are afraid of this being used as a tactic to win races. (new rule being 5 seconds)
 

fast316

EMRA Executive Member
I'd also like to put an endurance race event to a vote! while i'm aware this can be a costly expense to the club, id like to add if this actually does threaten the overall financial stability of the club then it should be recognized and the decision made accordingly. I think this should be a two part process - one to vote for a yes/no despite the cost implications. another open discussion once this is decided for rules and processes, i think our neighbors should be taped (westwood motorcycle racing club) on info and guidance around rules as they have been holding one successfully for a number of years, as a way to "give back" to the riders.
(new rule being new topic of discussion around endurance event)

I'd just like to start by saying I love endurance racing, Suzuka 24h is a great race, the Endurance races the EMRA used to put on at Stratotech were also a lot of fun. There isn't a year that goes by I don't try to find ways to put another one on, we've tossed around the idea of splitting a day with a car club in the past, but you don't want to hang out with some of those guys for too long.Trust me it will make you go crazy. My last attempt at an endurance race was just last year at another small local track. But that track was under construction last summer and will be for most of next summer. Simply put at Castrol cost is a HUGE implication, cost is really only second to safety when it comes to racing. A day of racing at Castrol raceway costs the club roughly $12500. I don't think we ever got more than 10 teams for an EMRA Endurance race. At, lets say 3 riders per team, that's 30 riders. That's a real expensive way to give back to only 30 riders. If we got lets just say 10 teams to enter, race fees would be $1250 per team, just to break even, no trophies no cash purse or any other extra cost. You are going to want to put an endurace race at the end of the season (because how many people will let you endurance race/crash their bike half way through a regular race season?) and right now the only weekends left for track rental are in October. Might as well call it an ice race. For $1250 I'm going racing in the states that time of year. In terms of spending money and giving back why don't we spend the $12500 on four new blocks of air fence? That would give back to all riders, make things safer for everyone. Or why don't we put on a free race weekend? That would also give back to all the riders too. We shouldn't because it is not good for the club. The economics at Castrol as they currently are just don't allow it.
 

fast316

EMRA Executive Member
I got a couple more things I'd like to post up here for all to see. I'm constantly looking for ways to make things safer for us, I think I have come up with a couple ways here, so:

1. I'd like to see the club pay for a second ambulance crew to be track side on race weekends. The cost would be roughly $900/day in addition to what we normally pay. It would obviously give us more access to medical attention. But this would eliminate ambulance delays and keep us very much on schedule every day, potentially saving us late fees and bad relations with other track renters. It also gives out of town racers an easier drive home and all of us more time at home with family because the race days would be fully complete on time.

2. The Dees have some new medical equipment for pain relief. It is costly, roughly $40/per use, I say the club cover the costs any time there is a rider in need.

Not so much rule changes here, but this thread is for ideas to make things better, and I'd like to see us all vote on making things safer.
 

Ducbert

Active Member
Not a rules change but maybe something to ponder for next year. Could we hold the AGM at let's say "Speeders" and have a "team" building, race and AGM day? I'm sure they have conference space to rent. I know there would be a cost, but if you made me pay to burn rubber and get an AGM in, I'm all over it! What else you gonna spend money on in Dec? More PS4 games, thicker socks, Christmas presents for others, hog wash(this term was used instead of bullshit for you youngsters)?!?
 

blam

Administrator
I got a couple more things I'd like to post up here for all to see. I'm constantly looking for ways to make things safer for us, I think I have come up with a couple ways here, so:

1. I'd like to see the club pay for a second ambulance crew to be track side on race weekends. The cost would be roughly $900/day in addition to what we normally pay. It would obviously give us more access to medical attention. But this would eliminate ambulance delays and keep us very much on schedule every day, potentially saving us late fees and bad relations with other track renters. It also gives out of town racers an easier drive home and all of us more time at home with family because the race days would be fully complete on time.

2. The Dees have some new medical equipment for pain relief. It is costly, roughly $40/per use, I say the club cover the costs any time there is a rider in need.

Not so much rule changes here, but this thread is for ideas to make things better, and I'd like to see us all vote on making things safer.
This is a great idea, especially the 2nd crew. we lose a ton of time on transfers and waiting for ambulance clearance. this will really help with keeping us on schedule i imagine.
 
Top