2026 Rule change discussion

[fast316]

Time to fire up what is always one of the most entertaining threads! We all put our heads together and think of ways to make the racing in this club even better and safer for everyone by proposing and discussing rule changes. The proposals will be brought to the AGM Dec. 6th, discussed again and voted on there. If you are reading this and unable to post here please email your proposal to [email protected]. This thread is not a sounding board for your personal problems or grievances. In years past individuals and non-members, not involved with the club or racing have taken advantage of this thread. Do not be the person that makes a proposal for your own benefit, do not be the person that can not complete a full proper proposal, we will be ignored those proposals.

Make sure your proposals contain the following:
-Where in the current rule book, policy manual, official club articles, or by-law structure this proposal would fit.
-Make sure your proposals are clear. Quote the current rule book policy manual and/or bylaws. Use all your words, use specific, factual, and quantifiable examples. (Random dyno numbers you googled ten minutes before posting are not specific, factual and quantifiable; and should not be used in proposals.)
-Make sure your proposals are informed, make sure they are not redundant. Do we have this rule already?
-Indicate how your rule can be implemented. Does the club need to purchase equipment, hire staff, or create additional positions and roles to fulfil this proposal? Indicate how all of that can be done and costs associated with this in your proposal.

Please keep in mind the following:
-Keep all the proposals and comments positive and constructive.
-Before posting read the current rule book (while you are at it read our bylaws and policy manuals). If you haven't read the current rule book you should not be posting until having done so. Those can all be found here: https://www.emra.ca/rules-checklists/
-If you are looking for race/club statistics, class sizes etc. that we track those can be found in last years AGM Meeting minutes. Please use those numbers in your posts. https://www.emra.ca/racers/meeting-minutes/
-Do not create rule changes proposals that only benefit you, or take away all your nearest competition.
-There is no voting in this thread. Voting takes place in person at the AGM only.

The EMRA has been around for over 20 years now, built on fair exciting racing. The rules have evolved over the years and most successful new rule changes are more evolution of existing rules than revolution of totally new ones.

I think we have a great club. I can't wait to see what members have in mind to improve the club.

 

[fast316]

I have a few additions to the tech checklist I would like to see added:
Under the Fluids section add: No fluid leaks
Under the Brakes section add: Brake fluid level not over filled
Create a throttle section and add: Throttle grip must snap shut at all times and steering angles.



-In the current rule book, section 2.4.5.: All motorcycles, equipment and riding apparel involved in a crash must again pass a technical inspection before they are allowed on track, test areas or staring line.
-I would like to change it to read: 5. All motorcycles, equipment involved in a red flag incident must again pass technical inspection.

(There were a few incidents last year where a bike did not crash but had a mechanical issue serious enough to bring out a red flag and end the session or race. In the current rules there is no rule saying that bike has to clear tech before going back out. I think we should fix that.)



-In the current rule book section 2.4.11.: 11. Determination of any offences is at the discretion of the Race Director, EMRA Executive or other appropriate Race Official.
-I would like to change it to say: 11. Determination of any offences is at the discretion of the Race Director, Chief Technical Inspector, EMRA Executive or other appropriate Race Official.



-I would like to add a new point to section 2.4. and I would like it to read: 2.4.12.: Any motorcycle with two reoccurring technical infractions will not be allowed to continue in that event and must be proven to be corrected before returning to competition. Burden of proof is on the rider.

(Mechanical failures are a part of racing, we have all had them, and it is a risk we all take. But we should not accept repeated, reoccurring failures. If your bikes fails on track, or fails tech it is a pretty low bar to ask that it is fixed properly before riding that same bike again. This rule is not intended to stop a rider from racing, they can ride another bike. If the bike gets fixed great, provide the proof you fixed it to tech and get back out there. If you can't fix it then the bike shouldn't be back on track putting you and other racers at unnecessary risk.)



-I would like to add a new point to section 5.1. and I would like it to read: 5.1.23.: Brake system must function as designed as intended. Brakes must not apply by themselves. Motorcycle will not be allowed to continue in event until infraction is fully and properly resolved.

(Our current Equipment Standards in the rule book don't say anything about making sure your brakes work properly. Kind of odd, so I would like it added to the rule book in a way that applies to the entire brake system since bikes these days can have very complicated and integrated systems. Your brakes need to work and work properly, that's a low bar for any racing motorcycle to get over.)



-I would like to add a new point to section 5.1. and I would like it to read: 5.1.24.: Throttle system must open fully, snap shut and function as designed as intended. Motorcycles will not be allowed to continue in event until infraction is fully and properly resolved.

(Just like the brakes, our current Equipment Standards in the rule book do not address properly functioning throttles. This is one of the most important parts of the bike. It is also one of the most advanced and integrated parts of a motorcycle with ride by wire throttles. To show an electronic throttle is working properly a rider could provide live data from a data logger, or an OBD reader would show actual throttle body opening and closing. I think the wording here covers what we all need to ensure, the entire throttle system is working properly. Again, that's a low bar to achieve.)

 

[Nevets]

-In the current rule book, section 2.4.5.: All motorcycles, equipment and riding apparel involved in a crash must again pass a technical inspection before they are allowed on track, test areas or staring line.
-I would like to change it to read: 5. All motorcycles, equipment involved in a red flag incident must again pass technical inspection.

I think this needs to be written like this:

All motorcycles, equipment and riding apparel involved in a crash or red flag incident must again pass a technical inspection before they are allowed on track, test areas or staring line.

It is common for crashes to not result in a red flag, those riders and their equipment still need to get re-teched after a crash.

-In the current rule book section 2.4.11.: 11. Determination of any offences is at the discretion of the Race Director, EMRA Executive or other appropriate Race Official.
-I would like to change it to say: 11. Determination of any offences is at the discretion of the Race Director, Chief Technical Inspector, EMRA Executive or other appropriate Race Official.

What are we trying to achieve by adding "Chief Technical Inspector" to this list? That person is already a member of the EMRA Executive.

-I would like to add a new point to section 2.4. and I would like it to read: 2.4.12.: Any motorcycle with two reoccurring technical infractions will not be allowed to continue in that event and must be proven to be corrected before returning to competition. Burden of proof is on the rider.

I want to clarify your intent here. "Event" is defined in our rule book as follows:

Any activity taking place during the predetermined schedule for the day, which can include a race, a track
attack or a practice round according to the predetermined schedule.

Are you suggesting that any motorcycle that experiences two technical infractions within a race is not allowed to continue that race? Or do you want them disallowed from participating in that day? that round? that weekend?

-I would like to add a new point to section 5.1. and I would like it to read: 5.1.23.: Brake system must function as designed as intended. Brakes must not apply by themselves. Motorcycle will not be allowed to continue in event until infraction is fully and properly resolved.

Can we shorten the wording here?
I'm proposing the following:

Brake system must function as intended. Motorcycle will not be allowed to participate in any EMRA event until it has a fully functional brake system.

Using the words "as designed" is dangerous. That would mean racers are not permitted to swap out parts of their brake system because the motorcycle was not designed with an aftermarket master cylinder, or aftermarket brake pads. Obviously we don't want to ban those sort of performance upgrades, but by using the words "as designed" that is the literal meaning of your proposal.

-I would like to add a new point to section 5.1. and I would like it to read: 5.1.24.: Throttle system must open fully, snap shut and function as designed as intended. Motorcycles will not be allowed to continue in event until infraction is fully and properly resolved.

Same as the last point, I want to eliminate the "as designed" wording. Aftermarket throttles with larger cams would no longer be acceptable if we include that wording.

 

[fast316]

I think this needs to be written like this:

All motorcycles, equipment and riding apparel involved in a crash or red flag incident must again pass a technical inspection before they are allowed on track, test areas or staring line.

It is common for crashes to not result in a red flag, those riders and their equipment still need to get re-teched after a crash.

Agreed, that sounds better.

-In the current rule book section 2.4.11.: 11. Determination of any offences is at the discretion of the Race Director, EMRA Executive or other appropriate Race Official.
-I would like to change it to say: 11. Determination of any offences is at the discretion of the Race Director, Chief Technical Inspector, EMRA Executive or other appropriate Race Official.

What are we trying to achieve by adding "Chief Technical Inspector" to this list? That person is already a member of the EMRA Executive.

This section in the rule book is about technical infractions, I think determinations regarding this should all go to the Chief Technical inspector first, if they are unavailable at the time someone could go ask an Exec. Race direction would be my last choice for this, as they are super busy on race weekends, and really shouldn't be going to someone's pit and checking over their bike issue. I'm also trying to avoid the Mom said no so I'll go ask dad instead scenario we frequently see riders try in tech.

I want to clarify your intent here. "Event" is defined in our rule book as follows:

Any activity taking place during the predetermined schedule for the day, which can include a race, a track
attack or a practice round according to the predetermined schedule.

Are you suggesting that any motorcycle that experiences two technical infractions within a race is not allowed to continue that race? Or do you want them disallowed from participating in that day? that round? that weekend?

Yes an 'event'. If your bike breaks on Saturday, but it's fixed properly on Sunday by all means ride it. I also want to say this rule would be for 'two reoccurring technical infractions', so the same issue twice. So lets say Saturday you get a hole in your radiator, coolant and smoke everywhere, black flag, red flag, you fail tech. You aren't really sure how to fix it, all you got is some gum, so you use that to plug up the hole, no leaks. You go back out, the gum fails, you leak coolant all over the place again. At this point this rule comes into play, you had a chance, you didn't fix the bike properly, for the safety of you and everyone else on track, you can't ride that bike for the rest of Saturday (the event that day). You run out and get the radiator welded up properly over night, show that to tech Sunday morning, show the weld, lets say you even show a video of the rad being pressure tested at the shop that fixed it. Ok, go back out and race that bike Sunday.

Lets say you go out and your brakes lock up on the straight away because you over filled your brake fluid reservoir, you bring out a red flag. You lower the level, show tech, go back out. Then turns out you didn't tighten the valve stem in your rim, your tire goes flat, you come to a stop at a bad spot on track and bring out another red flag. Ok, you are a train wreck, but those issues aren't reoccurring, you can keep riding that bike.

Mechanical failures are bound to happen, I don't want to stop someone from racing because of that. But I do want to ensure for that rider and all the other riders on track that the issue is fixed properly. Right now we don't really have a rule to ensure this. You could ride a bike that fails mechanically the same way every session and there is no consequence.

Brake system must function as intended. Motorcycle will not be allowed to participate in any EMRA event until it has a fully functional brake system.

Using the words "as designed" is dangerous. That would mean racers are not permitted to swap out parts of their brake system because the motorcycle was not designed with an aftermarket master cylinder, or aftermarket brake pads. Obviously we don't want to ban those sort of performance upgrades, but by using the words "as designed" that is the literal meaning of your proposal.

-I would like to add a new point to section 5.1. and I would like it to read: 5.1.24.: Throttle system must open fully, snap shut and function as designed as intended. Motorcycles will not be allowed to continue in event until infraction is fully and properly resolved.

Same as the last point, I want to eliminate the "as designed" wording. Aftermarket throttles with larger cams would no longer be acceptable if we include that wording.

I didn't mean for the wording to be dangerous. What I had in mind was for example, the function of ABS on a motorcycle. Rider hammers on the brakes, but rather than locking the tire, the ABS intervenes and lets off the brakes. That's not really how the rider intended, but it is how the ABS was 'designed' to work. Same with throttle by wire traction control systems. Rider intends to twist the throttle wide open, but the traction control intervenes and closes the throttle bodies, as it was 'designed' to do. I dunno, there could be some more word smithing to capture this idea.

 

[bandicoot.67]

Addition to 2.8 (stops and restarts)

2.8.X
a. Riders are expected to finish the race on the same motorcycle they started the race on. During a red flag event riders are not permitted to change motorcycles
b. Exception to 2.8.X.a is given if the race started as a dry race and is restared declared as a wet race or vice versa. In these instances rider(s) may change to second wet/dry spec motorcycle subject to approval from Race Control

The verbage will need to be finessed. Possibly could fit better in a different section as well but this is where I thought was most appropriate given the intention I have.
The intention I have proposing this is to ensure that riders who have multiple motrocycles available do not benefit from a red flag incident where they may be able to switch machines and rejoin a race where they otherwise would be out. I also feel that this will ensure riders who are involved in red flag incidents will be more inclined to follow our medical procedures rather than skimming thorough attempting to rejoin their race. I don't feel like this has been an issue in our club yet but I think it's worth writing to ensure fairness moving forward.


Addition to Section 3 (flags)

Blue Flag (Courtesy Flag) -- Indicates to a rider that they may be passed by the Race leaders and/or lapping riders this lap. No immediate action is required to be taken by the rider however they should be prepared to let the lapping riders pass.

This is a pretty common flag used in many other race organizations, including CSBK. I think that members, particularily new racers, should have exposure to this. I'm intentionally putting it as a courtesy flag so that it can be used by Race Control as they see appropriate while also not trying to overburden our volunteers.

 

[Scotia]

Please see the attached photos showing the respective Csbk lap times of Lightweight, Supertwin, and Zx4rr races at Rad Torque Raceway.

You’ll note that Lightweight had a spectrum between 1:26.3 - 1:32.1. The Supertwins ranged from 1:22.6 - 1:27.6. Then, lastly, that the Zx4rr’s were between 1:28.7 - 1:31.2.

At our elevation, a Zx4rr might make 70 whp and 26 ft lbs; I’m more than happy and willing to share our dyno graph as soon as it’s available! Regardless, that 70 hp is for an unsustained fraction of a second, at the very peak of the rev range, with a pittance of torque behind it, and at the same weight as a ‘Gsxr 750.

Our middleweight class now includes R7’s / FZ07’s, RS660’s and Kramer 690’s (with the power:weight ratio of an inline-four 600!?) with up to 100 whp and 60 ft lbs.

The Zx4rr might be a bullfrog in a Lightweight pond, but it’s otherwise a tadpole in a Middleweight Superbike ocean. In other words, it has more of a disadvantage in Middleweight than it does an advantage in lightweight.

The 4rr doesn’t fit well in any of our current classes. Pragmatically speaking, I can appreciate the debate from both sides, and simply want there to be the best competition and opportunity for growth, as possible. My proposal is that it coexists in both.

I propose that Middleweight Twins be rebranded as Middleweight Sportbike, in which “3 or more cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 400cc” is added amongst the current standards of the classification.

I further propose that the Zx4rr remain eligible - as it currently is - for Lightweight Superbike.

 

[Scotia]

The current standards of Sportman are the following:

-Open to all intermediate and expert racers
-Chassis (frame) and engine cases up to and including model year 2009
-Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike.

I propose this be changed to:

-Open to all intermediate and expert racers.
- Open to all motorcycles without electronic rider-aids (I.e. no launch, wheelie, or traction control).
-Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike

We race each other in good faith on so many levels already. When was the last time someone checked the airbox of a Ninja 400? Or whether or not all Open Sportbikes aren’t actually Superbikes ?

We have $5,000 bikes racing $55,000 bikes. We have 1000cc v-twins and 750cc inline-fours racing 600’s. We’ve let other classes evolve, so why not this one !? “ The times they are a-changin’ ”

Analog has always been the intention of this race; a pure showcase of rider connection and capacity. There’s been a multitude of bikes built and sold since 2009 that are eligible to participate. Keeping a somewhat arbitrary and shortsighted ( I say these critiques toward my own proposal from back in 2022; see the attached photo) cutoff of a 2009 manufacturing date will kill this class otherwise. I want more competition. I want to see this class prosper. Like we already do in so many other ways, let’s give our fellow competitors good faith so that it can succeed. I’d rather do so than see it die.

 

[Nevets]

The current standards of Sportman are the following:

-Open to all intermediate and expert racers
-Chassis (frame) and engine cases up to and including model year 2009
-Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike.

I propose this be changed to:

-Open to all intermediate and expert racers.
- Open to all motorcycles without electronic rider-aids (I.e. no launch, wheelie, or traction control).
-Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike

We race each other in good faith on so many levels already. When was the last time someone checked the airbox of a Ninja 400? Or whether or not all Open Sportbikes aren’t actually Superbikes ?

We have $5,000 bikes racing $55,000 bikes. We have 1000cc v-twins and 750cc inline-fours racing 600’s. We’ve let other classes evolve, so why not this one !? “ The times they are a-changin’ ”

Analog has always been the intention of this race; a pure showcase of rider connection and capacity. There’s been a multitude of bikes built and sold since 2009 that are eligible to participate. Keeping a somewhat arbitrary and shortsighted ( I say these critiques toward my own proposal from back in 2022; see the attached photo) cutoff of a 2009 manufacturing date will kill this class otherwise. I want more competition. I want to see this class prosper. Like we already do in so many other ways, let’s give our fellow competitors good faith so that it can succeed. I’d rather do so than see it die.

I like this proposal, but I want you and everyone else to think a little harder about the wording.
What constitutes an "electronic rider aid"? You provide launch, wheelie, and traction control as examples, but what about quick shifters? or lap timers? These are also electronic rider aids. I could get behind banning or allowing these, but then we're into the same problem we have now where very few bikes in the pits are eligible.

Maybe we just spell it out as no launch, wheelie, or traction control, and leave it at that. Anything else is acceptable.

I'd like to hear your thoughts Cam.

 

[DSmith]

If you're working on the honor system for that class, than that brand new V4R has an ECU flashed to remove the TC that it didn't in Dash for Cash, trust me bro. I don't think it's practical, any bike could or could not be eligible and there's no way of DQ'ing them even if they're protested besides subjective interpretations of engine sound.

I don't think it would fix the biggest problem with Sportsman's turnout anyways, which is that the largest number of eligible and somewhat competitive motorcycles that are registered in other races have to back to back it with Intermediate 600 Superbike. (and adding new bikes without OEM electronic aids would mostly just put it back to back with lw/mw superbike as well)

 

[Logan]

Unfortunately I’m going to miss the AGM due to Work.

I would like to propose that middleweight and lightweight super bike get their own race in the afternoon.

This can be achieved by combining intermediate and expert open sport bike.

This allows, light weight and middleweight super bike to have their own race just like every other superbike class

 

[Scotia]

I like this proposal, but I want you and everyone else to think a little harder about the wording.
What constitutes an "electronic rider aid"? You provide launch, wheelie, and traction control as examples, but what about quick shifters? or lap timers? These are also electronic rider aids. I could get behind banning or allowing these, but then we're into the same problem we have now where very few bikes in the pits are eligible.

Maybe we just spell it out as no launch, wheelie, or traction control, and leave it at that. Anything else is acceptable.

I'd like to hear your thoughts Cam.

Sportsman:

- Open to all intermediate and expert racers.
- Open to all motorcycles without the installed capacity to use launch, wheelie, or traction control.
-Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike.

————————————————————
Concise yet effective enough?

It seems redundant to elaborate on about wheel speed sensors, multi axis imu, slide and anti-lift control, etc. If it doesn’t have launch, wheelie or traction control, it won’t have the rest either. This doesn’t need to be convoluted.

I have no problem with a quickshifter / autoblipper or lap-timer being used; they won’t automatically function and intervene to save you from a highside.

 

[Scotia]

Unfortunately I’m going to miss the AGM due to Work.

I would like to propose that middleweight and lightweight super bike get their own race in the afternoon.

This can be achieved by combining intermediate and expert open sport bike.

This allows, light weight and middleweight super bike to have their own race just like every other superbike class

Supermoto could be combined with Sportsman to achieve the same result - so long as the ramps aren’t being used.

I suspect the Sportbike grids will become larger this coming year, in consideration of all the promotions received.

 

[2quickrides]

Supermoto could be combined with Sportsman to achieve the same result - so long as the ramps aren’t being used.

I suspect the Sportbike grids will become larger this coming year, in consideration of all the promotions received.

Supermoto runs through Eddie's esses. Though that would definitely make Sportsman more exciting

 

[fast316]

Hey folks, in order to use the time at the AGM most effectively we will be voting on the rule change proposals that are fully complete first. Rule change proposals made in person at the AGM second. Saving the incomplete rule change proposals for the end, time allowing. I strongly recommend proposing rules changes here and using this forum as the time and place to sort out the minutiae of your proposal with your fellow racers.

In order to have a complete rule change proposal please make sure your rule change proposal contains:
1. Where in the current rule book, policy manual, official club articles, or by-law structure this proposal would fit. Quote the current rule book policy manual and/or bylaws.
2. If your proposal contains examples please make sure they are factual, and quantifiable examples. (Random dyno numbers are not specific, factual and quantifiable; and should not be used in proposals.)
3. Indicate how your rule can be implemented. Does the club need to purchase equipment, hire staff, or create additional positions and roles to fulfil this proposal? Indicate how all of that can be done and costs associated with this in your proposal.

 

[Fireman]

Just to make my previous post official for rule change considerations

Rule change proposal


5.5 Superbike Classes


Reads as follows:

Lightweight superbike
Open to all intermediate and expert racers -Twin and Single cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 440cc -3 or more cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 400cc -Twin and Single cylinder, 2-stroke motorcycles up to 250cc -Gridding will be combined for Lightweight Superbike and Middleweight Superbike and determined by lap times (as recorded by the EMRA timing system). The fastest lap will be gridded first and so on. -If there is no practice day, gridding will be by points collected in Lightweight Superbike throughout the year. -Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike


Changed to

Lightweight superbike
Open to all intermediate and expert racers -Twin and Single cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 440cc -3 or more cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 400cc

(3 and 4 cylinder motorcycles must compete with a stock ecu and tune and must not be modified. Piggy back tuners such as a power commander are allowed )

-Twin and Single cylinder, 2-stroke motorcycles up to 250cc -Gridding will be combined for Lightweight Superbike and Middleweight Superbike and determined by lap times (as recorded by the EMRA timing system). The fastest lap will be gridded first and so on. -If there is no practice day, gridding will be by points collected in Lightweight Superbike throughout the year. -Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike



Alternatively the rule would be changed to allow the Ninja 4RR into the middleweight twins and would require the following changes. The following removes the ninja 400rr from lightweight superbike and allows a unrestricted ecu ninja 400rr to compete in the middleweight twins

5.5 Superbike Classes

Reads as follows:

Lightweight Superbike:

Open to all intermediate and expert racers -Twin and Single cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 440cc -3 or more cylinder, 4-stroke motorcycles up to 400cc (ninja 400 RR excluded) -Twin and Single cylinder, 2-stroke motorcycles up to 250cc -Gridding will be combined for Lightweight Superbike and Middleweight Superbike and determined by lap times (as recorded by the EMRA timing system). The fastest lap will be gridded first and so on. -If there is no practice day, gridding will be by points collected in Lightweight Superbike throughout the year. -Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike


Changed and added to



Middleweight Twins -

Open to intermediate and expert racers -2-cylinder motorcycles up to 750cc -Single-cylinder motorcycles of unlimited displacement

- Ninja 400RR in unrestricted ECU form


-Motorcycles must comply with 5.4 Technical Specifications - Superbike

 

[Fireman]

R9 rule proposal

5.3 Sportbike Classes


600 Supersport

-Open to all intermediate and expert racers

-The maximum displacements (O.E. bore and stroke in all instances) are:

a) Four cylinder: 600cc (Kawasaki ZX-6R 636 accepted)

b) Twins: 1000cc

c) Triples: 680cc

d) GSX-R750 is also permitted

e) Bikes exceeding the following displacement limits must run stock final drive gearing for the

model year.

i) four cylinder: 640cc

ii) Twins: 850cc

iii) Triples: 680cc

-Motorcycles must comply with 5.2 Technical Specifications – Sportbike


To be changed to



600 Supersport

-Open to all intermediate and expert racers

-The maximum displacements (O.E. bore and stroke in all instances) are:

a) Four cylinder: 600cc (Kawasaki ZX-6R 636 accepted)

b) Twins: 1000cc

c) Triples: 900cc

d) GSX-R750 is also permitted

e) Bikes exceeding the following displacement limits must run stock final drive gearing for the

model year.

i) four cylinder: 640cc

ii) Twins: 850cc

iii) Triples: 900cc

-Motorcycles must comply with 5.2 Technical Specifications – Sportbike


The goal of this change is to allow the R9 to have an opportunity to race on restricted in the 600 supersport class. This falls in line with Canadian national rules, rules that are in place within our sister clubs of the wmrc and cmra, as well will allow inter Club racing to be more easily accessed

 

[Snak]

If history is any indication, someone is going to bring up the Senior Open age limit.

My proposal is leave the entry age at 35, forever, and we never hear about it again.

Add a handicap for every 5 years over 35. So at 40 you get+3 points, 45+4 points, 50+5 points, 55+6 points, 60 or over+10 points. If this is feasible between registration and timing/scoring I don't see a downside.

Everyone gets to race. If you're fast and over 60 you have a pretty good shot at a championship regardless.

 

[Ducbert]

If history is any indication, someone is going to bring up the Senior Open age limit.

My proposal is leave the entry age at 35, forever, and we never hear about it again.

Add a handicap for every 5 years over 35. So at 40 you get+3 points, 45+4 points, 50+5 points, 55+6 points, 60 or over+10 points. If this is feasible between registration and timing/scoring I don't see a downside.

Everyone gets to race. If you're fast and over 60 you have a pretty good shot at a championship regardless.

This is a fresh new idea for this class. Agree the age changing year over year is a royal PITA. I would suggest larger point bump though regardless, great suggestion!

 

[Ducbert]

Senior Open age limit.

The goal is always to get more people on the grid. Sometimes, it requires a little more work to get this to happen. Simply moving the age, may not do the job. Get people to start entering their age in the MSREG.

I have a couple of suggestions to add to the one above:
-Move the age 40/45? Not a fan because it has a chance to shrink the grid, but I have heard this is desired.
-Add or split the race into two age groups: a 35-45 range and add a Masters for 46+. Little more work and cost to the club. Treat it like dash and 108.
-Completely revamp it/Rename it - Open it up to everyone, except novices. More detail below.....

This race was always suppose to be a "FUN" race, less about the trophy, more about braggin rights. So, Allow racers per age group to join.
Examples could look like groups of 34 and under, 35-44, 45-54, 55 and over (4 groups or something like that) OR Under 35 and over 45+ (3 groups)

It's still only 3 trophy's for the fastest of them all ("My Precious..") but allows you to register for your specific age group. For bragging rights, nothing more, maybe a plague for the fastest guy/girl in each age group. Minimal change in costs but more admin work for setup in MSREG, sadly. Grid layouts are based on over all points, not a waved start and results are tracked like any other multi class race. Can flesh out more details and fine tune the plan if chosen.

I have watched this class dwindle over the years and I'd like to see it flourish again.

 

[Parker08]

This is Steve O'Brien.
I got locked out of my forum account because I had to change my email.

If history is any indication, someone is going to bring up the Senior Open age limit.

My proposal is leave the entry age at 35, forever, and we never hear about it again.

Add a handicap for every 5 years over 35. So at 40 you get+3 points, 45+4 points, 50+5 points, 55+6 points, 60 or over+10 points. If this is feasible between registration and timing/scoring I don't see a downside.

Everyone gets to race. If you're fast and over 60 you have a pretty good shot at a championship regardless.

I want to start by saying I love this idea, it's a nice compromise for the older racers who feel they're outclassed by the guys on the Expert SBK grid.

The biggest problem however is the time required to administrate something like this.
There is no easy way to assign points in this way, so I would have to manually update each racers points. I would spend more time doing this than I typically spend assigning points for all the other classes combined. I don't think this is viable, and if we go ahead with this change I think I will step down as the exec in charge of timing and scoring.

The second problem is that not everyone enters their date of birth into MSR. It isn't a mandatory field.
If we went ahead with this I would just disqualify anyone who hasn't entered their DOB into MSR. No appeals, no crying and asking me to fix it after the fact. You didn't provide your age, and you registered for a race that is age dependent, you're DQ'd. Suck it up, fix it for next round.

The third problem (and this is minor) is the sudden jump in handicap Eric proposed at age 60. I had a look at the results from 2025, and Eric's proposed handicap system would have had Ian beat Eric by 2 points in this year's championship, so I think I see what you're aiming for. But the jump from 6 to 10 means turning 60 years old suddenly gives you a big advantage.
I would propose a more linear system where the handicap points increases consistently with age. I think (racers age, minus 35) divided by 2 is probably a little closer. I don't want to divide by 2.7128 and end up with really weird fractional point totals. We already deal with half points for small grids, so dividing by two isn't so bad.

Here is an image showing the various options I looked at:

Racers highlighted in red did not enter their date of birth so I assumed they were exactly 35 years old and did not receive any handicap points.