2020 Rulebook Proposals

Perhaps turning a yellow background to white but keeping the 700-999 for the remainder of the year would work.
This would keep the points in line but also if said bike moved to an expert only race the white plate would be visible to the other racers signifying that it is another expert that they are rubbing elbows with. Since when at race pace the number means nothing compared to the white background for safety reasons. Hope that made sense.

 

That race is SV's as well. putting an 05+ 600 would not be fair. The older 600's are matched well up until the modern fuel injection bikes.
ie. the 600's kept getting faster and the rest of the bikes in that class did not. And we have loads of places to race the 05+ 600's 1:18 1:15 open super, 600 etc. ultra even for the fast riders.

 

Thank you Reed, I'm glad you are a member! I am mostly concerned that MWSBK bikes generally have maximum 100-105 engine HP. I mentioned the R1 and SRAD because I have seen rear wheel dyno tests 140hp for R1, 125 rear wheel for SRAD. That is a huge power differential, I am trying to have bikes that cant run away from others.

 

Yes the wording needs to change, but an older 636 would have been allowed to run in that class.

 

The SV’S are allowed to be bored to 700cc those bikes run close to 600ss times as well.

Sean, I am not a member as it is a full annual fee for September till December. Next year I will buy one to race.
Neither a SRAD or older R1 will be competitive in any other class. Any fast rider campaigning a 06 and greater R6 will not want to run 118-116 lap times. You may want to not allow 400’s as well as they have run the same lap times as the older R6 and older R1. And that was a stock bike. Wait till someone brings a 53 hp
Super sport 400.

 

Great idea, Dave. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for contributing that.

Just to clarify, in the absence of another clear rule, what we've been doing for the past few years is exactly what SCCBC does for DNF. The pivot point for declaring a DNF (or not) is completing half the laps of the class leader or if there is only one entry for a class, half the laps of the race winner.

Since we run 10 lap races, it's pretty straightforward. Four laps or less is (usually) a DNF. Five laps or more isn't. Unless there's more than 15 class entries, a DNF is still going to score point(s).

It's not tricky to figure out and it's well defined.

 

Perhaps a complete removal of the 20 year open mulit cylinder; as the " R1 and 750 SRAD" and their respective 130-150hp are on the proverbial "doorstep." Perhaps an "up to 636CC <shout out my kawi peeps> ( "carburated" inline 4 cylinder") is the way to go... After FI the 600's were no longer in the same competitive class as the SV regardless of rider.

 

I think the spirit of this debate is to shepherd this class so as not to end up with a 2015 R6 vs a 2017 SV650 in 2030. Whether smaller/lighter bikes rise up to middleweight lap times and enter the race is perhaps not the fairness concern currently at hand.

 

I don't disagree Reed but that's the bleeding edge of the argument. It's important as a club to maintain fairness that is in reach to most mortals.... Brett and Nicola are clearly aliens sent here to beat us. .....and Troy is their leader.

 

I would be very uncomfortable knowing that some racers are lining up to start a race without having done any sort of morning shakedown on their bike. Besides, I can’t recall any of our practice sessions being so crowded that it presents any issues.
I’ve never seen a big bike organization limit the amount of bikes eligible to practice. I think that if you are racing 4 different bikes you should find a way to get out in a session on each and every one.

 

Ok, I will give you the open bike deletion if you must. I prefer bigger grids.
However, by then the class will be over run with Aprilia RS660. Who will want to beat up on the R6.

 

There isn’t any section in the rulebook for rain/track conditions. My suggestion is there should be a spot in the rulebook stating something about excessive periods of rain that result in poor visibility and/or unsafe track conditions and that the race director has the discretion to shorten races, like seven laps versus 10.

Last year we experienced one day where, in my opinion, it was unsafe to run fall length races as a result of the excessive amount of water/puddles on the track and due to decreased visibility. it’s expensive to crash and nobody wants to hurt somebody else or themselves. Not only that, racers we’re dropping out of those races before they completed, and maybe one or two racers completed the whole race If racers knew prior to the start that races were shorter they might be more inclined to participate in the whole race, like 7 laps vs 10 laps, under such conditions

 

thank you all for your proposal recommendations...after a 2 week extension this thread is closed for rule changes.