PDA

View Full Version : Class Structure for '05



mnellis
07-30-2004, 11:24 PM
I was questioned the other day by a "wanna-be" racer and I couldn't give him a difinative answer and it got me to thinking about some other questions.

He mentioned he'd like to ride his R1 as an amateur and I seemed to recall there was some discussion that the CMRA was not going to allow AM to run open class bikes? Is that proposal still valid? If so, it begets some more questions.

If the AM's will not be riding Open Class bikes will we be doing away with the A Superstock AM and A Superbike AM classes?

Additionally, will we be keeping the B-Superstock and B-Superbike classes? In reviewing the results of those classes, it appears there are only a couple of 750's and the occassional RC51 and Aprilia that run that class....the rest of the entries are 600's.

With only Suzuki currently producing 750's would it make sense to drop the B-Superstock and B-Superbike classes? The opening left by deleting these two classes would allow us to run all the other classes an extra lap or two. The obvious downside would be fewer classes which would mean fewer paid entries and less income. Maybe not a good trade off I suppose.

I'm not a proponent of any particular solution....I'm just posing the questions and possible alternatives. It doesn't matter to me if I run the RC51 against 600's in the B Classes or the A classes (except for TWS where we're at a distinct disadvantage).

However, if I was to think about a new bike next year...... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

mnellis
07-30-2004, 11:24 PM
I was questioned the other day by a "wanna-be" racer and I couldn't give him a difinative answer and it got me to thinking about some other questions.

He mentioned he'd like to ride his R1 as an amateur and I seemed to recall there was some discussion that the CMRA was not going to allow AM to run open class bikes? Is that proposal still valid? If so, it begets some more questions.

If the AM's will not be riding Open Class bikes will we be doing away with the A Superstock AM and A Superbike AM classes?

Additionally, will we be keeping the B-Superstock and B-Superbike classes? In reviewing the results of those classes, it appears there are only a couple of 750's and the occassional RC51 and Aprilia that run that class....the rest of the entries are 600's.

With only Suzuki currently producing 750's would it make sense to drop the B-Superstock and B-Superbike classes? The opening left by deleting these two classes would allow us to run all the other classes an extra lap or two. The obvious downside would be fewer classes which would mean fewer paid entries and less income. Maybe not a good trade off I suppose.

I'm not a proponent of any particular solution....I'm just posing the questions and possible alternatives. It doesn't matter to me if I run the RC51 against 600's in the B Classes or the A classes (except for TWS where we're at a distinct disadvantage).

However, if I was to think about a new bike next year...... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Pierson Callahan
07-31-2004, 08:40 AM
That is a couple of ineresting questions, There is one this year I watched win races on a R1 while still in his Yellow shirt Bill Drake! Usually people getting in over their heads is a self correcting error. And Carlo the G man wa winning races on is 10 year old zx7, I think if moto gp goes back to the 750cc rule like is being proposed I think there would be a resurgence in them, I hope, As a amature I like haveing all the classes to pick from, I can run in a another class, with less people and different riders. It gives some diverisity to racing. I personally like it the way it is. But I also understand the questions that Mike has brought up.

Pierson Callahan
07-31-2004, 08:40 AM
That is a couple of ineresting questions, There is one this year I watched win races on a R1 while still in his Yellow shirt Bill Drake! Usually people getting in over their heads is a self correcting error. And Carlo the G man wa winning races on is 10 year old zx7, I think if moto gp goes back to the 750cc rule like is being proposed I think there would be a resurgence in them, I hope, As a amature I like haveing all the classes to pick from, I can run in a another class, with less people and different riders. It gives some diverisity to racing. I personally like it the way it is. But I also understand the questions that Mike has brought up.

Bryan Norton
07-31-2004, 02:19 PM
Last year we originally went to "b" class limits for amatuers.
WERA does this, and has done so for many years.
The logic is that we just don't want amatuers starting out on big bore bikes. It's 100% safety related, just the fact that racing is best learned by maximizing the ability of the machine, and nearly all amatuers can't even come close to that.

Why even bother with what WERA does? Well, they helped us by giving us a base rulebook to start with, and some riders participate in more than sanctioning body. That is where it gets really tough; a good example is bodywork. WERA requires 100% stock bodywork. CCS has no requirement.
If you have a tailsection on a superstock bike that has a 'hump' or any deviation from stock, you could be protested in running a WERA sanctioned event. If by chance that hump provides a benefit, you could be at a disadvantage at a CCS event if you ran WERA legal bodywork.

So in cases like this, we have done a long look at both orgs, and chosen what we feel is the best position. Sometimes, that is aligning rules to allow for cross competition, and others it is coming up with our own variant that we feel best fits our membership.

But we also realize the silliness in dictating what you can, and can not race. 750 class machines aren't much slower than 1000cc fours, and other bikes like 250gp are much harder to learn on anyway so we retracted the rule.

I do not foresee the B class maximum rule coming back, but this will be a decision of the BoD.

I am preparing notes for the 2005 rulebook, and will be engaging the rulebook committee to begin working on it beginning in either september/october.

The goal this year will be as little change as possible, but also to address specific concerns and oversights which we saw this year.

Bryan Norton
07-31-2004, 02:19 PM
Last year we originally went to "b" class limits for amatuers.
WERA does this, and has done so for many years.
The logic is that we just don't want amatuers starting out on big bore bikes. It's 100% safety related, just the fact that racing is best learned by maximizing the ability of the machine, and nearly all amatuers can't even come close to that.

Why even bother with what WERA does? Well, they helped us by giving us a base rulebook to start with, and some riders participate in more than sanctioning body. That is where it gets really tough; a good example is bodywork. WERA requires 100% stock bodywork. CCS has no requirement.
If you have a tailsection on a superstock bike that has a 'hump' or any deviation from stock, you could be protested in running a WERA sanctioned event. If by chance that hump provides a benefit, you could be at a disadvantage at a CCS event if you ran WERA legal bodywork.

So in cases like this, we have done a long look at both orgs, and chosen what we feel is the best position. Sometimes, that is aligning rules to allow for cross competition, and others it is coming up with our own variant that we feel best fits our membership.

But we also realize the silliness in dictating what you can, and can not race. 750 class machines aren't much slower than 1000cc fours, and other bikes like 250gp are much harder to learn on anyway so we retracted the rule.

I do not foresee the B class maximum rule coming back, but this will be a decision of the BoD.

I am preparing notes for the 2005 rulebook, and will be engaging the rulebook committee to begin working on it beginning in either september/october.

The goal this year will be as little change as possible, but also to address specific concerns and oversights which we saw this year.

mnellis
07-31-2004, 10:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
Last year we originally went to "b" class limits for amatuers.
</div></div>I remember the discssion re: Limiting AM's to "B" class but I believe that was recinded due to the late notice. Am I mistaken? If so, then why is there even a "A" class Superstock and Superbike class for the AM's?

mnellis
07-31-2004, 10:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
Last year we originally went to "b" class limits for amatuers.
</div></div>I remember the discssion re: Limiting AM's to "B" class but I believe that was recinded due to the late notice. Am I mistaken? If so, then why is there even a "A" class Superstock and Superbike class for the AM's?

Bryan Norton
08-01-2004, 06:33 PM
last year we originally went with the "B" limits for novice.
We did recind that, but not because of late notice but becuase of the points mentioned in the post above.

Also as noted, I do not think we will be limiting them next year, although it is a BoD decision. I don't think there were any issues this year.

If we did limit novice to "B" you are correct, there would not be a need for "A" novice classes.

Most novices and even a lot of experts ride their "B" or "C" class bikes in "A" anyway, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Bryan Norton
08-01-2004, 06:33 PM
last year we originally went with the "B" limits for novice.
We did recind that, but not because of late notice but becuase of the points mentioned in the post above.

Also as noted, I do not think we will be limiting them next year, although it is a BoD decision. I don't think there were any issues this year.

If we did limit novice to "B" you are correct, there would not be a need for "A" novice classes.

Most novices and even a lot of experts ride their "B" or "C" class bikes in "A" anyway, but there's nothing wrong with that.