Motorcycle Racing Forum

Racing Discussion => Rules and Regs => Topic started by: Cowboy 6 on December 16, 2012, 09:35:20 AM

Title: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Cowboy 6 on December 16, 2012, 09:35:20 AM


Rules suggestions that did not make the 2013 Rulebook.

Allow 10 year old Middleweight machines into Lightweight classes.

Allow Ducati 749R into Lightweight classes.


Buell 1125R in Middleweight classes.




Thanks CCS for not caving to such ridiculous requests.

I am a bit confused as to why someone would even request such ridiculous ideas in the first place. But, still, thanks for holding back the water. Your efforts are appreciated.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 16, 2012, 01:31:16 PM
Quote from: Cowboy 6 on December 16, 2012, 09:35:20 AM

Rules suggestions that did not make the 2013 Rulebook.

Allow 10 year old Middleweight machines into Lightweight classes.

Allow Ducati 749R into Lightweight classes.


Buell 1125R in Middleweight classes.p




Thanks CCS for not caving to such ridiculous requests.

I am a bit confused as to why someone would even request such ridiculous ideas in the first place. But, still, thanks for holding back the water. Your efforts are appreciated.

Answer: The above mentioned request was not observed in it's entirety, but is a summarization of another's opinion not associated with the request. The justification of the request was also not observed by the committee nor the audience of this forum. For example if you heard an 800cc machine and a 500cc machine as equal in performance as in ultralight, or a 1200cc machine and a 560cc machine in lightweight without hearing the reasoning one would also believe that was ludicrous.

The request was initially for a 15 year old V twin machine to be included into the GP and GT class only. A portion of the justification was just like the SV into Ultralight and a 250GP machine being allowed into lightweight and thunder bike by amending the rules. One of the arguments is that in 2011 the 250 Gp machine was legal for heavyweight formula 40 and not lightweight formula 40 but it was also legal for lightweight GP. The v twin configuration was legal for lightweight formula 40 but not legal for lightweight GP a direct opposite of the 250 GP machine.

It is my opinion that the Ducati 748 and the 250 Gp machine is pretty equally matched. That has been proven to me by the results of a certain 250Gp machine competing this year in the Florida Region. If you consider the Ducati 748 a middle weight machine, then I believe you must draw the same conclusion for the 250Gp machine. After all a current(2 year old) 250 GP machine was fairly competitive with the current moto 2 machine of its time.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Cowboy 6 on December 16, 2012, 02:18:23 PM
Quote from: majicMARKer on December 16, 2012, 01:31:16 PM
It is my opinion that the Ducati 748 and the 250 Gp machine is pretty equally matched. That has been proven to me by the results of a certain 250Gp machine competing this year in the Florida Region. If you consider the Ducati 748 a middle weight machine, then I believe you must draw the same conclusion for the 250Gp machine. After all a current(2 year old) 250 GP machine was fairly competitive with the current moto 2 machine of its time.

Mark,
I do. The 748 much less the 749 (R or not) are middleweight bikes, period. Lightweight should not be the dumping ground for middleweight bikes that are no longer competitive in their class. Likewise, Ultralight should not be the recipient of the trickle-down effect when lightweight bikes are no longer competitive in their classes due to having to compete with said middleweights.
I also agree that the 250 GP bikes have no business in lightweight just as the 125gp bikes have no business in Ultralight.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 16, 2012, 02:39:18 PM
Then we are in agreement. I made a request to be considered to fit within the rules. all i asked for was the same consideration as the 250 GP macine, you cant blame me for asking.

Can I request the GP machines to be taken out of the street version class? Would that be considered ludicrous by anyone? Will anyone make a such a request next year?

Now, just for conversation sake...I believe in the spirit of classes and the competition there of the GP class is much of "run what you brung". With that in mind modifications could be unlimited up to a displacement and motor configuration. A "Britten" would be run in this class.

The GT class is more an endurance class but with modifications much like the GP class. These machines would not be required to be based on street legal machines.

The supersport and Superbike class would be based upon the street legal machines with more modifications being allowed in the Superbike structure.

With these ideas in mind is why I requested for participation in the GT and GP class only. The formal request was not the original intent.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Knedragon on December 16, 2012, 02:46:03 PM
 Cowboy ... with all due respect the 250 is the lightest bike in the lightweight class so how could it not be legal for any lightweight classes? :wtf: How could an sv be in ultra lightweight when it weighs like 450 lbs  :lmao:  just sayin
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 16, 2012, 02:52:23 PM
Good point Steve.

I can't blame anyone for running a bike in any class it is legal for. Isn't your moriwaki legal for ultralight thunder bike?
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Knedragon on December 16, 2012, 03:08:12 PM
 you lnow I'm not sure what other classes the moriwaki can run in .... maybe ultra lite tb but i think it runs with moto3 anyways   ..... maybe a superbike class
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Cowboy 6 on December 16, 2012, 04:43:44 PM
Quote from: Knedragon on December 16, 2012, 02:46:03 PM
Cowboy ... with all due respect the 250 is the lightest bike in the lightweight class so how could it not be legal for any lightweight classes? :wtf: How could an sv be in ultra lightweight when it weighs like 450 lbs  :lmao:  just sayin

You're a funny dude!  LOL!
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 16, 2012, 05:11:43 PM
The SV can be pared down to 335# in supersport form.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Knedragon on December 16, 2012, 05:34:42 PM
Quote from: majicMARKer on December 16, 2012, 05:11:43 PM
The SV can be pared down to 335# in supersport form.

Still not reallyyyy ULTRA LIGHT WEIGHT by any means .... ask Larry when he seen my 250 on the scale under 220 ....Lmao  ..... gino himself was over that by like 10 lbs with gear :-)
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: apriliaman on December 17, 2012, 12:50:27 AM
10 year old 600's in lightweight?? Do you know how fast a 2003 kaw zx6 can be? When people were racing them lets say at summit point 1:15-1:19 can be done.Usually the winner in our races is  doing 1:20-1:21.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: apriliaman on December 17, 2012, 12:59:41 AM
How about putting 10 year old 1000's in the 600 class? Do you really think that a 1998 R1 can win races in todays 600 class?
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 17, 2012, 06:55:12 AM
Mark E- that's where it was taken out of the context of the request. It was 15 year old at best and it was specifically a 748 in GT and GP only with limitations on the bike.

Steve that's funny stuff.

Lap times are more than just hp. HP to me gives and advantage on the track. On my own bikes of the Ducati 800, Ducati 748 and even my FZR 600 has me pretty close in lap times some track are closer than others such as jennings. Funny thing is at Riesling I run similar times in the 1:20.xx range.

The 800 weighs in at 365# with 2 gals of fuel and the 748 weighs in at 405# with 1 gal of fuel.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Knedragon on December 17, 2012, 07:22:00 AM
We know what HP can do Mark ... we seen it the other day with Park It in All Corners Marvos  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 17, 2012, 07:33:27 AM
Quote from: Knedragon on December 17, 2012, 07:22:00 AM
We know what HP can do Mark ... we seen it the other day with Park It in All Corners Marvos  :biggrin:

Lmao. But it is so much more gratifying when you do beat him. It is what it is. I can't afford the HP like he can, but I probably would spend the money if I had it. I do find a sense of satisfaction running against the bigger bike with my Ducati 800.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Gino230 on December 18, 2012, 01:32:17 AM
So Steve...you're peeking at the scale while I was standing on it? Damn. It was kind of funny, the scale wouldn't weigh my bike with me on it, they had to do it separately. I didn't think anything of it but I guess I should cut down on the whiskey, cookies, and pizza. That and maybe invest in some more titanium.

Seriously, I also supported this proposal. My reasoning was simply to counter the proposal that the 749 be REMOVED from Thunderbike. Also my motivation was selfish because I want to race my 749.

At some point time marches on and the classes WILL get faster, it's inevitable. Otherwise they'd still be running 250 4 strokes in MotoGP.

That being said it's a little early to let the 4 valve ducs into ALL the LW classes. Sure, they aren't much of an advantage against the Bimota or a well built (AKA Mavros') Ducati, but they will beat up pretty bad on the SV's. I agree with Mr. Tenn on these points.

Lightweight is a screwy class because nobody is building bikes for it, there are alot of various types of engines that will fit in and I think the rules are pretty fair as is. I know the SV guys complain, but hey, it's a 1999 design? Also, this led to them being included in the ULWSB class, so really, there is a class for everyone.....just as the club racing gods intended.

Except you Mark, you had to invent your own class for the FZR 400. ;)
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: leeroy996 on December 18, 2012, 10:05:40 AM
Quote from: Gino230 on December 18, 2012, 01:32:17 AM
So Steve...you're peeking at the scale while I was standing on it? Damn. It was kind of funny, the scale wouldn't weigh my bike with me on it, they had to do it separately. I didn't think anything of it but I guess I should cut down on the whiskey, cookies, and pizza. That and maybe invest in some more titanium.

Seriously, I also supported this proposal. My reasoning was simply to counter the proposal that the 749 be REMOVED from Thunderbike. Also my motivation was selfish because I want to race my 749.

At some point time marches on and the classes WILL get faster, it's inevitable. Otherwise they'd still be running 250 4 strokes in MotoGP.

That being said it's a little early to let the 4 valve ducs into ALL the LW classes. Sure, they aren't much of an advantage against the Bimota or a well built (AKA Mavros') Ducati, but they will beat up pretty bad on the SV's. I agree with Mr. Tenn on these points.

Lightweight is a screwy class because nobody is building bikes for it, there are alot of various types of engines that will fit in and I think the rules are pretty fair as is. I know the SV guys complain, but hey, it's a 1999 design? Also, this led to them being included in the ULWSB class, so really, there is a class for everyone.....just as the club racing gods intended.

Except you Mark, you had to invent your own class for the FZR 400. ;)


Your really 230 with gear Gino?  Feel free to join me and Steve for a bicycle ride. :lmao:


There's enough Pony's in a SV to win anywhere.  Matt's bike was fast and reliable, Pony's bike won everywhere.

Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 18, 2012, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: Gino230 link=topic=26905.msg211605#msg211605 date=)

Except you Mark, you had to invent your own class for the FZR 400. ;)
/quote]

Gino I was approached for my participation in that class so we built bikes, loaned bikes and now both my brothers are in the class. I may even have something for you
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Knedragon on December 18, 2012, 12:43:56 PM
Lee -- Pony would beat us on anything .. lol .... now everyone understands why when we're at the track Cheesburgers,Fries,Shakes and Ice Cream Sundaes are on me for Pony and Chris Boy.Hell I even pitch in 10 rolls of quarters as long as they go in his leathers when he rides ;-)
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: leeroy996 on December 18, 2012, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Knedragon on December 18, 2012, 12:43:56 PM
Lee -- Pony would beat us on anything .. lol ....


That's what everyone says about you.......
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Gino230 on December 18, 2012, 02:34:13 PM
Mark, two bikes is my limit. As Kat says, "I don't know how you handle all that work, racing two bikes without help" I am just an amazing rider and mechanic I guess.

And I'm actually about 210 with gear. 195 without. This despite running 20 miles a week.....christmas cookies are killing me!

PS Mark I love those old FZRs, at least I did when it was my first bike 20 years ago....
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Knedragon on December 18, 2012, 03:13:48 PM
sorry my math was off Gino ... off by a few cookies :-) .... Lee I'm just an old worn out bike racer,slow slow slow ... you guys just ride the wrong bikes !!
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 18, 2012, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Gino230 on December 18, 2012, 02:34:13 PM
Mark, two bikes is my limit. As Kat says, "I don't know how you handle all that work, racing two bikes without help" I am just an amazing rider and mechanic I guess.

And I'm actually about 210 with gear. 195 without. This despite running 20 miles a week.....christmas cookies are killing me!

PS Mark I love those old FZRs, at least I did when it was my first bike 20 years ago....

..and at what weight?
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: leeroy996 on December 19, 2012, 01:54:32 PM
Quote from: Gino230 on December 18, 2012, 02:34:13 PM
Mark, two bikes is my limit. As Kat says, "I don't know how you handle all that work, racing two bikes without help" I am just an amazing rider and mechanic I guess.


Gino!!

Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
While the minimum number of bikes one should own is three, the correct number is n+1, where n is the number of bikes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in separation from your partner.
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 19, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
Quote from: leeroy996 on December 19, 2012, 01:54:32 PM
Gino!!

Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
While the minimum number of bikes one should own is three, the correct number is n+1, where n is the number of bikes currently owned. This equation may also be re-written as s-1, where s is the number of bikes owned that would result in separation from your partner.

...where the S value is a constant mystery and the person is always searching for, except sometimes as if walking on egg shells. I am still searching for that value, says the GENIUS
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: scubabill on December 19, 2012, 06:58:05 PM
Is that why you keep them all in pieces Mark?
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 19, 2012, 08:28:16 PM
Quote from: scubabill on December 19, 2012, 06:58:05 PM
Is that why you keep them all in pieces Mark?

Yes! Now shhhhhhhhh
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: Gino230 on December 22, 2012, 12:03:46 AM
Quote from: scubabill on December 19, 2012, 06:58:05 PM
Is that why you keep them all in pieces Mark?

Hmmm now there's an idea.....

Now, where did I put those christmas cookies....?
Title: Re: Thanks CCS !
Post by: roadracer162 on December 22, 2012, 09:09:43 AM
Quote from: Gino230 on December 22, 2012, 12:03:46 AM
Hmmm now there's an idea.....

Now, where did I put those christmas cookies....?

I need shelving like Chris Boy to keep all my cookie boxes