2008 rules changes

[roadracer162]

Track days are looking a lot better.

Mark

[steelcityracer]

"Request: Weight limits be combined rider and machine
Action: Denied
The addition of weight to a rider is too easy to accomplish through exchange of gear or the
addition of fluids, which the denial of could be considered a safety hazard after a race"


The last part of this made me laugh... I can just see racers loading up on food and drink before the weigh in, only to go and purge themselves afterwards.

[red900]

Pedicure station at pit out....  Pretty fun for an old man Pallellllllaa....  You freaking sandbagger.

[cb186]

Sv's in UL, wow.

[Sig]

I have a hard time believing that the majority of racers prefer grids based on entry date.

[ekraft84]

Next thing you know, overall championships will be determined by who enters the most races ..

Oh wait ... 

[weggieman]

I say they ban beer from their rules meetings..............

[bigreid]

"Request: Allow Sparking Knee/Toe Sliders
Action: Denied
The overwhelming consensus from corner marshals and those riders behind others with
"Sparkies" is that they are an unneeded distraction."

That one was a joke right?

[Eric Kelcher]

From the emails I have received there is some question as to the thoughts behind changes and what the exact wording of the rules will be.

Sorry to have been so brief in the original outline of rules committees outcomes in regard to why some things have been allowed/disallowed and what the actual rule wording would be. Most of the exact rule wording has not been determined but obviously there has been some confusion on displacement limits between classes as I did not list what those would be.
In Ultra-Lightweight SuperBike the displacement limit for a 4 valve water cooled twin would be 650cc (not 700, 750 or 800 cc) Lightweight SuperSport, Grand Prix and SB would have its limit raised to 800cc for a water cooled non-desmo twin.

All of the rule changes were looked at strictly from a fairness aspect, my part of this business is strictly the on-track activities and insuring everyone is treated equal and classes are balanced. The rules' committees fall under this same instruction. While the income obviously plays a part in the continued existence of CCS fair classes and rules are the issue at hand. The rules are fairly static and we try to keep it that way, as new bikes come out that are of the sporting racing type we do try to evaluate what is happening to the classes that they fit into under the current rules and if that seems appropriate to class structure. CCS racing is about current model racing, not vintage or classic, on one hand that would be a lot easier in determining where bikes fit as they have a past history to work form on the other hand vintage racing is a stagnant form of racing while very cool and has its place there are no new innovations for the class. 

Which leads us to the notes I have from recommendation to make a shift in allowing the water cooled 650cc twins into Ultra-Lightweight. The current crop of large displacement air cooled twins that were already legal in Lightweight have come up in power and resulted in many comments from the smaller water cooled bike riders that those machines do not belong there. When results were inspected the air cooled large bore twins showed a huge disparity in the overall finish over the once dominant 650 water cooled twin when raced head to head. This has been a gradual shift over the last few years and is not indicative of any one region but the country as a whole as some tracks have not seen the influx of the A/C bikes or they are still in development whereas there are several riders that have multi year development into water cooled machines.

Simple directive was to see if there was an error in race classes or where the lightweight lines are and should they be redrawn. The top level LW bikes were determined to not be close to MW machines, meaning you couldn't move the larger A/C machines up, so the other aspect evaluated was moving some of the lower HP bikes to the next lower class. Spec sheets were inspected for the top hp/ lightest weight bikes in the Ultra-Light class and it showed that there were multiple machines that made more hp than bikes that were excluded from the class ie liquid cooled 4 valve 650 twins. A comparison of lap times of ULSB and LSS was showing a disparity in that ULSB lap times were faster than LSS, this for a class that has theoretically slower machines. Next step was that that there were no current production sport bikes made that fit ultra-lightweight found and the hp numbers of the current production models that are raced.  (IE Motard have near similar power output and much lower weight, but generally have a top speed limit due to gearing availability.) So  weight-top speed was considered a push at worst, as the design of machines towards factory produced SuperMoto machines will see the street gearing needed installed in these machines in the very near future.
At this point I do not see time to have rules committee reconvene but I personally will take and do reviews of hard evidence that reflects why this should be reexamined, that based on notes was pretty thoroughly examined, should be changed, reversed, delayed, or other action taken.

800cc water cooled non-desmo twin in Lightweight and ThunderBike classes. We do not feel that this machine is out of line or performance with the other machines' capabilities in these fields. This is not an overdog or an underdog and should fit neatly in the middle of this very diverse race environment.

125GP The 250 4 stroke was allowed as that is the direction that other 125GP racing is headed both on a national and international level with these similar output motors in purpose built frames. Currently we are not going to require the purpose built frame in order to compete in the 125GP class but may be changed to a purpose built or street based frame in the future.


Upon review of requests for changes to grid procedure,  one theme stood out, that griding by points was rewarding the loyal customer. The flaw with that is if your loyal customer finishes say 15th in 7 races, he scores 70 points, while a "contingency hunter" only races  and wins twice has the same 70 points, who deserves to rewarded? The loyal customer or the contingency hunter? Grids by order of entry gives all riders the opportunity to start towards the front.

Also in response to the request to grid by points, a comparison was made to other organizations that do grid by points and everywhere there was head to head competition within that geographical area entry date was preferred, by 45% more entries for entry date to points. Now granted there are differences other than just griding methods that may be reason that CCS sees more entries than other organizations in these areas of head to head competition such as classes, rules enforcement, officials, racers, tracks, pricing, etc but it is just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US road racing.

Other common comment was regarding safety because the "faster" riders may have to start in the back.  Excuse me while I toss this out for your consideration,  now we need everyone to bring their time slip from the drag strip indicating their reaction time and we grid that way or 60 foot times or ¼ mile times? Absurd, yes, this is not bracket racing, but this would be the only way to accurately judge how quick someone is going to start a race to make it safer. Since all riders start at a dead stop and are on similar machines, the number of points scored are irrelevant to safety.

So then we looked at other options, heat races or qualifying, which would require the reduction of race classes by 1/2 and a double entry fees for the same amount of race time, the increase in entry fees nixed this one. (Mainly because comments from riders about increased fees associated with this for tires and the rush to front in limited time.)

Now granted there are differences other than just gridding methods that may be reason that CCS sees more entries than competition in these areas of head to head competition such as classes, rules enforcement, officials, racers, tracks, pricing, etc but it is just another element that we do different that adds up to the whole package that makes CCS the leader in US roadracing.

The sparking knee/toe sliders was asked to be changed because it provided more excitement for spectators if allowed. The distraction for both safety workers and riders behind was judged to be too significant to justify the specator aspect.

All recomendations submitted were reviewed by the respectve commitee or official that was/is empowered with that function.

[HAWK]

Should I take this post to indicate that the  change to the LW ULW rules will stand for 2008? I am in the process of building my SV engine and since you have changed preperation rules for both LW and ULW I need to know what the limits will be so that I can build a legal engine without placing myself at a disadvantage.

[Eric Kelcher]

Paul,

No at the current time it is in limbo, as I indicated in prior post, I am handling the review of that specfic issue personally and intend to have it final by 30 of Nov.

[Super Dave]

Paul, you're building a superbike.  So, your displacement would be the thing currently in question, right?  If you go bigger than stock, you won't be able to run UlwSB.  If you go to the 650cc displacement higher compression pistions with everything else being superbiked, you can run UlwSB.