Hello Guest

2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS

  • 30 Replies
  • 8770 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

CHIRINOM

  • ***
  • 124
    +5/-1
    • Spec Class Racing
2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:23:24 pm »
As I plan and prepare for a 2015 season, I realize that I still feel very strongly about the formula of low cost, high parity racing.
 
 Below I have formulated a simple rules proposal which will allow current riders to remain in the game with minimal investment and open the door for new riders and the newer machines.
 
 2015 CCS rules proposal for GTUL and ULTB:
 
 As per the request of CCS, I prepared a brief rules proposal which I believe would satisfy the desire of all members and potential members of the ultra light racing scene whether they are interested in building their machine or running a super sport style class. Please see my email to the CCS rules committee below.
 
 kevin.elliott@ccsracing.us
 eric.kelcher@ccsracing.us
 
 To whom it may concern at CCS racing,
 
 I am writing in response to your request for 2015 rules recommendations. This proposal pertains to the two ultra light classes, Ultra light thunder bike and GT Ultra light.
 
 The majority of riders who contend these  classes are those who are looking for an economical entry point to the sport. As demonstrated by the Florida riders in 2012 and 2013, there is also a high demand for horse power parity. While some of the other classes provide the horsepower parity, they are costly to contend due to the high power output which causes a higher level of tire consumption. Allowing for modifications eliminates many would be contenders who do not have the resources from competition.
 
 While previous requests to revert the class to 250 Super sport have been denied on the basis that the 300cc machines have been introduced, the majority of the machines on the grid are still stock 250cc machines.
 
 Therefore I would like to present the following solutions.
 
 1. I propose that the GTUL class be revised to limit the modifications to that of a Super Sport class. With the exception of the the 250cc machines which should be allowed to change cylinders, pistons and fuel induction system in order to increase the displacement size to 300cc as well as allow proper fuel metering for the change. The compression should not be more than that of the current Kawasaki Ninja 300. The air cooled 350 twin stipulation could remain as is.
 
 2. I propose that the ULTB class remain as is with no changes, therefore remaining the builders class.
 
 In implementing these changes, both the existing 250 machines and the new comer 300 cc machines will both have a fair place to race, while still keeping the costs down for the GTUL riders. Those who desire to modify would also have a place to demonstrate their abilities on a level playing field in ULTB.
 
 In implementing these changes you will be providing a platform for all riders, not just that of the stock mind set or modified mind set.
 
 Thank you for your consideration.
 
 I look forward to your response.
 
 Regards,
 
 Miguel Chirino
 CCS Expert #38
 
 Racers,
 
 If you are in favor of the above proposal (spec member or not) or have something to add or remove. Please send your proposal to CCS and let them hear your opinion.
 
 CCS asks that you call, write or email your proposal prior to the November deadline.
 
 kevin.elliott@ccsracing.us
 eric.kelcher@ccsracing.us
 www.ccsracing.us
 
 9928 Peregrine Trail
 Fort Worth, TX 76108-4194
 Phone: 817-246-1127
 Fax: 817-246-2977
 9-5 Mon-Thur (Central)
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Miguel Chirino
SPECCLASSRACING.com

*

Capitalview

  • ***
  • 125
    +244/-0
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2014, 04:49:30 pm »
Nice proposal.  It doesn't address the new Yamaha or KTM though.

Just curious how you would, or if you would, include those two bikes.

The way I look at it, the more manufactures involved, the better it is for the sport overall.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

Zaph

  • ***
  • 107
    +729/-10
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2014, 09:12:31 pm »
Nice proposal.  It doesn't address the new Yamaha or KTM though.

Just curious how you would, or if you would, include those two bikes.

The way I look at it, the more manufactures involved, the better it is for the sport overall.

I already sent the request to Eric Kelcher to add the R3 and RC390 to ULTB and it was shot down.  He suggested those bikes would be competitive in the 500 SS class.  I don't agree but I'm not going try pushing the subject.  I get the feeling you could propose whatever you want and it's not going to matter.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

apriliaman

  • ****
  • 401
    +38/-7
    • me
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2014, 12:57:20 am »
We also need more bikes in the 500 class.My old fzr 400 lap times are the same as the good running 250's.Only advantage I got is top speed and braking that is it.The new ktm and yamaha should be good in the 500 class.The CBR 500 is good in the turns but in a straight line it isn't that strong.EX 500 may be stronger in a straight line but doesnt handle or stop as good.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Winner of at least 50 CCS Lightweight Regional Championships
3 National Championships
Top 10 plate holder since 2006

*

CHIRINOM

  • ***
  • 124
    +5/-1
    • Spec Class Racing
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2014, 11:03:18 am »
Thanks. I am of a slightly different opinion about the matter of multiple machines running within a class. I believe that there should be light weight classes which are less about the machine participation and more about the cost / horsepower parity and rider involvement. This includes factoring in the purchase price of the machine and what it would cost for someone to have to replace or update their machine in order to remain genuinely competitive. I can tell you that, if I am put in the position to have to completely replace my 2012 machine already, I will be forced to take time off as I simply have too many other commitments at this time.

We see many manufacturer supported classes come and go as they are simply looking to sell bikes. Which is completely understandable; However, I would like to see a little more persistency of a given machine. The CCS ULTB class was initially presented as a super sport Ninja 250 class when proposed in 2011, which is why I signed on. We had a fantastic 2012. In 2013 the 300's were released and kept us on the tip of our toes hoping that none would show up. Almost immediately, the 250 riders who signed up for a SS 250 class were out classed, unless they start modifying.  For 2013 we asked for another class where the 250's could run without incurring a significant expense and we were given GTUL (in Florida it was run as a 250 Spec class). 2013 was awesome. In 2014, the class was adopted nation wide under ULTB rules, once again putting 250 riders at the disadvantage.

The goal of my rules proposal is to try to find a middle ground and regain some stability. Introducing more machines into the mix at this point would hinder this. I am with CCS on this one. I would monitor the progress of these machines in other classes. As time goes by and if participation permits, implement something that would accommodate them.





 
Nice proposal.  It doesn't address the new Yamaha or KTM though.

Just curious how you would, or if you would, include those two bikes.

The way I look at it, the more manufactures involved, the better it is for the sport overall.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Miguel Chirino
SPECCLASSRACING.com

*

Zaph

  • ***
  • 107
    +729/-10
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2014, 01:54:59 pm »
I think fairness is important.  If the R3 and RC390 won't be allowed in ULTB, then the Ninja 300 should not be allowed either.  There's certainly enough 250 ninjas to go around for a while.  And there will only be a few 300 owners that get bumped out of that class.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

SVbadguy

  • ****
  • 464
    +899/-27
  • '08 & 09 MA LWSB Champ
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2014, 05:29:37 pm »
I already sent the request to Eric Kelcher to add the R3 and RC390 to ULTB and it was shot down.  He suggested those bikes would be competitive in the 500 SS class.  I don't agree but I'm not going try pushing the subject.  I get the feeling you could propose whatever you want and it's not going to matter.

I've compared the specs of the KTM, R3 and CBR5.  I think the KTM would the fastest of them.  R3 and CBR would be pretty close, but the R3 would likely be better.  All will smoke the Ninjas.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Mid-Atlantic Region 
MARRC Exec Committee at-large & Radio Committee Chair

*

MAZZ77X

  • *
  • 224
    +8/-1
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2014, 10:03:22 pm »
Don't count out the Ninja 250, in the right hands it's just as capable as the other bikes.


Even still for the sport to grow and low cost, high reward racing to make a difference in this country the class has to evolve with the current production machines.....


500 Supersport is a good place to start. With a bike no longer in production your basically running a vintage class with out the time warp. I'm all for it but I'm also a realist..... and with the addition of a possible pro level light weight class endorsing small displacement bikes we would be foolish to pigeonhole a class to one bike just cause we all have one.... OH and I'm trying to sell our Ninja 250....haha :cheers:
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

Capitalview

  • ***
  • 125
    +244/-0
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2014, 08:50:47 am »
While I would love to get into the UL class, I just won't spend the money on a 250 when manufacturers are coming out with modern options.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

*

apriliaman

  • ****
  • 401
    +38/-7
    • me
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2014, 06:52:49 pm »
Yep as I've seen Mazz when he rides his 250 his cornering speed is the same as on his SV 650!Just imagine how fast he could go on the KTM RC 390 for the 500 class,no one gonna catch up!Hey Miguel Chirino i don't see in the results that any 300 is winning any races so how is it too fast for you compare to your 250 when your beating them?
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Winner of at least 50 CCS Lightweight Regional Championships
3 National Championships
Top 10 plate holder since 2006

*

CHIRINOM

  • ***
  • 124
    +5/-1
    • Spec Class Racing
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2014, 12:10:54 pm »
Yep as I've seen Mazz when he rides his 250 his cornering speed is the same as on his SV 650!Just imagine how fast he could go on the KTM RC 390 for the 500 class,no one gonna catch up!Hey Miguel Chirino i don't see in the results that any 300 is winning any races so how is it too fast for you compare to your 250 when your beating them?
It finally happened at Daytona this year. A few 300s showed up and ran away with it. The 250s were completely out gunned. We also have three out of the 20 250s that decided to modify in Florida. They are also running away with it as we are all running spec bikes.

We can all decide to modify our 250s but by the same token so can the 300s, which really opens a can of worms and tons of questions about which bike and which mods produce the best package.

The reason for my proposal is to try to put some type of cap on at least one of the classes, other wise it really boils down to who has the most $$.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Miguel Chirino
SPECCLASSRACING.com

*

apriliaman

  • ****
  • 401
    +38/-7
    • me
Re: 2015 ULTB and GTUL rules proposal sent to CCS
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2014, 11:17:21 pm »
ok guess there is a top speed difference between both bikes.
Like
0
Dislike
0
Agree
0
Disagree
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Winner of at least 50 CCS Lightweight Regional Championships
3 National Championships
Top 10 plate holder since 2006