New 600 rules...

[Triple R]

Hi, I see somepeople have seen the potential rule changes for the 600's, with regards to Privateers.

As someone else pointed out, this is just a proposal, so nothing is in concrete yet.

I have not gone through what everyone has written about the proposed rules for the Privateers yet. But there will be a few changes to them.

Mainly to make it alot easier to check riders bikes and also to take in to consideration, the bikes out there with riders who would already come under the Privateer class rules. And these bikes were bought with the full race suspension already.

A rule I put forward also for the 600's, is the number of tyres. There will only be allowed 2 fronts and 2 rear tyres, for both qualifiying and the 2 races. These tyres will have to be presented, to be marked before the qualifying. And have to be on the bike from then on.
This is exactly how it is done with the Aussie 600's and I fell can work here too. Which should help bring the cost done a touch.

In Superbikes, it looks as though race cams will be dropped. This has been looked at to help reduce the intial cost of building new race bikes for SBK. Also it looks as though this will also include current model bikes, like the current 2008 Honda, 2007-8 Yamaha and also the K7/8 Suzuki.

Also, my Naked Production Class (just for Nationals) is also going to be put forward for consideration.
From what I saw here, pretty well eveyone thought it a good idea. As long as it was not going to suck riders out of the 600's or SBK.
I hope it doesn't.
What I want to see with this class, is maybe some of us old timers would then come back for some fun in a National Class, which is fun and also to bring other people who don't currently race, especially in 600's and SBK, and have them come and race in a National Class.

Hope this is along the lines of what most people would like to see.

Cheers,
Red.

[Maido]

Hi red,

The privateer class seems like a great idea, however the only problem I can see with it is that potentially the privateers (which will be slower riders in theory, no disrespect intended), will be on slower bikes. This could create a safety issue when the fast riders come to lap. However I suppose there are two alternatives, firstly qualfying with a cut off and secondly the blue flag could be implemented? what are your thoughs on this aspect?

Jeremy Holmes

[Triple R]

Hi Jeremy.

Yeap, James said to me the same thing, with the possible difference in speed.

Basically, there would still be the time cut off, like there is now.........or is meant to be. In other words, riders would need to qualify within 105% of the #1 qualifier.

The people who don't make the cut off, would then drop down to race in Clubmans.
That is why I would like to see the Clubmans Class at all National Rounds. Giving people the oppotunity to race at the same event as the top riders on the same bikes, even if they are not quick enough to be in their respected classes.

Also, I have been trying for AGES to get the blue flag used properly and at all races. If the car guys can do it, why can't we......!!!!!!!!!

[cowpoos]

I wouldn't mind seeing all porting and polishing dropped 'if cams' are...and limit machining to balancing at the most...for engine reliablity in superbikes.

[CHOPPA]

If i have to remove the cams from my new bike i wont be racing the nats. Id save the money and do a few oz rounds

[flame]

Best of luck with the Naked Proddy class Red. I think its an awesome idea. Might even have to think about parking an S4R the garage

[Triple R]

Porting and polishing is already been stopped. Only removing material straight down from the valve seat (without touching the valve guide) is allowed. Or something along those lines.

The removeal of cams...........this was a hard one to do Paul said.
He has been getting pressure from people to reduce the costs to building the bikes. With them thinking this is the answer to get people back on the grids.

But, I don't believe that this is the case, and, the real reason we are where we are, is the very big lack of presentation, by the paid side of MNZ, in getting our sport out into the public domain.
Promoting our sport within the right areas, and getting companies outside of the box, into, supporting our championships.

Dumbing down the rules for Superbikes, is not going to increase the number of riders on the grids, or get riders closer to Andrew or Robbies bikes. And, with too much dumbing down of the rules, there will be a real chance of losing manufacturer support for the Championship.

Having a championship, which is well televised, so that riders can then use this to put together proper sponsorship proposals, because of the TV, to then attract the potential sponsors.

Now, this would not happen over night, and it would take a lot of hard work to achieve.
But, we have all seen what Paul Stewart and his helpers (all did a great job) have done for the series, with regards to getting TV etc. And these guys were not even paid for their work.
So how much better could someone do, or should do, who is paid to do all this........

Maybe we do need something like Shaun H has mentioned a few years ago, and I have also.............. A paid promoter. On a retainer, set a strict set of requirements (guide lines) that are set up by the riders, team owners and manufacturers, to make the Nationals work.
And, if the Promoter made money out of running the National; as long as all the guide lines and requirments were meet, then good on them for making money.

Well........that is what I think anyway.......!!!

[codgyoleracer]

QUOTE "Triple R
A paid promoter. On a retainer, set a strict set of requirements (guide lines) that are set up by the riders, team owners and manufacturers, to make the Nationals work.
And, if the Promoter made money out of running the National; as long as all the guide lines and requirments were meet, then good on them for making money"


This may well be worth consideration & may well take the sport in a direction that ultimatly is more commercialy viable than it is currently.
The current funding expectations placed on the various motorcycle distributers is unfair, but whilst this input is really appreciated - it can also ultimatly be to some degree unhealthy due to conflict of interest issues.
The risk (to the competior) with with using a promotor is simply the potential cost of entry. Entry costs can be driven by a promotors infrastructure costs, increased facilty costs (track hire) etc and increased liabilty issues that they may percieve that they require personal & business insurance coverage for & of course a requirement to make a healthy profit.
Of course MNZ could theoretically "sell the rights" to a series promotor and has the ability to cap the entry fees as part of these rights.

Another Interesting observation is - I wonder what a promotor would make of the huge public perception difference between a street race meetings and a track based one - then the potential returns from a street series appears to be far greater & like it or not - the crowd love em, tv loves em and many riders (like em, sorta :-) (+ of course councils actually throw money into the pot to make em happen...........)
A national series thats a mixture street meeting & track based ? - far fetched ?, very much so - however potential for profits for all and massive sport exposure definately.
This is pie in the sky stuff - sorry , but just an observation. If you wish to comment on the safety of a street based national series then start your own thread please :-).

Cool thread & well worth discussing in the open, not sure who gets to read it in any offical capicty though !
Cheers
Glen Williams

[t3mp0r4ry nzr]

G.W, I think your on the money. If we need to race on the streets to get the punters in, we need to do it.

[Shaun]

Maybe we do need something like Shaun H has mentioned a few years ago, and I have also.............. A paid promoter. On a retainer, set a strict set of requirements (guide lines) that are set up by the riders, team owners and manufacturers, to make the Nationals work.
And, if the Promoter made money out of running the National; as long as all the guide lines and requirments were meet, then good on them for making money.

Well........that is what I think anyway.......!!!



Cheers Red- I do still believe we need this person working for us PAID for by us, so we can grow with the importers etc and work together towards re building the future

[Shaun]

If i have to remove the cams from my new bike i wont be racing the nats. Id save the money and do a few oz rounds

bye bye then

[brads]

If i have to remove the cams from my new bike i wont be racing the nats.

Why would you do that mate?

[Shaun P]

If i have to remove the cams from my new bike i wont be racing the nats. Id save the money and do a few oz rounds

Why would you do that mate?

Cause it wouldnt run without them

[Shaun P]

I was quite surprised when I saw that allowing standard suspension was being considered in the Supersport class. Apart from getting the predictable responses from some partys I think there will be alot of support for this from riders.

There are a few questions like how can we be sure people aren't modifying shocks. And the revalving issue put forward. One idea thatI think would work would be to let guys get their standard shocks set up (springs and valving) before the first round and at the first round have the shocks or mounting bolt marked/sealed with (for example) a microdot identification expoxy.
This way guys could have their bike set up pretty well by an expert but would then not be able to make any major changes apart from clicker and preload adjustments.

The other issue you have mentioned is tyres. An ideal would be for a manufacturer to get behind this or MNZ to negotiate a deal to supply all the racers with the same control tyres. The supplier would know pretty well how many tyres they need to stock and all the riders should be able to get a good price this way. People with backing might not like this.

One more issue is how many people will still be running for the premier 600 title? If it reduces the contenters to a few factory riders things would not be good.

Lastly is the issue of the speed differential between the top guys and the slower privateers class riders. This is an issue already but would become more of an issue if fields increased. The blue flag is good but sometimes the timing can just be unfortunate for a lapped rider. eg the Smith Sheriffs backmarker incident an couple of seasons ago.
Not sure what the answer is here but it can ruin a top guys chances at the championship. One DNF with so few races can be a killer.

I'm well aware that there people that hate the idea of "dumbing down" the class. I see it more as taking some of the technical and financial aspects out (which many very good riders get handicapped by) and putting more focus on the riders riding ability rather than how many people around him setting up the bike and then taking some credit for how well the bike and rider performed.

Great to have you on here Mr Fenton. Knowing your opinions and vision for the sport is a great benefit to everyone involved.




Hey Sloan are you running a 600 as well? I know where your at as far as the Superbikes go but thought you would be going for the overall honors anyway.

I think you keep missing the point that motorcycle racing is a winning combination of machine/supension/tyre setup-skill and rider skill.

[Tony.OK]

Cheers Red- I do still believe we need this person working for us PAID for by us, so we can grow with the importers etc and work together towards re building the future

Don't we pay a licence fee for that already? The money certainly isn't going to our road race comissioner or team, oh hang on, MNZ are looking at upgrading their offices and carpark according to the CEO's newsletters, that'll make a huge difference to our sport

bye bye then

Thats just harsh
Would've thought someone with Sloans abilities should be encouraged.................