PDA

View Full Version : Superstock Rules



Frank Newman
08-05-2004, 10:37 AM
I would like to know asap if the "exact replica" bodywork for superstock will be in effect in 2005. Also, I would like to see Formula 40 LW be broken into Novice and Expert.

Frank Newman
08-05-2004, 10:37 AM
I would like to know asap if the "exact replica" bodywork for superstock will be in effect in 2005. Also, I would like to see Formula 40 LW be broken into Novice and Expert.

Keith Hertell
08-05-2004, 02:03 PM
I would assume that SS rules will remain the same.
What did you have in mind?
If the classes are large enough they would be split.

Keith Hertell
08-05-2004, 02:03 PM
I would assume that SS rules will remain the same.
What did you have in mind?
If the classes are large enough they would be split.

Frank Newman
08-05-2004, 03:32 PM
See 2004 Rulebook, Page 13, subparagraph (h), last sentence: "For 2005 exact replica bodywork may be required."

Frank Newman
08-05-2004, 03:32 PM
See 2004 Rulebook, Page 13, subparagraph (h), last sentence: "For 2005 exact replica bodywork may be required."

Keith Hertell
08-05-2004, 03:57 PM
Like I said: "I would assume that SS rules will remain the same." /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Keith Hertell
08-05-2004, 03:57 PM
Like I said: "I would assume that SS rules will remain the same." /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Frank Newman
08-05-2004, 05:49 PM
I hope giving a snotty response made you feel good. Frank

Frank Newman
08-05-2004, 05:49 PM
I hope giving a snotty response made you feel good. Frank

Keith Hertell
08-05-2004, 06:33 PM
Yep! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

It's looks better now. I had forgot to put in the smiley.

If you still think it's "snotty". I guess I'll have to get another smiley.

Keith Hertell
08-05-2004, 06:33 PM
Yep! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

It's looks better now. I had forgot to put in the smiley.

If you still think it's "snotty". I guess I'll have to get another smiley.

CYCLE 1
08-05-2004, 10:08 PM
I have had three racers tell me they would like to run f40 lt if there was am/ex seperation.
The only thing that would change is we could grid
all f40 experts up front lt/heavy and all
novices to the back. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

CYCLE 1
08-05-2004, 10:08 PM
I have had three racers tell me they would like to run f40 lt if there was am/ex seperation.
The only thing that would change is we could grid
all f40 experts up front lt/heavy and all
novices to the back. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

waytooslow
08-06-2004, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Scott Levine:
I have had three racers tell me they would like to run f40 lt if there was am/ex seperation.
The only thing that would change is we could grid
all f40 experts up front lt/heavy and all
novices to the back. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>I concur.

waytooslow
08-06-2004, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Scott Levine:
I have had three racers tell me they would like to run f40 lt if there was am/ex seperation.
The only thing that would change is we could grid
all f40 experts up front lt/heavy and all
novices to the back. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>I concur.

Michael Hamric
08-06-2004, 05:54 PM
Scott (Levine) has a great point. There are rarely enough F40LW to qualify for contingency, nevertheless, the LW start (1st lap) is almost as scary as DSS (starting behind the 125s). Split the LW class and let all of the expert grid up front. Thanks for bringing it up Frank!

MH

Michael Hamric
08-06-2004, 05:54 PM
Scott (Levine) has a great point. There are rarely enough F40LW to qualify for contingency, nevertheless, the LW start (1st lap) is almost as scary as DSS (starting behind the 125s). Split the LW class and let all of the expert grid up front. Thanks for bringing it up Frank!

MH

Keith Hertell
08-07-2004, 07:43 PM
I think the F40 Lw class is not even close to having to be split. There is only an average of 8.5 riders per race. Frank, you brought this whole thing to light, yet you have only raced the class one time. I don't see the point.
I do however feel that if need be, split the damn classes.
Oh BTW, Classic Superbike has 8 riders per class average.
IMHO!!!!

Keith Hertell
08-07-2004, 07:43 PM
I think the F40 Lw class is not even close to having to be split. There is only an average of 8.5 riders per race. Frank, you brought this whole thing to light, yet you have only raced the class one time. I don't see the point.
I do however feel that if need be, split the damn classes.
Oh BTW, Classic Superbike has 8 riders per class average.
IMHO!!!!

CYCLE 1
08-07-2004, 10:41 PM
Sometimes you have to look at what could be
as opposed to what is. The motard class is
growing because the opportunity was put there.

If you look at where the f40 lt experts are
placing in the overall with a wave start behind the hvy novices that is a good indicator that the experts should be gridded up front and more lt novices will join the class if they feel they will be racing against others more equal to there current ability.

CYCLE 1
08-07-2004, 10:41 PM
Sometimes you have to look at what could be
as opposed to what is. The motard class is
growing because the opportunity was put there.

If you look at where the f40 lt experts are
placing in the overall with a wave start behind the hvy novices that is a good indicator that the experts should be gridded up front and more lt novices will join the class if they feel they will be racing against others more equal to there current ability.

CYCLE 1
08-07-2004, 10:54 PM
Sorry to post twice in a row but us old guys
sometimes have memory lapses. The Sv has provided
the ultimate platform for racers of all ages
and ability that is what makes this a viable
class for the future.

CYCLE 1
08-07-2004, 10:54 PM
Sorry to post twice in a row but us old guys
sometimes have memory lapses. The Sv has provided
the ultimate platform for racers of all ages
and ability that is what makes this a viable
class for the future.

KELLY DAVIS
08-08-2004, 08:54 AM
POWER TO THE TWINS!!!!!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

KELLY DAVIS
08-08-2004, 08:54 AM
POWER TO THE TWINS!!!!!!!!! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Frank Newman
08-09-2004, 07:56 AM
I haven't raced the class because I would be competing for points against experts. As a two year rider who started at age 54, I might have a chance against 40+ years old novices. However, if it doesn't fit in CMRA's plan, fine. It's just a question/request to the Board for consideration.

Frank Newman
08-09-2004, 07:56 AM
I haven't raced the class because I would be competing for points against experts. As a two year rider who started at age 54, I might have a chance against 40+ years old novices. However, if it doesn't fit in CMRA's plan, fine. It's just a question/request to the Board for consideration.

Bryan Norton
08-10-2004, 04:44 PM
Last Year F40 Lightweight was a new class, so we didn't know how popular it would be. Just like the many classes we have without am/ex it was a test to see what kind of turnout.

I don't have an opposition to splitting the class for 2005.

The bodywork clause was put into place because WERA requires 100% stock replica. For those racing the GNF through our program this year, and possible future opportunities of running some sort of combined event, I didn't want our guys disqualified because they were running CMRA/CCS legal bodywork, but not WERA.

I don't see a reason to require 100% legal for 2005, but will check with the BoD.

Bryan Norton
08-10-2004, 04:44 PM
Last Year F40 Lightweight was a new class, so we didn't know how popular it would be. Just like the many classes we have without am/ex it was a test to see what kind of turnout.

I don't have an opposition to splitting the class for 2005.

The bodywork clause was put into place because WERA requires 100% stock replica. For those racing the GNF through our program this year, and possible future opportunities of running some sort of combined event, I didn't want our guys disqualified because they were running CMRA/CCS legal bodywork, but not WERA.

I don't see a reason to require 100% legal for 2005, but will check with the BoD.