Nice. But isn't that a motard over 250cc?Originally Posted by Ty Howard
Nice. But isn't that a motard over 250cc?
Last edited by Staton Shed; 10-10-2013 at 05:53 PM. Reason: check rules at beginning of thread, DOH1
The 390 Duke is far from a motard.
Walter Walker
Director of Competition
254-717-6848
walter@cmraracing.com
CMRA Ex #43r
Member since 1990
(NOT mean and unapproachable)
I like the way you think.
I am excited about the new classes. They sound fun. I just really want to endurance 2 strokes for overalls. Please consider some sort of 2 stroke single class that would fit that. It could be it's own class so it never took class points from the Superstock classes. Maybe a 250 single 2stroke in any chassis. I think you'd get a lot more interest in a 2 stroke class with a displacement that was factory. You say no one showed up but I believe that's a result of the class specs. current displacement max is not a stock option. It requires a motor build close to the maximum available. An 85 (100)cc motard does not have the aero to compete with a the 250 4s so it also requires a chassis build. The number of people willing to do that are limited and even less have the capacity to do so. I believe that is why so few showed up. Thanks for your ear, Walter. I know we're annoying with all our crazy ideas, wants and demands. ;)
Hopefully this is the appropriate forum to voice concerns when it comes to some of the rules discussions currently being worked on by the BOD. I apologize if my comments are not in the appropriate place.
I understand that class structures are somewhat out of the control of the club since factors such as number of entries, bike manufacturer decisions, and regional preferences drive those decisions. However, I also recognize that what gets run can be encouraged, or conversely, discouraged by the rules structure of an organization. Over the last several years, the disappearance of small displacement minis coupled with the rise of the Ninja 250 have put the final nail in the coffin of our traditional farm system, the mini endurance class. This has been heartbreaking to watch for those of us with a passion for lightweight racing, two-strokes, and bikes cobbled together in garages across the region. The series has morphed into a horrible spec class of bikes that all look, sound, and race the same. But it is what is as they say.
It would be completely unfair to blame the club for this sad event. As I mentioned before, the market has driven this change and no matter how much I hated seeing it, the 250’s (still not minis in my book) took over the series and have been a financial success. Honestly, they saved the series from the throes of death. Without those bikes, I don’t believe it would have survived. While it is unfair to blame the club for these changes, I do think rules packages, number of eligible races (both sprint and endurance) and just calling them minis were all factors that lead to the demise of our more traditional mini entries (TMGP style bikes, 80cc GP bikes, etc.) The market, a bad economy, and our decisions killed our true mini classes. Money won out over our culture. That is a good thing for the club. But it does not make it any more palatable.
So, the die is cast on the Ninja 250’s. This brings me to my concerns, as voiced when the 250’s started to grow in entries that the 500’s are far too much bike to be considered minis. In my opinion, adding these full sized motorcycles to the mini endurance classes will totally change the branding and perception of the strongest mini program in the country, the CMRA mini endurance series. These bikes are far too heavy, and far too fast to be considered minis. While I know the designs and performance are completely different, I find it unsettling that our mini class and our second fastest class are only 100cc apart from each other. I would respectfully ask that the BOD carefully consider the potential speed and weight differentials these bikes present. Additionally, I would encourage the BOD to create a plan spanning at least five years, which defines what our mini classes should be, where we want to take them, and how to get there. I hate to see the classes driven by whatever new bike is announced instead of what we, as a club, want.
I support whatever decisions the BOD and staff makes related to class structure. I don’t see those financial numbers and I strongly believe that ultimately, the club needs to produce product that people buy so the BOD will know what is best. I just encourage those that are serving to look hard at what the club was, is, and what they want it to be.
We should encourage builders.
We should encourage youth participation.
We should encourage vintage classes.
We should encourage our long standing tradition of providing a place to race whatever you have.
Provided the balance sheet does not suffer.
Thank you for listening.
Expert #325
Boulder, Colorado
Maybe I don't read too well, I don't see the KTM fits in the "twins" rules...would this or possibly the RC 390(if it makes it to the states) be legal for the CMRA?
There are plenty of 12-14 yo kids on 250s already. Its a great, relevant bike thats reliable. That means a kid can concentrate on seat time, and dad doesnt have to be a pro tuner to keep his kid on track. The real problem to me was a lack of bike to fill the gap between 250 and 600 or SV. Now with a place to ride a 500, we have that. This is a good formula, and it will work.
finally some1 gets it! Thanx Jesse
I agree but you seem to be missing the point I was making which was these bikes are not minis. Calling this a mini series with 425 lb, 50 HP, $6000 motorcycles is wrong. Maybe I long for something that just cant exist anymore.
Expert #325
Boulder, Colorado
That's why we are not calling it a mini series anymore! Seriously Chris pay attention. Come to a race once in a while, you might learn something!
I agree but you seem to be missing the point I was making which was these bikes are not minis. Calling this a mini series with 425 lb, 50 HP, $6000 motorcycles is wrong. Maybe I long for something that just cant exist anymore.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote