AGM Info and 2016 Rule Change Thread

Ryno

Active Member
"After my time on the exec I believe I have a fairly good understanding what goes on"

That was the ironic part. You don't really know what goes on because you were never there and never did anything. Then you quit right before the last race weekend (yes it was a double header, still our last weekend) and stiffed us with the ONE job you had to do all year. After absorbing the free ride, and not even putting in any effort.
It's not a pissing match, I'm just saying it like it is. We could use another exec position, not get rid of some people. I think you just don't see it that way and suggested the opposite because you don't really know what the last two years were like. So it was kind of an ironic suggestion from you.
PM'd...........
 

Ryno

Active Member
One race round, an announcement was made at the rider's meeting that we needed some riders to volunteers otherwise we couldnt race -not enough corner works to safely spot the danger spots and work flags. Out of the 60 some-odd racers that round, we had two volunteers. We're super appreciative of the two that did volunteer and this isn't a slight against those that didn't put their hands up. We get it, people pay and they want to race. Nature of the beast. My point is, the whole concept of calling on a large number of riders to do stuff during a race weekend when they've paid to relax and have fun is very difficult.

Case in point: air fence set up. How many EMRA members do we have? Seldom on days where people dont pay to enjoy themselves (i.e. free time) do we ever get more than 4 volunteers out excluding the exec. Two times last year (40% of the season), it was just myself, Dave, and Aleks setting up all the air fence despite reaching out through the forum and social media.

Im not trying to argue your points, but rather explain the reality of what actually happens. You say we're top heavy. Granted because the numbers dont lie but, pray tell, who are you comparing the EMRA to? I believe we differ from a lot of other clubs in that all of our exec also double as volunteers. Our volunteer base is extremely small and our regular volunteers is even smaller (and wonderful). The main issue we're finding is that we're not like the tracks in the states that have seasonally permanent "things" that can stay in one spot all season. The huge overhead for the EMRA is that everything has to be set up and taken down before and after a race weekend. Moreover, we have to move things FAST after a race weekend because the second 4pm hits, we have to have our shit off the track because we share it.

Nothing we use intersects with the needs of the car guys.

By all means, if anybody can plan the duties, schedules, and tasks of the exec in regards to everything that needs to be done to set the track up, run a track day, and cover tear down, and make a viable case to have fewer exec members, the exec is all ears. Anybody can propose anything! Decisions just aren't made by the exec as Im sure youre well aware. If it makes sense, bring it up at the AGM and EVERYBODY at the AGM can vote on it. This has always been the case.

The main issue with decreasing the number of exec, IMO, is decreasing the number of reliable and accountable people dedicated to the cause. If we can barely get people out to set up air fence, Im not sure how we're going to get people to do work on a weekend they pay hundreds of dollars to have fun and concentrate on their personally goals.We're all ears though lol I'd LOVE to share the load with other willing members.

First off I would like to say thank you to Wilson for the time he spent out in crap conditions this year making weekends work. Also for replying to a suggestion in a professional manner rather than attacking and not really addressing the topic.

Although I believe the point is still being missed a little. My suggestion was to open the Exec meetings up to the general membership every month. Instead of just having the AGM to keep everyone involved if they want to be. Have a meeting where everyone is invited. Instead of just the exec crowding into a board room at Daves office, find a larger location that could host a meeting for the club. Other clubs go to banquet rooms, private function rooms at restaurants, community halls. Who knows this may generate no new interest but it was just a suggestion as it appeared some members feel in the dark about things.

If more members feel they can come to the meetings and get more involved in helping with sponsorship, or helping with acquiring radios or any other task that eats away time. Then and only then could the club look at cutting back positions. Other clubs have promotional groups, instead of one guy trying to get it all organized. There are rules committees, all sorts of things that could be looked at to make the EMRA grow.

The clubs I am talking about are the MRA in Colorado that have 150 riders, 5 exec positions, they have to set up and tear down at 5 different tracks in the state and it all runs fine. WMRC runs with a smaller exec than the EMRA I and most know the set up and tear down they have. I can list more examples if anyone would like me too, those are just the first that come to mind.
 

the_fornicator

Active Member
I do not think it's feasible from a time standpoint to open up all meetings to the members. Meetings right now go past the 3 hour mark. Adding more people to the meetings would make it extremely daunting.

There's also the issue of renting a venue to accommodate all the people that may or may not show up. If anybody has cared to look at the meeting notes for 2014, they'll see that the club was in the red for the year. So, the club lost money. But you're proposing to spend more money on stuff?

As the secretary, I am hearing a common theme that people want to be more involved which is awesome. I will propose to hold an open meeting for all members twice a year throughout the race season. This will be voted on at the AGM and majority will rule. I will vote for this motion as there seems to be a demand. I will also vote that you organize it as the person who is pushing for non-exec volunteering efforts :p

I'm not sure what people think happens in these meetings, but operational logistics and responsibilities are identified and handed out to exec members. I suppose to manage expectations, here are some examples:
* e.g. "Our garbage cans are overflowing. Let's contact Castrol and get them to up their game.... Who wants to do this?... OK, this task has been assigned to Wilson to be completed by <date>"
* "Question: We were behind schedule last race round, how do we keep up with the schedule?" "Answer: It's hard to answer that because we are at the whim of nature and crashes. Some things are beyond our control."

It's really nothing more than that.

I'm also not quite too sure I follow on one of your points. You want the club to reduce the number of exec, but you also want the exec to create a promotional group (i.e. add more people in the process) for a job that currently one person is doing? More people to do a job that one person is doing... but you want to decrease the number of exec? It seems counter-productive to your goal.

You bring up awesome thoughts, but in order to push anything through, we need specifics. I think where your thoughts fail is that you do not see where the work and effort that you are trying to save is transitioned. Make a value case and propose it at the AGM because none of us are going to do it. IMO, your whole argument to decrease the exec... I personally don't care because I didn't race so I didn't get anything out of the benefits of being exec. Personally, to me, it's more work and for what? Literally, what is your goal? To squeeze out the extra $800 from each race round by decreasing the exec by 5 people? By decreasing the amount of exec, you are creating other bodies (i.e. more people) that are doing the job thereby throwing the organization and effort load onto the remaining exec people that are left. This is the biggest part. The amount of tasks to complete during the race rounds will not decrease. So, even if you create groups and committees, you are putting the stress and effort of coordinating and organization these groups of people on the few exec that remain. Speaking candidly: Nobody wants to do that much work, man. We're here to run a club that allows people to race. It's really that simple. If we can do this without losing money each year, fantastic.

Also, the groups that you mention that are in charge of tasks/stuff, do they get anything out of it? Are they paid? Get breaks of fees? Free track time? How much will that cost the club vs getting rid of 5 exec members? Edit: There are 2 exec members that raced 1 round or less all year.

This is what I'm getting at. If you want to make a push for it, by all means, make a case. The exec is not resistant to change, but come up with specifics and not just ideas.

If someone cares to complain, I challenge them to come up with a solution, steps, actions, specifics, and own the process to make the change happen. Run for exec, BE THE PERSON YOU THINK OUR EXEC NEEDS! But please, don't just complain. (not directed at you, but just in general -pet peeve when people are all like, "I don't like this... I don't like that" but do nothing to improve whatever they're complaining about.
 
Last edited:

Goatse

Active Member
First off I would like to say thank you to Wilson for the time he spent out in crap conditions this year making weekends work. Also for replying to a suggestion in a professional manner rather than attacking and not really addressing the topic.

And what topic would that be exactly? You want the paying racers to do more work, while cutting down executive numbers which are already spread thin?

I do apologize if you feel attacked, but the term Brian used can pretty suiting here (I'm not saying that to be mean). Your posts are pretty condescending and can be considered as an "attack" in itself. You post like running things is a pretty simple task, yet you had to resign with trying to juggle real life and the roles of the committee at the same time. To which I hold nothing against you for, because being on the executive can be VERY overwhelming at times, and I'd be a liar if I hadn't thought "is this really worth it" while I'm running around doing things for the club as my own race program struggles. But in the end I truly enjoy being a part of what makes the club tick, and I feel I walked into a pretty well setup organization to begin with when I was a new director.

You seem bent on trying to reduce the director numbers. Is there a reason for that? What was the # you wanted to cut down? Remove 3 directors? Then put that extra work on paying racers? So now we'd have an even harder worked executive, and then racers grumbling about 'having' to do work while they're a paying customer. I'm sorry, but after (truly) have been on both sides of the fence here, I don't see that as a step in the right direction. It gives racers more to complain about (and trust me, some sure like to. But they ARE paying customers after all, so they do have the right to), and then a potentially unhappy executive (feeling like they're over worked). We have a pretty good balance right now, and other than your opinion out of left field on too many directors, I don't see it as a benefit to the club in general to put more on anybody's plate.

This is not on attack at you Colin. This is a defence for a club that works their ass off for their racers.
 

fast316

EMRA Executive Member
Haha, is it race season yet....? Nope, still November.

I am in favor of adding to the executive. The good the club stands to gain from one hard working exec member far out weighs the 'cost' (if you can call it that) of having them.

Wilson touched on our daily schedule, which IMO needs to be improved. Too many times for various unavoidable reasons we had to cut laps from races to finish the day on time. This is bad for two reasons. First, it takes racing away from everyone. Second, the club could face a large fine for running late. I really like the current schedule, the races and the order they are in, but the fact is it is just too tight. For the good of all the racers and potential cost saving for the club I feel we need to make some changes.

PLEASE READ THESES CHANGES CAREFULLY. Looking at the grids and trophys from last season I propose: Eliminate light weight superbike (it only ever had 3 riders max and some weekends no riders). Combine Formula Thunder and Sportsman into one class (the grids for formula thunder are not like they used to be, lap time differential in both those classes is difficult to track and varies, however I feel from a safety stand point they would be OK to combine). I'd also like to combine expert and intermediate middle weight twins, so have it just 'middle weight twins'. This would give that class enough riders to qualify for trophies at the end of the year. For the race day schedule we would simply move Formula Thunder where light weight superbike used to be. I think these changes would give the schedule 20 minutes of space in the afternoon which could then be used to help keep the races for everyone the normal length and avoid fines for running late.
 

the_fornicator

Active Member
I am not sure I fully follow the process, However I think the only fair and intelligent way to elect a president should be that only an experienced director can fill the position. Is this already the way it is or can anyone be elected? Also, Thanks for all the help over the years, I can only imagine the effort that you and Ian have put into making this club run as smoothly as it has!

Anybody can be elected, but read Dave Kendal's post above as well. Technically, every position is up for grabs each yet. The only exception is the president and VP positions -those become available every second year since, if there's a change in positions, one-year is required for transition/training.

But all other positions are up for grabs each year which is decided on by votes. If you think someone did a bang-up job, vote for them. If you think someone else can do a better job, vote for them. If you think you can do a bang up job, put your name in the ring so people can vote for you.

It's really that simple.
 
Not sure if this bringing things back in topic or further away...:D

I just received a promotion at work and will be relocating from Red Deer to Edmonton in the late winter/ early spring. Due conflicting priorities I can not make the AGM. I would however like to nominate myself for a Director position. I have always wanted to be more involved in the club but the distance and travel make it impossible. With that excuse out of the way I figured what the hell. No better way to affect change then to put my time and effort where my mouth is...
 

the_fornicator

Active Member
Not sure if this bringing things back in topic or further away...:D

I just received a promotion at work and will be relocating from Red Deer to Edmonton in the late winter/ early spring. Due conflicting priorities I can not make the AGM. I would however like to nominate myself for a Director position. I have always wanted to be more involved in the club but the distance and travel make it impossible. With that excuse out of the way I figured what the hell. No better way to affect change then to put my time and effort where my mouth is...

Absolutely. Perhaps ask someone to make a short speech on your behalf when it comes times for speeches for the candidates.

p.s. If you haven't been to an AGM in the past, I should mention that there are speeches if there are several people running for the same position vying for votes.
 

tcasey87

Member
First, thx to all executives. Without your efforts, we would not be racing. You are putting in hours and hours behind the scenes and your efforts are not appreciated enough.

Second, to all those who want to volunteer and get more involved at the executive level, just do it. I am sure that your interest will be welcomed. Many hands make light work. Maybe the Club should consider expanding the number of directors to match the number of people who are interested in serving. Why turn away willing workers?

Third, to those racers who think that because they have paid their race fees, then they can sit back and do nothing >> REALLY? We are a volunteer organization. Our racing is not being put on by a profitable business. Race fees do not covering all the costs. Race fees + volunteer time are needed to make ends meet. Do what you can when you can. Air fence (setup/takedown) is a great example.

Fourth >> to talk about rules changes >> deleting Lightweight Superbike

PLEASE READ THESES CHANGES CAREFULLY. Looking at the grids and trophys from last season I propose: Eliminate light weight superbike (it only ever had 3 riders max and some weekends no riders). Combine Formula Thunder and Sportsman into one class (the grids for formula thunder are not like they used to be, lap time differential in both those classes is difficult to track and varies, however I feel from a safety stand point they would be OK to combine). I'd also like to combine expert and intermediate middle weight twins, so have it just 'middle weight twins'. This would give that class enough riders to qualify for trophies at the end of the year. For the race day schedule we would simply move Formula Thunder where light weight superbike used to be. I think these changes would give the schedule 20 minutes of space in the afternoon which could then be used to help keep the races for everyone the normal length and avoid fines for running late.

As a small bike racer, I would like to see the door kept open for small bikes.
I really enjoyed racing the Aprilia RS125 against the Honda cbr300s in novice. Thx to race direction for letting me race down in novice against the only bikes I had a chance against.

If the rules of the 250 Gold Cup change to allow 300s, and the novice CBR 300s move up to race in that class, then the other class they would qualify for would be Lightweight Superbike. Being able to enter two races on a weekend on one bike is an attractive feature. Why move from Novice where you can have two races, to 250 gold cup, if you only get one race per weekend.

So if there are bikes entered in the 250 gold cup, then it would be nice to keep Lightweight Superbike. But that is a big "if" since, to my knowledge, that class has not been active since it was created.

If the 250/300/390 bikes entered into Forumla Thunder for their second race, then I would follow them there (if I had to).

Another solution would be to grid the 250/300 cup at the back of novice, perhaps a wave start, perhaps not. Easy solution to provide small bike racers with two races. I would rather have the new racers on the liter bikes, even the 600s, ahead of me, instead of just behind me. At least until later in the race. LOL. Then re-evaluate if interest in the class develops.

Fifthly >> 250 Gold Cup - should it become a 300 gold cup, to allow newer bikes (ninja 300, cbr 300). Where does the Club draw the line? ie. KTM RC390? (which has 374 cc). Should it remain a production class, ie. not mods, eg no aftermarket exhaust? or should the rules be relaxed? unlimited mods? certain mods? Until there is interest by racers in participating in this type of class, it is just a moot point.

I do not plan to sell the Aprilia, and buy an RC390 (athough I would like to), but if the club bumps up the 250 Production Cup to 300/390cc, I would like to see it become a modified class, so that modifications are legal. I will have to find some magic engine dust for the RS125 to be competitive.

Or drop the 250 Gold Cup, and keep the Lightweight Superbike class, drop the cc limit to 420cc no matter how many cylinders, and run it at the back of Novice, providing two races for Lightweight Superbike.

Kent
 
Last edited:

Jason Henton

Active Member
I think Kent hit on a few good points, There are a few of us smaller displacement/budget guys still racing. It is also true that there are few of us on the grid and taking up valuable track time when we are. I am not opposed to the idea of combining the Expert/Intermediate MWT classes, However I do not see any advantages to it either. If we are considering changing the schedule; Could we combine the MWT and sportsman race (maintaining their respective classes), AFAIK there are no 2 riders who enter both classes? This would be around 17 riders on track. We could also move the (4 riders) in womens open to formula thunder race (13 riders) for 17 riders on track. This would free up some space in the 112 grid (25 riders, 6 DNS?) We could then add a combined 250/Lightweight class to the 112 or, as Kent mentioned, to a novice race. The capped time limit in 112 would help eliminate lapping of the slower group but I believe it would effect Cedric (races 112 and lightweight) and Kent (Already in 112 but wants a 250/300 class). It would also allow for a potentially large grid of 29+ riders. This should remove a full 20 minute race session and help with the shorter time constraints.
 

tcasey87

Member
Any bikes in the Lightweight Superbike class would likely be able to run in the 112 class, so adding the Lightweight Superbike class to that grid would not do much.

My resolution would be:
(a) drop the 250 Gold Cup class
(b) amend the Lightweight Superbike class to drop the cc limit to 420cc no matter how many cylinders,
(c) run the Lightweight Superbike class at the back of Novice, providing two races for Lightweight Superbike.
(d) move Sportsman grid with Formula Thunder

Kent
 

yak

Well-Known Member
Kent

Thanks for speaking up. We need to hear from the racers that run these classes.

I feel strongly that there should be sufficient opportunities on a given weekend for the non 600/1000 bikes.

All the best,

Todd
 

bgo62

Member
I would also entertain the Lightweight Superbike class to drop the cc limit to 420cc . Then this opens the door for small cc bikes .

~Brian ~
 
(b) amend the Lightweight Superbike class to drop the cc limit to 420cc no matter how many cylinders,

As I have run this for years I will weigh in. Taking a class that nobody signs up for and making it more restrictive wont magically make the grids bigger or more popular. Us "little" bike racers have been shrinking in the past few years, to the point I am questioning even gridding next year. Running around with 1 to 3 other bikes in a class sucks and does not make for fun racing. Even better when you pay your fees and run a class all season and at the end the class is not even awarded based on points. In any event I don't see this class growing next year. In the same breath I DONT want to see the it die for us either.

I'm open for many ideas but, I don't think mixing lightweight bikes with Novice is a safe or smart idea. Taking bikes running significantly slower lap times (420cc or less) and putting them on grid with new novice 600 and 1000cc riders is an accident waiting to happen when lap traffic is finely caught.
 

411ninja

Member
Three bikes smaller than 420cc ran in the novice races this past year without incident. It's hard to say it's an accident waiting to happen, accidents can happen in any race or class. I'm not sure this is the solution but it is a possibility.
 

Jason Henton

Active Member
Any bikes in the Lightweight Superbike class would likely be able to run in the 112 class, so adding the Lightweight Superbike class to that grid would not do much.
112 Is an open displacement class, you run your bike in it; Technically I think you could run your bike in almost any race class. This doesn't mean it is a fair competition. Which is what it sounds like your after, a class or 2 to run ultralight (?) bikes. Which is a great idea, However I don't think it is fair to take that away from the current lightweight guys. Maybe change the current 250 class to ultralight open with <420cc? Run the ultralight with the MWT and sportsmans, and the lightweights with the 112?

Overall I think the focus should be on eliminating a race start, not forcing everyone into a catch all race class.
 

bgo62

Member
As I have run this for years I will weigh in. Taking a class that nobody signs up for and making it more restrictive wont magically make the grids bigger or more popular. Us "little" bike racers have been shrinking in the past few years, to the point I am questioning even gridding next year. Running around with 1 to 3 other bikes in a class sucks and does not make for fun racing. Even better when you pay your fees and run a class all season and at the end the class is not even awarded based on points. In any event I don't see this class growing next year. In the same breath I DONT want to see the it die for us either.

You are right Chris , we don't need to choke out a already small class, I would like to race in that class but im just over the cc limit .

Perhaps as Jason has suggested up the 250 class to the 420 cc mark and then this would accommodate the little cbr's , ninjas and Rc390's . The Nationals are going to be running the ninja 300 class this year so perhaps a small cc class may attract locals to run the small class in preparation for the nationals... I have been toying with the idea myself .
 

tcasey87

Member
Good points

Easy to modify my proposal
- change 250 gold to ultra lightweight
- limit the cc to 390, to accommodate rc390
- no motards or GP bikes (similar to existing 250 gold cup)
- twins or single cylinders engines (no 4 cylinder engines to keep the hp range between bikes w/i reason)
- Tires – DOT or slicks
- unlimited modifications (racers interested in ninja 300 series would limit their mods to fit the csbk rules, current 250 gold cup rules would not allow ninja 300 series modifications, ape rs125 racers could use magic engine dust, why limit mods if no way to police)
- run the ultra lightweight grid at the back of novice (no impact on race schedule, no issues with small bikes in novices in 2015)
- charge novice race fees (to encourage small bikes in novice to join ultra lightweight)
- re-evaluate if class grows in size
 
Top