AGM Info and 2016 Rule Change Thread

Goatse

Active Member
Although it seems like the easiest choice, I'm not big on mixing anything with the novice class. Our novice class exists specifically for safety reasons. So to mix up that grid is kind of going against what it is supposed to be there for in the first place.

I definitely think Jason is on to something though.

Just for reference, I have attached a screenshot from where I track the podiums for year end. It'll give an example of just how low the turnout was in the classes in question. The squares in red are races with 5 riders or less, and the grey squares are races that didn't even have as many as 3 racers.. There's a lot of red and grey in those classes..
 

Attachments

  • M Twins.jpg
    M Twins.jpg
    99.2 KB · Views: 36

tcasey87

Member
In proposing that Ultra lightweight superbike (ULS) run at the back of novice, I think that my focus was finding two races for that class as a class. If ULS ran at the back of MWT & 112, then that would work as well.

If ULS ran at back of novice, then ULS would have 2 races, plus those bikes could run in 112. Similar to the way to variety of options that SVs have (senior open, MWT, 112, LS, FT).

Due speed differentials , I think ULS could not be eligible for SO
 
Last edited:

rambo

New Member
I am waiting for CSBK to release there ninja 300 rules to decide if I'm going to build one. I would not like to see the ULS class running behind novice due to the massive amount of red and yellow flags I really don't think that's fair to any class. I am all for it to be behind MWT and formula 112.
 
Top