2015 LRRS Suggestions/Feedback

[BMMCBR]

You're just shuffling entries around, not creating more.

This is exactly what I was thinking. There will likely be people who still run all 6-7 LW classes and add ULSB, but I think most have a budget (or are scared of the R5's and such) and will just stop entering GTL or LWGP in lieu of ULSB.

[Petorius]

Points for Daytona ROC really seems like the only benefit. And how many experts did we have running ULSB on an SV down there this year? One?

[OreoGaborio]

... but I think most have a budget and will just stop entering GTL or LWGP in lieu of ULSB.

Yup. I know that's what I'll probably end up doing.

[tsorfas]

Points for Daytona ROC really seems like the only benefit. And how many experts did we have running ULSB on an SV down there this year? One?

Hey I did pretty fucking good for starting dead last
LOL
We also had 5+ amateurs

[Woodcraft]

Maybe there's a solution here. ULSB can go with CCS rules but LRRS can create another class with the existing ULSB rules. LRRS actually gains entry fees and everybody is happy. Win - win

So the track is open to having races with less than 5 entries over the course of the season but wants to kill P-89? What have we done to wrong them?

If you want to propose something like this, I would get it done ASAP. There would need to be a discussion to make it happen for you.

I'm not sure why Tommy picked out P89...probably because the accountants were hounding him about giving away entries for a class with so few riders in it. I heard him talk about that several times and when we talked about adding new classes there was a big push back. My outside observation is that these guys who run the track are stretched super thin and if you want to get something done it really helps if they don't get hassled by the front office for doing it. Low maintenance stuff that supports itself will never go away. High maintenance stuff can get cut even if the support is moderate. Just food for thought. we have to sometimes pick our battles carefully, and make our pitches come across as positive, well thought out and easy to implement. So, if you want to have a prayer of something like this working, have all the details in hand - riders run all season in both EX/AM, where it fits in the schedule without causing conflicts, and how happy you would be if they put it in place.

[tsorfas]

Eric, for what it's worth, you are the man.

[Trouble]

If you want to propose something like this, I would get it done ASAP. There would need to be a discussion to make it happen for you.

Thanks for your advice. I've sent emails to Tommy and Graham

[Mustang]

I'm curious Eric why your expectation is for any SVs running ULSB to be in SuperSport trim? The few Superbike SVs I have good knowledge of have all been stock bore which would make them ULSB legal as well? Are there really more big bore SVs lurking in LRRS than I assume?

So you're saying the ULSB legal SV's already have a class they are extremely competitive in but need a second, very similar one, at the expense of the bikes currently running ULSB? 8 of the top nine finishers in LW Supersport were on SV's in October.

I don't understand what the difference between LWSS and ULSB will be in the new class structure that would differentiate it to the point this change is needed. Seems like it would be another variant of an SV dominated class, looking at the previous results from LWSB and LWSS.

The distinction, I believe, is that the rules for ULSB allow stock bore SV's, while the rules for LWSS allow a 2mm overbore. Yes, I realize that that alone doesn't cause a huge disparity in performance, but it does cause a noticeable advantage over those of us with stock bores.

[catahoulabuldog]

The distinction, I believe, is that the rules for ULSB allow stock bore SV's, while the rules for LWSS allow a 2mm overbore. Yes, I realize that that alone doesn't cause a huge disparity in performance, but it does cause a noticeable advantage over those of us with stock bores.

1 mil over... and I don't see all but those with deep pockets or those who can build motors buying into the lightweight 600's the record of engine failures was significant this year.... I'm sure we can all do the math on the "who" will show up with 1 in 2016.

[Kurlon]

I actually tried to find the 1mm overbore provision in the rules book and didn't see it. I know I've heard it mentioned before, I believe I've seen it in the USCRA's rules but can't find it in LRRS'. Someone know the page number/section so I can put some eyeballs on it?

[Rada]

Page 44.
20.2.2.5

[Kurlon]

Thank you, I was searching for 'bore' which of course isn't used in that wording. D-oh!

[CBR929RE]

Well at this point with the rules change, it's not about like or interest. It's about, do you want to have a competitive machine to race against all your friends in a number of classes. If they want to find something else that fits the bill, go ahead. But the hawk will no longer cut it, and the SV is the obvious front runner for that choice. That's all I'm saying.

I also have 0 interest in an SV. I bought my 400 as a racebike with the intention of doing ULSB every weekend on it next year. being utterly outclassed will just plain suck.

[OreoGaborio]

The distinction, I believe, is that the rules for ULSB allow stock bore SV's, while the rules for LWSS allow a 2mm overbore.

1 mil over...

LWSS = 1mm overbore
LWSB = 2mm overbore

[Kurlon]

LWSS = 1mm overbore
LWSB = 2mm overbore

A quick review of the rules again doesn't support this, exactly.

Supersport has a specific provision allowing 1mm over stock bore, with the requirement that the new pistons be as heavy as the OEM units and same compression ratio. That's also only on machines with cylinders separate from the block... SV is good to go here.

Superbike specifically says displacement limits are absolute and does not have the same over bore allowance. On an SV, 1mm over puts you at 661cc, aka no go for ULSB. In LWSB, with a displacement limit of 800cc, you can go a crapton more than 2mm over and still be legal with an SV. Specifically, if the cylinders could take it, you could do a 9mm overbore and be class legal still at 796cc...

[OreoGaborio]

*sigh*

LWSS = 1mm overbore*
LWSB = 2mm overbore*


*general rule for SV650 based on what's allowed since that's the bike that we're discussing

Happy?

[Kurlon]

*sigh*



Happy?

Zlock Racing 6mm overbore, 'cause bam!

[OreoGaborio]

ffs, Josh, I didn't say you can't go bigger in LWSB, I'm just saying that's the general rule for what people do

[Kurlon]

Well, yah didn't note that in your comment. We went from discussing rules to what is generally done sans a note that the topic shifted, hence my chiming in as I was left behind in the earlier context.

Also, I was up late last night thanks to work so I'm extra 'kurlon-y' this morning I think...

[OreoGaborio]

2mm

you can go bigger

general rule

you can go bigger!

GENERAL RUUUUUUULE!!!

Well why didn't ya say so?

I still ya

[Kurlon]

I just posted this to the LRRS FB group as well:

Crowd-sourcing class proposal: Thank Brett Babaian for saying I should do this somewhere I could see it...

Ultra-Light GP - Small bike tinkertown

Single cylinder, unlimited displacement, street legal or GP frames only
Single cylinder, 5% over stock displacement, production dirt frames only
Two stroke, liquid cooled, pre-1990 model year, up to 375cc
Two stroke, air cooled, unlimited displacement
Twin cylinder, air cooled, non-desmodromic
valves up to 900cc
Twin cylinder, air cooled, desmodromic valves,
up to 750cc
Twin cylinder, liquid cooled, non-desmodromic
valves, pre-1999 model year, up to 800cc
Twin cylinder, liquid cooled, up to 550cc
Three cylinder, air cooled, up to 900cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, pre-1987 model
year, up to 570cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, 1987 to 1996 model
year, up to 500cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, up to 400cc
Four cylinder, air cooled, up to 750cc

The goal is to retain the variety of machines currently populating ULSB, encourage modern hyperlight machines coming onto the market to play and develop their machines without the restrictions of a supersport or superstock class while keeping out machines that can reasonably compete in a CCS based ULSB class, ala SV650s, Ducati 800s/796s, etc. It's also structured to accept existing P89 entries and where possible give them a build boost. Motards are given a slight handicap that shouldn't actually impact any running that I'm aware of. For those looking to really build a hot motard, like say a 700cc RFS KTM, well... sorry, motard class for you. If you want to go through the effort to stuff that same motor into an Aprilia RS250 frame, welcome to the class!

The primary changes from the 2015 LRRS ULSB class are:

Singles get some restrictions.
Modern two stroke 250 GP machines get bumped out.
Desmo twins restricted to keep CCS ULSB competitive builds out.
Modern liquid cooled twins displacement set to allow machines like the CBR500 to play and experiment with motor builds.
Triple restrictions lessened in hopes of some showing up.
Four cylinders expanded to allow machines currently outclassed in LWSB a place to play (RVF400s, etc).
Because we're under GP rules rather than Superbike, most displacement tiers are now open frames except where noted.

My expectation for this class would be to run concurrent with LWGP in place of P89. This gives machines in this class the opportunity to bump to ULSB as a second race.

If people like this proposal I'll officially submit it to LRRS for consideration. P89 guys, I really want your input as I'm proposing subsuming your class into another out from under you.

[Woodcraft]

I just posted this to the LRRS FB group as well:

Crowd-sourcing class proposal: Thank Brett Babaian for saying I should do this somewhere I could see it...

Ultra-Light GP - Small bike tinkertown

Single cylinder, unlimited displacement, street legal or GP frames only
Single cylinder, 5% over stock displacement, production dirt frames only
Two stroke, liquid cooled, pre-1990 model year, up to 375cc
Two stroke, air cooled, unlimited displacement
Twin cylinder, air cooled, non-desmodromic
valves up to 900cc
Twin cylinder, air cooled, desmodromic valves,
up to 750cc
Twin cylinder, liquid cooled, non-desmodromic
valves, pre-1999 model year, up to 800cc
Twin cylinder, liquid cooled, up to 550cc
Three cylinder, air cooled, up to 900cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, pre-1987 model
year, up to 570cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, 1987 to 1996 model
year, up to 500cc
Four cylinder, liquid cooled, up to 400cc
Four cylinder, air cooled, up to 750cc

The goal is to retain the variety of machines currently populating ULSB, encourage modern hyperlight machines coming onto the market to play and develop their machines without the restrictions of a supersport or superstock class while keeping out machines that can reasonably compete in a CCS based ULSB class, ala SV650s, Ducati 800s/796s, etc. It's also structured to accept existing P89 entries and where possible give them a build boost. Motards are given a slight handicap that shouldn't actually impact any running that I'm aware of. For those looking to really build a hot motard, like say a 700cc RFS KTM, well... sorry, motard class for you. If you want to go through the effort to stuff that same motor into an Aprilia RS250 frame, welcome to the class!

The primary changes from the 2015 LRRS ULSB class are:

Singles get some restrictions.
Modern two stroke 250 GP machines get bumped out.
Desmo twins restricted to keep CCS ULSB competitive builds out.
Modern liquid cooled twins displacement set to allow machines like the CBR500 to play and experiment with motor builds.
Triple restrictions lessened in hopes of some showing up.
Four cylinders expanded to allow machines currently outclassed in LWSB a place to play (RVF400s, etc).
Because we're under GP rules rather than Superbike, most displacement tiers are now open frames except where noted.

My expectation for this class would be to run concurrent with LWGP in place of P89. This gives machines in this class the opportunity to bump to ULSB as a second race.

If people like this proposal I'll officially submit it to LRRS for consideration. P89 guys, I really want your input as I'm proposing subsuming your class into another out from under you.

I've copied this to the powers that be...I appreciate the work and we can use it as a basis for discussion

[Kurlon]

Just FYI, I haven't heard anything from any P89 riders on this proposal yet, without their sign off I don't want to modify their class.

[Yknot]

I am only one P89 guy but I like it. Especially if the option to run the ULSB as an up class is available. I don't think there are enough P89 guys that what we think actually matters. It is more important that the UL guys chime in, unless they want to ride SVs that is. I had actually sent an e-mail to the committee that suggested something similar without the details you list.

[Mr. Kurtz]

Josh, I would consider a proposal for where in the race schedule this would fit, if you haven't.