2015 rules proposals, voting summary

Home/Uncategorized/2015 rules proposals, voting summary

2015 rules proposals, voting summary

On July 14, AHRMA’s Board of Trustees met to review rules proposals for the 2015 racing season. A summary of the proposals, along with the preliminary Board decisions, can be viewed by clicking here. Members are invited to provide feedback on each of the proposals prior to the October 13 meeting, when final determinations will be made.

By | 2014-07-22T15:46:25+00:00 July 22nd, 2014|Uncategorized|35 Comments

About the Author:

35 Comments

  1. Eric Matthews July 23, 2014 at 5:30 pm - Reply

    A good idea for the future might be to have the authors of proposal in the future give a short description of their rational for it.

    It would give the membership a clearer understanding of the reasons for the proposal, so that they could better understand and make informed decisions when and if they comment on a Rules proposal .

  2. Dal Aymond July 23, 2014 at 11:34 pm - Reply

    In the ESS Class, I would like to see Maico Square Barrel MX bikes, with a Narrow Frame, be allowed. Lots of Square Barrels rolled off of the production line with a Narrow Frame. There is no advantage with a Narrow Frame. It is actually heavier than the Wide Frame. A bike with a Narrow Frame still has only 4″ of suspension travel on the rear.

    • Reese Dengler August 1, 2014 at 11:47 am - Reply

      Dal:

      The Wide-Frame designation was not part of the “as submitted” ESS proposal in 2012, 2013, or 2014. This was a specific change coming out of the July board meeting. It eliminates about half of the “Square Barrel” population from Early Sportsman Stock eligibility. I don’t understand the logic of this and other changes made to the “as submitted” proposal and class structure?

  3. Bob Burns July 23, 2014 at 11:49 pm - Reply

    Regarding 10.6.1 – Novice Historic Production
    Allow newer machines in both Lightweight and Heavyweight.

    My full proposal, as submitted:

    Allow newer machines into Novice Historic Production Lightweight
    and Heavyweight.

    AHRMA’s Novice Historic Production classes are meant to be a low cost
    entry level class for new AHRMA members. Unfortunately the machines
    allowed in the class have become harder and more expensive to acquire
    due to the current resurgence of “Cafe Racers.” AHRMA should abandon
    the current 1972 (and like model) cutoff and instead develop a list of
    bikes from later dates that could be included in the class. In order
    to keep the class as simple as possible the bikes should be required
    to use the factory carburetors, stock cylinder bore, original brake
    configurations etc.

    Allowing newer bikes would greatly increase the pool of available
    machines. Careful selection of what bikes would be eligible will keep
    the newer machines from having a technological advantage over the
    existing machines in the class. A committee of volunteers could be
    convened to suggest additions to the class, keep tabs of machines that
    might display an unforeseen advantage, and review requests for bikes
    that might be added in the future.

    Expanding the list of allowed bikes would make it easier and cheaper
    for people to get involved in AHRMA. These new members would increase the grid sizes of the Novice Historic Production classes, provide
    members that will eventually move on to other AHRMA classes, and
    contribute to the overall health of the organization.

    If anyone has any questions about this proposal please feel free to contact me at bobburns753@gmail.com

  4. Becky Baker July 24, 2014 at 12:07 am - Reply

    Question about Rule10.6.1 – Novice Historic Production
    Change wording as follows: “This class is intended for novice
    and returning non-professional veterans,not seasoned racers..”

    If the racer is not winning an of the races/championships WHY should they be told they can not be in the class? We have some racers that only race in that class for years and never win a race. In the rule book it says you can ask the racer to move up if they are ” too fast” for the class so why not do that!

    Becky #973

  5. Tim Jackson July 24, 2014 at 2:30 am - Reply

    I suggest one change to the proposed Early Sportsman Stock rule. Don’t restrict rim material to original equipment (OE). Allow any vintage-legal rim material, otherwise racers will quickly pulverize rims. Keep in mind that our earlier Premier and Classic classes are not restricted to OE rims. This is a safety issue. Remember the early 1970s days of bent rims, shredded spokes and over-the-bars results? Do we really want to reintroduce that by banning stronger rims in any of our vintage classes?
    Respectfully, Tim Jackson

    • John Putkey July 30, 2014 at 3:44 pm - Reply

      I fully agree with others who have expressed concern about changes made by AHRMA Trustees to the Early Sportsman Stock proposal, which states that ESS bikes must use steel rims.

      The primary concern is safety!

      The introduction to the AHRMA rule book states that, “The aim is to provide the best and SAFEST competition through uniform rules and consistent application”. I feel that demanding the use of steel rims on any MX bike violates this goal.

      We converted from steel to alloy rims back in the day in part because they bent, broke and pulled spokes through the holes. Alloy rims were a significant improvement in reliability and safety. Indeed, Buchannon offers only one option for steel rims on early vintage MX bike. They recommend these rims are for restoration only, and are not suitable for open class bikes. Clearly, they understand the safety concern.

      We may all be a bit slower, but most of us are bit larger than back in the day, so we arguably put more stress on our bikes, especially on modern practice tracks that are not vintage friendly. Demanding use of weak still rims puts riders at greater risk of injury. Thus, this rule should be stricken if indeed safety is a fundamental concern of our elected AHRMA Trustees.

      • admin July 30, 2014 at 7:10 pm - Reply

        Please keep in mind that comments sent to this website are not forwarded to the Trustees. Feedback for the Board must be submitted to the National office prior to the October meeting, when the final 2015 rules decisions will be made.

        • John Putkey July 30, 2014 at 10:33 pm - Reply

          Understood. I will pass this and other concerns through proper channels.

          Thanks

  6. Daniel May July 24, 2014 at 2:12 pm - Reply

    Regarding the proposal:

    “10.8.3.c – Vintage Superbike Lightweight
    Increase the absolute displacement limit for Honda CB350F and CB400F to 424cc, which would allow .040” overbore. Stock displacement on standard bore is 408cc. (William Brian Wells)
    Committee: Yes.
    Discussion: DJ made a motion to accept the concept, but limit the overbore to +.020” (417cc), which is in line with AHRMA’s general overbore rule for four-cylinder engines. FG seconded. The vote was 12-0 in favor of the motion.”

    I would like to see the BMW R65 (stock 649.6 cc’s) be allowed the standard twin cylinder overbore of 0.060″. The Honda 400F and BMW R65 are the only two bikes in VSBLW that have no room for wear related overbore. The R65 has a Bore x Stroke of 82 x 61.5 mm (3.22 x 2.42 in), so 0.060″ would put the limit at 670cc’s.

  7. Jim Buckalew July 24, 2014 at 11:39 pm - Reply

    Since the ever decreasing supply of parts one issue that should change due to safety and parts supplies is the use of newer wheel assemblies. Riding motocross and Offroad almost my whole life I can’t see one reason why we shouldn’t be able to use newer wheel assemblies and double leading (double arm) front brake hubs.

    The class that I’m participating in states “No major components can be later than 1974 (I.e., frame, fork, engine, gear box, wheels etc).” I installed a 83 YZ490 front wheel and 82 YZ250 rear wheel and rode a little bit and noticed a little more braking power but not enough to write home about. My thought was to shave some weight but was informed that’s illegal for the Sportman 500 class. Just due to safety this rule should be changed.

  8. Eric Matthews July 25, 2014 at 3:54 pm - Reply

    FIRST OF ALL, EVERYONE WHO HAS A COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS PLEASE ALSO SEND IT TO DAVID LAMBERTH SO THAT HE CAN FORWARD THEM TO THE TRUSTEES BEFORE OCTOBER 13TH. THAT IS THE SURE WAY IN WHICH THEY WILL GET THE INFORMATION AND ONLY WAY IN WHICH THEY WILL CONSIDER IT.

    Concerning the 11.3,12.6 Novice Rule AHRMA proposal for VMX and PVMX

    I do not do a lot of riding but when I do race, I like to think that I am
    doing the very best I can and try to improve. I enjoy riding with the
    novices, even now, because I don’t always win and it is great fun to battle back and forth with someone your own skill level (and displacement leveI) Here is my point with the Novice Rule. This rule although meant for just novices SHOULD BE OF CONCERN TO EVERYONE THAT RACES IN AN AHRMA EVENT not just NOVICES..

    If you write the trustees about their revisions to the ESS proposal or any other…I URGE you to give your thoughts on the 11.3, 12.6 Novice Rule which essentially combines ALL novices in one class regardless of displacement. It would combine the +60 and +70 novices to compete as one class FOR NOVICES ONLY.

    My thoughts

    1. I cannot race my ESS bike in an ESS class PERIOD. THAT IS WHY THIS ESS RULE PROPOSAL WAS MADE TO SEPARATE ESS FROM SPORTSMAN. BUT EVERYONE ELSE CAN .

    2. I cannot race an ESS bike in an ESS class and my Sportsman in a
    Sportsman class on the same day while everyone else has that choice.

    3. A trustee told me and this is a direct quote, ” It was felt that a
    true novice would not be hindered by displacement”. My first bike after I
    started back up racing was a 1975 Husky 175. I can tell you I also run the
    Historic class when I can (Bellingham and Spokane with a 175 Husky). I can also tell you I never have a chance of winning when there is a Novice out there with a 400 Husky, PERIOD. Nor could I when with that in an AGE class, because again, most that run the age class have 400’s or 250’s.

    4. IT IS SAID THIS WILL PREVENT SANDBAGGERS IN THE NOVICE CLASS..There are MANY DIFFERENT SKILL SETS in the INTERMEDIATE level too….why is the intermediate level so disproportionally large?

    5. There are MANY times when there is only ONE EXPERT IN A CERTAIN CLASS AND THEY TOO GET A TROPHY.

    6. I am not interested in getting a trophy. I am interested in being
    treated like everyone else.

    7. I am not the only one affected by this. SO this NOT a personal
    attack.

    8. I did not re- introduce the ESS class proposal so that ONLY A SELECT GROUP of Riders could benefit from it.

    9. THE ARE MORE ESS NOVICES THAT WILL COME OUT IF THEY WERE GIVEN A CHANCE

    10. IF THIS RULES CHANGE PASSES THERE WILL BE A LOT OF NOVICES THAT WILL DROP OUT OF RACING.

    thank you……please consider writing the Trustees and getting involved on this and any other proposal that you have a concern.

    Eric Matthews
    AHRMA #8600

  9. Tim Jackson July 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm - Reply

    I suggest another change to the proposed Early Sportsman Stock rule. Delete the phrase “if the original exhaust is replaced, a dimensionally accurate replica of that pipe must be used.” My rationale is that some tracks where AHRMA events are held, such as Hollister, require bikes to pass sound restrictions. The B50 MX came factory-equipped with a reverse-cone megaphone and no silencer. The only practical way to make the B50 quiet enough for tracks such as Hollister is to remove the stock reverse-cone megaphone and replace it with a short section of straight pipe followed by an aftermarket silencer. Deleting that phrase would enable racers to install aftermarket silencers and spark arresters.
    Respectfully, Tim Jackson

  10. Rick Teegarden July 25, 2014 at 9:44 pm - Reply

    Early Sportsman Stock could be positive game changer for AHRMA, bringing bikes and riders in that previously were left with no competitive class to ride in. However, restricting the rims to stock materials makes no sense. I recently changed the wheels on my SL350 back to the stock hubs (and also removed the CR fork legs and put on the stock legs) so that I would comply with the hoped for rule change. When I changed to the stock hubs, I had the old rusty steel rims removed (and broken spokes) and laced up aluminum rims. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be required to lace up steel rims. Why is it the British bikes have such tremendous leeway in the rules, nickle plated frames, CZ hubs and alloy rims, Ceriani forks, and little left of the stock bike but the motor?

    • admin July 26, 2014 at 12:45 am - Reply

      If the class is formally approved in October, British bikes on the Early Sportsman Stock eligible-bike list would be required to follow the same rules as bikes manufactured in any other country.

      • Rick Teegarden July 30, 2014 at 11:05 pm - Reply

        My point is about AHRMA Brit bikes in general, (not the Brit bikes that would participate in the proposed ESS bikes) was that in many cases the only thing left from the original machine is the motor. The finest of materials, alloys, nickle plated, the best of everything money can buy. Yet for the proposed ESS class, requiring stock rim material? It is hard to understand the logic of requiring steel rims. Also, not allowing a 1″ welded swing arm extension (very common, period correct) when many other classes the swing arms are completely new fabricated chrome moly or alloys. Stock paint and graphics, is that required in any other class? Allowing a viable ESS class with a reasonable set of rules will potentially help AHRMA grow. Overly restrictive rules, aimed at one class only, just send the same message as now, that you ESS guys can stay home. Is that the message being conveyed?

  11. Neal Siegel July 25, 2014 at 11:17 pm - Reply

    As a loyal AHRMA member and as one of Dick Mann’s perpetual Novices, I feel like Ive been slapped in the face. I have always felt like a member of the AHRMA family, but now feel like a second class citizen. Im finishing up a Rickman 125 Honda to run next year……gee whiz thank you trustees ,I get to run against the big bores. Well Ill just go back to racing my 2 pemiere bikes…….oops cant do that; only one premiere class. I guess you felt a need to reduce classes to make room for the ESS class, but what a poorly thought out solution. It seems to me we need more participation and limiting options for Novices is a strange way to do this .Ive missed most of this season due to 3 surgeries and was eagerly anticipating next season, now Im wondering if I should quit.

  12. Neal Siegel July 29, 2014 at 2:28 am - Reply

    Can anybody explain the rationale behind the Novice class changes.? It seems to me to be an answer to a question nobody asked. Im sure if we knew what the “problem” is we maybe able to come up with a solution better than decimating the Novice class.

  13. Reese Dengler July 30, 2014 at 3:30 pm - Reply

    Of all the changes the “AHRMA Board” made to the as submitted ESS proposal this is the most offensive to me personally. Not allowing older, (Premier & Classic), bikes to bump up to Early Sportsman is a slap in the face to many of the AHRMA members that have supported and participated in Early Sportsman since 2007 at the AHRMA Northwest Regional’s. Don Matthews, (RIP), on his 250 Twinpipe CZ, Kevin Blackburn on his 250 Twinpipe CZ, Sean Fromhold on his Premier 500 Matchless, Terry Dale & George Baseley on their Classic 250 OSSA’s, and myself on my 360 Twinpipe CZ, (and others that I cannot think of at the moment).

    No other AHRMA classes have a “no bump-up” clause. Since joining AHRMA in early 1992 I have raced my Premier Light Jawa in the Classic 250 class. I have raced my 250 Twinpipe CZ in the Sportsman 250 class. One year I had the honor of racing Fred Mork’s Premier 500 ESO in the Classic 500 class at Chehalis. And my 360 Twinpipe CZ, I have “bumped-up” on that bike the most, to ESS many times beginning in 2007 at NW Regional’s, to the Sportsman 500 class on a few occasions prior to 2007, and in 2004 I even raced my Classic class 360 Twinpipe in the Historic 500 class at the Madera California AHRMA Post-Vintage national. Bumping-up brings extra entries to promoters and that is a GOOD THING. Extra entries for promoters are one of the things that Early Sportsman is about, second only to the goal of bringing out more 1968 to 1972 era motocross motorcycles.

    The no “bump-up” provision added to the as submitted ESS proposal is back stabbing and ridiculous

    • Reese Dengler August 6, 2014 at 5:06 pm - Reply

      This is how the 2014 AHRMA Board Revised Early Sportsman Stock class structure & rules would have affected the AHRMA NW & Lumberjack Early Sportsman Stock, (ESS), champions going back to 2007.

      2007
      Jerry Visman, AHRMA NW ESS 500 Exp. Champ, (Jerry’s Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame and Akront aluminum front rim is now illegal).

      Mark Baer, AHRMA Lumberjack ESS 250 Int. Champ, (Mark’s 250 Sidepipe CZ with aluminum rims is now illegal)

      Reese Dengler, AHRMA Lumberjack ESS 500 Int. Champ, (Reese’s Classic Class 360 Twinpipe CZ is now illegal)

      2008
      Jerry Visman, AHRMA NW ESS 500 Exp. Champ, (Jerry’s Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame and Akront aluminum front rim is now illegal).

      Tom McAllister, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 500 ESS Int. Champ, (Tom’s 360 Sidepipe CZ with aluminum rims is now illegal).

      2009
      Don Matthews, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 250 ESS Exp. Champ, (Don’s Classic Class 250 Twinpipe CZ would now be illegal).

      Kevin Blackburn, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 500 ESS Int. Champ, (Kevin’s Classic Class 360 Twinpipe CZ is now illegal)

      Robin Hannah, AHRMA NW ESS 250 Int. Champ, (Robin’s CT1 175 Yamaha is still legal for ESS).

      Jerry Visman, AHRMA NW ESS 500 Exp. Champ, (Jerry’s Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame and Akront aluminum front rim is now illegal).

      Roy Staley, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 500 Nov. Champ, (Roy’s 360 Sidepipe CZ with Akront aluminum rear rim and plastic tank that does not match OE tank shape is now illegal).

      2010
      Mark Baer, AHRMA Lumberjack ESS 250 Int. Champ, (Mark’s 250 Sidepipe CZ with aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Jeff Mullins, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 500 Expert Champ, (Jeff’s 400 Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame & Akront Aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Clay Light, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 500 Int. Champ, (Clay’s 360 Sidepipes with aluminum tank that does not match OE tank shape is now illegal).

      Roy Staley, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 500 Nov. Champ, (Roy’s 360 Sidepipe CZ with Akront aluminum rear rim and plastic tank that does not match OE tank shape is now illegal).

      2011
      Don Matthews, AHRMA Lumberjack 250 ESS Exp. Champ, (Don’s Classic Class 250 Twinpipe CZ would now be illegal).

      Mark Baer, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 250 Int. Champ, (Mark’s 250 Sidepipe CZ with aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Jeff Mullins, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 500 Expert Champ, (Jeff’s 400 Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame & Akront Aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Alex Finnerin, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 500 Intermediate Champ, (Alex’s TR500MX Triumph is still legal for ESS).

      Roy Staley, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 500 Nov. Champ, (Roy’s 360 Sidepipe CZ with Akront aluminum rear rim and plastic tank that does not match OE tank shape is now illegal).

      2012
      Don Matthews, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 250 ESS Exp. Champ, (Don’s Classic Class 250 Twinpipe CZ would now be illegal).

      Willy Brown, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 250 ESS Nov. Champ, (Willy’s 250 Sidepipe CZ with Akront aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Cliff Mee, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 500 ESS Exp. Champ, (Cliff’s 4-speed 400 Husqvarna which came with Akront aluminum rims is still legal for ESS).

      Andrew McKeag, AHRMA Lumberjack 500 ESS Int. Champ, (Andrew’s 4-speed 400 Husqvarna which came with Akront aluminum rims is still legal for ESS).

      2013
      Randy Webber, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack 250 ESS Exp. Champ, (Randy’s 250 Sidepipe CZ with plastic tank that does not match OE tank shape and Akront aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Jeff Mullins, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 500 Exp. Champ, (Jeff’s 400 Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame & Akront Aluminum rims is now illegal).

      Bob Holmes, AHRMA NW & Lumberjack ESS 500 Int. Champ, (Bob’s 400 Square Barrel Maico with Narrow Frame is now illegal).

      • Reese Dengler August 7, 2014 at 4:16 am - Reply

        Oh! There is a correction to the original list above. Cliff Mee tells me the Swingarm on his 4-Speed Husqvarna has been lengthened 1 inch. So technically it would also be illegal under the AHRMA Board revised Early Sportsman Stock rules.

        • Reese Dengler August 7, 2014 at 6:43 pm - Reply

          More corrections, Jerry Visman’s and Bob Holmes’ Square Barrel Maico frames are “Wide Frames” so they would be legal under the AHRMA Board revised ESS rules. Visman still has the Akront front hub on his Square Barrel which can be seen in all the pictures I have of him.

  14. Kay Mann July 31, 2014 at 2:52 am - Reply

    Neal Siegel asks a legitimate question. Can anyone answer it?

    • admin July 31, 2014 at 1:58 pm - Reply

      The webmaster and staff of AHRMA cannot speak for the Trustees. Comment or questions can be submitted directly via email to the National office and they will be forwarded to each Trustee. Remember that only the 12 Trustees vote and have final input on any rules proposal submission.

  15. eric matthews July 31, 2014 at 8:57 pm - Reply

    I think because of the importance of this thread, that the webmaster might make an exception and forward these comments to David Lamberth.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2014 at 3:14 pm - Reply

      Eric:

      I have emailed each trustee to advise them of these comments on the 2015 rules proposals.

      I ask that members take the time to send comments directly to me so that I can forward to the trustees.

      Dave Lamberth

  16. eric matthews August 1, 2014 at 6:12 pm - Reply

    Yep Sorry Dave that was my mistake. Didn’t mean anything by it it.

  17. eric matthews August 4, 2014 at 3:15 pm - Reply

    Early Sportsman Stock Proposal

    Early Sportsman Stock has been in the Northwest region for the past seven years and has been quite successful and growing. It has been looked at and policed by the members who participate in it. The rules have existed for the NW Region and have worked just fine. AHRMA’s revisions to the submitted ESS proposal are not in the spirit of what its members have participated in and who have increased its visibility to the vintage motocross scene.

    I would like to take exception to some of the revisions that the trustees made to the originally submitted proposal.

    a) To preserve this historic period of American motocross, modifications are very restricted, and no other model from an earlier period may “bump-up” to this class. This is unnecessarily restrictive. No other class abides by this rule. It is discriminatory

    b) Must retain stock frame and swing arm, without modification. They were modified back in the day.

    c) Must retain stock wheel hubs; rim diameters and rim materials must remain as originally equipped (OE). At the very least this is a safety issue. And at best it will price many of the people that are currently participating in the ESS class out of the sport. This makes little sense. Almost everybody has replaced their original rusted steel rims with aluminum. And original hubs are almost unheard of. No other AHRMA classes have a restriction on rim material. Safety also comes to mind.

    d) Shock length must remain as OE (measured eye-to- eye). There were 13.5 “inch shocks available at the time.
    e) venturi size is to be no greater than OE.

    I think that sometimes the word “Stock” is taken too literally. Should I also have the original tires on the bike?

    The idea of Early Sportsman class is to get AHRMA members and NEW members to start racing a whole new group of bikes.

    I urge you to continue to support the Early Sportsman Stock class as a whole and as but without the undue restrictions submitted with your revision.

    Respectfully

    Eric Matthews
    AHRMA #8600

  18. John Ellis August 5, 2014 at 3:56 pm - Reply

    Going thru all the rule proposals , I looked at RR and Off Road , and found it very odd that almost all the votes were 12 for 0 against, or 0 for , 12 against. Find it hard to beleive we had any real concrete discussions on these proposals , or for that matter any dis-agreement or debate !!
    Rubber Stamped , move forward. 12 folks all voting in rythem like a choir !

    • admin August 5, 2014 at 8:52 pm - Reply

      Board meetings are normally scheduled in conjunction with a National race, and all members are always invited to attend the meetings to observe how the process works; there is even a member open comment session at each meeting. There is significant discussion on each rules proposal — oftentimes a general consensus is reached, which results in a unanimous vote.

  19. eric matthews August 6, 2014 at 2:54 pm - Reply

    Dear Trustees:

    Thank you so much for spending the time on deliberating Early Sportsman Stock as a National Class. As you know it has been run successfully in the Northwest for the past 7 years. with increased participation and interest.
    This email comes from the heart. As I am learning the ESS Class proposal has been around for 16 years in one form or another. The biggest take I can see, and I have read the early proposals is that the ESS class was meant to introduce 1968-72 motorcycles to the world at large as a unique group among themselves. The word “Stock” as I gather from all of the proposals I have read…was not to mean…you must have original steel rims ( other things in that category as well). It means to many things to many people if taken literally….and people could easily put the wrong meaning into it. You have got to trust the people that enter this class. It has been run successfully in the Northwest for the past seven years.

    I resubmitted the proposal that my brother Don sent in last year. The proposal was based on the Early Sportsman Stock class structure that Robert Borg and Tom Bentley formulated in 2006. The intent is to bring out 1968 to 1972 motocross bikes. The original ESS class structure stresses “stock”, without being overbearing. It controls the intent of the class. Now you are punishing many of the past NW regional participants that have supported and pushed for this class since 2007 by turning into some kind of “Super Stock” class. That was not the intent of the class structure that Borg and Bentley came up with in 2006, (with the AHRMA Board’s blessing).

    Early Sportsman’s intent is to Introduce the golden years of motocross for everyone. The intent of this proposal was not to make it an exclusive class, but one that would fit in line with all the others and create a “bridge”
    between the class structures: Premier, Classic, Early Sportsman, Sportsman, Historic, GP and Ultra.

    Yes I said Early Sportsman. You see If you take the word “Stock” out of it, it all makes sense. “Stock” was not meant that you have the same spoke on it in 2014 as you did in 1968. There are some that believe that ES and Sportsman are indistinguishable and that there is no difference between the two; that if one could they could easily have a cheater bike and soon ES and Sportsman would be no different. I can tell you that anyone who rides Early Sportsman and Sportsman bikes know the difference.

    The ESS class in the Northwest has been run successfully under the rules of Tom Bentley and Robert Borg and with a few refinements from Don Matthews your fears should be no more. Trust us…trust the people that have given you so much support over the years. I urge you to treat my re-submitted proposal in the intent it that it has always mean to be; and pass it as is.

    Eric Matthews
    AHRMA #8600

  20. Kay Mann August 7, 2014 at 3:10 am - Reply

    I have been fortunate to attend several trustee meetings. At ALL
    times, it was a well-spent day.

    I observed the discussion between the trustees before a vote on a proposal was well thought out and articulated by both sides of the issue.

    To say that the trustees “rubber stamp” a proposal with a unanimous vote is an insult to these honorable, dedicated men and woman.

    Kay Mann
    AHRMA #459

  21. Billy Spahr August 16, 2014 at 11:29 am - Reply

    I say a big YES to making Florida its own off road district. There are a lot of AHRMA racers jumping ship to go with more :”travel friendly ” off road clubs. Asking a working man to try and cover all those states if that racer was interested in chasing a championship is just crazy.

    I say give Florida it’s own region.

    Billy 6c

  22. Tom August 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm - Reply

    I myself like the Novice rule change. More guys in one class. Better racing and less racing against yourself or 1 other guy in your class. I still believe there should only be 2 skill levels. Novice and Advanced. No need for 3 skill levels when there are only 100 entries at most events.

  23. Don August 20, 2014 at 1:14 pm - Reply

    I would prefer a 3 or 4 race “National” series with a focus on regional events. Have the big nationals be Diamond Don’s, Unadilla, one in CA and one in the NW. This would dramatically cut down on travel for racers. Guys are going to hit the big events anyways. Some racers only do 2-3 nationals a year just because of the travel expense. Each national can offer regional points for their respective regions.If the regional series were more prominent, they may gain more of a following as well. Run the regional races post-vintage & vintage together on the same day. This helps track promoters pay the bills and not lose money hosting an AHRMA event.

Leave A Comment Cancel reply