On the evenings of June 6 & 13, 2022, AHRMA’s Board of Trustees met via video conference to review rules proposals for the 2023 racing season. A summary of the proposals, including the preliminary Board decisions, can be found below. Members are invited to provide feedback in the comment area at the bottom of this page prior to July 21, 2022.
June 6:
Brian Larrabure, 2022 Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:10pm, and asked Cindy to take role.
Trustees: Kelly Shane, Brian Larrabure, Luke Sayer, Arthur Kowitz, Jim Korn, Albert Newmann, Beno Rodi, David Rutherford, Al Anderberg, Mike Dixon, Rob Poole
Tim Terrell (joined at 6:08 pm)
Other guests: Craig Grantham (ED), Cindy McLean (Reporter), Kevin Burns (Editorial Review Committee Chair)
June 13:
Brian Larrabure, 2022 Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:10pm, and asked Cindy to take role.
Trustees: Kelly Shane, Brian Larrabure, Luke Sayer, Arthur Kowitz, Jim Korn, Albert Newmann, Beno Rodi, David Rutherford, Al Anderberg, Mike Dixon, Rob Poole, Tim Terrell
Other guests: Craig Grantham (ED), Cindy McLean (Reporter)
Final voting is tentatively scheduled to take place starting on July 28, 2022. Each Trustee’s initials are listed by his/her actions below.
The votes recorded below are votes for/against the proposed change; If “yes”, the preliminary vote is in favor of the proposal, if “no”, the preliminary vote is against the proposal. If the vote is anything other than “yes” or “no”, a note regarding the motion and what was voted on is included in “Discussion”.
Underlined wording would be new for the 2023 Handbook, a strike-through indicates wording proposed to be removed.
Reminder: These are the preliminary Board decisions. Final determinations (votes) will be made at the video meeting which is tentatively scheduled to start on July 28.
Questions or comments on the rule proposals may only be submitted in the comment section at the end of this page. Deadline for the comment period is midnight Central time, July 21, 2022.
NOTE: In order for readers to readily identify the rule you are commenting about, the proposal Entry Id is required. It would also be helpful for you to include the Section # at the beginning of your comment.
General
Entry ID #6912 – 3.4.1 General
i) Competitors for ALL disciplines are required to carry a medical card that provides an emergency contact and pertinent medical information for first responders in case of an incident while participating in any AHRMA sanctioned event. The card is to be placed in an AHRMA-supplied break-away lanyard worn around the neck. A alternative to the lanyard worn around the neck is the AHRMA approved Medical Data card holder placed on the left side of the helmet. (Bill Doran)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: JK motioned to vote on verbiage plus striking helmet location, KS seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6910 – 3.6.NEW
The classes in each race (race grouping) shall be determined ahead of each season and not changed through the season except in the interest of racer safety. Race groupings shall be made to minimize speed differentials. The race groupings shall be rotated for each race weekend so that each race grouping will appear in each race position (race position no. 1 through the last race position). (John Ricard)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: JK motioned to vote, AK seconded
June Board: No (2 yes: DR, RP / 9 no: AA, AN, AK, BR, BL JK, KS, LS, MD)
Entry ID #6913 – 4.5 Entry Fees
4.5 ENTRY FEES
a) Entry fees vary, depending on the event and location.
b) Promoters may allow riders 70 years of age or older one free entry per AHRMA permitted race for each discipline (i.e., one for each discipline on combined-race weekends) at their discretion. The fee for additional classes will be at normal additional-class rates. Riders 70 years of age or older must pay for road race practice fees. All AHRMA events allow riders 70 years of age or older discounted race fees for each AHRMA sanctioned round in any discipline. Online pre-entry or in-person post-entry race fees will be discounted to $35 for the first class entry of each discipline. The fee for additional classes will be at normal additional-class rates.
Discounts do not apply to road race practice fees.
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: JK motioned to vote to hold proposal for AN re-write, AK seconded – vote shown e-vote results
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6923 – 6.3.3 Types of Protests/Fees
6.3.3 Types of Protests/Fees: There are three types of equipment protests regarding machine illegality: visual, internal and fuel. The equipment protest fee is $10 $200 for all protests except for an internal equipment protest, which follows the additional fee schedule shown below: (Rodney Menke)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 11 no)
Entry ID #6922 – 6.3.4 Results of Protests
Trophies, placing and points affected by a protest will be withheld until the protest has been settled. When a protest is upheld, race officials must make a decision regarding the penalty. If an Appeal is upheld, the petitioner may (at the discretion of Race officials) be subject to reciprocal loss of Trophies, placing and points. (Rodney Menke)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK motioned to vote, DR seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 11 no)
Entry ID #6914 – 9.2. Machine Eligibility
9.2.1 x) Next Gen Superbike 2 into Formula Thunder
9.2.1 x) Next Gen Superbike 2 into Next Gen Superbike 3
y) Next Gen Superbike 3 into Formula Thunder
(Bill Doran)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6911 – 17.6. Benevolent Fund
17.6 BENEVOLENT FUND: The Benevolent Fund was created in 1992 as a means of helping AHRMA members in need (anyone who wants to make a request or suggestion for assistance should contact the AHRMA office)… All applications for assistance are kept confidential. The available funds in the Benevolent Fund shall be capped at a maximum of $100,000 at any time. Funds in excess of the cap shall be moved to the Safety Fund. (David Rutherford)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: JK motioned to vote, DR seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no)
VINTAGE ROAD RACE
Entry ID #6801 – 9.1.1 General
9.1.1 New AHRMA road racers are required to provide evidence that in the past two five years they have either successfully completed an accredited road race school or competed with another road race organization acceptable to AHRMA, including but not limited to AMA, CCS, WERA, AFM, etc. The minimum age for riders is 18. New, novice AHRMA road racers may not be permitted to ride at certain (Richard Weidenbach)
Committee Recommendation: No recommendation – forwarded to the board for discussion
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 11 no)
Entry ID #6754 – 9.3 Technical Inspection
f) Oil containment. Oil containment systems are required on all Four-Stroke road racing machines. Oil containment pans on wet- sump engines must be designed to hold the capacity of the engine sump with nominal reserve. Material used must be durable, fastened safely, and removable for inspection, if required. All Four-Stroke powered machines fitted with split or two-piece fairings must be fitted with an internal oil containment system. The pan must have a retaining dam at the rear. Two-stroke machines do not need oil containment. Dry-sump machines must use a pan with a minimum capacity of one quart, or approved oil-absorbing material covered with an impermeable layer of material and a screen backing and fastened securely. Oil- absorbing material, securely retained in the bottom of the pan, is strongly recommended. (Richard Weidenbach)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 11 no)
Entry ID #6736 – 10.2.1 500 Premier
BSA B50 prohibited (BSA B50 allowed for the 2022 season but will be moved to Sportsman 500 starting with the 2023 season) BSA B50 permitted as both a single “works” or replica and like design
(Andy Findling)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, AK seconded
June Board: Yes (6 yes: AK, BR, BL, DR, JK, MD / 2 no: AA, RP / 3 abstain: AN, KS, LS)
Entry ID #6792 – 10.2.5 200 Grand Prix Plus
Aermacchi/H-D 250cc long stroke (66mm bore x 72mm stroke) and 250cc short stroke (72mm bore x 61mm stroke) wet clutch, original backbone chassis, maximum 30mm carburetor (i.e., up to 66). (Richard Hollingsworth)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, AK seconded
June Board: Yes (10 yes / 1 no: RP)
Entry ID #6646 – 10.3.1 Formula 750
Fully GP-kitted two-stroke and four-stroke machines up to four cylinders, manufactured as 600-750cc and built prior to December 31, 1972, and like design. Among the eligible F750 motorcycles are:
• Kawasaki H2 and H2R
• Suzuki GT750 and TR750
Note: 450/500 Honda four-cylinder-based machines are not allowed, regardless of displacement
Any Formula 500 legal motorcycle may “bump up” to Formula 750.
(Jim Hinshaw)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, AK seconded
June Board: Yes (6 yes: AA, AK, AN, BR, DR, JK / 5 no: BL, KS, LS, MD, RP)
Entry ID #6627 – 10.3.1 Formula 750
10.3.1FORMULA 750:Fully GP-kitted four-stroke machines up to four cylinders, manufactured as 600-750cc and built prior to December 31, 1972, and like design. Among the eligible F750 motorcycles are:
- Kawasaki H2 or H2R 750 (KR 750 not permitted)
(Vincent Borbone)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote that this is a duplicate of 6646 and that the votes for 6646 stand for both proposals, AK seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no) – proposal rejected based on votes for 6646
Entry ID #6773 – 10.3.1A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR F750
b) Fairings are required encouraged, at minimum a quarter-faring.
c) Works frames are required allowed where appropriate, plus frames…
(Bill Doran)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: LS motioned to vote, DR seconded
June Board: Yes (9 yes: AA, AN, BR, BL, DR, JK, KS, LS, MD / 1 no: AK / 1 abstain: RP)
Entry ID #6774 – 10.5 Sportsman
10.5 Sportsman
(Bill Doran)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, AK seconded
June Board: No (1 yes: DR / 10 no)
Entry ID #6796 – 10.6.4 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR HISTORIC PRODUCTION
b) EXHAUST SYSTEMS: Four-stroke engines must have the same number of pipes as provided on that motorcycle, (i.e., two-into-two, four-into-four, or three-into-two for three-cylinder engines). Exhaust pipes may be aftermarket, may be tucked or raised for ground clearance, and must have effective silencers. Two-stroke engines may use production street exhausts from the time period, any manufacturer. Expansion chambers are allowed. provided they are constructed in keeping with the vintage design scheme shown as illustrated. The system will be constructed with a constant diameter chamber then tapering to constant diameter head and tail pipes of OEM dimensions. The pipe will include a silencer limiting the sound to 103dB.
(Robert Macaulay)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: JK motioned to vote, AN seconded
June Board: No (2 yes: AA, AN / 9 no)
Entry ID #6771 – 10.11 EXHIBITION
a) CB160 Lemans Start Race: Any bike eligible for Formula 125 (10.3.4), 250 Grand Prix (10.2.4), or 200 Grand Prix Plus (10.2.5). Entry fee shall be the same as all other vintage roadrace classes. The start shall be a “Lemans” push start of the type previously used for CB160. (Andy Findling)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR motioned to vote with revised verbiage approved by Andy Findling, JK seconded
June Board: Yes (8 yes / 1 no: AK / 1 abstain: RP)
Entry ID #6776 – 10.21 TWO-STROKE CLASSIC
Among the eligible machines are any genuine 250/350cc Grand Prix two-stroke machine manufactured from 1974 1973 through 1984. (Tom Hillard)
Committee Recommendation: Accept
Discussion: JK motioned to vote, DR seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6605 – 10.21 TWO-STROKE CLASSIC
a) 1. Only genuine race bikes are allowed. Modified streetbikes are not eligible. Accurate replica race bikes are allowed. (John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Accept
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, LS seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6616 – 10.21 TWO-STROKE CLASSIC
b) 1. All engines must be single, parallel or tandem twins. No V-twins allowed. (Martin Morrison)
Committee Recommendation: Accept
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, BL seconded
June Board: Yes (9 yes / 2 no: JK, RP)
VINTAGE SUPERBIKE
Entry ID #6592 – 10.8.2 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR VINTAGE SUPERBIKE
c) CHASSIS AND FRAME
6. Handlebars, must can be fitted to original mounts and must not can be below the top of the fork crowns. No clubman bars or and clip-ons allowed except when used as original equipment. (Wayne Shelton)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: No (1 yes: DR / 8 no / 2 abstain: LS, RP)
Entry ID #6691 – 10.8.3 CLASSES
b) MIDDLEWEIGHT: Unlimited displacement singles, with limited pushrod twins, OHC twins, pushrod triples and OHC fours, aircooled rotary (see chart). The model-year cutoff for Kawasaki GPz550 is 1981.
Other Rules Affected
Chart will read:
Middleweight:
Engine: Air Cooled Rotary
Example: Norton Interpol, Norton Classic
Displacement Limit cc: 600
(Mark Smithard)
Committee Recommendation: Approve with 1 year probation
Discussion: DR motioned to vote including 1 year probation, JK seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
Entry ID #6706 – 10.9.1 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
Among the eligible machines are:
- Britten V1000
(Michael Platt)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, LS seconded
June Board: No (6 yes / 6 no) (in the case of a tie, the vote is “no”)
Entry ID #6694 – 10.9.1 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
Among the eligible machines are:
- Norton F1 / F1-Sport
(Mark Smithard)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, TT seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6650 – 10.9.1 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
Among the eligible machines are:
- Buell RR1000/1200
Other Rules Affected
10.9.1.1b).2 two stroke machines may alter stroke and/or bore up to class displacement limits of 1000cc. Pushrod twins may have unlimited displacement (same as BOT1 rules)
(Wes Orloff)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, AN seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6681 – 10.9.1.1 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
a) GENERAL
- Engines, frame, swingarm, and bodywork must be from the same year, make and model (see rules for specific allowances.)
(Rodney Menke)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: JK motioned to vote, DR seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6632 – 10.9.1.1 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
b) ENGINE
3. Engine must be from same year make and model as frame. Updated/backdated parts available during the period (1985-92) are allowed. “Parts” does not mean the entire engine can be updated to a newer year engine. “Ducati may update engine cases only beyond the period.
(Michael Platt)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, TT seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 10 no / 2 abstain: AA, RP)
Entry ID #6633 – 10.9.1.1 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
c) CHASSIS AND FRAME
5. Front forks may be either conventional or upside down type depending on what was fitted by the OEM or race teams of that period. regardless of which style was fitted by the OEM. Triple clamps may be modified or replaced.
(Michael Platt)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, AK seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6634 – 10.9.1.1 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
c) CHASSIS AND FRAME
6. No restriction on wheel size/style although period appropriate appearance is required strongly encouraged. Carbon fiber wheels are not allowed unless equipped from the factory (Britten V1000).
(Michael Platt)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6604 – 10.9.1.1 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE
c) CHASSIS AND FRAME
7. Carbon rotors are not allowed. Wave or petal rotors are not allowed. Perimeter rotors (i.e., Buell-style) are not allowed unless fitted OEM. No other restrictions on number, size or style of caliper allowed.Rotors must be conventional steel. Perimeter brakes allowed if they were OEM.
(John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AK motioned to vote, JK seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6685 – 10.9.2 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 2
Among the eligible machines are:
- Suzuki GSX-R750 models N-X (SRAD) K3, TL1000R
- Triumph Daytona T595/955i (97-06)
(Clark Miller)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: JK motioned to vote, DR seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6705 – 10.9.2.1 REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 2
- GENERAL
a) Engine, Frame, swingarm and bodywork must be from the same year, make and model. (see rules for specific allowances.) (Michael Platt)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, DR Seconded (rendered moot due to year being struck in previous proposed rule)
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6800 – 10.9.3 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE LIGHTWEIGHT
Among eligible machines are:
- 1994-1996 Honda RVF400 through NC35
(Brian Herzfeldt)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, JK Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6652 – 10.9.3 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE LIGHTWEIGHT
Among eligible machines are:
- 1988-1989 Buell RR1000
Other Rules Affected
10.9.3.B Engine
Buell RR1000 limited to 1000cc max max displacement
(Wes Orloff)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, MD Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 11 no / 1 abstain: AA)
Entry ID #6794 – 10.9.3 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE LIGHTWEIGHT
Among eligible machines are:
- 1973-1985 1987 Yamaha TZ250/350
(Robert Macaulay)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, JK Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6749 – 10.9.3.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE LIGHTWEIGHT
b) ENGINE
- All machines must retain stock stroke. Bore may be increased to 2.00mm over, Kawasaki EX500 bore may be increased to allow 675cc max.
(Shawn Smith)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AN Motioned to vote, DR Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6603 – 10.9.3.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE LIGHTWEIGHT
c) CHASSIS AND FRAME
7. Rotors must be conventional steel. Petal rotors are prohibited. Perimeter brakes allowed if they were OEM. (John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: RP Motioned to vote, AA Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6756 – 10.9.4 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE MIDDLEWEIGHT
MISSION STATEMENT: To provide a middleweight class to showcase what was raced in the late ‘80s through the early ‘90s. To provide a middleweight class to showcase what was raced in ’80s through the early 2000s. This class will be limited to period modifications.
Among the eligible machines are:
- 1986-1988 Ducati Paso (750)
- 1989-1991 Ducati 750 Sport
- 1992-1997 Ducati 750S
- 1987-1994 2000 Honda CBR600F and through CBR600F2 CBR600F4
- 2001-2004 Honda CBR600RR
- 1985-1987 Honda NS400R
- 1985-1994 Kawasaki GPZ600R through ZX600E2
- 1995-2002 Kawasaki ZX-6R
- 1985-1991 Moto Guzzi LeMans 850
- 1992-1993 Suzuki GSX-R600
- 1992-2003 Suzuki GSX-R600
- 1988-1991 Suzuki GSX600 F-M
- 1985-1987 Suzuki RG500, RG400
- 1989-1999 Yamaha FZR600
- 1999-2004 Yamaha YZF-R6
- 1988-1990 Yamaha FZR400 (1WG frame) with FZR600
- 1984-1986 Yamaha RZ500
(Shawn Gilmore)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, JK Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6719 – 10.9.4 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE MIDDLEWEIGHT
Among the eligible machines are:
- 1987-1994 1998 Honda CBR600F and CBR600F2/F3
(Bill Doran)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, TT Seconded
June Board: Yes (8 yes / 2 no: AK, BR / 2 abstain: AN, RP)
Entry ID #6716 – 10.9.4 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE MIDDLEWEIGHT
Among the eligible machines are:
- Honda CBR600F3
(Jon Clifford)
Committee Recommendation: Approve (note, duplicate of 6719)
Discussion: AN Motioned to vote, RP Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6606 – 10.9.4 NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE MIDDLEWEIGHT
Among the eligible machines are:
- 1988-1992 Yamaha FZR400 (1WG frame) with FZR600 engine.
(John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: JK Motioned to vote, DR Seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6686 – 10.9.5.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 3
Among the eligible machines are:
- Kawasaki ZRX (1100 and 1200)
- Suzuki GSXR1100 (all years)
- Suzuki Bandit 1200 (air cooled)
- Yamaha FZ1 (all years)
(Clark Miller)
Committee Recommendation: Split – all proposed bikes rejected, except “Suzuki GSXR1100 (all years)”
Discussion: JK Motioned to accept as approved by committee AK Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6614 – 10.9.5.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 3
Among the eligible machines are:
- Kawasaki ZX7 Muzzy Raptor 96-03 (replicas are eligible)
(John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, JK Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6613 – 10.9.5.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 3
Among the eligible machines are:
- 1999 Yamaha R7 with period YZF-R1 Motor
(John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: RP Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: Yes (10 yes / 2 no: AK, BR)
Entry ID #6612 – 10.9.5.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 3
Among the eligible machines are:
- Aprilia RVS1000R, RSV100R Factory 2004-2006
(John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AN Motioned to vote, AK Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6780 – 10.9.5.A REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 3
Among the eligible machines are:
- Suzuki GSX-R750 2000 TO 2004 2006
- Suzuki GSX-R1000 2001 to 2004 2006
(John Turner)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: JK Motioned to vote, DR Seconded
June Board: No (1 yes: BL / 10 no / 1 abstain: RP )
Entry ID #6704 – 10.9.5.B REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR NEXT GEN SUPERBIKE 3
a) GENERAL
- Engine, frame swingarm and bodywork must be from the same year, make and model. (see rules for specific allowances.)
(Michael Platt)
Committee Recommendation: Reject as duplicate
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, TT Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
SIDECARS
Entry ID #6648 – 10.10.1 CLASSES
c) LOST ERA SIDECAR (SC3): Front- or rear-exit sidecars. Air-cooled, one-,two- or three-cylinder two-stroke, one-, two-, three- or four-cylinder four-stroke engines, built before December 31, 1977. Two-stroke, piston-port, or reedvalve, 550cc maximum. Four-stroke, 864836cc maximum, two valves per cylinder.
Other Rules Affected:
10.10.5.1 ENGINES: Air-cooled, one-, two- or three-cylinder two-stroke, one-, two-,three- or four-cylinder four-stroke engines, built before December 31, 1977. Two-stroke, 550cc maximum. Four-Stroke multi cylinder two valve engines 864844cc maximum. Altered stroke and/or re-phased crankshafts beyond the manufacturer’s intent are permitted. Carburetors permitted. Fuel injection permitted as per manufacturer original application. Supercharging and turbocharging are prohibited. Stock bore plus allowable overbore must be within the maximum displacement allowed.
Examples:
- BMW R75, R80
- BSA twins and triples
- Ducati bevel-drive 750
- Honda 750
- Kawasaki KZ750 twin, H1
- Moto Guzzi 750, 850
(Daniel May)
Committee Recommendation: Approved
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, LS Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6649 – 10.10.5.1 CLASSES
Examples:
- BMW R75, R80
- BSA twins and triples
- Ducati bevel-drive 750
- Honda 750
- Kawasaki KZ750 twin, H1
- Moto Guzzi 750, 850
- Harley Davidson Sportster “Ironhead” (1000cc max)
(Daniel May)
Committee Recommendation: Approved
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, LS Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
SOUND OF SINGLES / BATTLE OF THE TWINS / SOUND OF THUNDER / FORMULA LIGHTNING
Entry ID #6770 – 10.20 PHILLIP ISLAND CHALLENGE
10.20 PHILLIP ISLAND CHALLENGE
(Andy Findling)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AK motion to put on probation 1 year and evaluate for elimination starting with the 2024 racing season, JK Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6678 – 10.12.1 SOUND OF THUNDER
d) SOUND OF THUNDER 4 (SoT4):Any single (under 400cc) or twin (under350cc) that is based on a production motorcycle sold in the U.S.
Eligible motorcycles for this class must have been offered in a street legal version:
- Any model year 4-stroke, Air cooled or Liquid cooled Single cylinder up to 400cc or Twin cylinder up to 350cc. Any model year 2-stroke Air-cooled Single or Twin cylinder up to 400cc
- Any model year 2-stroke Liquid cooled Single or Twin cylinder up to 350cc.
2-stroke motorcycles for this class must run under the following Superstock rules:
Superstock rules: Only the exhaust system and jet kit may be changed. No internal engine modifications, carburetors must remain stock, airbox must remain stock, suspension components may be replaced with aftermarket rear shock and fork internals. Wheels, forks and brakes must remain stock.
Examples of Eligible 2-stroke motorcycles include the following models:
- Any year RD400 or RZ350 in Superstock trim listed above
- Any year RD350/400 running under Novice Historic Production class rules Examples of Eligible 4-stroke motorcycles include the following models:
- Honda CBR300, Kawasaki Ninja 250/300, KTM RC390R/Duke, Suzuki GSX 250R, YamahaYZF-R3. (One year provisional.)
(Eric Watts)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, JK Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6639 – 10.12.1 SOUND OF THUNDER
d) SOUND OF THUNDER $ (SoT4): Any single (under 400cc) or twin (under 350cc) that is based on a production motorcycle sold in the U.S. Honda CBR300, Kawasaki Ninja 250/300, KTM RC390R/Duke, Suzuki GSX 250R, Yamaha YZF-R3. (One year provisional.)
d) SOUND OF THUNDER 4 (SOT4): Any single or twin cylinder four-stroke production motorcycle up to 400cc sold in the U.S. with a street legal VIN.
(Bill Doran)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: JK Motion to approve with a 1-year provisional, DR Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6622 – 10.12.1 SOUND OF THUNDER
d) SOUND OF THUNDER 4 (SoT4):
Any single (under 400cc) or twin (under 350cc)(under 400cc) that is based on a production motorcycle sold un in the US. Honda CBR300, Kawasaki Ninja 250/300/400, KTM RC390R/Duke, Suzuki GSX250R, Yamaha YZF-R3, (Provisional for 2022) Rider minimum age 30 yrs.
(Bob Robbins)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, TT Seconded (duplicate to 6639)
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6601 – 10.13 BATTLE OF THE TWINS®
a) BOT2: Air cooled OHC twins to 904cc; Air cooled OHV twins to 984cc
(Bertus DeJong)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, AK Seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 0 no / 1 abstain: AN)
VINTAGE MOTOCROSS
Entry ID #6789 – 11.1.5 100CC MOTOCROSS
a) Maximum engine displacement for two-strokes is 100cc, plus allowable overbore. Absolute maximum engine displacement for four-strokes is 123cc. Engine displacement can be increased to class limit, plus allowable overbore.
(Pat Bailey)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: LS Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
POST VINTAGE MOTOCROSS
Entry ID #6793 – 12.1.7 POST VINTAGE 100cc
12.1.7 POST VINTAGE 100cc: 88-100cc two-stroke and 88-125cc 88-200cc four-stroke motorcycles manufactured as up to 1984 model-year machines, and like-design. All two-stroke motorcycles in this class must have been manufactured 100cc or smaller displacement bikes. And four-strokes manufactured as 125cc 200cc or smaller displacement bikes. Maximum engine displacement for two-strokes is 100cc, plus allowable overbore. Maximum engine displacement for four-strokes is 125cc, 200cc plus allowable overbore. Electronic ignitions and reed-valves are allowed. Hubs and forks from any Post Vintage eligible machine are permitted. Hubs from any Post Vintage eligible machine are permitted. Forks may not exceed 43mm in diameter. Suspension travel is not limited. Disc brakes are not allowed.
Eligible Machines to include:
- Suzuki TM & RM to 1981
- Suzuki TM, TS, & RM to 1981
- Yamaha DT, MX & YZ to 1983
- Hodakas all 100cc models
- Honda XR 100 & XL 125 to 1985 and like design
- Honda XR 100, XL 125, XL 175, & XL 185 to 1985 and like design
- Honda XR 200, all years, are allowed
- Kawasaki KE 100
Other Rules Affected:
12.3.2 ULTIMA 125: Certain motorcycles 88-125cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Ultima-class specifications. Eligible machines, and exceptions, include but are not limited to:
• Honda CR125 up to 1983 is allowed.
• Suzuki RM125 up to 1984 is allowed.
• Yamaha YZ125s, up to 1982-’84 with YPVS system, are allowed. (Note: These are the only eligible motorcycles allowed to use a power-valve mechanism.)
• Any Post Vintage 100cc model is allowed.
• 1982 and later Kawasaki 125s are prohibited.
• 1985-model Husqvarna 125 is prohibited.
Also One other class to change:
12.3.3 ULTIMA 250: For certain 126-250cc motorcycles produced within the guidelines of the Ultima Class specifications. Eligible machines, and exceptions, include but are not limited to:
• 1983 Hondas and Suzukis are allowed.
• Up to 1983 Hondas are allowed.
• Up 1984 Suzukis are allowed.
• Honda XR200, all years, are allowed.
• 1982-’84 Maico and/or MStar, air-cooled, drum-brake only.
• Yamaha YZ250s, up to 1982-’84 with YPVS system, are allowed. (Note: These are the only eligible motorcycles allowed to use a power-valve mechanism.)
• 1982-’84 Maico and/or MStar, air-cooled, drum-brake only are allowed.
• 1982 and later Kawasaki 250s are prohibited.
(Albert Newmann)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: LS motion to approve with a 1 year provisional, KS Seconded
June Board: Yes (10 yes / 2 no: AK, RP)
Entry ID #6798 – 12.4.7 PRE-MODERN CLASSES (NOTE: move from 16.5 NEXT GEN to assigned section numbers in POST VINTAGE)
12.4.7 PRE-MODERN CLASSES: Pre-Modern machines are on the cusp of incorporating all features of modern technology, including linkage rear-suspension, engine power valves, and disk brakes. Class eligible machines shall consist of circa 1982 to 1988 two- and four-stroke motorcycles which were factory-produced with hydraulic front disk brake and rear drum brake. Bikes equipped with a factory-produced rear hydraulic disk brake are not allowed. Pre-Modern Era bikes are prohibited from Post Vintage age class racing.
12.4.8 PRE-MODERN 125: Certain 2-stroke motorcycles 100-125cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Pre-Modern class specifications. Eligible machines include but are not limited to:
- 1984-’87 Cagiva WMX125
- 1984-’86 Honda CR125R
- 1985-’88 Husqvarna 125CR
- 1986-’88 Husqvarna 125WR, 125XC
- 1982-’85 Kawasaki KX125
- 1983-’85 KTM 125GS, 125MX
- 1985-
’86’87 Suzuki RM125 - 1985-’87 Yamaha YZ125
- 1990-’93 Yamaha RT180 (air cooled)
12.4.9 PRE-MODERN 250: Certain 2-stroke motorcycles 126-250cc that were produced 90 within the guidelines of the Pre-Modern class specifications. Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1984-’87 Cagiva WMX250
- 1986- 87 Can-Am 200/250
- 1984-’86 Honda CR250R
- 1985-’88 Husqvarna 250CR
- 1986-’88 Husqvarna 250WR, 250XC
- 1982-’85 Kawasaki KX250
- 1986-’88 Kawasaki KDX200, KDX250
- 1983-’85 KTM 250GS, 250MX
- 1985 M-Star 250 1985-’86 Suzuki RM250
- 1986 Yamaha IT200
- 1985-’87 Yamaha YZ250
12.4.10 PRE-MODERN 500: Certain 2-stroke motorcycles 280-500cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Pre-Modern class specifications. Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1984-’87 Cagiva WMX500
- 1986 -87 Can-Am 406/500
- 1984-’86 Honda CR500R
- 1985-’86 Husqvarna 500CR
- 1986 Husqvarna 500WR, 500XC
- 1986-’88 Husqvarna 430AE
- 1987-’88 Husqvarna 430CR, 430WR, 430XC
- 1983-’85 Kawasaki KX500
- 1983-’85 KTM 420GS, 420XC, 495MC, 495XC, 500MX
- 1985 M-Star 500
- 1985 Suzuki RM500
- 1985-’90 Yamaha YZ490
12.4.11 PRE-MODERN 4-STROKE: Certain 4-stroke motorcycles 250-600cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Pre-Modern class specifications. Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1984 ATK 560
- 1984 Honda XL350R, XL600R
- 1984-’89 Honda XR250R
- 1984-’85 Honda XR350R
- 1983-’84 Honda XR500R
- 1983-’89 Honda XR600R
- 1987-’88 Husqvarna 510TC, 510TE, 510TX 1982 KTM 500K4, 500XC
- 1983-’88 KTM Any 4-Stroke, rear drum
- 1986-’87 Yamaha TT250
- 1985-’86 Yamaha TT600
- 1985-”00 Yamaha XT350
- 1984-’89 Yamaha XT600
(Albert Newmann)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AN Motioned to vote, KS Seconded
June Board: Yes (10 yes / 0 no / 2 abstain: AK, TT)
OBSERVED TRIALS
Entry ID #6599 – 13.1.11 AIR COOLED MONO(ACM) (Provisional for 2021)
(Scott Stewart)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: KS motioned to extend provisional through 2023, AN Seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 1 no: RP)
DIRT TRACK
Entry ID #6629 – 14.2.NEW SEVENTIES SINGLES
SEVENTIES SINGLES: Late 1970s-era four-stroke single-cylinder motorcycles up to 600cc such as were raced in period dirt track events. Eligible machines include:
- 1982-83 Honda FT500 Ascot
- 1976-78 Honda XL350 (center port head)
- 1979-81 Honda XL500 (all engine numbers with prefix PD01E-), maximum 38mm carburetor 1979-80 Honda XR500 (engine # PE01E-5000001 up to -5200001), maximum 38mm carburetor 1978-79 Suzuki DR370 and SP370
- Yamaha TT500 (engine prefix 583, 1T1 or 240), XT500 and SR500
- Sportsman 600 vintage four-stroke singles not exceeding 600cc may bump up into this class. Radial-four-valve-head Honda XR500s are prohibited. Reed valve Honda XR500s are prohibited.
a) All frames must be dual-shock, including period-style aftermarket
b) Shocks with remote reservoirs are not permitted; piggyback-type shocks are allowed
c) 43mm maximum diameter fork stanchions
d) Up to 5 (2.75 inches) rims are allowed.
e) Modern-style, “wide” tires (27.5×7.5×19) are allowed on the rear
f) Adjustable-type fork triple clamps are
g) A 600cc limit (plus allowable overbore of .080”) will be strictly enforced for all Seventies Singles
h) Maximum carburetor size is Any flat-slide carburetors are permitted; Lake, Lectron, Posa and Gardner only.
i) Unless otherwise noted, all general vintage class rules
(Richard Brodock)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, RP Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6782 – 14.2.8 LIGHT BRAKELESS
14.2.8 LIGHT BRAKELESS: Open to all machines 1968 1967 and earlier approved-design machines up to 250cc older up to and including 300cc the motorcycle, engine, transmission, frame must be from the same manufacturer and model an aftermarket ridged frame may be substituted. eg. Sonicweld or Swanson.
(Henry Sansing)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, AK Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6744 – 14.2.8 LIGHT BRAKELESS
14.2.8 LIGHT BRAKELESS: Open to all machines 1968 and older up to and including 300 250. The motorcycle engine transmission, and frame must be from the same manufacturer and model. An aftermarket rigid racing frame may be substituted, e.g. Sonicweld or Swanson.
(Daniel Beher)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, TT Seconded
June Board: No (4 yes: AN, BR, DR, RP / 4 no: AA, AK, BL, KS / 4 abstain: JK, LS, MD, TT)
Entry ID #6747 – 14.2.9 HEAVY BRAKELESS
14.2.8 HEAVY BRAKELESS: Open to all machines 1968 and older 301cc and larger. 301cc and limited to 500cc overhead valve engines and 750 side valve engines. The motorcycle engine, transmission and frame must be from the same manufacturer and model, an aftermarket rigid racing frame may be substituted. e.g. Sonicweld or Swanson.
(Daniel Beher)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: No (3 yes: BR, DR, RP / 9 no)
CROSS COUNTRY
Entry ID #6666 – 15.3 RACE PROCEDURES
15.3.?? Novice Racers may enter any or all of the Cross Country races for which their machines qualify.
(Dave Kutskel)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6665 – 15.3.NEW RACE PROCEDURES
15.3.?? Women Racers may enter any or all of the Cross Country races for which their machines qualify in a Women’s Class.
(Dave Kutskel)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6640 – 15.1.NEW DISK BRAKE
15.1.3 DISC BRAKE: Machine eligibility includes all motorcycles equipped with disc brakes up to / including the 1999 model year. Regardless of original displacement, engines may be built to the class limit (plus allowable overbore). The minimum age for riders is 16 years. Each of the following classes is further divided into Novice, Intermediate and Expert skill levels.
a) PRE-MODERN 200: 1984 – 1988 with front disc / rear drum brakes, 88 to 200 cc
b) PRE-MODERN OPEN: 1984 – 1988 with front disc / rear drum brakes, 201cc and larger
c) EARLY-MODERN 200: 1987 – 1994 with front and rear disc brakes, 88 to 200cc
d) EARLY-MODERN OPEN: 1987 – 1994 with front and rear disc brakes, 201cc and larger
e) PRE2K 200: 1995 – 1999 with front and rear disc brakes, 88 to 200cc
f) PRE2K OPEN: 1995 – 1999 with front and rear disc brakes, 201cc and larger
g) 50+: Riders age 50 and older on any size or type of eligible Disc Brake machine.
h) 60+: Riders age 60 and older on any size or type of eligible Disc Brake machine.
i) 70+: Riders age 70 and older on any size or type of eligible Disc Brake machine.
OTHER RULES AFFECTED:
j) WOMEN: Female riders on any size or type of eligible Disc Brake machine.
Issue 1: In Rule 15.1.2 item “i” will be deleted as “Pre-Modern” will move to the new 15.1.3 Disc Brake Class.
15.1.2 POST VINTAGE: In most aspects, machine eligibility and other requirements mirror those of AHRMA post vintage motocross (Section 12), with the exception being engine displacement; regardless of original displacement, engines may be built to the class limit (plus allowable overbore) The minimum age for riders is 16 years. Each of the following classes is further divided into Novice, Intermediate and Expert skill-levels
a) HISTORIC 200: Historic-class machines manufactured as 88-200cc.
b) HISTORIC OPEN: Historic-class machines manufactured as 201cc and
c) POST VINTAGE 200: Gran Prix and Ultima-class machines manufactured as 88-200cc.
d) POST VINTAGE OPEN: Gran Prix and Ultima-class machines manufactured as 201cc and
e) 50+: Riders age 50 and older on any size or type of eligible post vintage
f) 60+: Riders age 60 and older on any size or type of eligible post vintage
g) 70+: Riders age 70 and older on any size or type of eligible post vintage
h) WOMEN: Female riders on any size or type of eligible post vintage machine.
i) PRE-MODERN (Expert, Intermediate, Novice Class only)
Issue 2: Rule 15.3.11 will require revision as detailed below to reflect the addition of a third race:
15.3.11 (proposed text) Cross country races will be split into three sessions, with the Vintage motorcycles first, followed by the Post Vintage motorcycles, then the Disc Brake motorcycles. There will be a sufficient break between races to allow those entering multiple events to have a short rest.
(Dave Kutskel)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AN Motioned to vote, TT Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6734 – 15.1.? NEXT GEN 1
15.1.? NEXT GEN 1: In most aspects, machine eligibility and other requirements mirror those of AHRMA Next Gen 1 motocross (Section 16), with the exception being engine displacement; regardless of original displacement, engines may be built to the class limit (plus allowable overbore) The minimum age for riders is 16 years. Each of the following classes is further divided into Novice, Intermediate and Expert skill-levels.
a) Next Gen 1 200- Any up to 200cc eligible Next Gen 1 or Pre-Modern Motorcycle. (Expert, Intermediate or Novice class)
b) Next Gen 1 Open- Any up to 201cc or larger eligible Next Gen 1 or Pre-Modern Motorcycle. (Expert, Intermediate or Novice class)
c) 60+ Next Gen 1- Any size or type of eligible Next Gen 1 or Pre-Modern Motorcycle. (Expert, Intermediate or Novice class)
OTHER RULES AFFECTED
15.1.2 i) PRE-MODERN (Expert, Intermediate, Novice Class only)
(James Smith)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: KS Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: No (3 yes: AA, AK, BR / 6 no / 3 abstain: BL, JK, TT)
Entry ID #6667 – 15.3.1
15.3.1 It is recommended that a cross country track not be less than three miles in length. For safety reasons, the course should be laid out and pre-run by someone riding a four-wheeler. One parade lap for all competitors is strongly encouraged.
(Dave Kutskel)
Committee Recommendation: Reject
Discussion: AK Motioned to vote, RP Seconded
June Board: : No (0 yes / 12 no)
Entry ID #6692 – 15.3.11
15.3.11 Cross Country races will be split into two sessions, with the Vintage motorcycles first, followed by the Post Vintage motorcycles after a sufficient break to allow those entering both events to have a short rest. This will include the Women’s classes as well. Vintage machines in the first event and Post Vintage machines in the second event.
(Mick Spisak)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: DR Motioned to vote, AN Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 12 no)
NEXT GEN MX
Entry ID #6762 – 16.NEW PROMOTER OPTIONAL CLASSES
16.7.0 Promoter Optional Classes.
Promoter Optional Classes shall be run at the race promoter’s discretion when and where prudent scheduling allows and shall be subject to AHRMA’s written prior approval when taking place at a National event. Next Gen Promoter Optional Classes include those in sections 16.7.1 to 16.7.7. of this Handbook. Promoter Optional Class machines in the previously listed Millennium and Current 2-Stroke sections are not eligible for section 16.8.1 Next Gen Age classes, section 16.8.2 Next Gen Woman’s classes, and section 16.8.3 Next Gen Novice classes. No national series points shall be awarded in Promoter Optional classes.
OTHER RULES AFFECTED
Two-stroke classes in sections 16.7.1 to 16.7.7 have their status changed to promoter optional. No change to individual section text.
(Jason Colon)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: AN Motioned to vote, KS Seconded
June Board: Yes (11 yes / 1 no: AK)
Entry ID #6712 – 16.5.5 PRE-MODERN 500
Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1983-’85 KTM 420GS, 420XC, 495MC, 495XC, 500MX 1983 KTM 420GS, 420XC, 495MC, 495XC, 1985 KTM 500MX
(Greg Barratt)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: RP Motioned to vote, TT Seconded
June Board: Yes (12 yes / 0 no)
Entry ID #6764 – 16.6 NEXT GEN CLASSES
Description – Move section 16.6 text as follows, to Section 12 to become part of Post Vintage:
(12.##) 16.6.1 NEXT GEN 1:
Next Gen 1 machines incorporate nearly all of the features of current motorcycle technology, including front and rear hydraulic disc brakes, upside- down front forks, and twin-spar frames. Class eligible machines shall consist of circa 1986 to 1996 and like design two- and four- stroke motorcycles which were factory- produced with steel main frames. Aluminum sub-frame and swingarm are allowed. Motorcycles equipped with an aluminum main frame are not allowed.
Next Gen 1 Class Machines will have white number plate background with black numbers.
Next Gen 1 machines are not eligible to compete in Post Vintage Age classes, Post Vintage Women’s classes, or any Post Vintage Novice class.
(12.##) 16.6.2 NEXT GEN 1- 125:
Certain two-stroke motorcycles 100-125cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Next Gen 1 class specifications. Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1987-’97 Honda CR125R
- 1989-’99 Husqvarna 125 all
- 1989-’02 Gas Gas 125
- 1986-’98 Kawasaki KX125
- 1986-’00 KTM 125
- 1987-00’ Suzuki RM125
- 1986-’98 TM Racing 125
- 1988-’01 Yamaha YZ125
(12.##) 16.6.3NEXT GEN 1 250:
Certain two-stroke motorcycles 126-250cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Next Gen 1 class specifications. Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1988-’93 ATK 250
- 1987-’96 Honda CR250R
- 1989-’99 Husqvarna 250
- 1989-’02 GasGas 250
- 1986-’98 Kawasaki KX250
- 1989-’06 Kawasaki KDX200, KDX220, KDX250
- 1988-’02 KTM 250
- 1987-2000 Suzuki RM250, RMX250
- 1994-’98 TM Racing 250
- 1988-’98 Yamaha YZ250, WR250
(12.##) 16.6.4 NEXT GEN 1 500:
Certain two-stroke motorcycles 256-500cc that were produced within the guidelines of the Next Gen 1 class specifications. Eligible machines include, but are not limited to:
- 1988-’95 ATK 406
- 1987-’03 Honda CR500R
- 1989-’91 Husqvarna 300xx
- 1986-’04 Kawasaki KX500
- 1986-05’’ KTM 300, 360, 380 (up to MXC/EXC)
OTHER RULES AFFECTED
Will require renumbering of section 12 to include additional classes in the Post Vintage series. This proposal is intended to work in conjunction with the proposal to move Pre- Modern classes from section 16.5 to Post Vintage submitted by Albert Newmann. It is also intended to be considered with the proposal to make Next Gen 2-Stroke Millenium and Current classes promoter optional. See rationale statement.
(Jason Colon)
Committee Recommendation: Approve
Discussion: RP Motioned to vote, AK Seconded
June Board: No (0 yes / 10 no / 2 abstain: KS, LS)
Enter Comments/Questions Below
NOTE: In order for readers to readily identify the rule you are commenting about, the proposal Entry Id is required. It would also be helpful for you to include the Section # at the beginning of your comment.
Trustees, please consider that rule proposals 6764 and 6798 regarding the moving of certain Next Gen Motorcross classes to Post Vintage Motocross are intended to work together. Either both Pre-Modern and Next Gen-1 classes should be moved to PVMX or they should both stay in Next Gen Motocross. Separating Pre-Modern and Next Gen-1 disc brake classes into different series (PVMX/NGMX) is counterproductive to the current and any future National MX promotional model. If approved, Proposal 6762 effectively eliminates any scheduling concerns for running Next Gen MX and PVMX on the same day. And if PVMX and NGMX are run on separate days in the future, then having Pre-Modern and Next Gen-1 classes remain in NGMX follows long-established precedent in the PVMX rules for excluding disc brake technology and also maintains the logic of the 2018 vote to move Pre-Modern to Next Gen Motocross on that PV-disc principle. Keeping Pre-Modern and Next Gen-1 machines together in NGMX also allows them to be eligible for NG Age classes. If moved to PVMX Pre-Modern and Next Gen-1 machines would not be eligible for any Post Vintage Age Classes as proposed. Thank you.
Regarding 6646 and 6627, the addition of 750cc 2-stroke machines should not be considered for approval. While the cutoff is December 1972 for F750, and these bikes meet that criteria, they also represent the beginning of a seismic shift from 4-stroke to 2-stroke racing at the professional level. Issues such as tire longevity and technology, that seem inconsequential to us today given our many great options, were one of the things holding back these machines from absolutely dominating. Any shortfalls these machines experienced in the period have been more than made up for in 50 years of technological advancement. A 4-stroke 750cc machine capable of 75-80hp is simply not going to be competitive against a 2-stroke machine making well over 100hp on the same tires. We aren’t talking about the grueling 100 mile races of yesteryear either, so the concern with longevity of 2-strokes compared to 4-strokes is less relevant. In sprint racing, a lighter, more powerful 2-stroke bike will be extremely hard to compete against, even with the most refined 4-stroke machine.
Matt, you raced against what is one of the best sorted, well prepared H2’s with an experienced rider at New Jersey. Where did he finish? Riding an H2 is difficult, very finicky and short power band. Some may make 100hp, most don’t. They wont live long. To me it doesn’t make sense to eliminate a bike that created the Formula 750 class. Races with 5 bikes is good I suppose?
here’s the NJMP lap times, H2 1:49.031. you 1:44.60. Jeff 1:43.58. The H2 got lapped.
This proposal as listed above is quite an oversimplification of the matter at hand. I know it would be tiresome to read through the entirety of each proposal, but hopefully I can help shed some light on some of this, at least the part I helped draft, specifically related to combining Sportsman 750 and Formula 750. The intent was to modify the rules of F750 in such a way that bikes currently legal in either class would continue to be eligible to compete, without any additional modifications required, but optional for each rider. This is a nod to cost containment, and given that lap times are very close at each event, its reasonable to assume that relative placement of competitors in the newly combined field would be similar to the results in the current state. My draft of the proposal may or may not be similar to the one actually submitted, but it at least serves to show that due diligence for this proposal was done by a competing member of S750.
To the point of combining the 350 and 500 classes with other than 350 and 500 machines (F250 as brought up earlier), I do not have any real perspective there but would look to entries over the last couple of years and lap times (average and podium for each class) to determine the feasibility of combining those as well.
With so many classes, something has to give. Bikes that are modern now won’t be forever, and the push to add more classes will come up again. A step like this helps keep every machine currently eligible on the track and may be needed if we ever hope to get back to 8 laps per race.
Just make all the bikes Formula. Simple. It will be cheaper for the builders. Front drum brakes(good ones) cost 10 times what a disc set up costs. Then add a cheap fairing. Use rim widths approved for Formula. Sportsman engines should be within Formula rules.
problem is, we lose the cool factor of the old bikes, the naked look.
If the schedule is so jammed up why not run some races Saturday and some Sunday only?
The current rules were passed last year, 2021, and have not even been in place for a full year. Since adopting the new Brakeless Heavyweight rules we have seen an increase in class entries as well as an increase in the variety of the bikes in the class. Under the previous rules the class was very exclusive and turned away a lot of bikes that could run in this class. The variety in bikes that can now run in the class have increased entries and interest in the class with several racers putting together bikes for next year. By passing this rule to revert back to the old rules you will again exclude these racers. As you can see from the numbers below we are on track to have the highest number of entries in over 7 years. You can also see in the article from cyclenews that the last year of brakeless flat track racing was 1968 and not 1967 as the previous rules were written. For that the year for brakeless needs to remain at 1968 and older. I ask the board to align with the the dirt track committee and vote to reject this rule proposal. This rule proposal is too revert back too the old rules which I believe if passed this rule would have a severally negative impact on the program and on the class
https://www.cyclenews.com/2021/02/article/archives-column-give-em-a-brake-or-not/
“If not the end of an era, the start of the 1969 AMA Grand National Championship dirt-track season was the beginning of the end. For it was then that the AMA first allowed the use of rear brakes for dirt track racers.”
A quick run down of entry numbers in the class.
under the old rules: (season total entries)
2015: 31
2016: 35
2017: 30
2018: 53
2019: 28
2020: 29
2021: 33
Under current rules: (half way through the season)
2022: 32
This is a duplicate rule proposal. Please vote to reject rule 6782 and vote on this rule proposal.
The current rules were passed last year, 2021, and have not even been in place for a full year. Since adopting the new Brakeless Lightweight rules we have seen a huge increase in class entries as well as an increase in the variety of the bikes in the class. As you can see from the numbers below the current rules are doing what they were designed for and need to be kept in place to keep up the momentum in growth the program has achived. You can also see in the article from cyclenews that the last year of brakeless flat track racing was 1968 and not 1967 as the previous rules were written. For that the year for brakeless needs to remain at 1968 and older. I ask the board to align with the the dirt track committee and vote to reject this rule proposal. This rule proposal is too revert back too the old rules which I believe if passed this rule would have a severally negative impact on the program and on the class
https://www.cyclenews.com/2021/02/article/archives-column-give-em-a-brake-or-not/
“If not the end of an era, the start of the 1969 AMA Grand National Championship dirt-track season was the beginning of the end. For it was then that the AMA first allowed the use of rear brakes for dirt track racers.”
A quick run down of entry numbers in the class.
under the old rules: (season total entries)
2015: 4
2016: 4
2017: 17
2018: 19
2019: 11
2020: 5
2021: 19
Under current rules: (half way through the season)
2022: 27
This is a duplicate rule proposal. Please vote to reject and vote on rule proposal 6744.
The current rules were passed last year, 2021, and have not even been in place for a full year. Since adopting the new Brakeless Lightweight rules we have seen a huge increase in class entries as well as an increase in the variety of the bikes in the class. As you can see from the numbers below the current rules are doing what they were designed for and need to be kept in place to keep up the momentum in growth the program has achived. You can also see in the article from cyclenews that the last year of brakeless flat track racing was 1968 and not 1967 as the previous rules were written. For that the year for brakeless needs to remain at 1968 and older. I ask the board to align with the the dirt track committee and vote to reject this rule proposal. This rule proposal is too revert back too the old rules which I believe if passed this rule would have a severally negative impact on the program and on the class
https://www.cyclenews.com/2021/02/article/archives-column-give-em-a-brake-or-not/
“If not the end of an era, the start of the 1969 AMA Grand National Championship dirt-track season was the beginning of the end. For it was then that the AMA first allowed the use of rear brakes for dirt track racers.”
A quick run down of entry numbers in the class.
under the old rules: (season total entries)
2015: 4
2016: 4
2017: 17
2018: 19
2019: 11
2020: 5
2021: 19
Under current rules: (half way through the season)
2022: 27
10.20 Phillip Island Challenge
To my knowledge, this is currently this is the only class allowed for aftermarket frames which were a hallmark of the custom race builders of the 1980s.
As an active racer, currently running a 1977 Rickman CR and sponsor of this class, I would like the boards consideration to maintain / retain / or otherwise offer a class in which the Rickmans, as well as Seeley’s, Harris’s, and Sponden’s can exercise.
The medical card folds open similar to labels on many products. Placing the card on the right side of the helmet risks the chance of the card being negatively impacted by environmental elements such as rain or wind, or ground elements in case of a crash.
I am not sure I understand the logic behind number plate versus fairings rules in several classes including sportsman. Production and modified production bikes of the era were usually fitted with some sort of aftermarket fairing. Think slippery sam. Think pridmores bott bmw. Not allowing fairings effectively disqualifies many motorcycles from other organizations from competing in ahrma events without extensive modification.
What John Brunnett said…….
(Not a rule change but why no voting on the price increases? The members should have a say in a sudden increase in the cost of events. This will affect rider turnout across the board.)
Also why no voting on canceling classes that we had been running. Riders in those classes should have a say.
I completely agree with this change. This would put the Kawasaki and Suzuki triples in their period correct class. If they prove to be too fast they can be carburetor restricted. That has worked great for other classes.
Not a rule change but why no voting on the price increases? The members should have a say in a sudden increase in the cost of events. This will affect rider turnout across the board.
I believe strongly that the initial vote not to consider proposal #6674 be reconsidered. It is obvious to anyone that has ever attended a roadrace that we have WAY too many race classes. Trying to cram 55 classes into 12 or 13 races is an unenviable task that our current Roadrace crew are doing an admirable job with every weekend, but no matter how hard Jim, Dewanna and crew work to shift, juggle and move classes around, there is always someone complaining worker about back to backs, lack of laps or unsafe closure speeds. This is no reflection on the crew, but just the basic reality of having too many classes and not enough time in the day.
The knee jerk reaction to this is to cancel classes that have the least attendance, but I believe this is a mistake. Cancelling classes causes members to quit. The best solution to the problem that will not only get us fewer classes but will also help retain all existing members is to combine the smaller classes and also any classes that have very similar performance from the same era. There are DOZENS of classes that fall into this category, but two of the most obvious are: Spetsman 750 and Formula 750. Neither of these classes suffer from horrible attendance, but both are way down from what they used to be. Both classes feature bikes from the same time period, with the same displacement limits and in fact, the only tangible differences between them are bodywork and brake related. Even more compelling, both a average and fastest lap times for both classes are nearly identical at EVERY SIGLE TRACK we race at. This year, we have been gridding both classes right in front of each other, so during the race, it turns into a “sportsman vs formula” battle. The winning bike has literally swapped back and forth at every track, with all of the positions evenly mixed throughout all of the results. (This can all be verified on mylaps and I also have video footage of every single f750 race since 2015 on my YouTube page) You literally can NOT find 2 classes in the entire ahrma paddock that are so similar, with such similar performance and results.
Combining these 2 classes will not only take 2 classes with average attendance and turn them into one class with GREAT attendance, but it will also GREATLY increase the enjoyment of both the racers in the class and also the spectators.
Combining these 2 classes should STRONGLY be considered as a test bed to see if we can start combining other classes.
As for other classes, you only need to look at f250/sportsman 350 and f500/sportsman 500 to see that this pattern exists throughout the entire sportsman and formula class structure. At the time these classes were created, it made sense to have a “gp kitted” and a “production racer kitted” separation for these classes, but that was a long time ago, when there were less than 20 race classes. With the 55 we have currently, such minute separations between classes are becoming a burden to ahrma and a detriment to the racing experience for both competitors and spectators alike.
PLEASE reconsider this proposal and also keep an open mind toward any other opportunities to combine classes instead of canceling them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Morrow
Mark, I’d like to comment on the F250/Sp350/Sp500 statement. First the bikes are worlds apart. F250, disc brakes, custom frames from various manufacturers, rim sizes, 2 stroke RD machines, of course body work.
The fact that SP350 competitors fill the Sp500 field isn’t a fault of the bikes, its that no real Sp500 bikes show up and it’s the only place a SP350 bike can bump into and be reasonably competitive. I’m all for trimming the fat but the Formula 250 and Sportsman 350-500 bikes aren’t the same.
I am strongly opposed to allowing 750cc 2-Stroke machines into Formula 750. The Kawasaki H2 and H2R and the Suzuki GT750 and TR750 will outgun all current machines in the class.
There is no other AHRMA class that allows equal 2-stoke vs 4-stroke displacement. You only need to look at the 2-Stroke RD400 compared to a 750cc 4-stroke and realize that a 400cc 2-Stroke has a competitive advantage. The Kawasaki H2R can make 110HP, almost double the 4-stroke F750 bikes. https://www.mcnews.com.au/kawasakis-h2r-750/
Dan,
As a racer you know HP does not translate to lap times.
H2’s are not easy bikes to road race, they are finnicky bikes that need to be ridden with a certain amount of caution. Yes they are capable of making 110hp or more, but are far from a reliable racer at that HP level just as history has proven. At 80-90hp they are realistic racers for all of the ‘non-Gary-Nixons’ of the world and do not out-gun the current F-750 bikes. I can personally attest to this as I’ve raced 2 F-750 AHRMA events this year placing non-podium mid-pack both times on an H2. (with an approved AHRMA exception)
To me, being aligned with History should be the focus of a Historic Motorcycle race, and if bikes were raced in that class whether they won, lost, or DNF’d back in 1972 should be a distant second concern if any.
Vin
I believe Becky Hayes is 100% correct when she says ” what works in Mid Atlantic may not work for all nationals or even regional events” . The entire structure is far more complicated than that .I have only raced AHRMA for 3 years but have been fortunate to race 90% of all the national CCs. This year we have been from Daytona to Burrows to Chaney to Arkansa etc and I have experienced the vast differences in CC racing. CC in Burrows or Chaney is a very different sport than Renlow or Arkansas. BUT it is all AHRMA cross country. The spirit , the camaraderie , the welcome atmosphere is all the same and it is the cohesive factor in AHRMA. With that experience and openness I am appealing to the BOD to look beyond regional differences and vote to allow the CC program to grow and prosper in AHRMA. Put aside petty differences and be open to new and progressive ideas. Granted I haven’t researched the road racing rule changes because they don’t effect me , but I trust the board members have.
Road racing and MX have grown and prospered obviously because AHRMA has done that right,. CC across the country has stagnated or diminished for any number of reasons yet Mid Atlantic has grown faster than any other genre. The people running this region have proven they have the correct plan in place. Granted Becky is again right- the distance are shorter, bigger population of racers etc- but stats also show southern Cal, Arizona, Texas etc all have huge potential . MA has maximized their opportunity and set a high standard doing something right. . Pleaser as a board put some faith in the proposals set forth by MA members. In your region if you don’t have any NG bikes adding a third race won’t affect you at all. If you don’t have 10regular women racing, or a crowd of novices these rule changes will not make a difference. Pass #6666,6665, 6640 for the betterment of all AHRMA. Leave the myopic view behind and allow AHRMA to grow. Those who do not evolve are doomed to perish. We all need to work together .
Robert, your experience racing as many National CC’s as you have gives you valuable insight into the current state of affairs on the National level. Since most of my CC racing has been with the Mid-Atlantic Region and eastern Nationals, most of my experience is with the disc brake class/ three race format that RCP 6640 proposes. In previous comments I have stated my support for this format, and also posted the RCP 6640 “Rationale” statement with the statistics that back up the MAR’s success in their 2021 10 race series. However, as Becky correctly states, what works for the MAR may not work for Nationals and other regions. As Becky notes…here is the ‘fly in the ointment”…and as I see it…the deal-breaker…when it comes to moving the National CC series to the 3 race program: At many Nationals the CC group is forced to share the day with a full MX or Trials program. I simply do not know WHO at the AHRMA staff level has made that decision…but in my opinion it is a poor one. It is like fitting 20 pounds of “stuff” into a 15 pound bag. It doesn’t fit. The day becomes rush, rush, rush. I’ve raced National CC’s that were cut short in time “because we need to get the motos started”. Likewise, the motos are shortened or run with almost no break after a CC. Nobody wins. Currently the 2 race (V and PV) program is tough enough to fit into a day when it must also run with an MX program. So…unless THAT issue is dealt with…well…no sense adding a third race. If 20 pounds of “stuff” does not fit into the 15 pound bag…no sense trying 25 pounds of it. NOW, I ASK THE BOD, WHO HAS MADE THE DECSION TO MAKE THE NATIONAL CC PROGRAM RUN ON THE SAME DAY WITH AN MX AND/OR TRIALS PROGRAM? Solve that issue…and perhaps the disc brake class / 3 race format becomes a winner at the CC Nationals as well as in our Mid-Atlantic Region.
As Pete Petrick said “Jeez AHRMA, stop with the nanny state.” Making rules to annoy their riders seems to be an ahrma priority. I don’t want anything around my neck, on my helmet, stuck in my pants, up my shirt or in my boots. Anything I have medical information wise is PRIVATE. Anything that can come off or break free will. No one wants private medical information laying around for the taking.
We are racing the same bikes in 2022 vintage mx that we were up to 1974. We had 3 levels, novice, int, expert and 5 classes 100, 125, 200, 250, open. We had one page of very simple rules. How many pages is the ahrma rule book up to now? 151 give or take? And for vintage mx alone? 15 pages not counting other reference pages. Just use the KISS it formula…..KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!!!
Jeez AHRMA, stop with the nanny state. Now a med ID rule. Seems AHRMA is run by lawyers and accounts these days making rules to annoy their riders.
Novices are typically a newcomer to the sport. Limiting their access and options to race to one per day only is not encouraging to their engagement in AHRMA, may minimize the enthusiasm to spend hard-earned money on fuel and entry fees, and is less conducive to their development and eventual ascension to higher skill levels. For those novices that do not progress to the higher skill levels, is it fair to limit their experience perpetually? Concerns over having novices on the track with “faster” bikes have proven to be a moot point in MA regional races as the overwhelming majority of AHRMA racers are respectful of others on the trail. And really, there are people riding vintage bikes at comparable speeds in the vintage race anyway, so the concern is questionable in that light.
Please advise on the board’s reasoning for a unanimous ‘no’ vote. If there are semantic issue with the rule change proposal, please elaborate so that these rule changes may be better crafted to ensure acceptance.
I agree with this change to include 400cc twins in SOT4.
(Greg barratt June 23, 2022 at 3:28 pm – Reply
I am amazed I have to post this comment, but there is no reason to discriminate against women racers.)
Greg, ahrma is very good at discriminating against other riders and classes. Dropping novice classes but keeping intermediate and expert of the same classes discriminates against the novice riders that have no hope of competing with intermediates.
ahrma is also very good at age discrimination and ageism. When they dropped the 70+ novice class they now want us to race the 60+ novice class. Dropping our 70+ novice class is pure unadulterated discrimination. They do not make 60 + novice race the 50 + novice or the 50 + novice race the 40 + novice classes. Those of us in the “use to be class 70 + novice” will be 15 to 20 years older than ones we have to race against. There is nothing fair about that at all. Anyone associated with ahrma from top to bottom including the track promoters, especially those that voted to discriminate against the 70 + novice by canceling that group, should be very, very ashamed of themselves. But that’s the ahrma way. If they don’t race that class or have a friend in it they don’t care. Discrimination against age does not bother them at all. ahrma should look back and poll the actual members that ride the classes they want to delete. We pay the same gate fees as everyone else. At one time over 70 were allowed a free entry. ahrma took that away. I was told by a now gone ahrma person that track promoters could not afford to buy trophies for the 70 + novice. My reply was “ then have them print a picture of the trophy on the computer and give us that if they are that cheap. They don’t mind taking our money and discriminating on us due to being over 70 so that should not bother them at all. More money in the promoters and ahrma pockets from discriminating against us seems to fit them well, what they like.
So Greg, good luck with the discrimination against the women. They won’t do anything about it. If so it would never have been there to begin with! Or like our 70 + novice class there then taken away. In the year 2022 and women and senior citizens are still being discriminated against. And women were not the only ones. Men were too. I can’t run a vintage cc and post vintage cc novice because they run those together. Absolutely stupid….for women, men and senior citizens.
What may work great in the Mid Atlantic region may not work at all at the national level or even another region.
First a little history. According to Polly Grow’s best recollection the novices were moved to the vintage race “When Teddy (Landers) was running it. For a race or two there was a separate race for Novices and Women but people didn’t like it cause it made the day really long and they had to pay extra to keep the ambulance there longs. My guess is 2008, 2009 somewhere around there. The reason they broke it out that way was is because the fast PV guys were so mad because they had slow people in the fast race.” Moving the novices (and women) to the vintage race was seen as a safety measure for both them and the faster riders.
The Women’s class started in 2010. Before that women competed in the same classes as the men. In 2015, 5 women participated in AHRMA National Cross Country. Three of which only rode 1 race. In 2018, 9 women competed. Again 3 of those only rode in 1 race. Jump to 2021, and 19 women competed. (its great to see more women riding.) One of which rode both the Women’s Vintage and Post Vintage classes at 3 national events. PV Women Experts Suzy Moody and Shelia Monk also competed in the PV 50+ Intermediate class placing 2nd and 7th respectively. There is no rule that prohibits women from entering any of the classes she and her bike qualifies for.
So until the last year, no woman has wanted to compete in both the Vintage and Post Vintage races in the women’s class which we accommodated and will continue to due so. Regarding Entry ID #6692, Shelia Monk texted me “Hey girl so does this mean we as women will be riding with the post vintage bikes? And so if I want to ride 2 races I will need to get a vintage bike?” If this is passed, yes, Shelia, you would have to buy a vintage bike.
Also from Shelia. “ Ok so here is what I think they need to think about too…. They are talking about moving all novice and women on PV bikes to the PV race. I would think that you have more riders in the PV race . . . and definitely faster bikes. This can be intimidating to the novice rider and most women as they do not want to be a hinderance to the other riders. So instead of getting more riders AHRMA may lose riders because the less experienced rider may not feel comfortable on the trails with the faster people. . . .You spend your time worrying about messing someone else up, and having to move over for the faster riders. I have been there.”
The Mid Atlantic Region has done a fantastic job building their program and listening to their riders. The number of women riding and getting faster in their region is amazing. The Region has the advantages of a very strong core group of volunteers, a large population base to draw riders from, and shorter travel times. However, AHRMA is a national organization and what works for them may not work on a national level or even in another region. Example 1, Have you ever wondered why National Cross Countries are not scored with transponders? Next time you are at a Mid Atlantic event take a good look at all the scoring equipment. Bringing it all to the races is divided among 3 groups of people! At the nationals, it is just me (and Craig). I have streamlined as much as I can, and you still get your lap times. Example 2, Entry ID #6640 adding the Next Gen bikes and a third race. At the Nationals this year, only Battery Park in South Carolina (The regional mx was canceled.) and Sugar Hill at Bolivar TN are stand alone Cross Countrys. At every other event, we are sharing the day with MX or Trials, When we race in late October – March, daylight is at a premium. I am not against adding Next Gen per se, but we must be thoughtful on how it should be done. I would also like to see a youth class in vintage and post vintage someday.
As for Entry ID #6667, there is no need to change the wording. It says “strongly encouraged” not “mandatory”. If you don’t want to have a sighting lap – don’t.
The really, really sad and disappointing part of this is, I was at Reynlow Park and no one, I repeat, no one came to talk to me about any of the proposed rule changes or items of concern. We could have talked face to face. Hashed out the pros and cons, and come to an understanding. You could talk to any one of the Cross Country Committee members also.
Becky Hayes
AHRMA #7354
Becky– Wanted to respond to your post, because we truly appreciate more than words can express that you have been able to accommodate Laci’s desire to run both Womens Expert classes at the Nationals the past couple of years. Obviously our hope was to make it an actual rule so we don’t drive 1,000 miles (as Daytona was for us) to possibly find out that she’s been cut back to only one class because of a possible conflict with other participants, which I know you understand.
Addressing Sheila’s comment and your reply to her concerning #6692 ( which does NOT mention Novice riders at all—just the Womens Division” —“Regarding Entry ID #6692, Shelia Monk texted me “Hey girl so does this mean we as women will be riding with the post vintage bikes? And so if I want to ride 2 races I will need to get a vintage bike?” If this is passed, yes, Shelia, you would have to buy a vintage bike.” —- And I may add this– “just as the men have had to do from the beginning”
I realize that in the past that possibly women racers may have “gotten in the way” but as Suzy Moody , Sheila Monk , Laci, Kelly Ashcraft and Emily Reichart have demonstrated , that its now most of the men are “getting in the way” when they are on the course with any of these women. Again, the Novices are different kettle of fish.
Maybe a possible compromise is to just permit the Women Experts to run in the appropriate Vintage/ PV classes and keeping all Novice’s and the Intermediate Women in the morning ?
Also, as far as not speaking to you at Reynlow about my RCP– at that point I really thought #6692 was just a common sense “adjustment” never expecting to get voted down 0-12 lol. Also, you have your hands full at these Nationals, and it didn’t seem like the proper place and time to badger you with rule change proposals when there were such a multitude of them on the table.
On a different note- I will admit that a 3-race XC program may be an awfully tight squeeze at Nationals when Moto runs the same day, so yes that might be an insurmountable issue, particularly early and later in the season as you mentioned.
The Mid Atlantic region may be spoiling its racers by having great turn-outs, great long courses, extremely helpful Volunteer staff, and now with a fantastic MX series ,and just being a very well run race weekend in general, but that doesn’t mean some of the positive aspects that we enjoy CAN’T happen on a National level
Again, we really appreciate your help the past 2 years, its a tough job you have and have done it admirably well. Hopefully we can all go forward, make some proper decisions and make AHRMA a stronger organization for the years ahead.
Mr. Spisak – I realize that the men have had to have 2 different bikes in order to run both cross country sessions as you said, “from the beginning.” I was asking Becky that question just to make sure I was understanding the rule proposal. And as far as this rule proposal does “NOT mention Novice riders at all”, where the proposal says “This will include the Women’s classes as well”‘ who else is the rule proposal talking about? The only PV bikes in the vintage cross country race are being ridden either by a woman or a novice rider, so where it says women’s classes as well….as well of who else if it’s not the novice riders? Maybe I’m missing something.
My concern is not for me with this proposal, I will do whatever I need to do in order to run both sessions, so if that means I have to purchase a vintage bike then I will at some point. So going with the assumption that this rule is referring to novice riders as well as the women riders, my concern is for any of the PV riders in the vintage race (novice or women) that are not comfortable riding in the PV race. Everyone should have an opportunity to feel safe, have fun, and have no concerns of possibly interfering with another rider’s race. Maybe all the novice and women riders in your region are comfortable with riding in the PV race, but what about the riders in other regions? Maybe the rules committee should poll some of the riders that this rule would affect and see how they feel about it. I’m just concerned that AHRMA stands to lose more riders than this proposal will help. As for me, I enjoy riding the +50 PV class, no I don’t win, but it gives me an opportunity to line up with different people and I always have someone to “race” whether they are in my class or not.
Becky does an amazing job running the cross country. If the rule does not pass, and at some point there is a conflict with any of the ladies in your region being able to ride both vintage and post vintage cross country, I feel certain Becky will figure out a plan and it will all work out.
For people that know me, posting comments or anything else on the internet is way out of my comfort zone (I have no social media accounts) So if my post offends anyone or comes across in an unfriendly or unprofessional manner, I truly apologize. That definitely is not my intent, I am one that does everything I can to avoid confrontations.
Shelia Monk
Sheila, I was only referring to the fact that my RCP 6692 did not reference “Novice” riders at all,only emphasizing the women’s division. As follows —-
Entry ID #6692 – 15.3.11
15.3.11 Cross Country races will be split into two sessions, with the Vintage motorcycles first, followed by the Post Vintage motorcycles after a sufficient break to allow those entering both events to have a short rest. This will include the Women’s classes as well. Vintage machines in the first event and Post Vintage machines in the second event.
My concern was 100% in the women’s division. As far as Novices go , I really don’t have a dog in that fight.
I’m sorry that my comment about the guys also needing 2 bikes may have come across a little more harshly than intended. I do apologize for that ,as the written word sometimes does not convey the proper sentiment. And yes I agree that Becky would find a way to make things work if a conflict arose, however that also puts a bigger burden on her already full plate. . I believe we all want the same thing and hopefully it works out for the best .
Shelia,
The idea or thought that the vintage race is somehow slower and more calm for a women or novice rider is just not true. In any national or regional race myself and others constantly have to navigate riders that are riding much slower. The speed differential can be great at times and much skill and patience is required to pass these lappers on vintage bikes that can be a handful at times with braking. There are extremely fast riders both men and women in the vintage race and we are pushing these bikes to the absolute limit. This is just a simple rule change to allow women the same opportunity as the men in this series and the unanimous 12 of 12 no really concerns me. Who is influencing these 12 Board members?
AHRMA XC Coordinator Becky Hayes makes a number of important points in her Comments…some that we’ll have to “agree to disagree” on. But I’d like to add my full agreement with her position on adding a Third Disc Brake Class Race (RCP ID 6640) onto a day’s Cross Country program that ALSO has to share the day with a full MX and/or Trials program. Simply put: that is unworkable…and indeed I would make the case that in my opinion having those MX and/or Trials programs run with the current National XC Two Race program is detrimental to the quality of all of the racing. It is trying to pack 20 pounds of “stuff” into a 15 pound bag. It doesn’t fit no matter how much you wish it too. That being said…I’m not sure at what level in AHRMA the decision was made to combine these XC, MX, and/or Trials events all into a single day’s program…perhaps the ED? Or ORD? But in my opinion it does not work well at all. That is NOT addressed in RCP ID 6640 or ANY of the Cross Country RCP’s submitted this year, but I strongly suggest the interim ORD and ED re-consider THAT issue. And I share Mick Spisak’s appreciation for the work that Becky does on behalf of AHRMA’s XC Racing community.
We added 15 new riders to the millennium 2 Stroke class this this year. These members have spent time and money on buying and preparing bikes to race for a national champship.This is the 4th year of the Next Gen series. The first year had good amount of riders in the new classes 50 riders total.2020 had a significant drop off in riders to 6 total. 2021 had 11 total riders.This the information in the aarchived final results for NG. This year Ng1 has 24 riders scoring points up 3 riders over 2021. Millennium 2 stroke has 15 more riders scoring over just 3 last year. There have been 40 racers entered in the age classes classes this year The total number of entries for NG this year is 107. NG is not been ran the way it was pitch to the board, this not the fault of the members and they should not be penalized for AHRMA not stepping up and running the program how it was pitched amateur racing on Saturday and pro racing on Sunday at national caliber tracks. There have been numerous request for rule changes to make NG a 1 class structure since the program is not been run the way it was pitched. There have been more then 1 trustee and board members that have stated the difference between the NG1 and Millennium 2 Strokes and current 2 stroke in the hands of most of our member is not an advantage. The tracks we race are not modern style tracks where the suspension could make a advantage. This rule change along with moving pre modern and NG1 to post vintage where they will not be eligible to race in any ages classes does not make any sense financially for AHRMA and especially for the members who have these bikes. Almost all of the smaller regional vintage motocross series run these bikes in their programs and all of them can race for championships can AHRMA afford to lose member by taking a step backwards and making half the class a promoter optional class .
The rule change proposal to allow women to race multiple classes on different Era bikes during different races is a no brainer that would replace an antiquated rule. I have raced the MA CC series for almost 5 years. I have seen the women’s classes increase in size and talent significantly in our region with most riding multiple races on different Era machines. No one wins from voting down this rule change!
I also can’t comprehend why the cross country rules do not allow for dual disc or “EVO” type bikes to compete. These bikes are nearing 35+ years old. Making a third race for these bikes is a great compromise and can bring more entries. It seems AHRMA only has interest in promoting road racing and MX as they both have accommodations for bikes less than 20 years old.
Next is adding novice entries in their respective race dependent on the bike they are riding. These folks are new to the sport and should have the most opportunity to increase seat time, by having multiple opportunities to ride throughout the day. The MA series has adopted this and the reality is that it is not at all a safety issue and there could be an argument that the 3 race format is safer for lapped riders as there are less riders on the track at any given time.
Last, a CC course absolutely needs to be longer than 3 miles. Rider safety would be a huge issue as lappers would be getting passed with in the first half of the race instead of on the last lap. A course that short would be destroyed with 100+ riders on it.
Allowing the Honda CBR600F3 built between 1995-1998 seems to open the door to the Yamaha YZF600R series. aka FZR 600RR, from ’95-96 (Foxeye) had 34mm carbs and similar horsepower. 90rwhp
The 2nd gen YZF600R ’97-2007(Thundercat) (Not R6) offered larger carbs, 36mm, same as the Honda F3, and both offered ram air. Static, they both offer the same RW hp but at speed, the ram air adds a gain in power. Whereas this is a superbike class, internal mods can boost any of these models. These are all carbureted machines, no fuel injection allowed, as with the R6….It would only help to level the playing field, and still be within the spirit of the class.
Correct decision, the bike belongs in 500 Premier, not in Sportsman.
With a year under the mid atlantics belt of running a seamless 3 race raceday it seems like common sense that the national schedule should consider this, it’s proven. It let’s men and woman race multiple years and bring the kids in with newer bikes. Once they get the jist of it and learn more and hone their skills it’s a easy transition to some vintage stock. As far as women are concerned, Lacy stated it the best. Let them run in the classes they qualify in. Don’t hinder them by staging on a back row. Most of the MA girls kick alot of the guys butts and it’s not fair to them to hinder them in a CC race fighting thru a pack and hoping for good passing lanes. One last thing. The idea of testing a track with a 4 wheeler for CC race is a awesome idea and should be considered if not for the safety of the riders but also for the preservation of the bikes.
ID 6665 / 6666
The AHRMA MA racing community (and I’m sure other districts) have achieved something that does not exist in other racing series, INCLUSIVITY! No other racing series has the welcoming and supportive nature of the AHRMA racing series. Whether a new rider is fast or just taking the training wheels off, I have seen the AHRMA community do nothing but support these riders, respect them on the race course, help them with mechanicals, aid them after a crash, and include them in the circle of friendship that is the AHRMA community. Whether it’s the original mission or not, AHRMA has created the best place to race for the rider seeing a fun, low stress, and low risk racing environment. If risk is the main concern here, I do not see it. Back when the MA racing format was a two race format, we had novice and women racing on the course with AA riders on vintage bikes with less braking power, less control, plenty of motor, and significantly more riders on course. If we can successfully navigate this, we know we have the respectful environment to allow these racers to participate safely in other races.
We need to embrace the environment we have created and drive participation of novice and women racers to increase our membership and race attendance. We would be doing an injustice to these racers by limiting their chances to embed themselves more deeply in the racing community. My mantra has always been “If you want to bang bars and get run over, go race do modern race series. If you want to have fun no matter what happens, go race AHRMA”.
ID 6640
The three race format we’ve switched to in the MA district has been working surprisingly well. Grouping these bikes by Vintage, Post-Vintage, and Pre-Modern+ has given riders the opportunity to participate in more races (more opportunity for promoters to recoup their costs), made racing flow smoother on shorter courses (less congestion on course), and increases the spectator interest with less downtime between races. We’ve managed to pack all this into the same amount of time as 2 races has taken previously. This seems like a no brainer to make the switch. Is this purely just an opposition to change without knowing how this has improved the race day experience for the MA district?
In agreement 100% with Mr Colahan’s comment. The 3 race format was run with GREAT success and without any time constraint issues. Mid-Atlantic’s Regional Coordinator Dave Kutskel ran the series like a well-oiled machine, and I suggest that his methods be applied at the National events. I see ZERO downside to attracting more members/participants.
I think it is a great idea to run the disk brake classes and three race format in cross country. I ran my first ARHMA CC race last year after racing flattrack since I was a kid and I raced a disk brake bike that I raced when I was teenager. By being able to ride a bike I already had got me hooked. So this winter I got a vintage bike so I could race more than one race during the day and now I am working on a PV bike to race. The more opportunity to race on multiple machines will help the sport grow and to get new riders into the sport.
A few additional thoughts regarding Cross Country RCP ID 6640, which proposes a new Disc Brake Class (pre Y2K) and a 3 race format. Numerous RCP’s submitted to the R&E Committees and subsequently to the BOD are well thought out proposals that must rely on assumptions of future success. It’s a common scenario; “I believe this is a good idea that SHOULD work to improve…to increase…etc etc.” Of course…many of those RCP success predictions are based on hope. Sometimes they do work out. Other times they don’t. In this case, I encourage the XC R&E Committee, the BOD, and ALL AHRMA XC racers to read the “Rationale” statement that Dave Kutskel sent in with RCP 6640. I attached the text in a previous comment…take a look. READ IT! RCP 6640 is not based on conjecture or wish-full thinking. It is based on facts and data acquired through the full 2021 ten race Mid-Atlantic Region Cross Country Series. Not a one-off race. Not a “what-do-you-think” random survey of a few racers. Every detail of RCP 6640, as well as RCP’s 6665 and 6566 were enacted in the 2021 season. In essence, the MAR completed on AHRMA’s behalf a full-blown, bona-fide Beta Test of the Disc Brake Class and 3 race format…which importantly also allowed…indeed ENCOURAGED…both Novice and Women racers to compete IN THEIR APPROPRIATE CLASSES in any or all of the 3 races they wished to enter. It is not a hoped-for success. It is a documented success. My sense is…in the business world…this “product” would go into production! Instead…we have the R&E Committee offering a “reject” and the BOD voting 0 to 12 against all three. There have been quite a few comments offered on these RCP’s. At this point I think the AHRMA Cross country racers deserve a detailed explanation from both the R&E Committee AND especially the BOD as to WHY they voted the way they did. And perhaps an offer that their positions will be re-evaluated. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Being an AHRMA member and female racer I feel the need to comment . I myself am one of the women affected by the current race structure . I race womens vintage expert and womens PV expert cross country and motocross . I will say that the current cross country coordinator does help me out and tries to accommodate me at every national so I am able to race for my points but I’ve lucked out at most nationals and have been the only one in my class. If that wasn’t the case I’m not sure how I would be able to race both my classes at nationals seeing that all womens classes go off in the vintage race. I race in the mid Atlantic region of ahrma and they run a 3 race format with all bikes running with other like bikes no matter your skill level or gender and it runs so smooth and gives women and novices a chance to race up to 3 different times (they also offer a 3rd race for disc brake bikes which I also agree with many others in this comment section that its a must and has brought in more racers (younger racers ) and those racers have turned around to buy vintage bikes etc.). I love racing and I love racing vintage it has given me something to enjoy with my dad and I have met so many amazing friends thru this sport but I do feel women are not being treated fairly . I want to be able to race two classes or more just like the men can without a second thought. While On this subject I’d like to point out that also at nationals women start in the very last and second to last rows which being an expert woman I feel that also needs to be reconsidered. In the MA region the rows start with experts first then intermediates and so on . At nationals I have to fight my way thru multiple rows of people to then be able to run the pace I can.Example being Daytona this year I was in the last row and fought my way up to 10th overall so proving the point women have the pace to run upfront with the men and we deserve to start up front or atleast with our proper skill levels row. My dad and the gentleman in charge of our region are the ones who submitted the proposals geared towards women and I’m asking you to please imagine if it was your daughter who was racing and wasn’t being giving the same chances to race as the men and you might have a change of heart.
Allowing our novice riders in the vintage group to race in the class that fits their bike would provide them with more experience with different levels of riders. The folks in our Mid-Atlantic group are supportive of each other and no one is going to run over anyone else. I would appreciate the Board of Directors considering the approval of this rule change.
The women in the Mid-Atlantic region are some of the fastest riders around. The only way they will continue to gain experience is to allow them to ride in the classes that their bikes fit into not just classes for women. We’ve been doing this for the last year and it is working well. I would encourage the Board of Dorectors to approve this rule change.
I agree with all the comments and the rule change 6692. In this day and age it seems that an organization as large as AHRMA wouldn’t be so discriminatory.
RE: 6665. 6692. 6640. 6666
As a member of AHRMA – and being female
I would like to agree with the proposals: 6640 – 6665 – 6666 & 6692
I think being able to run more than one time during a race day would be fair to us.
Our skills would vastly improve, and would actually make AHRMA a few extra bucks.
I have a disc brake bike that I could run, but, there is no option for me to enter as female.
I would have to enter in the Men’s 200 Intermediate 50+ class.
I stand zero fighting chance to place anywhere on the list, but last.
If I’m lucky, and a bike breaks down; then, maybe 2nd to last in the whole line-up.
I will never be the fastest – But, improving skills with different bikes is my goal.
I place near the bottom of any/all races, but,
at least I stand a fighting chance against another woman with the same class bike.
I started as a true novice with an extremely heavy dual sport bike.
It took over one hour to complete one lap.
I didn’t care; I had a blast.
I’ve improved my skills over the years, even tho I’m still not
zippy fast, I can get 3 laps in on a vintage bike.
Two classes for women doesn’t cut it. We would like a variety also.
I think racing a disc brake bike, with a more modern suspension
would greatly improve women’s rider skills,
improve their confidence on the trails, and boost personal morale.
I can think of several women that would rock the added classes
and give the fellas a run for their money.
– Not just in the Mid-Atlantic region, but, across the Nation.
Let us ride a slightly more modern bike!
On a slightly different; yet same subject matter of women; here is something to ponder:
When will we split the ages of women? say… Teens to age 44, and 45 and older?
I think we might have plenty of women across the country that are within
these two age ranges, of course, this is for a different future proposal.
Thanks for letting me voice my opinion.
I hope some of these proposals go thru.
I believe we can get more women out there racing.
~Jenn Smith “3R”
MX adopted Next Gen. You can street race a mid 2000’s bike. When is the national CC discipline going to get with the program. I race a few national CC events each year and nearly every racer I see is over 50. Here in the Mid-Atlantic CC region you will find a good mix of ages starting at 16 going all the way up to 70. In order to grow this sport we need to allow people a chance to get their feet wet and it is much easier for someone to borrow or find a decent running bike from 87′ to 99′ to come try it out at a race. They try it once, get hooked, then they start looking for a vintage or PV bike so they can get more seat time or make driving 4 hours to a race worth it. This is what happened to me in 2016. Raced 5 races on a borrowed 98 RM 250 in the then modern support class. Over the winter I bought an 86′ CR 250. The following winter I bought a 73′ Hodaka. I now have more vintage bikes than bikes from the 80’s. It’s time to add Next Gen to CC and not stay stuck in the past where we also only let women race in one race.
As one of the Mid-Atlantic scorekeepers for two different disciplines, I feel as if the rule proposals that have been submitted would be good for AHRMA. My husband and I started vintage racing after borrowing a bike that does not fall under the current rules, and then after a few races decided to purchase a vintage motorcycle. We were able to do this after being able to feel included with a “newer” bike. The only way to grow the sport of vintage motorcycle racing is to allow “newer” bikes. I have been told that AHRMA is about having 40 year old’s on 20 year old bikes. Last I checked it is 2022 and having bikes up to 1999 would fall under that. I have watched our region grow in many ways. There are several people that have come to watch a family member race, and think to themselves, I have a bike in my shed that is 20 years old, I can do this. In this case they learn more about the older vintage and historic machines. From my personal experience I knew nothing about the older machines, but I was able to make friends, look at bikes, and have a huge respect for the history of motorcycle racing. I have also found a love for motorcycles such as Hadaka’s, Penton’s, BSA’s, OSSA’s, Can-am’s, the list goes on and on.
AHRMA is all about Keeping the Past Fast, how can that continue if we don’t allow a new generation of racers on “newer” bikes. Just because the bike has two-disc brakes, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be included. I have family members and friends whose disc brake bikes are not as fast as their vintage or post vintage bikes. AHRMA is also about preserving the history of the bikes. Part of the history includes how the machines have developed throughout the years. You can walk through the pits at one of our Mid-Atlantic region and see for instance vintage Kawasaki’s right next to a post vintage Kawasaki and that is beside a Kawasaki with Disc Brakes. This is where people get to learn and see the history of what the different changes the machines have made throughout the years. And taking some points right from the handbook, AHRMA is about a fascination with classic and historic bikes. The only way to continue this fascination with them is showing a wide variety that are very quickly becoming classics for the newer generation.
Also, AHRMA is about showcasing vintage and alternative modern racing in the disciplines of road racing, motocross, dirt track, trials, and cross country. Why is it that other disciplines have newer bikes and cross-country is overlooked and swept under the rug? Cross country falls under AHRMA’s disciplines and should be treated equally to the other disciplines.
Regarding the three-race format for the addition of disc brake classes. In the Mid-Atlantic region this format has worked very well for our race days. As one of the scorekeepers for these events I have personally seen that it allows more downtime between the races for everyone. This also gives racers a change to be able to enter multiple races in a day. Including allowing novices and women to participate in these races. Why only allow novices and women to race in one single race first thing in the morning when adding them to the proper bike age races will allow them to enter more races and improve on their riding ability. Personally, I have seen a lot of racers who have started out as novices and have improved on their riding skills and love for the variety of bikes at the races. And our Women racers can hone their skills, so much so they end up in the top 10 in overall. Also, with the three-race format the Mid-Atlantic has been able to keep and stick to a schedule and end our race days much earlier then when it was a two-race event. When running a three-race format however, there can only be one discipline running on that day, making it an entire day of cross-country. The three-race format has proven to be a great way to Keep the Past Fast and allow the preservation of motorcycle racing.
Given the ‘H’ in AHRMA stands for ‘Historic’ I’m very pleased to see 6 out of the 11 voters agree to pass this and not attempt to re-write history. Unarguably, Kawasaki debuted the H2’s and H2R’s and campaigned them for the entire 1972 Formula 750 class with Yvon, DuHamel, Gary Nixon, Paul Smart, along with others.
This is the correct class for these bikes and hope to see several of them out on track and formally included in F-750 in 2023!
What is wrong with allowing novices the ability to enter into the appropriate race for which their bike is suited for? Is the wisdom behind this decision that they would get run over by a fast PV rider, but they wouldn’t get run over by a vintage rider because they are all slow? We have been doing this in the Mid-Atlantic region for a year and a half now and there have been zero issues. This proposal would give a novice more seat time in order to get better and improve their skills. It just makes sense. Please reconsider this decision.
It is amazing that the AHRMA trustee’s preliminary decision is to continue its discriminatory practices against women. RCP 6692 and similar 6665 would allow women to race in more than one race just like the men. It would also allow them to race a PV bike in the PV race where it is supposed to be. Please reconsider your objection to RCP 6692.
Taking away the Millenial class stops the growth of AHRMA. This class was bringing more racers to AHRMA and it has shown to be growing. I for have just got my Millenial bike ready to race and had there not been weather cancellations would have been at several events by now.
If passed, it will make me decide if I continue with AHRMA or find another series to go race in.
Good day !
We are going to approve additional classes for the mx to include next gen. This sounds like a great idea. Why does this same committee reject these classes for cross country? Should this decision be made by the members active in the cross country series?? Are the trustees voting in the best interest of the members who voted for them??
I notice that some of the approved rule changes for machine eligibility in the road race series is now including bikes up to 2006. (Passes unanimously) I assume these newer bikes are being added to allow racers more opportunities to race or to increase registration as newer members have additional opportunities to race. Why do these newer bikes get added for the road racers?
When it comes to cross country we continue to refuse to add any bike with a rear disc brake? (Rejected unanimously) The main concern was that these newer bikes were unsafe to ride with the older vintage bikes. The three race format with vintage, post vintage and disc brakes keeps the bikes separated. We have done this in the MA region for well over a year. The women prefer it. The disc brake riders prefer it. The vintage riders prefer it. As stated in another comment, what are the reasons our trustees do not want change?
With the current state of our economy the promoter will not be able to cover the costs of insurance, awards, ambulances, and all other costs associated with racing. These costs are getting more expensive every day. The number of entries needs to increase to cover these fixed costs. If we refuse to provide additional opportunities for women and novice racers along with refusing to add newer bikes, we are just waiting until all of the bikes and riders are gone. If we want a sustainable off road series, we need to get a younger generation involved. This younger generation comes with disc brake bikes. There have been plenty of examples of racers that have gotten vintage bikes to race along with their pv or disc brake bikes.
My favorite part of a MA cross country event is seeing a bunch of young kids racing bikes that are 2to3 times older than the rider. We also have a strong presence of women riders. Please DO NOT discriminate against these women. These girls are faster than most of the guys. The women are entitled to have more than one opportunity to race throughout the day.
When I started with Arhma, I was told that the mission was to have a place for a 40 year old rider with a 20 year old bike to race competitively. It seems to be more like a 60 year old rider and a 40 or 50 year old bike.
Sorry for the long rant, I have enjoyed racing for many years with ahrma. My opinion is that we can adapt and change with the times so the we can survive, or we can leave the current structure alone and wait until all the old bikes and old riders are gone. When the attendance drops and bills can not be paid the promotors will stop having races. We will then just have memories of the good old days when we had a place to ride our old bikes.
Joe Cole. 10119
As the author of the Proposal # 6692 ,I am a bit confused on several issues pertaining to the Committee’s initial decision. It appears that per “Committee Recommendation” my proposal was “Approved” , but yet was voted down 0 – 12… seems odd. Also, when I make a decision to initiate a policy change in my business, I typically weigh the Pros and Cons of said change ,as I’m sure the Committee does as well. In this instance , the “Pros” seem to be very abundant —more entries, safer racing, better competition, reaching a larger audience that seem to really enjoy the women’s classes, and AHRMA demonstrating they are a non-discriminatory ,progressive Organization etc, etc. However, I am very curious on what “cons” were found that were present on this proposal ? Surely, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the physical capabilities of the women not being able to complete 2 full races , as most of the women in the Intermediate and Expert divisions are in far better physical condition than probably 90% of us male competitors, and skill level is more than adequate as some of these women have finished top 10 overall and in one instance finished 5th overall at a National. Thanks for taking the time to review my proposal and I hope the Committee can take a closer look at this and come to the same conclusion as I have before the final voting takes place .
I am amazed I have to post this comment, but there is no reason to discriminate against women racers. They should have every right to enter any race men can race. We aren’t still neanderthals are we? Unbelievable.
Re: Cross Country RCP entry # 6640, which proposed a new “Disc Brake” class and a 3 race format, here is the text of the “Rationale” statement that accompanied the RCP. It is posted here for member review. Any AHRMA XC racer that supports…or of course opposes…this proposal can certainly “Leave A Comment” for the BOD to consider: Rationale For New Rule 15.1.3 DISC BRAKE class and related/affected RCP’s
Expanding the years of eligible motorcycles to participate in AHRMA Cross Country racing is a logical step that will help the series grow by bringing more racers into the program while remaining true to the Cross Country Mission Statement. Based on rider feedback and suggestions, in 2021 the AHRMA Mid-Atlantic Region adopted the Disc Brake Class as outlined in the RCP, the Three Race format, the opportunity of both Women and Novice racers to compete in multiple races, and the deletion of the cumbersome and time consuming site lap for their 10 race series.
The results of this 2021 “Beta” test were positive. The new DB race drew an average of 31 entries, impressive for a first year class. The PV race remained strong with an average of 55 entries, the V race also remaining strong with an average of 40 entries, for an average total of 126 entries. As hoped, many racers competed in multiple races, and many of the new DB racers either went out and got a Vintage /Post-Vintage bike…or are doing so for this season. The MA Region’s first event of the 2022 season on 4/10/22 drew over 150 entries on a cold rainy day, with increases in all classes.
Importantly, Women racers were pleased that an AHRMA Region no longer discriminated against them based on their gender by restricting them to only one Women’s Class race. Same with Novice racers.
Finally, by eliminating the time consuming site lap the MA Region was able to schedule and complete the 3 race format in the same total time frame as the previous 2 race format. For all 3 races, the average winner’s race time was 59 minutes. The average “last finisher’s” race time was 1:19. By scheduling the 3 races at two hour intervals, a sufficient break time between races was achieved.
Simply put: Overall, the MA Region XC racers were pleased with the addition of the new DB class and the 3 race format.
Based on the results of the Mid-Atlantic Region’s 2021 “Beta” test the Cross Country R&E Committee and the AHRMA Trustees are strongly encouraged to support these Rules Change Proposals.
I am in favor and support of this proposal. The class will benefit by adding these low cost bikes that are already widely accepted and raced in other organizations.
I am in favor and support of this proposal. Formula 750 should have period correct 2 stroke bikes in the field.
Regarding Cross Country RCP’s 6665 and 6692, similar RCP’s that would allow Women XC racers that wish to compete in both the Vintage and Post Vintage races to do so IN A WOMEN’S CLASS. Perhaps the BOD would be so kind to explain why they wish to continue to practice Gender Discrimination against Women XC racers? Although it is NOT currently required by a specific rule under Section 15.3, standard procedures at some National events require ALL Women’s Class XC racers to compete in the Vintage race, regardless of type of bike or skill level. Adding to the confusion is the fact that some Nationals allow a Woman to enter both the V and PV races IN A WOMEN’S CLASS and some Nationals require ALL WOMEN’S CLASS racers to race in the Vintage race. The provisions of RCP 6665 or 6692 would make this a uniform XC race procedure, expand the number of women XC racers that wish to compete in 2 women’s XC classes, and perhaps more importantly, eliminate the Gender Discrimination that currently exists.
It is sad to see AHRMA continue to discriminate against women and novice riders by forcing them to choose to ride a vintage bike or a post vintage bike but not both. This is the exact opposite of growth for this sport and is unacceptable. Many of these women are fast and now have navigate a track full of vintage bikes which causes a dangerous situation and many race more than one bike in our Mid Atlantic region. Additionally it is also sad to see the additional rear disk brake be the deciding factor in eligibility for AHRMA CC. Some of these “Modern” bikes are 36 years old, have antiquated disk brakes and are not competitive in modern bike races. Attendance is not so great at national events right now and it surprises me that there is no interest in allowing these 30 something year old bikes to compete. I race a 73 Puch 175 in vintage CC and I am only turning 55 seconds faster per lap on my 87 KX250 so I know that speed isn’t the issue.
Entry ID #6782 – 14.2.8 LIGHT BRAKELESS
Entry ID #6744 – 14.2.8 LIGHT BRAKELESS
Entry ID #6747 – 14.2.9 HEAVY BRAKELESS
All 3 of these rules need to be rejected.
2 of these rules were voted to reject and all 3 were recommended by the committee to reject. 2 were rejected yet one was approved by all? That doesn’t make since. They are all 3 “All about me rules” and not in the best interest of the program or ahrma but instead in the best interest of 1 or 2 people. The numbers do not lie. We have had more entries in these classes since changing the rules for this year. Let’s vote for what we need and the numbers show and not by someone’s opinion or fear of might happen. We need to be more inclusive and less exclusive.
I am glad to see that the board of AHRMA is being discriminatory towards female and novice racers. Forcing women or novice racers to “choose” a class and bike is unacceptable. I thought we were supposed to be trending away from this behavior. I know multiple women that have both vintage and post vintage bikes that would like ample amount of race time and are unable to do so because of this non-acceptance rule change. All of these women are of intermediate skill or better. Furthermore, the rulebook 15.3.11 says vintage motorcycles will be in one race and post-vintage in a second race. Your disapproval of moving novice and women to the race with the respected motorcycle era discipline is blatantly not abiding by rules AHRMA instated and is currently in the 2022 rule book. Every banquet they talk about how to grow the sport and yet the board is choosing to restrict people from doing so.
This should be a straight forward rule, and is already in the rule book “15.3.11 … cross country races will
be split into two sessions…..”. There is no reason to have women PV racers race with vintage motorcycles. It is especially discriminatory to women who race both vintage and PV bikes. How is it be fair that men can race both vintage and PV classes and not women? Further, it is dangerous to have PV bikes racing against vintage bikes, given that PV bikes are more equipped to handle the track faster and so have to make many more passes. In the mid-Atlantic we race the correct bikes with their correct class, regardless of gender. In fact, there are women in the mid Atlantic who finish in the top 10 regularly in this series. Again, it’s discriminatory and offensive to have PV women race with vintage bikes when they are riding a PV bike, and the way I interpret the already existing rule is that regardless of gender you race in your bike class.