2017 Rules Proposals

Home/Uncategorized/2017 Rules Proposals

2017 Rules Proposals

AHRMA’s Board of Trustees met on July 18 and discussed/voted on rules proposals submitted for the 2017 season. A summary of those proposals and the preliminary voting record of the Trustees can be viewed here. Please keep in mind that those decisions are not final. Members are encouraged to contact Trustees with feedback on those decisions during the next two months. Comments posted here are not considered official feedback; all input to the Trustees must be submitted to the National Office. The final vote on ’17 rules will take place at the October 10 Board meeting in Alabama.

The proposal for Sidecar roadracing classes is six pages long, and can be viewed here.

Rules for AHRMA enduros, if/when accepted, will be supplementary to the Handbook. That document can be viewed here.

 

By | 2016-08-04T14:04:35+00:00 July 27th, 2016|Uncategorized|74 Comments

74 Comments

  1. Chris Onwiler July 27, 2016 at 10:59 pm - Reply

    Extremely disappointing that the trustees decided to leave the Next Gen Superbike engine rules unchanged. Since the Ducati wins almost every race, it’s clear that the twins have an unfair advantage. Has a non-Ducati yet one a Next Gen championship? Many might remember that Mark Hatten, one of the trustees in on this vote, was also a part of drafting the original rules for the class and then won a national championship in Next Gen aboard a Ducati.
    Talk among the inline four crowd is that if the AHRMA rules continue to prevent them from being able to be competitive, perhaps it’s best for non-Ducatis to race in WERA where they have a chance. This doesn’t seem like it honors the class mission statement to provide COMPETITIVE racing.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:43 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  2. Mike Baker July 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm - Reply

    Regarding Carburetor change for Honda 350 in Novice Historic Production, I feel that this move would certainly improve things for the Hondas which are the majority of the entrys. They are also arguably the fastest bikes in the class to begin with. I just wonder if those wanting to run something other than a Honda will wind up at an even bigger disadvantage.
    I’m a first year racer and in the 3 races I’ve attended placed respectably 5th and 6th on a 350 Aermaccchi. I’d just hate to see this class become a Novice Historic Honda affair.
    Thanks

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:44 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  3. Ken Kyler July 28, 2016 at 5:23 pm - Reply

    Why are changes necessary to the sidecar rules? Is there a problem? I’ll submit a more detailed comment in the near future.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:44 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  4. Daniel May July 28, 2016 at 6:02 pm - Reply

    In regards to the rule proposal:
    10.6.4 – Requirements and Modifications for
    Historic Production
    Allow Mikuni VM30 round-slide carburetors on Lightweightclass
    Honda CB350s. (Jim Korn, Scott Turner)
    Committee: Yes, for all CV-equipped bikes. Discussion: LL motion
    to accept the committee’s recommendation; DP seconded.
    July Board: 12 For/ 0 Against the motion

    If you are going to allow Mikuni VM round-slides on all CV-Equipped bikes, you will need to remove the “30” as in 30mm reference. Obviously a 30mm VM Mikunui is not going to be a good replacement on many twins and singles, especially in Heavyweight Production. I do agree that the Mikuni’s are a better race carburetor than the CV’s, but the size should not be restricted, or at the least they should be allowed to match the size of the original factory CV.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:44 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  5. Kevin McIntosh July 28, 2016 at 6:40 pm - Reply

    Maybe…just maybe, if I continue to post bottom half results in Novice Historic Production Lightweight with my ’82 yamaha XS400 , the powers that be will see that the world won’t end if they open up the class to more model years. It really is the sign of a “Novice” rider one would think, which is what this class is promoting I believe. If not, then just get rid of the the word “Novice” as it really doesn’t seem to apply to most of the grid.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:45 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  6. Carl Anderson July 28, 2016 at 7:11 pm - Reply

    Daniel,
    This is an abbreviated version. The committee’s actual recommendation was allow Mikuni roundslides of equal or smaller diameter, for any CV equipped machine in historic production.

    • Daniel May July 29, 2016 at 1:16 am - Reply

      Perfect, thanks Carl. Sound like a great change.

  7. Jim Hinshaw July 28, 2016 at 8:49 pm - Reply

    10.3.6 – Requirements and Modifications for
    Formula 125/250/500
    Add new g) “Front forks may be changed, though must
    be period type and style. “Ceriani-type” may be no larger
    in diameter than 35mm, unless supplied as OEM on that
    motorcycle.” (Matt Hilgenberg)
    Committee: Yes. Discussion: RP motion to accept; DP seconded.
    July Board: 12 For/ 0 Against the motion

    WERA rules for Formula 500 specify a maximum diameter of 38mm for Formula 500. If this rule change is adopted it will make my H1 and several other bikes built to the WERA Formula 500 rules illegal – was this the intent of this rule change?

    • admin July 28, 2016 at 9:12 pm - Reply

      The intent is to have bikes on track that are indicative of the pre-1973 era.

      • Scott McCain July 30, 2016 at 12:50 pm - Reply

        Strange rule proposal. It’s not broke from what I’ve seen. F500 is dominated by bikes well after 1971(Rd400). First model year was 1976.
        All of these Manx and other replicas including one AJS are updated using modern metallurgy and castings.

        As written you can’t use a replica swing arm. I hope you guys vote against this proposal as it will make some bikes competing now illegal.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:45 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  8. Jim Hinshaw July 28, 2016 at 8:50 pm - Reply

    9.7.3.f – Frames
    Add the following to the end of the frame requirements. “Round-tube swingarms are encouraged on all
    vintage-class machines. Box-section swingarms may be fitted, but must be of stamped-steel
    construction, or maximum 2” x 1.25” cross-
    section steel. Aluminum-alloy swingarms are allowed, but must have been manufactured before the
    class cut-off date.” (Matt Hilgenberg)
    Committee: Yes. Discussion: KB motion to reject; FG seconded.
    July Board: 6 For/ 6 Against (TB, MH, DP, RP, PR, KS) the motion

    Motion to reject has 6 for/6 against – is this accepted or rejected?

    • admin July 28, 2016 at 9:18 pm - Reply

      A tie vote results in no change to the current rule. Keep in mind the vote recorded here is the preliminary decision; the final vote occurs on October 10, after the Trustees receive membership feedback.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:46 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  9. Ken Kyler July 29, 2016 at 12:29 am - Reply

    10.10.2.3 SWINGARM: Swingarms must be two-sided, of period design and materials, and have a shock absorber located on each side without secondary linkage (OEM excepted; e.g. Vincent and NSU). Both ‘sitter’ and ‘kneeler’ designs are eligible.

    This rule applies to all sidecar classes. Many of the P4 sidecars now only use one shock on the rear. This change makes my bike and several others illegal for any sidecar class.

    10.10.6.1 ENGINES: SC4 Formula Classic Sidecar: Front or rear-exit sidecars. Air- or water-cooled, two or four-stroke engines, built before December 31, 1982. Two-stroke 900cc maximum. Four-stroke 1300cc maximum. Altered stroke and/or re-phased crankshafts beyond the manufacturer’s intent are permitted. Carbureted permitted. Fuel injection allowed as per manufacturer original application. Supercharging and turbocharging are prohibited. Multi-valves for twins and multi-cylinder are permitted. Stock bore plus allowable overbore must be within the maximum displacement allowed.

    Why the addition of water-cooled motors and/or Fuel Injection? What motors meet that criteria? How many sidecars are available to race that meet that? Is this rule designed for one person planning on building one? Leave the P3 motor and carbs alone.

    The P3 grid is growing, these massive changes don’t help the class.

    • Ken Kyler July 29, 2016 at 11:08 am - Reply

      if the 10.10.2.3 SWINGARM rule is required for the P1/2 (SC1/2/3) class then the P3 (SC4) should be exempt. Having a shock on one side only does not provide a competitive advantage and there are pictures on the web showing period bikes with one shock only from the late ’70s on.

      10.10.6.3 WHEELS & TIRES: The minimum diameter of the inflated tire must be 15.7” (400mm). Slick tires are permitted. Wheel rims should be 10”(255mm) minimum, 13”(330mm) in maximum diameter. Maximum tire width is 8” (203mm) for the front and 11” (254mm) for the chair and rear tire.

      Why is this rule change necessary? Can someone provide proof that the pre-82 bikes even used 11″ tires?

      10.10.2.4 DRIVER POSITION & PASSENGER: Add the following text to the end of the rule:
      The driver must keep both hands in contact with the grips at all times and must be able to operate the clutch and front brake respectively unless intending to signal leaving the racing surface.

      Why is this rule necessary? Has someone caused an accident by racing with one hand on the handlebars?

      Last comment. The sidecar racing community is very small. We should be doing everything we can to keep our sidecar rules as similar as possible to the USCRA and VRRA rules. That encourages participation from those clubs and larger grids. The sidecar rules that Dale Lavendar shepherded through the system did that. I know personally because I worked closely with USCRA and VRRA to make sure they were. I don’t see the business case nor the safety case for making these changes.

      Leave the rules as they are and enforce the current rules.

      • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:50 pm - Reply

        Ken:
        Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
        Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
        Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

    • Miles Holden July 31, 2016 at 7:25 pm - Reply

      Rule10.10.2.3 SWINGARM. This rule is NOT a new rule. It is in the current rule book and therefore any rigs currently racing without adhering to this rule have been illegal all season.
      the swing arm rule you keep mentioning, is NOT a change. It is not new. It is the same rule that has existed all this season.
      Although I do agree that it should be altered for the SC4 class.
      VRRA , AHMRA and USCRA rules were NOT the same since the start of this season. There were slight changes pre season that meant differences to each. USCRA do not include P3 or modern….so they have never been even close. VRRA have different tire regs than USCRA and also do not include modern. The new rules would allow all to compete together. Something non of the other organizations currently do., I think it was an oversight not to change it with respect to the new SC4 class( as well as the current P3 class) This rule should only apply to the current P1 and P2 and new SC1-3 classes.
      Rule 10.10.2.4 Driver position and Passenger. Driver must have both hands in contact with the grips at all times and be able to operate the clutch and front brake respectively unless to signal coming off the racing surface.
      This is a common sense safety rule. I don’t think single handed racing of motorcycles has never been encouraged.

      General sidecar rules. IMO the new AHMRA sidecar rules would be the best and most comprehensive in NA.
      USCRA does not allow over half the AHMRA classes of sidecars to even compete in their championship, so how is that “the same”? VRRA do , however allow P3 sidecars which is one more class than USCRA. The P2 classes are infact different. (See the tire regs). However, the proposed new AHMRA rules exclude no one. Sidecars from all the US sidecar organizations have a class to race, against other ‘like type ‘ machinery. They also offer more choices to builders and opportunities for more ‘period correct’ equipment. These rules are more ‘inclusive’ not ‘exclusive’ and (with a change in the ‘over sighted’ swingarm rule) easily accommodate all the competitors currently racing.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:46 pm - Reply

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  10. Andy Findling July 29, 2016 at 1:58 am - Reply

    If I am reading it correctly the proposal to add the BSA B50 to the bikes eligible to run 500 Premier was voted to reject. I think this was a mistake because it should fall under like design because it is just an enlarged BSA Victor and the same engine size 84×90 bore and stroke was raced by the BSA race factory by John Banks in 1968 motor cross. Not to mention the 500 Premier class is in desperate need of more entries.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:51 pm - Reply

      Andy:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  11. Roger Swartout July 29, 2016 at 4:34 am - Reply

    10.3.6 – Requirements and Modifications for
    Formula 125/250/500
    Add new g) “Front forks may be changed, though must
    be period type and style. “Ceriani-type” may be no larger
    in diameter than 35mm, unless supplied as OEM on that
    motorcycle.” (Matt Hilgenberg)

    What are Ceriani-type forks? Ceriani forks are the same basic design as everyone was using at the time, they just worked better.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:51 pm - Reply

      Roger:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  12. Roger Swartout July 29, 2016 at 4:42 am - Reply

    4.5.b – Entry Fee
    Eliminate the policy of free race entries for riders 70 years of
    age or older. (Fred Guidi)

    I do not agree with this proposal. The financial report showed plenty of money and it was indicated that there was enough money to new projects. Are you trying to drive the older fixed income members away?

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm - Reply

      Roger:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

    • fred guidi August 17, 2016 at 3:10 pm - Reply

      Hello Roger,

      Thank you for commenting. In the next issue of Vintage Views there is an explanation as to why I brought this up. I would like to hear from you and others after having a look. I am positive that working together we can come to some solution.

    • john gallivan October 14, 2016 at 5:09 pm - Reply

      I was just getting ready at 72 to get my 500 triumph back out for a few races next year, tho on a very limited budget. having to pay tretail for racing would not be possible for me. please do not shut us Social Security only income racers out. John Gallivan #789

  13. Ken Kyler July 29, 2016 at 12:44 pm - Reply

    In regards to sidecar historical accuracy, there are a lot more changes that need to happen if that is the goal. See this thread — http://www.steveenglish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33897 — P2s need to be allowed twin disc brakes up front and one-piece alloy wheels. And here’s an example of a circa 1972 988cc Imp powered bike http://www.imps4ever.info/racing/races/sidecar-racing/kgb-imp-1000cc.html so the 750cc limit is wrong.

    We are headed down a very dangerous slope. This could end up in an annual rule change as examples of historically accurate machines are discovered and the rules changed accordingly.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm - Reply

      Ken:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  14. Stuart Carter July 30, 2016 at 3:52 am - Reply

    4.5.b – Entry Fee
    Eliminate the policy of free race entries for riders 70 years of
    age or older. (Fred Guidi)

    In addition to Roger Swartout’s comment – The Board should do an analysis of 70 year old racers in both MX and Road Racing. I don’t know the impact of 70 year olds to the off road discipline but Road Racing has only a small number of racers that qualify for free entries. As an active AHRMA member in the road racing discipline of several decades, I can attest to only a handful of racers at any given time who compete after the age of 70 in AHRMA. The free entries certainly has almost no impact on AHRMA’s cost at road racing events. And certainly the free entries have been a badge of honor with its members who reach this distinguished age while racing AHRMA. Further, these racers have earned some recognition while spending literally 10s of 1,000s of dollars racing with AHRMA over the years. To eliminate this prize would show a sad lack of recognition to members who have 30 or more years racing with AHRMA and have given AHRMA a large part of their personal treasure. And half price membership is almost a slap in the face as per Fred’s suggestion to these racers. Again, let’s look at the actual number of racers who fall into this category in both off road and road racing to see if in fact Fred’s alarm of financial ruin actually rings true. Finally, back to Roger’s comment, let’s show some respect and honor to these racers and not try to drive them away.

    • Bill Doran July 31, 2016 at 11:58 am - Reply

      As a roadracer in his third decade of racing with AHRMA, I agree completely with Stu Carter’s comments. If the off road promoters are feeling the pinch of this policy, eliminate it for all off road events.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:52 pm - Reply

      Stuart:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

    • Reese Dengler August 6, 2016 at 5:36 am - Reply

      In 2014 I submitted a similar proposal on Rule 4.5.b. In looking at the 2013 AHRMA National Entry for VMX, PVMX, and Cross Country I accounted for $13,320 of lost entry fees because of the required by AHRMA rules 70+ entry fee subsidies. This amount has only gone up since then as the percentage of 70+ racers has gone up. This year, some AHRMA VMX nationals have had over 20% of their entries come from 70+ members. Our Off-Road promoters simply cannot continue to subsidize entries for this growing population of 70+ racers. Most promoters, if they can’t make money putting on events, they won’t continue to put on events. Free entry for 70+ members won’t mean much if there are no events to enter for free.

    • fred guidi August 17, 2016 at 3:11 pm - Reply

      Thank you Stuart we are gathering that information now. Appreciate your comments!

  15. Mike Bickley July 30, 2016 at 1:36 pm - Reply

    The above comments on 70+ entries fees miss the point of this amendment. Both commentators question the financial impact on AHRMA’s finances.

    There is NO impact on AHRMA’s finances, currently 100% of the “free” entry is at the expense of the local promoter. This group has, and will continue to grow in VMX & PVMX to the point promoters are providing free racing to a significant number of people they have never met, who have never raced at their facility previously, and may never race there again.

    Any discount or reduction in fees that reflect longevity and support of AHRMA, should be provided by AHRMA. The 50% membership fee proposal reflects the correct relationship.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm - Reply

      Mike:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  16. Carl Anderson July 30, 2016 at 4:11 pm - Reply

    This forum has been great for getting member comments out so that all can see and discuss them. I plan to have a discussion with the EC in the coming week regarding board responses and getting them out efficiently and accurately. Since not all trustees have exactly the same views, especially on an issue as complex as +70 entry fees, it may still be best to encourage individual emails and phone calls to get all those views across. I’ll keep you all posted as we get into what is hopefully a new era of improved communication with members.

  17. Richard Kaye July 30, 2016 at 11:06 pm - Reply

    When did BoTT become an air-cooled only class? This requires all water-cooled twins (regardless of displacement, make, etc) to run in Sound of Thunder, limiting the number of classes twins can compete in.

    I bought a bike last month specifically for BoTT, only to find out it is no longer eligible…..

    • admin July 31, 2016 at 1:15 pm - Reply

      2015 was the first year of the air-cooled Battle of Twins class. Sound of Thunder 1 bikes are eligible for Formula Thunder, so they still have two classes each day.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm - Reply

      Richard:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  18. Tim Joyce July 31, 2016 at 2:30 pm - Reply

    Ken kyler . I have a answer for the driver keeping both hands on the bars at all times and so does Kat .yes there has been at accidents one I remember at barber where the driver lost control and fell off leaving the passenger going backwards up the track with no driver. This is bad practice that no driver should do in regs urge to safety . This will only make a safer track for all.

    • Ken Kyler July 31, 2016 at 5:53 pm - Reply

      that makes sense. I hate to think we have to make a rule that says that though.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:54 pm - Reply

      Tim and Kat:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  19. Kat July 31, 2016 at 2:40 pm - Reply

    Regarding the sensible safety ruling of both hands at the controls —
    I myself in my early days of racing have been thoroughly trapped out on the platform with a rapidly approaching opposite turn. A driver should drive and leave the acrobatics to the passenger. Letting go of the controls in order to maneuver onto the chair is over committed in my opinion and puts not only themselves but potentially others at risk. It’s to everyone’s benefit to exclude this risky overcommitted method. Ken how does this safety ruling affect you or anyone else negatively? I submitted a picture to the board as an example, of myself being trapped on the chair at full song, and let me tell ya it’s not a good way around.

  20. Tim Joyce July 31, 2016 at 2:42 pm - Reply

    I fully support stu Carter’s and Rogers outlook on over 70 racers . Show Some respect to our long time racers. As you guys know I don’t agree with stu much:)

  21. Kat Collins July 31, 2016 at 3:14 pm - Reply

    My glove was also torn off during a race at Mosport coming off the back straight when my driver leaned onto my hand and handle trapping it. When I managed to tear my hand out from under his arm my glove was no longer on!!! That sucked and could have been avoided very easily!

  22. Miles Holden July 31, 2016 at 7:26 pm - Reply

    the swing arm rule you keep mentioning, is NOT a change. It is not new. It is the same rule that has existed all this season.
    Although I do agree that it should be altered for the SC4 class.
    VRRA , AHMRA and USCRA rules were NOT the same since the start of this season. There were slight changes pre season that meant differences to each. USCRA do not include P3 or modern….so they have never been even close. VRRA have different tire regs than USCRA and also do not include modern. The new rules would allow all to compete together. Something non of the other organizations currently do.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:54 pm - Reply

      Miles:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  23. Miles Holden July 31, 2016 at 7:31 pm - Reply

    Miles Holden July 31, 2016 at 7:25 pm – Reply
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Rule10.10.2.3 SWINGARM. This rule is NOT a new rule. It is in the current rule book and therefore any rigs currently racing without adhering to this rule have been illegal all season.
    the swing arm rule you keep mentioning, is NOT a change. It is not new. It is the same rule that has existed all this season.
    Although I do agree that it should be altered for the SC4 class.
    VRRA , AHMRA and USCRA rules were NOT the same since the start of this season. There were slight changes pre season that meant differences to each. USCRA do not include P3 or modern….so they have never been even close. VRRA have different tire regs than USCRA and also do not include modern. The new rules would allow all to compete together. Something non of the other organizations currently do., I think it was an oversight not to change it with respect to the new SC4 class( as well as the current P3 class) This rule should only apply to the current P1 and P2 and new SC1-3 classes.
    Rule 10.10.2.4 Driver position and Passenger. Driver must have both hands in contact with the grips at all times and be able to operate the clutch and front brake respectively unless to signal coming off the racing surface.
    This is a common sense safety rule. I don’t think single handed racing of motorcycles has never been encouraged.

    General sidecar rules. IMO the new AHMRA sidecar rules would be the best and most comprehensive in NA.
    USCRA does not allow over half the AHMRA classes of sidecars to even compete in their championship, so how is that “the same”? VRRA do , however allow P3 sidecars which is one more class than USCRA. The P2 classes are infact different. (See the tire regs). However, the proposed new AHMRA rules exclude no one. Sidecars from all the US sidecar organizations have a class to race, against other ‘like type ‘ machinery. They also offer more choices to builders and opportunities for more ‘period correct’ equipment. These rules are more ‘inclusive’ not ‘exclusive’ and (with a change in the ‘over sighted’ swingarm rule) easily accommodate all the competitors currently racing.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:55 pm - Reply

      Miles:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  24. Carl Anderson July 31, 2016 at 8:16 pm - Reply

    The three divisions of Sound of Thunder today reflect the old BOTT 1-3. So the twins still have their same old classes, with a few triples and singles mixed in. The effect was adding an aiircooled BOTT, not really getting rid of anything.

  25. Kat Collins August 1, 2016 at 12:53 am - Reply

    Miles Holden we agree with all comment above you have made. Thank you for the clarity

  26. Jonathan D Spinney August 1, 2016 at 3:25 am - Reply

    Honda 450 should not be restricted in period 1 or sc1. Several parts scarcities exist as well as well known design flaws that make running stock 450’s unrealistic. Not to mention you are competing against 650 Triumphs with no restrictions.
    Most 450 based sc1 rigs are already bored 500t’s. Allowing mods to these machines can in my opinion only help to grow a dwindling class.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:55 pm - Reply

      Jonathan:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  27. paul piskor August 1, 2016 at 3:19 pm - Reply

    10.3.4 – Formula 125
    Make carburetor requirements consistent for all 200cc twins:
    Yamaha RD200, YCS1, CS3/5 and Bridgestone 200 twin –
    maximum 24mm carburetors or restrictor plates (1/8-inch
    thickness) with 24mm openings. (See rule 9.7.14b). (Carl
    Anderson)
    Committee: Yes, but 22mm carbs/plates. Discussion: RP motion
    to accept the committee’s recommendation; KB seconded.
    July Board: 11 For/ 0 Against/ 1 Abstain (CR) the motion
    10.3.4 – Formula 125
    Restrict carburetor size (or fit restrictor plates) to 32mm for all
    175cc single-cylinder motorcycles, and to 22mm for all 200cc
    twins. (Kevin Brown, Ernest Csizsman)
    Committee: Yes, but 34mm on 175cc singles. Discussion: LL
    motion to accept proposal as written; RP seconded.
    July Board: 11 For/ 1 Against (CR) the motion

    So instead of RD200’s being restricted to 24mm carbs, all 200cc twins would be restricted to 22mm carbs? Most of these bikes are already restricted to 22mm carbs in GP200. Doesn’t seem like there would be much of a difference in the two classes then.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:56 pm - Reply

      Paul:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  28. eric trosper August 1, 2016 at 3:28 pm - Reply

    P2 Sidecar. Tire Width… “5” measured at the tread”..is huge. I know..I bought some Hoosier to experiment. I think as long as the the 16 Sidecar Racing Tire from Dunlop is available we should keep the old rule.

    • David Lamberth August 1, 2016 at 4:56 pm - Reply

      Eric:
      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments on the 2017 rules proposals!
      Would you take a minute and forward your comments to the AHRMA National office at dlamberth@ahrma.org so that your comments can be provided to each AHRMA trustee?
      Posting a comment on the website is not a method of communicating your comments with all the trustees. Your comments and opinions are very important to AHRMA and we want to make sure that they get to the trustees so that they can be taken into consideration and discussed at the final Trustees meeting to be held at Barber Motorsports Park.

  29. Terry Miller August 3, 2016 at 12:13 am - Reply

    So even after having a determination of 100cc sportsman rules at board meeting in CRR you decided to change rules again?

    • admin August 3, 2016 at 2:37 pm - Reply

      The rules for the 100cc Motocross class have not changed since the class was introduced. Any member in good standing is free to submit a rule-change proposal, and the Board considers that proposal at the second meeting of the year. There is then a member-comment period before the final Board vote at the third meeting, scheduled this year for October 10. If you would like to give your feedback to the Board, please send it to the National Office at dlamberth@ahrma.org. Thank you.

  30. Jamie Linxwiler August 4, 2016 at 11:17 pm - Reply

    I am simply baffled by the proposed change to Rule 10.3.6 to limit the size of forks on F500 bikes to 35 mm. I have raced in the F500 class for over 10 years, and I have used 38 mm forks for five of those years. This change would outlaw my bike. Why would AHRMA do that? no one has ever complained to me about fork size, and I made this change to 38 mm forks after contacting the eligibility folks, who said “fine, go ahead, nothing to stop you.”

    If you want to compare, 38 mm forks are specifically allowed in 750 Sportsman, a class which I also race in, and F500 is a GP class, if anything less subject to equipment limitations than 750 Sportsman.

    I am doubly puzzled because this change was proposed by a person who does not roadrace, and it was unanimously adopted by the Board with no input from anyone who races F500.

    I have raced AHRMA about 25 years, and I have never been treated this way before–this is not how you adopt rules, to ban the long time race bikes of your longtime racers without any input from the affected party. This rule change is wrong, and it was adopted the wrong way, and it must be reversed, simple as that.

    Jamie Linxwiler

  31. Jeffrey McKinney August 5, 2016 at 1:52 pm - Reply

    Re:Next gen superbike bodywork rule.

    Dave,i sent email requesting reason for rejection.Currently trying to find 1992 AMA pro rulebook.Thanks Jeff.

  32. Carl Anderson August 5, 2016 at 2:46 pm - Reply

    As one of the rules committee members at the time the Next Gen class was created, I can tell you that the intent was to follow the AMA rules of the period as closely as we could, while allowing a few modern upgrades for reliability or safety. The AMA formula of 1000cc twins and 750cc inline fours was retained, as it had worked well in its day, and there was no evidence available from other series that a different formula would work any better for our mission of presenting ’80s and early ’90s Superbikes. As is evident in many of our classes, that attempt to recreate an historical period, progress and parts availability often shine upon one model more than others. Witness the Manx Norton as an example. The goal in presenting this class did include a desire to grid a variety of machines from the period. It certainly wasn’t meant to be a one-brand show. To that end, I might, as an individual Board member, be tempted to approve a limited change toward equalizing the playing field. However, if that is done, we must be certain we don’t simply trade one inequity for another. That’s a slippery slope that tends not to end. If there are further comments. please send them to the National Office for all Trustees to receive.

  33. Jeff McKinney August 12, 2016 at 2:31 am - Reply

    Carl, I didn’t submit an engine rule change request,but while on that subject…
    For one, the Ducatis are the only fuel injected bike of the period, allowing modern throttle bodies and electrics gives them a big advantage.
    The other thing, allowing any 1000cc engine that bolts in, I’m pretty sure there are newer engines that bolt right in with better valve angles, combustion chambers etc.
    I think a fair solution to the engine question would be, either allow the fours 900cc, and the Ducatis as is, or 900cc Ducatis and leave the 4cyl rule as written.

    I submitted a bodywork rule change proposal, because in 1992, the AMA actually changed the rule requiring stock appearing bodywork. The AHRMA class mission statement says replicas from the period are encouraged. Dave Sadowski’s 1992 Yoshimura AMA superbike is sitting in the Barber museum…as the rule is written now, it would be illegal to grid that very bike up in an AHRMA race.

    I provided pictures of that bike and the Commonwealth racing RC 30. Trying to be proactive, I am trying to find a copy of the 1992 AMA pro rulebook, no success yet.

  34. Tom Kerr Member 225 August 23, 2016 at 2:01 pm - Reply

    In regards to the over 70 Rule, please DON’T change it!! I allows me and my wife to continue to come to the races and compete. The only reason we are racing now is because of the financial advantage it gives us, as we are on a fixed income. I have been an AHRMA member since 1987 (I think) and I do appreciate this perk. I doubt we have any more than 5 or 6 of us that still road race and again we don’t all show up at once.

  35. Chuck 'SUPERTUNE' Quenzler August 23, 2016 at 11:21 pm - Reply

    As a former national AHRMA Champion in F-500 I am opposed to the suggestion of not allowing 38mm front fork tubes and Ceriani type forks in this 10.3.6 –
    Requirements and Modifications for
    Formula 125/250/500 change.
    I quit racing this class because of trying to use 34 and 35mm forks…just not safe on a RD400 highly modified motored F-500 racebike. I am considering to come back racing but will not use 34mm or 35mm forks as this is a safety concern for me, with the current rules allowing 38mm forks make for a much better stable bike at the speed we now can achieve with these developed motors.
    Please reconsider this change as racing does have its dangers…but this is not safer for the riders as bikes are much more stable with 38mm forks.
    If this rule change happens I may not come back and race again.
    I did have some health issues last year, but I have overcome them and want to start preparing a F-500 bike again.
    This may work for motocross with much lower speeds involved but not for the roadracer with much higher speeds.

  36. Kevin Cleveland September 18, 2016 at 1:05 am - Reply

    I would like to comment on proposed rule for vintage motocross, 9.3,7,f, swing arms, I see the tie vote, but why is this an issue at all if an aluminum swing arm is period correct per the current rules regardless of the manufacturing date?
    Looks to me if this rule is implemented, then we should not be allowed to use any current shock absorber unless it was manufactured before the date allowed for the class (1975) nor should any current fork kit, i.e. Race Tech fork mods be allowed.

    • admin September 19, 2016 at 1:20 pm - Reply

      Rule 9.3.7.f is for roadracing only.

  37. Bob Merkel 3907,RR484 September 27, 2016 at 7:23 pm - Reply

    I agree with Jamie,Chuck,et al. about the 35mm max fork requirement.Ducati had 38mm forks pre73,Yankee had 42mm! forks then,Could be ordered from Ossa-Yankee dealers to use on other bikes then and were.As fast as F500 Yamaha twins can go,I feel this is a safety issue,not just an originality issue,very minor performance gain,35=less weight,38=more weight,slightly stiffer.Availability of properly working 35mm may be a problem,others in the class they like may have to re-engineer their entire front ends at considerable cost.Please rethink!

Leave A Comment