New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (Full Version)

CBR >> Racing and Recreational >> Road Racing

New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements

  

Jaybird180 -> New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (1/8/2008 11:16:21 PM)

Dont' know if any of you are following the articles on SPEED about the AMA, but the part that interested me in particular is his comments about the points system.  I've long thought that it was a bit weird and not enough scrapping for position and too many lappers.  So I came up with a few ideas.

First of all, I think the red flag restart sucks.  I really don't like the WSB way of doing it either but it's better than having a guy run away up front and then to have his lead wiped away by a red flag.  So for now, I suggest the AMA adopt a system of using calculated distances after a red flag restart.  Later, I suppose timing systems will become sophisticated enough to have a staggered timed start system.

I really like the idea of a point for pole position but I think it should be worth more, like 5 points.

I also like the lap leader point, but it should be modified in favor of a lap positon points system (more on this later).

I also would like to see the 36 point system go away and the MotoGP style 25pt/ win be used like this:
1-25
2-20
3-16
4-13
5-11
6-10
7-9
8-8
9-7, etc


There should also be 1 point awarded for qualifying for each race and 3 points awarded for completing the opening 5 laps of the race.  Anyone that can qualify for an AMA grid is a helluva fast rider.  The 3 points for completing the opening 5 laps should help reduce opening race crashes (ie ViR Turn 1).

This new lap position points system should encourage more fighting for position.  The points are awarded based on EACH completed lap after the 6th lap and recognize fractional points.

1- 2.0
2- 1.5
3- 1.1
4- 0.8
5- 0.6
6- 0.5
7- 0.4
8- 0.3
9- 0.2
10-0.1

This will cause the top 11 slots on the track to be more competitive.  This is then used as a multiplier along with the race finishing points awarded above and should help reduce the frustration felt by a racer who consistently laps ahead and then loses position on the final lap.

Also, to reduce the tendency to have championships "wrapped up" early in the season the season points should be weighted to have more points at stake as the season progresses. This should give the fans more excitement as the season builds.  How to do this?  Keep the distances for each race the same, but because of different track lengths, each race has a certain number of laps that must be completed.  Re-arrange the schedule to put the circuits with more laps toward the end of the season.  This will give the potential to have more of the lap position points as outlined above.

Bonus points:

Award 3 bonus points to race winner IF: He's led the most laps AND took the pole position
Award 2 bonus points to race winner IF: He's done either of the above

I know this system sounds a bit complex, but it's really simple and should encourage more competition among the top competitors and discourage holding back.

There should also be something extra points-wise for privateer teams, I just don't know what's fair.  Previously I thought there would be no way that a factory racer would finish behind a privateer guy, but Tommy Hayden proved me otherwise (shame too, cause I like Tommy).

Lappers: Get rid of em.  Competition should be close enough that we shouldn't need to see a lapper.  They don't have them in FIM.  The best thing that Neil Hodgson brought to AMA is confirmation that AMA has highly competitive riders.  Is lapping a guy/gal 5 times in a sprint race competitive?

But I suppose this would be better dealt with if someone came up with a way to make the equipment more even across the board, which I don't necessarily agree with.  I think the factory riders SHOULD be cream of the crop with THE BEST equipment.  H

  
Jason748 -> RE: New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (1/12/2008 8:31:54 AM)

Interesting ideas...

I like, but hate the existing red-flag re-start... It's nice becuase it bunches the field back up - better racing, but sucks if you were out front (this is coming from person expericence as we used the same rules in the club level).  I'm not a fan of agrate times factored in like WSB, not good for the fans - Hard to follow unless you're looking at updated timing & scoring.
The first change I'd like is that the person/persons who CAUSED the red flag CANNOT restart the race.  So no more laying on the ground after a lowside grabing a arm or leg, or what ever (spies anyone) to get the red flag.  Then restart in the back, but with everyone bunched up within a second.

I like the Points system ideas, except the lap position points.  As much as I'd like to see more passing, this may make it get out of hand, after the 6th lap.

You read the AMA rule book lately?  Most of what your suggesting for the "stock" classes is in the rule book already.
Has some interesting rules in it:  Here the page you can download the rule book & techinecial bulletins:  http://www.amaproracing.com/prorace/rules.asp?sid=

There are two things I'd like to see change:
1) Changes to the suspension rules (Superstock/supersport only) - For the front: No Cartridge kits!  Re-spring, re-valve, and different shims stacks are OK but the OEM Dampening rod must remain.  For the rear  Allow ONLY off the shelf shocks with off the shelf only spring, valve and shim changes.

2) Changes to the Tires (all classes) - All Tires must be avialable for purschase to ALL competetors competing at that race meet.

There is a rule that all "KIT" parts must be avialable for purschase to anyone through normal channels by mid season (I think - Might be end of the season).  Unfortanuatily this rule is not enforced very well... Suzuki & Kawasaki are very good about it - You can buy the "kit" parts from any dealer, Yamaha is OK - you can get some partss but not all, and Honda has been virtiually impossible up untill this year in the US (but most other countries it pretty easy - you can thank Honda USA for that).  This is probably why you see the Suzuki & Kawasaki "non-factory" teams at the front, but not the Yamaha & Honda teams up there.

I also disagree with you totally about forcing the Factories to run in both the Stock & Superbike class for each displacment.
I'd perfer to see just the opposite: Factories should NOT be allowed to run a "factory bike" in supersport or superstock, Factories, if they want to play, must run in the Premier classes, Superbike & FX, where they belong.

on Contigency: It should NOT be paid to "factory" teams & riders.  Period.

One thing you forgot to add is PAYOUTS!... Frankly the AMA is flat out pathethic in what the finishing positions payout - I think first is usually only pays $2500.  This is Pro Racing, the money need to make it into the riders hands, the the AMA & Promoter.  I know a lot of guys that are AMA caliber races, but won't race AMA beucase even if they were to win, the payback won't even cover the tire bill!  These guys (Robbie Jenson, Guy Smith, and most every #1 club racing plate holder) would rather hit contingeny weekends at the club level becuase it pays better (Most can make $5000 - $12,000 a weekend, and the entry and tire bills are half what it is in the AMA)!  How screwed up is that? 


Overall, very interesting ideas. I like where you're coming from on this.

Jaybird180 -> RE: New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (1/13/2008 9:49:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason748

You read the AMA rule book lately?  Most of what your suggesting for the "stock" classes is in the rule book already.
Has some interesting rules in it:  Here the page you can download the rule book & techinecial bulletins:  http://www.amaproracing.com/prorace/rules.asp?sid=

I will check out that link, right after I get done posting this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason748

There are two things I'd like to see change:
1) Changes to the suspension rules (Superstock/supersport only) - For the front: No Cartridge kits!  Re-spring, re-valve, and different shims stacks are OK but the OEM Dampening rod must remain.  For the rear  Allow ONLY off the shelf shocks with off the shelf only spring, valve and shim changes.

2) Changes to the Tires (all classes) - All Tires must be avialable for purschase to ALL competetors competing at that race meet.


We're in agreement about tires, but why disallow fork changes and allow shock changes? The way I see it, disallowing shock changes will result in better OEM shocks. I'm sure you have a reson for your suggestion, I'm interested in hearing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason748


There is a rule that all "KIT" parts must be avialable for purschase to anyone through normal channels by mid season (I think - Might be end of the season).  Unfortanuatily this rule is not enforced very well... Suzuki & Kawasaki are very good about it - You can buy the "kit" parts from any dealer, Yamaha is OK - you can get some partss but not all, and Honda has been virtiually impossible up untill this year in the US (but most other countries it pretty easy - you can thank Honda USA for that).  This is probably why you see the Suzuki & Kawasaki "non-factory" teams at the front, but not the Yamaha & Honda teams up there.

I'm sure you've read about Michael Jordan's interview? In that interview he expressed frustration about not being able to build a competitive Superbike. He stated that Suzuki had parts that they were not releasing and that he was told "You don't have enough money for these parts." I think the factories will always try to keep an ace in the hole, and they should "try", resulting in agressive R&D. If Mr. Jordan's statement is true then it would agree with you that enforcement of kit parts availability is seriously lacking.

On a side note: I attended the DC Motorcycle show yesterday and Ben Spies' Superbike was on display (more on the show in another post). Since this is my first time seeing the bike in person, I can say for sure it didn't look ANYTHING like a GSXR-1000, except for a resemblance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason748
I also disagree with you totally about forcing the Factories to run in both the Stock & Superbike class for each displacment.
I'd perfer to see just the opposite: Factories should NOT be allowed to run a "factory bike" in supersport or superstock, Factories, if they want to play, must run in the Premier classes, Superbike & FX, where they belong.

on Contigency: It should NOT be paid to "factory" teams & riders.  Period.

One thing you forgot to add is PAYOUTS!... Frankly the AMA is flat out pathethic in what the finishing positions payout - I think first is usually only pays $2500.  This is Pro Racing, the money need to make it into the riders hands, the the AMA & Promoter.  I know a lot of guys that are AMA caliber races, but won't race AMA beucase even if they were to win, the payback won't even cover the tire bill!  These guys (Robbie Jenson, Guy Smith, and most every #1 club racing plate holder) would rather hit contingeny weekends at the club level becuase it pays better (Most can make $5000 - $12,000 a weekend, and the entry and tire bills are half what it is in the AMA)!  How screwed up is that? 


Overall, very interesting ideas. I like where you're coming from on t

woodyracing -> RE: New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (1/13/2008 12:48:22 PM)

Stock forks and shock????????????   You guys realize that almost every non-factory bike on those grids are used for club racing too, right?  How many top level club racers do you see with bone stock forks and a stock shock???  You can't have rules for a stock class at the national level that restrictive, at that point your saving the factories money but costing the privateers more money and hurting their chances of doing well even more.  You have to race at the club level for several years before getting into the AMA, how many people do you think get that far and only adding an exhaust and bodywork?  I haven't even seen any SV650s in LWT that are that stock.
Cartridge kits/valving, and aftermarket shocks are not the limiting factor to top club racers, they all have that stuff already.  Pump gas???  Count how many privateers actually run BONE stock motors, most have at least a mild supersport build and there are a lot that don't want to use pump gas in their motors.  AMA already has a cap on the oxygen content in race gas, thats as good as it needs to be.  Yes the factory teams could spend fortunes on developing a special blend that is barely legal but makes a HP or two more than the stuff everybody else is using but that isn't going to be what makes them faster than privateers.

I would say a maximum horsepower rule would be a hell of a lot more effective than going crazy with the rules like people are suggesting.  Its a lot easier to police and will keep the factory teams down rather than cause every rider on the grid to change their entire setup even though many of them may only do a couple AMA races a year.  Making AMA racing more affordable is great

As far as contingency, privateers don't race in the AMA to win money, thats what club racing exists for, they race AMA to build a reputation and get exposure.  National level racing is not intended to serve as a paycheck for privateers, it exists for the factory/factory support teams and the team/series sponsors.  I do somewhat agree that payouts should be more but I'd also suggest that if race attendance, TV ratings, and series sponsorship were what they need to be, payouts would be higher but at this point their isn't just a sh!tload of extra cash filling the sport.  The riders that are up far enough to earn any real money are the ones that are getting paid generous sums of money to race by factories for some factory support teams so imo the focus should be more on growing the sport than paying the riders more. 

Lappers are a part of national series racing, you can't compare a national series to a world championship series, they are two completely different things.  It sucks that there are riders that get lapped but its part of it.

As for red flags, unfortunately a lot of the tracks in the US make stopping a race for a crash necessary.  We have tracks like Road Atlanta, where in some corners the only way to get a bike out of an impact zone without stopping the race would be to throw it over a large concrete wall (corner workers are rarely that strong lol), its usually a safety concern, I assure you the officials don't call for a red flag because it'll make their day any easier.  Again, yeah if you compare AMA to WSBK or MotoGP, yes there are more red flags in AMA.  Think thats a problem?  Why don't you try to talk MotoGP into running at Mid-Ohio, Road Atlanta, Daytona, etc...   World level racing series have their choice of the best tracks in the world and can be very picky about what tracks they go to but in the US, we have to run what we have and that sometimes creates problems.  It would be great if the AMA could afford to be that picky and only run at the safe tracks with huge run-off and access roads to pick up crashed bikes, etc but then we'd have to figure out how to run 12 rounds at 3

Jason748 -> RE: New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (1/13/2008 1:28:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybird180
We're in agreement about tires, but why disallow fork changes and allow shock changes? The way I see it, disallowing shock changes will result in better OEM shocks. I'm sure you have a reson for your suggestion, I'm interested in hearing.


My biggest concern with the stock shock is two main reasons:
1) Is that becuase these are "street" based bikes, what works on the track at race speed just doesn't work on the street and vice versa.  The OEMs sell 100X's more bikes to street riders than they do to racers, so they are going to cater to the street guys first and the racer second.  That said - There are a few times "special" bikes have come out that are made for racers, Ducati's "R" & "RS" bikes, Yamaha's YZF-750R (OW series) & R1 SE's.  But they are few and far between, but the biggest changes have always been the suspension.
2) Cost.  The OEM probably could make a shock that was acceptable for racing, but the cost increase would be detramental and I'm guess street sales would suffer.  Not to mention the valving would probably be way to stiff for 99% of street riders - you can only currently build in so much adjustability with the shock designed as they currently are.  While forks on the other hand have evolved 10X what they were just 5-6 years ago.

I'm not say it couldn't be done, but at this time I belive it to be "unsafe" not allow a aftermarket shock.  5-6 years from now that could very well change.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybird180
I'm sure you've read about Michael Jordan's interview? In that interview he expressed frustration about not being able to build a competitive Superbike. He stated that Suzuki had parts that they were not releasing and that he was told "You don't have enough money for these parts." I think the factories will always try to keep an ace in the hole, and they should "try", resulting in agressive R&D. If Mr. Jordan's statement is true then it would agree with you that enforcement of kit parts availability is seriously lacking.

On a side note: I attended the DC Motorcycle show yesterday and Ben Spies' Superbike was on display (more on the show in another post). Since this is my first time seeing the bike in person, I can say for sure it didn't look ANYTHING like a GSXR-1000, except for a resemblance.


When I typed that I was specifically thinking Supersport & Superstock... Sorry I should have clarified that.  In Superbike & FX I belive the rules should remain open..., but it would be nice to see that factories make 6-12 month old technology avialable to the privteer teams, even if it costs big bucks.  But in SSp/SSt the rules are fairly even, hence it's not uncommon to see podiums & even wins from non-factory teams in these classes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaybird180
Forcing Factories to run stock classes will help to establish a benchmark of performance and should increase morale amongst privateer riders AND allow a slot for factories to consider new and upcoming racers. It practically guarantees 8 slots for guys who couldn't otherwise make a living racing motorcycles.


The biggest issue I take with Factories running the stock classes is that there "stock" bikes and not the same bike that you or I can buy.  The gets their bike from the factory "race" shop, and not any dealership.  What that means is that the OEM parts are perfectly match an fully blueprinted and they get the best "production parts" made.  For example I've seen the head from a graves "supersport" bike next to a head off a street bike (same make, model & year) and the difference was visually noticable - The graves head was perfect in every way, the other one had a lot of minor little imperfections...  But they were both OEM heads, complete with the same casting &

Jaybird180 -> RE: New AMA Scoring System, Rules & Technical Requirements (1/13/2008 2:01:22 PM)

I'm suggesting that stock classes should give the motorcycle buying public a gauge of the product they're buying and how it performs truly "out of the box".  And the factories' advantage in this class can be mitigated by a random blind purchase policed by AMA.

Yes, manufacturing tolerances exist and I'm sure the factories get the first run from a tooling set made, but this way it becomes tough to sneak in a ringer case, frame or swingarm by swapping "replacement parts".

Jason- I get your point about safety, but if you push an engineer and R&D money, perhaps the technology will change and the way shocks are designed today will become extint.  Speeds will decrease until that happens in the stock classes.

  

Page: [1]

Return to CBR Forum home page or view the Full Version of this page.