• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

2016 AFM club questions

Last time I checked 6-1 = 6-1.

Why does the AFM not follow the AFM rule book? Why does the rule book have rules which are clearly errors even after a 5 month long process? Geez, don't ask me, I just race here.
 
This is the exact reason I poked this particular bear!

Learning about how we got to where we are in the rules book allows us to figure out a way to make it better for the next year (or the year after that).

If we were to move to a static points system (which I agree with) then making the 6-10 plates mean something different would be required as Berto pointed out.

So, allow me to steer the conversation. Is there any bike that is race-able that is not able to race in one of the Formula classes? What about the following design (assuming static points):

* FP gets plates 1-5 already
* F1 - F4 champions get 6-9 sorted in point order

Who should be awarded the #10 plate? Or should it be dropped from the coveted collection?

This seems to make the 6-9 plates worth more as winning in F4 (as an example from my own racing) is one hell of an achievement. I suspect the other Formula classes are just as competitive.

Second subject

The point system as it is now impacts the class level championships in a negative way. Buttonwillow had a great turn out so Dave got a ton of points for 1st place in 450SB. If Sonoma or Thunderhill (more likely Thunderhill) has a lesser turn out and someone else takes first place in that race, they don't get the same points as Dave did even though they battled the same people (most likely) and won.

That is unbalanced.

Having consistent points eliminates that "advantage" of winning in a more popular event weekend.
 
MZarra said:
This is the exact reason I poked this particular bear!

Learning about how we got to where we are in the rules book allows us to figure out a way to make it better for the next year (or the year after that).

If we were to move to a static points system (which I agree with) then making the 6-10 plates mean something different would be required as Berto pointed out.

So, allow me to steer the conversation. Is there any bike that is race-able that is not able to race in one of the Formula classes? What about the following design (assuming static points):

* FP gets plates 1-5 already
* F1 - F4 champions get 6-9 sorted in point order

Who should be awarded the #10 plate? Or should it be dropped from the coveted collection?

This seems to make the 6-9 plates worth more as winning in F4 (as an example from my own racing) is one hell of an achievement. I suspect the other Formula classes are just as competitive.

Second subject

The point system as it is now impacts the class level championships in a negative way. Buttonwillow had a great turn out so Dave got a ton of points for 1st place in 450SB. If Sonoma or Thunderhill (more likely Thunderhill) has a lesser turn out and someone else takes first place in that race, they don't get the same points as Dave did even though they battled the same people (most likely) and won.

That is unbalanced.

Having consistent points eliminates that "advantage" of winning in a more popular event weekend.
Click to expand...

I like everything you are saying here. FP as 1-5 and FI-FIV getting 6-9 sounds great. Is there a reason against static points (IE: 1st-15th get x points and no one else does) if the top 10 plates are awarded differently?

Slight side note, does anyone have a simple sentence describing each of FI - FIV? Their definitions are confusing to me and seem to have no order. They seem to be:
FI - big twins and medium multi's
FII - big 2strokes and singles
FIII - little bikes
FIV - air cooled and SV650s?
 
Last edited:
synfinatic said:
Last time I checked 6-1 = 6-1.

Why does the AFM not follow the AFM rule book? Why does the rule book have rules which are clearly errors even after a 5 month long process? Geez, don't ask me, I just race here.
Click to expand...

One answer: Human error.

Until this discussion came up, no one was really focused on the DNF/ 80% rule so it ends up being the defacto process, which is not correct per our rulebook. Let me point you to a guy who is well familiar with busting AFM stones on these things: Aaron, meet Zoran. I'm checking into what needs to be fixed on our end too.

Marcus, good refocus. Agree it's worth looking at how to make things more equal. Of course it's not that unfair...we all have to deal with the same racing environment and points system. The #10 plate would go to one of the formula classes, however we decide to do that.
 
i think its cool that anyone in any class can race for the 6-10 plates. def adds that extra little bit of motivation. but i agree that the effect is has on the individual class championships is odd.

i have seen one other points system thats kinda in between what the AFM is using and a static system. for any races w/ a number of starters greater than X, use point scale A. for a race with starters less than X, use point scale B. B will be less points than A for the winner. it makes sure that people arent taking a plate when racing only 3 other people. but like others have said, even this system still tries to equate # of racers w/ competitiveness or effort which def isnt true.
 
Holeshot said:
Marcus, good refocus. Agree it's worth looking at how to make things more equal. Of course it's not that unfair...we all have to deal with the same racing environment and points system. The #10 plate would go to one of the formula classes, however we decide to do that.
Click to expand...

It is definitely worth a discussion and proposal.

If you want a top 10 plate; earn it by stepping up into one of the Formula classes and beat the best in that class. While it has prestige now, I think that would drastically increase the prestige of the plate.

Sounds like a proposal we should draft for the May BoD meeting and starting putting the pieces in place for 2017...
 
MZarra said:
It is definitely worth a discussion and proposal.

If you want a top 10 plate; earn it by stepping up into one of the Formula classes and beat the best in that class. While it has prestige now, I think that would drastically increase the prestige of the plate.

Sounds like a proposal we should draft for the May BoD meeting and starting putting the pieces in place for 2017...
Click to expand...

And institute qualifying for all Formula classes.
 
might be good to compile an overview of all the diff orgs and how their points systems work - FIM, WSBK, BSB, MotoAmerica, along with whatever clubs that operate at an AFM level - to create a baseline for a conversation on how to fix the AFM

@McLovin, it has been suggested that qualifying would be your best lap in a practice session for that weekend.
 
Holeshot said:
Lap times...but we haven't even got there yet (before I get yelled at!)
Click to expand...

Shall I start drafting the proposal along with the comparisons that Mike discussed?

I can have something together by mid April that we can review and bring to the board in May...
 
Holeshot said:
Lap times...but we haven't even got there yet (before I get yelled at!)
Click to expand...

:laughing

Also, for those talking about Formula classes as the way to a 6-9 or 10 plate, keep in mind, that Formula class is very open. At some point, someone will come out with an unobtanium bike and win....when that happens, one of us will, Yeah but anyone could win on that bike if we had that money....

Again, I am not for or against anything being discussed here on BARF, but we are a club for racers, not a professional race organization. But as many are talking procedure, protocol, and even rules, while making comment about a rule book good/bad....

I proposed last year that there should be a year round rules committee and it passed. As it was not enacted last year, I have asked that this be placed on the Executive Agenda for April, so that we can discuss from the Board side what positions will be appointed. As in the past, there have typically been 1 or 2 seats available to general members and I don't see this changing much. I also submitted a calendar in which the committee would begin processing rules for the following season in the summer months. Goal would be to have final set of new rules for the following year by November and ready for printing in Dec. Keep in mind, as has been used this year, a year round committee could also make amendments during the course of the year, but these would probably be more in line with safety than class changes.

Just something to think about. Makes all this tail chasing, a bit more methodical and hopefully, less emotional for some.
 
Last edited:
It seems like BARF does a good job of fleshing out rules/ problems with rules. See: this thread.

The rulebook should have two sections, really; Competition rules and Safety rules. Safety rules are the most important, for liability reasons. Comp rules are on the fairness scale. That might make it easier, Eric, to give more mid season leverage for rules changes and who can change rules at events, etc. IOW, safety rules would be a larger hurdle to change/ append.
 
Agree, I would also add conduct.

That's why there is a committee appointed to discuss these issues as it pertains to safety and the rule book. We discussed before the first round that mid-season changes should not become a standard practice and should largely remain bound to safety. But occasionally something gets missed and an amendment can be posted.

I could imagine that 98% of the time, it will be under competition rules and it will be something discussed, submitted and applied to the following season. But we are in place to immediately address the 2% should it arise.
 
KazMan said:
:laughing

Also, for those talking about Formula classes as the way to a 6-9 or 10 plate, keep in mind, that Formula class is very open. At some point, someone will come out with an unobtanium bike and win....when that happens, one of us will, Yeah but anyone could win on that bike if we had that money....
Click to expand...

Remember Ricky Corey's R1? Or ask what it costs for Graves to build you a full blown R6 for 600SBK and tell me again how Formula classes are crazy expensive. Seriously, that's always been something people are afraid of in club racing, but it still takes talent to win races.
 
Who wears on the #1 plate? What bike did he ride to get that plate?
 
synfinatic said:
Remember Ricky Corey's R1? Or ask what it costs for Graves to build you a full blown R6 for 600SBK and tell me again how Formula classes are crazy expensive. Seriously, that's always been something people are afraid of in club racing, but it still takes talent to win races.
Click to expand...

Aaron, please understand that I am old. Formula classes actually mean something different to me. Think GP, not 4 stroke MotoGP. A Rickey Corey R1, or a Graves Superbike at $60k +/- is the modern day Formula bike. However, the same concept is in play. Put the best components on the bike to give the rider the best opportunity to win. I get that. But can those classes sustain the AFM.

Let's just say for example, 3 riders have the ability to get a fully built Graves, Yosh, and Meen Motorsports bike. And have very talented riders on those bikes, and everyone knows it will be one of those 3 winning, placing and showing, would you pony up to enter that class.

2 types of member, well maybe 3, 1) Tuner who finds an ace to take on those bikes, 2) Racer who is accepting his/her fate to see where they match up to National caliber talent and machinery, 3) I'm not entering that class. Ok, maybe there is a 4th) foookit! Let's go race I don't care where I finish.

All of them are acceptable answers. In the end, the club needs a model that at the very minimum, covers it's costs. All the rest doesn't matter if we cant rent a track for racing and support personnel to run a race.
 
I think we are being very afraid that people who race in the AFM are going to be scared away by the fact that sub 10 plate is expensive. Couldn't someone just do that now? I already thought that before knowing about the rules.

There's nothing stopping me now (except for money of course) from putting $60k into a bike and having a fast guy sweep FI. The only difference would be now they don't get a top 10 plate. If a WSBK team decided to take the summer off and race AFM with the current rules, do you think that would scare people away?
 
Last edited:
From racing, probably not. From that class maybe so. What would result would be that the cycle of membership may then say that 3 people should not be racing for the 6-10 plate. It used to be an overall points thing and now its not. We should go back how it used to be in 2016...:blah :laughing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top