Continuation of Pre 72 for endurance series

[kirbster]

We had 1 team enter 1 race for this season.
Does this justify a championship?

Comments welcome.

[gary holden]

We had 1 team enter 1 race for this season.
Does this justify a championship?

Comments welcome.

"Championship trophies will be awarded to the top 3 finishers in each championship. If the
championship has more than 10 competitors the top 5 will be awarded. Competitors must win points from at least 2 separate weekend events to be eligible for championship trophies at the end of the season. "
From the rule book.It would seem not.

[Ashton Bond]

Check your records Kirby, I believe the same single team entered the class last year, but I believe for two events?

In the case of an annual award technically the answer is no. Will you also want to ask the question on continuing the class? Might be worth calculating where they'd have ended up if scored in lightweight. (P1-Open bike). The class was created to entice more early period machinery to give endurance a whirl.

[kirbster]

Looking at 2016 there were 3 teams in total entered. Looks like (based on mileage) that 2 of the teams likely attended 2 rounds (although i cannot be 100% sure).

This past season 1 event for 1 team.

The rule book shows all Pre 72 with a handicap of 5 (this does not seem right- if all teams have the same handicap- it's the same as having no handicap)

If their bike was P1 open, they would be entitled to 3 laps in lightweight. Having only attended one race, they would not have any effect on that particular championship top 3. Looks like 5th place to me.

If the class is not going to get entries and the bikes technically fall within another class- it makes sense to drop pre 72 to me.
If we keep Pre-72 we need to sort out proper handicaps as i would assume there are more than 1 class of machine within that class.

[Percy W]

Eliminating a class because of poor attendance in a season , will just ensure that that class never has the opportunity to have anyone enter into in it again. Thank goodness we didn’t do that with other classes when attendance is low or maybe GP may not have got very far, or P1 sidecar. But we keep them going coz we know they’re out there and we hope they show up.
If there was only one pre 72 this season and they only ran one event (so no championship) , whats the harm? Certainly wasn’t a scoring problem.
Once we get rid of things like this it’s harder to reinstate later.
The 5 laps was valid originally when the thought of having an overall winner was viable.
But that has not materialized and therefore the h/cap of little use.
Please keep the class, and hopefully attract some pre 72’s in the coming seasons.

[kirbster]

The only issue I see with pre 72 is that it doesn't align itself with the current class structure of the club.
I went looking for pre 72 in the rule book and it doesn't exist.

Bikes manufactured pre 1972 fall into a myriad of classes that already exist within the club.
All of those classes already exist in the endurance race and are handicapped properly (and some of them quite generosly!) .

I guess I just don't understand the creation of a class strictly for endurance, which technically would have numerous classes of bikes within it and then require its own handicapping system to fit within it.
I assume there are light medium and heavy bikes made before 72? Why are there no handicaps? Do they all run similar lap times?

From what I understand the creation of a new class has to be voted on. I don't believe that happens in the creation of pre 72.

Honestly- I don't mind keeping it if it makes sense to do so, but the above issues need to be rectified.
And the membership should decide if it continues or not.

[Ashton Bond]

If we're only getting one entry at a single event in a class named pre-72, we're not doing a very good job figuring out the needs of bikes entering Endurance manufactured previous to 1972. We are not getting entries in pre-72, and we're not getting P2/1 entries in Endurance Lightweight, so neither matrix is working.

Kirby is correct the class has no basis in VRRA sprint racing, has a handicap without definition, and that I'm sure has contributed to a lack of entries. Pre-72 was added by Percy with the hopes of attracting early period entries to the Series. The Series is continuing to grow, and unfortunately this segment is not growing with it. Like every facet of this club it takes active hard work to keep it alive and growing. My suggestion would be to get a few people at a table and define what it will really take to grow early period participation, and work to make that happen. Simply having a class named for the effort won't be enough.

[Michael Vinten]

I cannot see the point of the pre-72 class when P2L (cut-off year of 1972) and all the P1 bikes (cut-off year 1967) are allowed in the Light Class with handicaps. If a P1 350 is entered it can go in either Light or Pre-72. This does not make sense; either those classes get moved to Pre-72 or Pre-72 is cancelled.

[Percy W]

Let’s hope you don’t start treating all the classes with low participation in the same manner.
The pre 72 class was...as you know, put there as an encouragement for older bikes who may not want to be put against the more modern bikes and even includes the pre P1 bikes should someone wish.
The year it was placed, wasn’t too bad, last year not as good.
Like with many things it’s up and down and hopefully it will swing back.
Getting rid of it ensures only one thing....that it will never happen. Keeping it does no harm, and if no one chooses to race in it, there’s no work involved. If it encourages just 1 (thanks George), it is well worth it IMO. How often do you see an old Norton in any endurance race ANYWHERE. That is cool as hell.
Having the P1’s in the lightweight class also gives older bike owners yet more options (more options = encouragement for older bikes).

[kirbster]

Sorry Percy, it isn't really about the lack of participation, it's about the duplication of existing classes that are already properly handicapped.
It really doesn't make sense to have this.

I agree it would be great to get older bikes out here, but i dont think its the class structure that's the issue.

And as it currently stands, there is a class to enter for every two wheeled version of bike in the club. (sorry sidecars!)
So no one is talking about eliminating any classes. Only the unnecessary duplication.

The handicap system was developed just for that reason and without any real data to compare to the current handicap, we have no way of verifying that they are doing their intended job. To level the playing field in the 3 endurance classes of Light, Middle And Heavy.

If anyone thinks this will prevent them from entering, then please step forward and let me know your thoughts. But as of now consider Pre 72 as no longer a valid endurance class. It will be pulled from series tracker.

Check the endurance rules and see where your bike is supposed to slot into the classes and what your current handicap is. Look at comparable sprint times from your directly competing classes as a maximum possibility and see where that handicap places you.

[Colin Duncan]

This would appear as repetition.
No bikes would be eliminated if we focus on current classes.

Colin

[Ashton Bond]

This would appear as repetition.
No bikes would be eliminated if we focus on current classes.

Colin

That is correct. Every Pre-72 machine has a current eligible endurance series class with an assigned displacement handicap.