- This topic has 60 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
2007 Jr-1 Unification Statement
Purpose
The purpose of this statement is to unify all agreeing participants currently running, able to run and those moving into the Jr-1 class beginning in 2007, behind a common approach regarding rules, specifications, age, etc.Process
Following two scheduled meetings, polling and written position statements from all interested parties, (those interested enough to participate) a general outline has been compiled. The following represents the greatest common input from those parties. We are now requesting that each of us give a thumbs up or down vote regarding this approach. If your vote is thumbs up, (or yes!) you are accepting this approach, willing to race under these conditions and therefore approving that your name be used as a supporter of this unification statement. At that point a copy of this statement and a list of all supporters will be presented to the powers that be requesting that this approach be accepted and implemented beginning in and for the 2007 season and beyond. Although each track can certainly choose to run which ever classes they want, it would be suggested that, in the interest of further unification, both track club races and CSC/State races adopt this approach.Statement of Unification
We interested and participating parties, (names saying ?yes? to be eventually listed at the bottom) respectfully submit the following statement and request. In consideration of the following criteria, and with the input of all interested parties, we wish to provide the most common and available class structure to the greatest number of participants allowing for the greatest flexibility. Each of the following was considered for each viable engine package.Criteria Considered (in no particular order)
1. Cost ? Used stock, used blueprinted, new and new blueprinted.
2. Availability ? New and secondary market for complete motors.
3. Reliability ? General.
4. Maintenance ? Avg. seasonal requirements both stock and blueprinted, labor, cost, etc.
5. Maintenance ? At track between rounds, expertise, labor, cost both stock and blueprinted.
6. Variation ? Stock and blueprinted.
7. Weight ? Gross weight of package.
8. Simplicity ? Degree of moving parts relative to a novices ability to participate.
9. Tech ? Ease of tech overall, simplicity, rules, etc.
10. Acceptance ? How common and available are classes outside our area.
11. Power ? Ability to fulfill diverse requirements of participants, potentially 7-12 yr olds.
12. Starting ? On board and/or elec. starting.
13. Rules ? A unified, accepted, common, local, regional and national rules package.
14. Participation ? Amount of qualifying equipment already in the market area.Results
1. In consideration of all the above criteria, we find the Comer K-80 engine package to be the clear choice for the proposed Jr-1 class structure. Furthermore, that the rules be based on the common well known well accepted Jr-1 guidelines and specifications of STARS, WKA and IKF. This would allow everything from a stock K-80 to a legally blueprinted engine to participate. It is understood that the potential performance of a blueprinted package in the hands of a skilled driver and crew chief may out perform a stock version but it is also understood that in the case of either a young and/or inexperienced driver and crew, the advantages of blueprinting may be negligible and would allow an introduction to the class at minimal cost. As a driver progresses they may choose, on their own accord, whether to invest further.
2. In regard to age. The common age range for this class is 8-11. However, it is understood that a younger driver may request a waiver from the governing body allowing them to race. It is also understood that the upper limit of 11 is of the acquired age of that season?s calendar year. For example, if the child is age 11 on Jan. 1st of that season, it does not matter when during that year they turn 12, they complete that season as a 11 yr old. In addition, if the governing body takes on a national sanctioning body whose age guidelines differ from this, we agree to conform to those age guidelines for consistency between classes up and down.
3. Because of the wide range of ages and experience levels that this class caters to, there was discussion regarding a split within the class, i.e. Jr-1 A & B? Many options and approaches were talked about as to the method by which the class could be divided. On the ?Pros? side it was felt that for a young and/or inexperienced driver it may be a challenge for the youngster to feel any progress without ever seeing an award for their effort. As adults we may recognize this life lesson and be able to look down the road far enough to see the eventual payoff but for an 8 or 9 yr old their world is much more immediate. This is particularly true for many of them coming out of the Kid Kart class which even awards for participation. ?Cons?, to agree on a balanced method by which to qualify and maintain the split becomes incredibly complicated within seconds. Therefore, a simple solution taking both into account. They all run the same rules at the same time together and we simply award beyond 1st-3rd. Example: Award 50% of that given field, 1st though whatever, and participation awards, metals, certificates, etc. to the balance.The potential for this class, numbers wise is rather staggering as it turns out. The following is a list of potential participants. This does not represent ?yes? votes at this point however, 1-24 on the list includes those current and/or will be participating in ?07 that have supported this approach and/or teams that already own qualifying equipment. 25-35 on the list includes names that could participate if they so choose. Remember also that rumor has it the State series for ?07 will be a 5-6 race maximum series.
1. Nial Irwin
2. Pete Rosse
3. Takoda Chaney
4. Rick Draudt
5. Luc Freiburg
6. Taylor Clifton
7. Grant Copple
8. Colby Meek
9. Brandon Moore
10. James M. Sullivan
11. Landon Smith
12. Anthony Jacobellis
13. Evan Hannum
14. Lindsey Freier
15. Jake Graser
16. Alexis Charette
17. Tynnette Lowe
18. Colby Yardley
19. Maria Yardley
20. Austin Schimmel
21. Sena Kline
22. Vinny Cucuzza
23. Angie Cucuzza
24. Tommy Hensley
25. Wyatt MacEwen
26. Courtney MacEwen
27. Flinn Lasier
28. Connor Wogrin
29. Colin Wogrin
30. Cameron Wogrin
31. Conner New
32. Xavier Romero
33. Tyler Prins
34. Taylor Bezanson
35. And others we may not be aware of?Please respond ASAP as we had hoped to present our statement with votes including names at this weekends Town Hall meeting. Please email your response to [email protected]. We only need to here yes or no at this point and your name for the list. This is being both emailed and posted in order to give as many as possible a chance to respond. The participating Jr-1 parents thank you for your time and attention.
The five people who attended your meetings are the only ones who have heard only some of all the possible engine choices available to the JR’s. The five who attended are considerably less than the 34 names you have on your list. Why don?t you list all of the other possible engine packages that are available for the JR?s, the pros and cons for each. It is not as simple as a yes or no answer for the one engine choice you have made. By asking for a vote in this manner is certainly a manipulative way to influence this decision. I for one do not agree with your approach to this important issue.
Nice…
Rumours are now being added to posts.
And that’s credible?Help clarify something for me:
We’re THINKING about allowing “checkbook racing” in the form of stock engines vs blueprinted etc etc.As parents aren’t we teaching our kids something here that’s just flat wrong? I can see it, parents with puffed out chests since they BOUGHT their way to a championship (at age level 7-12 years old) The newbie who gets into karting and realizes he or she might have talent but that’s overshadowed by deep pockets and much better technology? How long does this newbie stay in the sport with that attitude? If the MAJORITY want to go this route then hey the people have spoken.
But realize this my fellow racers: Tiger Woods and Michael Schumacher aren’t at the pinnacle of thier profession because they BOUGHT their way to the top, they EARNED it by hard work, sacrifice and focus.
Why do you all think ICC pro class is dead here in Colorado? Checkbook racing. Period. What classes are largest and most competitive? TaG, Spec Honda and MiniMax. See a pattern between the two?
Here’s an analogy; aluminum bats for some kids fortunate enough versus wooden bats for others. Heck of a good baseball game eh?
:idn:
@Mike Jansen wrote:
Why do you all think ICC pro class is dead here in Colorado?
Cause Kyle Ray is too Dammmmm Fast, and he kicks our butts, that’s why!
Brad, Stacy, Jim , JB, Curt & Angie
The Junior I class issue is just a microcosm of the many conflicting issues in Colorado karting that need to be addressed by those of us that are suppose to be in a position of leadership. This issue is all the more reason that those of us involved in Colorado karting as a business and participants need to come together to unify the sport under uniform rules and standards for the benefit of our businesses and the states kart racers.We currently have four club tracks and a traveling tour that all have different class structures, rules and technical specifications not to mention schedules that trample all over each other. We are literally shooting ourselves in our collective foot by sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring what our prospective customers and those currently involved are trying to tell us. Karting in Colorado is too fragmented in just about every conceivable way for our sport to grow and prosper. We are not only chasing away potential business we are also chasing away those that dare show any interest and have the courage to step up and address their concern about our mutual sport…..and not just the track owners.
Once again I would ask that ALL of the track owners and promoters attend this coming Sundays meeting in a spirit of co-operation in an effort to unify karting for the good of ALL….the track owners, kart shop owners and most of all OUR customers, the kart racer.
The first order of business this coming Sunday must be the effort of the track owners, promoters, shop owners and representatives of the kart racers to form a Colorado Karting Counsel to address the interest of ALL involved. The counsel collectively can then address the many concerns of ALL involved .
There are now five kart tracks, a traveling tour and a Gran Prix committee vying for the attention of a very limited number of potential kart racers. The day of the so called benevolent dictator is DEAD. The public is trying to get our attention……I would suggest that all of us that have a business interest in karting in Colorado attend Sundays summit in a spirit of mutual co-operation that would benefit us all and our sport.
Blink,
Your customers are trying to tell you that multiple engine choices ARE the problem and that they don’t want them. They are asking for ONE engine specifically and they want written, clear and definable technical specifications. It is pretty loud and clear.
Fulfilling their request would sure make your life easier and more profitable as a businessman.Curt
The yes or no question is based on the feedback already received, correct? Then I applaud your effort to get the answer to the question that you have asked. There is no point going back to square one to discuss multiple engine packages in my view. PRESS ON!!!!
Spot on George, thanks for your positive input.
Respectfully
Eddy Wyatt
Meek Motorsports, LLCGeorge,
Where did you get the impression I want multiple engines for JR?s? I only want one engine that is reliable, inexpensive to buy, inexpensive to run, consistent performance, successful history of racing with written rules, no blueprints and if you go by that explanation it?s not a Comer 80.
The yes or no question is from the small amount of karters that went to these private meetings which all have Comer 80 engines, what engine do you think they want everyone else to run, Briggs? If a group of Briggs karters had their own meeting what engine do you think they would want, Comer 80?s?
I do listen to MY customers and they have told me what they do not want. They do not want to spend a lot of money to be competitive. They do not want to compete with their checkbook. They do not want to deal with cheaters. They do not want to work on their engines every few races. They do not want the same kid winning every race.Concerning the meeting: You can make some of the people happy all of the time, you can make all of the people happy some of the time, but you cannot make all of the people happy all of the time. We have a meeting every year and this one is going to be no different.
I ran Briggs back east for 2 years= competetive Animal $1350.00 new at best. A national level K-80 new $1550.00.
Have run K80’s here in Colorado for 2 years under WKA rules with less maintenance and operational cost than any Briggs we every ran?????
Buy the way I would be willing to build a good K80 (WKA/IKF) legal for less than any Briggs.
V/r
EddyI never spent that much on any of the animals we ran……My suggestion is to put the animal back to stock timing and cam have it sealed by Jim Bennett and go racing. 8)
Mikey :cheers:
Blink,
I’m not trying to be combative but you did ask the question, quote” Why don’t you list all of the other possible engine packages that are available for JR’s….the pro’s and con’s for each” without any regard for what appears to be a throughly thought out concern from your customers. The choice of engine is that simple; they have asked for one particular engine, considered all of the alternatives and have been very specific about their desires. Scott Hannum not only sighted the potential numbers that could be involved in the class but gave you family names, so apparently this recommendation is coming from more than just five kart racers. Even those that have used other engines in the Junior I program have expressed there desire for clarity and simplicity on this forum.As to your concerns for a reliable, inexpensive to purchase and operate engine package that has consistent performance and a successful history to meet written rules without cheating, the Comer K 80 very easily meets those standards and given it’s record in national competition that is not just my opinion. I used Honda engines for nearly 20 years in my concession track operations and I have also used boxstock, sealed Comer K-80’s over the past four seasons in our Junior program and have found them to be just as reliable in their use as I did the Hondas in our commercial use. The only difference in the performance of the Comer K 80 has been the ability of the parent to tune the carburetor and the experience and potential talent of the Junior racer.
Times and circumstances have changed from five or six years ago and a new direction and way of doing business needs to be considered. The annual meeting at IMI will only address your club racing program and I would assume the concerns of the CSC and will not address the concerns of the entire karting community. I would therefore ask for your involvement in this weekends summit meeting in an effort to work together with all of the karting community for the good of all concerned.
Please know I’m not out to talk down those who love Briggs racing as I have a World Formula on an Arrow for my 14 year old grand daughter to run next year. For the sake of unity, we support what the masses want for the Jr 1 program in Colorado in 2007.
All the Animals we saw run this year, We did not see one that was competetive that we could say was low budget box stock. Quite honestly, a box stock Animal doesn’t do well in any racing series as well.
Additionally the most reliable seem to be built by a knowlegable engine builder and tuner. Point being, if the decission would be to run Animals in the CSC we would go with the flow in our race team and have an Animal.
In our opinion, voices have been heard. That’s a good thing for unity and Colorado Karting. It appears K80’s are the way we should GO!!!
Respectfully,
Eddy Wyatt
Meek Motorsports, LLCI don?t think there was one of my customers that attended the two private meetings that Scott had arraigned. All of those who attended are Comer 80 racers. If you think that a class that uses an engine that will cost $1500-$2500 or more to be competitive is the answer than you are lying to yourself. The Comer group has thoroughly thought out what is best for them, not for the rest of the group. The group of Comer racers you are referring to are not my customers they are your customers George. Five racers have asked for this engine package, not 34. Many of those listed are Briggs racers and I am sure they will not include themselves in the Comer crowd. If you used Honda engines for 20 years then you should be supporting the only engine that has been available that would suit all of the racers needs. You can put a seal on a Comer 80 and you will be sealing in the pitfalls of this engine and will never achieve parity between engines. The Comer is not consistent between engines and to seal them without blueprinting and expect parity is a joke. If you blueprint all of them you are adding to the cost big time and still not achieve parity. The same is true for the Briggs. Honda is the only engine for JR?s that has been used in racing which can achieve parity between engines without spending a fortune. The Honda engine has been used successfully in Canada and England for over a decade with written rules with a limited amount of blueprinting. The voices of five people have been heard and to insinuate that this is the consensus of all of the racers is deceiving. There are no masses that support this concept they are proposing in Colorado. There are many looking for an answer for JR?s and to leave out all of the options and falsely conclude that the Comer 80 is the answer by this biased meeting is a sham. There was not one Comer 80 that was competitive that was low budget and stock.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.