- This topic has 20 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Doug,
It looks like SKUSA has just provided you with the regionally-oriented sanctioning organization you are looking for… :cheers:
(see “The New SKUSA” post)
Doug, I am still pretty much an idiot when it comes to tire doping and tampering with fuel etc. Tell me what I need to do or equipment we need to get to check for these things and we will do it. You made some really good points and we need to address them for this season…
I did not take one engine apart to the crank last year, what are you talking about Doug? The only engines that were taken down were the Comers at Staceys I think, I was not there. The only items checked were carbs, reeds, exhaust restrictors, ignitions on 2 strokes. I agree that the fuel should be spec and the tires checked for durometer but what does that have to do with a national sanctioning organization. There was not a port check tool, burret, durometer meter or anything to check engines at the SKUSA race in Vegas. They did have a fuel tester, magnifying glass and a flashlight!
We were checked in Vegas for head volumn for just winningf a LCQ! The tools were right there in the tent, just to the right of the door. While we were having our head volumn checked the other two places, second and third were having fuel checked.
Even though this seemed a little bit much for a LCQ, it showed us they were looking, and finding the out-of-spec motors.
Purchasing tires as part of the entry fee took all the guesswork out of tire compound, however I guess the savy cheaters could still dope if they wanted to take the risk.Bottom line. I liked the tech, and cudos to Barry Lewis for setting our head volumn right on the line.
Doug,
I have always had respect for you and think your a class act even when we have agreed to disagree. I am glad to hear you have changed your mind on sanctioned events and what a sanctioning body has to offer.
Hope all have had a great holiday season and a Happy New Year.
Running a national set of rules has so many benefits, it allows you to travel if you want knowing that your stuff is legal . It also gives you the ability to see how equipment performs in other areas within the same set of rules. Point being if all the Bilands were run localy in Colorado like the ones that were ILLEGAL in Vegas then they would look pretty quick at home, and no one would know the difference, NOW they do. It has many benefits to keep things in check and make intelligent decisions about the sport we love.
Doug,
I couldn’t agree more with your suggestion of complying with a national organization. On the other hand, what are all the four-stroke guys to do if go with SKUSA? Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t SKUSA for two-strokes only? If so, then maybe we could use SKUSA for all of our two-stroke classes and maybe the WKA or IKF for our four-stroke classes. I don’t know if this is feasible but it’s worth looking at. :idn:It’s definetly feasible as a matter of fact it’s being done by a lot of tracks all the time. All that needs to be done is to have the tracks you run at use those rules packages. Then if there is to be a regional series then all the tracks in concern would opt to get sanctioned or the series would be sanctioned by the organisation of choice. It would definetly be a strong message to the karters in the area that things are to be taken a little more seriously and that there will be a level playing field. I wholely agree with Doug on the fact there are to many ways to gain an advantage with fuel or tires and to try and make up your own rules is crazy. Apparently as karting grows here more and more people want a set of rules that are run nationaly instead of some backyard concepts by track owners that don’t have a clue. I applaud these ideas and hope this gets off the ground.
No question about it, in theory, sanctioning is great! The question is what happens in practice. I admit I am new to karting so I?m willing to listen and learn. But I am not new to racing having spent four decades racing in hundreds of motorcycle events. Roughly half the races I participated in were sanctioned by the AMA (American Motorcycle Association) and half were not. From a fun factor, there generally wasn?t much difference in a race if it were sanctioned or not. From a wanting to race for a regional or national championship there were clear benefits for sanctioning. For the most part, I actively supported the AMA (I am a lifetime member) mostly because of the support it provided to the sport of motorcycling.
However, I have personally witnessed great failings of race directors for the AMA during important national events. At one particular event I was covering as an ESPN videographer, I personally caught on tape blatant cheating by a multi-time national champion who was also a friend of mine. The cheating changed the outcome of the national championship. For the sake of the sport I presented the evidence to the AMA racing director so they could correct the problem. They chose to ignore the evidence (said video can?t be trusted) and let the false championship stand. I always new the reason had something to do with the likeability of the racer in question. He was and is a great guy but he no longer has my respect. Precisely when a sanctioning body should have done something they looked the other way because they would have been forced to make an unpopular decision. Another national event I covered involved the need for a clarification on a rule that would determine the outcome of that event. The AMA race director at the event didn?t know how to make the call or wanted to make the call and simply let the voice of the local promoter make the call they way he choose. Of course, there are many other examples. I raise these simply to point out that going to sanctioning will not make all the issues go away. In effect, you trade one set of problems for another.
From what I understand, the AMA is much larger, more organized and more professional than SKUSA, IKF or WKA. I guarantee there will still be issues with sanctioning from any of these organizations. Please understand that there is greed within these organizations as there is anywhere else. While I remain close friends to many of the staff in the AMA it still irks me how they tried to take over Supercross (the profits anyway) from the promoters who do all the work. On the whole, I still think sanctioning (and all of its own problems) tends to be better than no sanctioning but there is no guarantee. These organizations must be held accountable. Don?t fall for their sales and marketing pitches. I think if we wanted to have sanctioning than we should make the organizations earn their money by demonstrating value. They should be here, visiting in Colorado, clarifying, doing and showing exactly what they will do for us in exchange for our monetary support. If they are not willing to do that they don?t deserve our money or respect. It would go a long way if they would simply start returning phone calls. Just my two cents worth.
Larry, sure there is always the chance of something not going right. But like all business’ the org. is only as good as the people involved. As far as the rules issues they are in print the promotors choose who they have do tech or race direct and they have to implement the rules. On most series that included different tracks these decisions need to be made in advance and maybe use a combined effort to do tech at all events. That way nobody feels they got hometowned and it seems more like a fair and equitable way of handling issues. And if there can be a decision made on a national affiliation then a lot of the racers would all be running on the same rules package and it would give some organisation to the area. Unlike the current system of the my track my rules system. I would think that using IKF rules for the 2 cycle and 4 cycle classes and SKUSA for the TAG and Shifter classes makes the most sense.
We’re all for national sanctioning, because of what it offers, we should not pass up a great opportunity. I am all for spec. tires for EACH class per national rules, and the big one as Doug said, spec. fuel. If everyone runs the same spec fuel and oil (2 strokes) and the same fuel for four strokes, I think that it would be far cheaper and more sophisiticated of a system of organized competition. Therefore we should fork a little bit more money up front now to make it more economical in the future. The technical regulations, insurance, tires, fuel, and procedures that a national sanctioning offers is something that could very well seal the fate for our series in the best possible way. Regardless if it is all SKUSA or WKA (which includes every class, with Stars rules for shifters) it is just the right thing our series needs as it is getting too large for what we have seen in the past.
Happy New Year.From reading the RULES thread and this one it seems like most of the people would like some sense of order in their racing series. I wonder if we could hear from the Track Owners and Club Officers on their thoughts on the matter? Lets get this going and see if everybody is on the same page.
:bs:
Now that I have your attention let me point out a few things:
1) We started out as an outlaw series originally. Now we are getting too big and every sanctioning orgainization wants a hand in our pocket. To quote Janet Jackson, “what have you done for me lately?” All I hear are BS promises and that doesn’t sit well with me. Can anyone say WBA, WBC, IBF and the remaining alphabet soup that they call boxing. Puleez, I thought we all had more COMMON SENSE than that! Let them prove it to US THE RACERS what they have to offer. All they see is $$$. Prove to me that I’m wrong and I’ll back down.
2) Spec fuel and Tires? Jeezus, I didn’t know it takes a sanctioning body to do that! I guess we (the pilots) and the track owners are too dumb to organize this ourselves? Don’t sell us short, we’re not idiots we can do this ourselves.
3) Don’t kid yourselves into thinking that a sactioning body is the “silver bullet” in some of our tech issues and DQ procedures. Larry has already pointed that out in cycles, don’t think it won’t happen in karting. It takes people with a BACKBONE to make difficult decisions, empower the people who have the balls to do this, period.
4) We are a two year old series, don’t forget that! Do you think that INDY, F1 and NASCAR got it right overnight?
Give the track owners a voice I’d like to hear from them since it’s at thier fine tracks that we race. Shouldn’t they have a majority vote in the process?
Mark my words, if we have any of the alphabet organizations as bedfellows then they need to prove to us FIRST what they are willing to offer. Business dictates if someone wants your business (and your money) then they need to provide a legitamate service. Or are we all too gullible, willing to be led by some “pied piper” with nothing in return.
As stated above, I?m confident that sanctioning will not solve all our problems. And in agreement with Mike, I think a sanctioning body should demonstrate value. Having said this, I also think it is the right time to consider the benefits of going with a sanctioning body. Karting appears to be growing in Colorado. And we are fortunate enough to have several tracks to compete on in this state. Given the growth and the variety of venues, it would be nice to have completely consistent rules and procedures at every venue and race (including non-CSC venues). It is logical to want the same thing when some of us travel out of state to compete in regional and national events. There are also benefits to sanctioning other than consistency in rules. What about insurance, recourse, user-friendliness to new comers, and the overall promotion and support of karting. There is no better time than the present to discuss these things in detail. I?m sure the track owners and CSC steering committee members are listening. Let?s make kart racing in Colorado in 2005 be the best it can be!
Happy New Year to all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.