CKRC Forums

After reviewing the 2023 Club Supp. Regs. a few changes from 2022 have appeared and I thought they needed some discussion amongst the club members.

1. Only those who are full annual members of the Calgary CKRC Club at the time of the event, will be counted in the Club championship point’s series. Check the race schedule as posted on ckrc.com for the number of throwaways in a season.
At a club meeting several years ago it was discussed and voted on to allow non-club members to be eligible for the club championship. I don't remember a meeting or discussion to change this back.

2. Specific Club Class Rules:
107% Applies to all classes. You must lap within 107% of the pole sitter at any event to be eligible to continue to race at that event. You may receive a warning during the completion of any pre-qualifying events that you are not meeting the 107% rule. Unless you can provide evidence of mechanical or other issues that have impacted your ability, (and a solution) to qualify at 107% then E.I.R.C you will no longer participate in any on track event for that event and you shall forfeit your fees for that event. Shifter classes will be impacted by the same 107% rule with the exception being that the class rep, or race director may waive the requirement if the competitor has reflected to be not a safety issue in the performance of the event.
This rule was used many years ago and was only directed at the Junior classes as younger drivers generally have a lessened ability to evaluate risk and consequences. It was eventually abandoned and I can't remember why as I have never had a junior driver to manage.
I think there can be a better way to manage this potential situation. I think this contradicts the first page of the Supp Regs where it states that:
"Ultimately, the spirit of racing at the CKRC is to create a welcoming community where achievement at all levels is celebrated"

Simply put, I don't think that the 107% rule is appropriate for club racing or at the very least deserves further scrutiny by the membership to come to an alternative solution.

3. Briggs engine eligibility: "Intact seals from either the 2019 or 2020 Briggs & Stratton LO206 regulations are legal."
In previous years, the CKRC allowed any year of Briggs LO206 motor to be run as long as both seals were intact on the motor. This allowed older motors to race and kept equipment affordable for competitors. No discusssion of this that I know of has been brought forward to enact this change. While this might make sense from a National perspective, it seems overly punitive for club level racing. As an aside, Briggs has for this year discontinued the Briggs Weekly Racing Series, so no prizes will be available to be won.

John Kwong

John’s and all 2023 members,

I have emailed similar concerns to our new Race Director and have yet to receive a reply - not even a thank and I will look into it. I had a similar conversation with Chad and it’s clear to me that the Executive is now directing the race director to rewriting our supplemental rules which should never happen in any club or association.

Either this should have been brought up at a club meeting and then voted on since the RD has never officiated a kart club race.

Just clarifying before people have a panic, the Briggs seal rule is unchanged. The 2019 rules allow all seals based on what I can find in the LO206 archive, this was also in the past year's regulations. The 107% rule also says "may" which is a key word there. This is always going to be a rule which is at discretion, as has been in the past. I like that it gives the race director an opportunity to eliminate any imminent hazard from a race day. I suspect this will seldom be used unless there is an actual danger present by a driver being unready or unable to race at that point. I believe we have had a % time rule in the past but correct me if this is wrong.

The blackline from last years rulebook has very little change. Rob I believe you have overstated the changes to the regulations for the year, which is largely unfair to both the board and Bryan.

I was about to post much of what Jack has just said, so will save some repetition there.

I think the 107% rule - or something like it - is important. The way it is worded provides the Race Director with the ability to address potential hazards AND the ability to exercise discretion in doing so. We need to keep in mind that karts can do speeds in excess of the speed limits of most highways, and excessively slow or erratic drivers are a risk on track AND on road. I think it would be foolish for us not to have some minimum standard of competency to participate in a formal race or the means to remove an on-track hazard.

I suspect Bryan is busy preparing for our first race of the season, which I would want him to prioritize above responding to requests to clarify the Regs.
Unless he was somehow contacted regarding concerns with the Supp. Regs. well before his email of yesterday, I don't see how anyone could justifiably be critical of him for being slow to respond to an inquiry that was made ~24 hours ago.

Furthermore, this public criticism and accusation is not helpful at all. There are many more effective and respectful ways to have concerns addressed when they exist. I would hope we'd all keep the attempts at public shaming as a last resort.

Jackmazury wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 1:15 pm Just clarifying before people have a panic, the Briggs seal rule is unchanged. The 2019 rules allow all seals based on what I can find in the LO206 archive, this was also in the past year's regulations. The 107% rule also says "may" which is a key word there. This is always going to be a rule which is at discretion, as has been in the past. I like that it gives the race director an opportunity to eliminate any imminent hazard from a race day. I suspect his will seldom be used unless there is an actual danger present by a driver being unready or unable to race at that point. I believe we have had a % time rule in the past but correct me if this is wrong.

The blackline from last years rulebook has very little change. Rob I believe you have overstated the changes to the regulations for the year, which is largely unfair to both the board and Bryan.

That is not what the regulament says, Jack! The MAY is just for the warning
" Specific Club Class Rules:
107% Applies to all classes. You must lap within 107% of the pole sitter at any event to be eligible to continue to
race at that event. You may receive a warning during the completion of any pre-qualifying events that you are
not meeting the 107% rule. Unless you can provide evidence of mechanical or other issues that have impacted
your ability, (and a solution) to qualify at 107% then E.I.R.C you will no longer participate in any on track event
for that event and you shall forfeit your fees for that event. Shifter classes will be impacted by the same 107%
rule with the exception being that the class rep, or race director may waive the requirement if the competitor
has reflected to be not a safety issue in the performance of the event."

Only in shifters this rule MAY not applied! In all other classes applies! It there on the regulaments.

MDNOGA wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 1:56 pm
That is not what the regulament says, Jack! The MAY is just for the warning
" Specific Club Class Rules:
107% Applies to all classes. You must lap within 107% of the pole sitter at any event to be eligible to continue to
race at that event. You may receive a warning during the completion of any pre-qualifying events that you are
not meeting the 107% rule. Unless you can provide evidence of mechanical or other issues that have impacted
your ability, (and a solution) to qualify at 107% then E.I.R.C you will no longer participate in any on track event
for that event and you shall forfeit your fees for that event. Shifter classes will be impacted by the same 107%
rule with the exception being that the class rep, or race director may waive the requirement if the competitor
has reflected to be not a safety issue in the performance of the event."

Only in shifters this rule MAY not applied! In all other classes applies! It there on the regulaments.

We may have an opportunity for some improved clarity, but as written, I read the process as follows:

1) A driver is slower than 107%;
2) Race Director MAY warn the driver;
3)If the Race Director warns the driver, the driver has the opportunity to explain/correct the issue. Failing that;
4)Driver can no longer participate.

Steps 3 & 4 don't happen unless/until the warning is issued, and are therefore contingent upon the warning being issued (at the discretion of the Race Director).

I interpret this as Jason does. You will not be tossed without a warning first being given, which is discretional. Having received further clarity this seems to be the spirit of the rule.

From my understanding the "May" is to allow the race director to have discretion on the use of the rule. As both jack and Jason have said.

Let's be polite to our new race director and understand there will be growing pains.

I am becoming rather disappointed with the level of quick accusations and high panic. We can have peaceful democratic discussions without the need for panic.

We are adults that drive in circles for fun.

For all of the membership - racers and non racers,

You are all quite to point out that I am being unfair but the fact is 1) he has NEVER been a race director and 2) where did he get this idea of 107% from. I stated that it was present by Chad as stated that he wanted this changed as a club rule. He stated to me on a call that that was his intention because the cadet class has some of these issues. So hence my email, the executive should never be involved in writing rules for racing as there is a conflict of interest and should only be written by the Race Director. The 107% was only to be a rule for junior classes to protect the kid racers. It was never enforced in the past. Effectively we are now an association that now has segregated our members. The problem that our club has is the RD and Club Manager are the same person and has to walk a fine line. This is club racing, in other sports do we ask people that they cannot participate because they are not as good, fast, or whatever. Our club is a club that promotes the sport of karting and for years we were encouraging people to race now this rule discourages people from doing so. A little bit contradictory. Additionally, the class reps were never consulted discussed with each class.

rob_slv wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 9:41 pm For all of the membership - racers and non racers,

You are all quite to point out that I am being unfair but the fact is 1) he has NEVER been a race director and 2) where did he get this idea of 107% from. I stated that it was present by Chad as stated that he wanted this changed as a club rule. He stated to me on a call that that was his intention because the cadet class has some of these issues. So hence my email, the executive should never be involved in writing rules for racing as there is a conflict of interest and should only be written by the Race Director. The 107% was only to be a rule for junior classes to protect the kid racers. It was never enforced in the past. Effectively we are now an association that now has segregated our members. The problem that our club has is the RD and Club Manager are the same person and has to walk a fine line. This is club racing, in other sports do we ask people that they cannot participate because they are not as good, fast, or whatever. Our club is a club that promotes the sport of karting and for years we were encouraging people to race now this rule discourages people from doing so. A little bit contradictory. Additionally, the class reps were never consulted discussed with each class.

Rob, can we focus on your concerns about the Supp. Regs, and skip the Ad hominem attacks? I'd love to understand your concerns here, and if you'd take the time to articulate them, it may better serve to identify what, if anything may need to be adjusted to improve things for the future.

As I look at what you have here, there are a lot of problems:

"the fact is ... he has NEVER been a race director" - This appears not to be a fact, as he IS our Race Director. Besides, how many of those that oppose the 107% rule have experience as Race Directors? Is Race Director experience only required to support the rule, not oppose it?
Regardless, I don't see how this is relevant - I have never been a cashier at a MacDonald's, but am pretty sure I've got what it takes to effectively accomplish the job, if needed. The meaningful question is whether Bryan is qualified to be a Race Director and/or make such a decision - so what evidence do we have to answer that question? On the 'Yes' side: As I understand it, he has some at least somewhat related experience; he was selected by a committee of capable members tasked with finding a Race Director for the club; recommended from a large number of candidates by that committee, then reviewed and approved by the Exec. On the 'No' side... nothing that I'm aware of. How about, at the very least, you give him the opportunity to mess something up, so your criticism of him can be justified?

"the fact is ... where did he get this idea of 107% from." This seems to be a question, not a (supposed) fact.

"I stated that it was present by Chad as stated that he wanted this changed as a club rule." I don't understand how this is relevant. Why does it matter where the idea originated? Should we encourage our Race Director to ignore all input from club membership, and implement ONLY the things that he thought of? This seems like a recipe for bad outcomes. Furthermore, this was something in place before his time - though, perhaps with applicability to different classes.

"executive should never be involved in writing rules for racing as there is a conflict of interest" Would you please articulate where/how the conflict of interest exists in this instance? I don't see it. Are you suggesting that some executive is benefitting personally from the application of the rule? Are you suggesting that Chad is looking to eliminate competition in his kid's class? If so, this seems a highly ineffective way to do so, as those removed from the track would be the LEAST competitive drivers. Could you please shed some light on your concern here?

"Effectively we are now an association that now has segregated our members." Would you please explain what segregation you are referring to here, and why it is bad? As I see it, we segregate members, it is integral to the sport. We segregate by age: kid kart, cadet, junior, senior; motor: Briggs, Rotax, VLR, Shifter; Weight: Senior/Masters. I'd suggest that removing this type of segregation would be a very bad thing. So, what is the bad segregation that you're referring to here?

"in other sports do we ask people that they cannot participate because they are not as good, fast, or whatever. " Yes! Virtually every sport separates participants based on their skill level. There are many good reasons why I never played rep. hockey, soccer or baseball when I was a kid. In karting, the stakes are even higher - it's not likely that interplay between good and bad soccer players will expose anyone to unnecessary risk, the same cannot be said for karting. It would be foolish for the club to not require racers to meet some standard of competency. Is the 107% standard the best way to do that? I'd love to hear your thoughts on something better, if you've got something.

I would have thought that someone so vehemently opposed to what was proposed would have something to put forward as an alternative. To my eye, your opposition to those making the suggestions is much clearer than your opposition to what was actually proposed by them.