Brian your outcome is correct with the 1.01 handicap. My mistake during discussion of the 1% was to round up 1.077 in my head to 1.1 thinking that was 1%. I agreed with the 1% proposed for P3 bikes on that basis. I also did not take into account the elimination of P4 handicaps. I do not support the elimination of the handicap system.
There is also the question on the Post Vintage bikes. Will they fit in the middleweight or have their own class like Modern Lightweight?
I think post period 5 needs to be scored separately as they aren’t an official club class.
Just like modern light.
We could have put them in light and adjusted handicaps but again- not an official class so no rules can be written for them.
Thanks Michael. That makes total sense. Based on that initial conversation I wasn’t sure if it was *1.01 or *1.10. I would sooner take the *1.10 though.
I also was told that the 600’s in the invitational class will run in middleweight with P1 - P5 and that the litre bikes will run in heavy, again with P1-P5. All scoring except for the modern lightweight will be within existing VRRA Light, Middle and heavy classes.
Can I ask that we get some clarity around this.
I’m in the process of buying an R6 based on this information and had intended to run it against P1-P5 middleweight bikes. I’ll be super pissed if I buy this thing and I can’t ride it 
. It would be good to know tonight as I’m going to look at it tomorrow.
I don’t think non VRRA class bikes should be taking trophies away from VRRA class bikes…
Add it as a separate class. Open- well that’s a little different. It’s not a native class for any bike.
If they are running in the regular classes- should there not be a handicap for that too then?
Another bit that doesn’t make any sense.
It would be great if those responsible for the changes would step up and at least try to explain the logic and reasoning behind the changes.
I agree Kirby, this is nonsensical.
It would be great to hear the logic, if there is any, here.
How can ANYONE say that a competant rider would run the same times on an fzr600, a gsxr600 and an r6.
Ridiculous.
I too agree with Kirby’s points.
I was going to run a P3Lwt in endurance this year but am now on the fence about it. Not because of the effect this change could have on my team’s results, but because there was no prior consultation with participants. A fait accompli.
If the Endurance Coordinator opens this up for discussion and a resolution is reached by a majority vote, then I’m in.
If not, I’ll vote with my feet.
I really don’t care about What going on. I just like riding. But I have a question. How can the new formula work when there are no track records for endurance?? Our team has easily smoked the track records for sprint races. But do not get credit for them.
I’m sure those lap times would change things a bit.
After looking at the data provided - still without any explanation as to what the goal of revamping endurance was…
Here is my analysis of the file provided.
You are cherry picking data and using too small of sample size to really have any hope of accuracy.
Thats why lap records were previously used.
At least it could be argued that those are set by top riders on well-prepared machines over a span of many years. MANY data points.
Your data from endurance can be discarded as there has to be some assumption of trying to compare fairly equal skill level teams. You can’t really do that as the sample size is very low.
You chose to discard data that didn’t show what you wanted it to show.
I’m sorry but this a steaming pile of lazy work that started with a goal of proving the handicap system wasn’t working, and then cherry-picking data points to support the conclusion instead of using ALL RELEVANT data to come to a logical conclusion.
Good luck… I’m sure you would be happy to swap your best of class GSXR600SRAD for a KZ750 - right?
After all- there is only a 1% difference in performance- oh we don’t actually know because you didn’t include any P3 data.
This is a giant swing and a miss. You are getting enough negative feedback from endurance teams that you should be second guessing your method. And more importantly your reasons for making changes to a system that systematically GREW endurance for many years.
Not to mention Kirby, once we start looking at the “DATA” more closely, it shows that there is indeed a difference between Periods 3, 4 and 5, and there are data points on there that are not even correct.
Take Louis Raffa’s apparent 1:55 record in P4F2, this is not even correct. The lap record is 1:57.872 as indicated on our own webpage.
I would hazard to guess that this is not the only error in the “Data” , considering it was the first one I even looked to crosscheck.
This is very frustrating, misleading, and disrespectful to all those that helped to make this system work for so long.
Notice the lack of response, Time to step back and re evaluate
Are you stepping up?