Vintage Road Racing Association

Mr. Steinke is the voice of reason and wisdom.

After consultation and feedback from many riders, we will adopt a 4% handicap for P3 to P4 and a 2% handicap for P4 to P5. All other handicaps remain unchanged.

The handicaps will be reviewed at the end of the 2024 season again.

This has been approved by the Board.

Let’s go racing.

steinke wrote:I have been been watching this debate (if you want to call it that) for a few days now. Seems there is some friction being built up and that friction may not be healthy moving the club forward. There is always room for improvement so I am not taking either side but I may suggest that we carry over 2023 endurance rules and point system so that the current executive can focus on the start of 2024 season. That being said there should be room for respectable endurance debate in preparation for the 2025 season. Why not set up an endurance working group between now and the AGM so that findings and recommendations can be discussed and entered on the record at the AGM. Data can continue to be collected and reviewed through the season within the working group. The working group could consist of a leader from each class / group so that individual member input can be channeled through them to the working group. If there are no volunteers to support said group or if it is a bad idea then we get what we get and we can just keep the banter going on Facebook and the forum.

See, this is perfectly logical John.

This has been approved by the Board.

Three members of the executive voted yes. I had not voted yet. The request for a vote was emailed to the exec at 2:30 and the "results" announced at 5:44. The real results are 3 in favour, 2 unknown.

My only real question really remains-
What is the goal of making changes?

Surely there was a goal in mind to better the race or the club in some way?

And now the new numbers are just “chosen” numbers that don’t reflect his data or the lap record data.

I don’t get it.

So to confirm. New handicaps are 2% and 6%.
As everything is calculated off the top machine period.

As per this post from Dave Laporte:

"This has been approved by the Board."

I recently returned home from work to read an email from the President to the Executive at 2:30 today. The Tech Coordinator was in the same situation as me. The topic was endurance handicaps.

Before either of us voted, Dave Laporte announced on Facebook that the handicaps of 2% and 4% were “approved by the board.” Pretty tricky, eh?

The email sent to the Executive stated that “The most vocal of the members in agreement with this compromise.”

I know that Dave has not spoken to Kirby, Kevin, or Steve about the matter, and they have all been very vocal on the forum and Facebook recently. So, Mr. President who did you speak to?

It was certainly not a majority of those affected.

In any case, my vote would have been “NO” as I believe the decision should have been to rescind the proposal, remain status quo with the previous handicap data, and only then have a review with Endurance racers and teams at the end of the 2024 season.

I say again - only two of the five Executive members had the time to vote on this before Dave’s post.

Further, the discussion re: Financials. Dave provided the analysis to the Executive with no input from Russell (as outgoing Treasurer) or me, as current Treasurer. Although there was agreement that racer attrition rates threaten the club, I had asked that measures be implemented to prevent us from losing the racers we already have (which is as necessary as attracting new riders).

This VRRA president makes decisions without full disclosure, and gives short shrift to the opinion of executive members who do not fall in line with his views. I have been a member/secretary/treasurer and chair of many boards over the last 40 years, and I have never before encountered this lack of honesty and transparency (the core personal values I aspire to uphold). Therefore, I regret to announce that I am resigning as Treasurer, effective Immediately.

Full disclosure: I was already strongly considering resigning next week. The executive will be voting on a significant safety issue – whether DOCC Invitational riders will be allowed to race without having attended Race School, and, not needing to follow club Tech rules regarding oil-containing belly pans. Being just a track day rider is not preparation for racing, and I believe the club and/or Executive would be liable for any catastrophic event, and that the Insurer would successfully litigate. An accident-injury lawyer would have a field day.

(If this post is deleted by the administrator, I have retained a copy and will send it to others to post.)

Folks- someone brought it to my attention today about this war that is brewing in the public domain, which quite frankly I think is embarrassment for the association. I'm not fully aware of the details, what problems are that are trying to be resolved here or who did exactly what.

As this association continues to grow and thrive for a lot of people with the same passion can I ask that you don't continue with publicly throwing around dirt and that reasonable amount of professional judgement is exercised by all. Anyone that may have an interest or curiosity about the VRRA that stumbles across the pages of rather unflattering dialogue I just saw, is likely to quickly not want to get anywhere near this situation.

There are many better places to get this resolved. There is a board in place, so start behaving as would be appropriate.

Just some guy who loves motorcycles and people that also have that same love.

Plater - #36

Davelaporte221 wrote:
...The previous Endurance Coordinator has stated the goals as follows:
1. To allow any machine in the club to have the opportunity to race endurance. Growing the field.
2. Allow the fastest teams to be the ones that finish first. Regardless of what machine they choose to enter on.

These goals have not changed. I would disagree with the definition of the fastest teams to finish first. In my interpretation 1st is the person who takes the checker flag first not the team that finishes 2 laps down but is elevated by riding a less competitive bike.

If your goal is to win the race, choose the bike and riders that give you the best chance to take the checkered flag....

I think Dave provided the most clarity in this part of his earlier post which I have quoted from.

It seems to me that he is saying that if you want to win a vintage endurance race you should ride as close to a modern bike as possible.

Unless the president and members can get on the same side on a shared vision for what the Vintage Road Racing Association is or will become, these issues will continue to cause conflict.

Wayne McKinnon wrote:

Davelaporte221 wrote:
...The previous Endurance Coordinator has stated the goals as follows:
1. To allow any machine in the club to have the opportunity to race endurance. Growing the field.
2. Allow the fastest teams to be the ones that finish first. Regardless of what machine they choose to enter on.

These goals have not changed. I would disagree with the definition of the fastest teams to finish first. In my interpretation 1st is the person who takes the checker flag first not the team that finishes 2 laps down but is elevated by riding a less competitive bike.

If your goal is to win the race, choose the bike and riders that give you the best chance to take the checkered flag....

I think Dave provided the most clarity in this part of his earlier post which I have quoted from.

It seems to me that he is saying that if you want to win a vintage endurance race you should ride as close to a modern bike as possible.

Unless the president and members can get on the same side on a shared vision for what the Vintage Road Racing Association is or will become, these issues will continue to cause conflict.

That seems to be the sad result of this ridiculousness.
How is this helping to preserve our vintage road racing clubs heart and soul (vintage bikes) and how is this improving attendance?
This makes no sense.

Wayne McKinnon wrote:

Davelaporte221 wrote:
...The previous Endurance Coordinator has stated the goals as follows:
1. To allow any machine in the club to have the opportunity to race endurance. Growing the field.
2. Allow the fastest teams to be the ones that finish first. Regardless of what machine they choose to enter on.

These goals have not changed. I would disagree with the definition of the fastest teams to finish first. In my interpretation 1st is the person who takes the checker flag first not the team that finishes 2 laps down but is elevated by riding a less competitive bike.

If your goal is to win the race, choose the bike and riders that give you the best chance to take the checkered flag....

I think Dave provided the most clarity in this part of his earlier post which I have quoted from.

It seems to me that he is saying that if you want to win a vintage endurance race you should ride as close to a modern bike as possible.

Unless the president and members can get on the same side on a shared vision for what the Vintage Road Racing Association is or will become, these issues will continue to cause conflict.

This is exactly what a handicap is supposed to do. The fastest riders should win regardless of period of machine. Or would you prefer slower teams on newer machines to be the winners? That is the result of not having a handicap.