OZ ATV :: The Australian ATV Forum

[Linc]

bullet wrote:

Hello all, MA and the NQAC are receiving some good feedback through our consultation on the 2010 recommendations to the Board. Please find the below NQAC response to questions posted on this public forum. 16 Pages !!!!!!!!..........Thats 43 new or changed rules. I never thought our sport was so wrong that it needed to be fixed that much You may not have, but members from across the rest of Australia have all had different inputs, and their concerns deserve representation. "members from across the rest of Australia have all had different inputs" what members? members of the NQAC? are these members elected? if so by who? Anyone can make a rule recomendation to MA, do you forward everything you receive to MA or only the ones you like?. By definition, every rule is a restriction. This is not a reflection on you or the NQAC, it is a fact of life. More rules is just more restrictions. I see your job as not to make more rules; it's to make the right rules. This being true then the rules for racing could be. "QUAD RACING CLASS : 4 wheels and handle bars.".......thats it. While I'm not proposing this rule, it does include everyone who has a quad, is the same for everyone, and perfectly demonstrates what I've said above. You've got to remember that it really doesn't matter what the rules are as they are the same for everyone. That being so you better make sure every rule you do make is as inclussive as possible. We have different rules for age, engine capacity, experience.......blah blah blah.........every rule excludes someone. As I said, every rule is a restriction. You make a rule for one engine capacity; that excludes any one outside that capacity so you then have to make another rule.......it goes on and on. Quad racing in Australia is in a good place right now but I agree it could be better but 43 new or changed rules...... ........aint right; not to mention you are actually proposing this for next year with very little notice. The rule changes come off as elitist not inclusive. Yeah......."full spine protection" I read that and thought "impossible & stupid to think anything else".........while safety is always a concern this rule shows such short sitedness (is that a word? ) that all I can say is I'm glad that the NQAC has no official endorcement from MA Your quote is not taken from the recommendations, and does not exist in the recommendations. QC007 states, part, “...In addition all quad competitors must wear full length commercially manufactured back protection covering the back area between the collar and the base of the spine.� Please read this section again, noting that ‘full length’ refers specifically to the type of back protector. The area that it should cover is specified in this rule. You are also completely incorrect in stating that the NQAC has no official endorsement from MA. You sit on the "base of the spine" (OK, you sit on your bum but you know what I mean) this rule excludes anyone who has a full back protector that only goes down to you belt line. The NQAC is a part of MA and is directly endorsed by the Board of MA. Acknowledged by MA yes, but I fail to see how you are "directly endorsed by MA". If your group only has the same powers as any individual member of MA what does "your endorsement" provide you? They can recommend rule changes but thats it........anyone can do that. Yes As everyone knows and has seen, forum debate can quickly escalate to arguments without positive results. As a result, this forum isnt the place to discuss these issues so please refer all correspondence to your state delegate or to Ross Martin at MA. The NQAC will continue to monitor this thread but will not be responding on here any further. Thanks

[Huskygoat]

Happy Now Bullet
_________________
Truth and Honor and Trust ... never under estimate Them.

Last edited by Huskygoat on Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

[old55]

[quote="bullet"]Hello all,
MA and the NQAC are receiving some good feedback through our consultation on the 2010 recommendations to the Board.
Please find the below NQAC response to questions posted on this public forum.

Safety gear, what make it compulsory for a CLASS and not for a Discipline, so quad riders (being a class) race a lot faster and fall a lot harder than solo's, OMG, so we "DISCRIMINATE" the quad riders, next it will be a compulsory neck brace, legalities of forcing safety gear can go much further than a race meet, that is why it is not complusory to wear the "Spine Protector" In the USA, I could only assume pending actions, but the rule states full spine protection, which means that your spine is from the top of the neck (where your neck brace would sit) to the end of your tail bone, and I can only go by my tail bone and yep thats inbetween my butt cheeks when I sit so I have to find a custom made spine protector to suit, or if I get too large (weight impaired) over a certain size then I cant race nor ride as they dont make them to suit, wow, choices ......not.
Please read the suggested recommendation again.
Your misreading of this recommendation still gives us valuable input and implies that we have either got the terminology wrong or done a poor job of wording the rule.
We will look at this aspect and aim to make the rule ‘more readable’ before it goes to print.MA have some firm views on this rule that will not change, and respectfully, ultimately much of our racing is their risk.
QC007 -" In addition all quad competitors must wear full length commnercially manufactured back protection covering the back area between the collar and the base of the spine"

So this rule has been Discipline based so far, but according to your comment this "RECOMMENDED CHANGE" to this rule by NQAC is not open for discussion at all, it will be changed no matter what and reworded for "PRINT" - as quoted by yourself, did I misread that also

So your not discriminating between quad mx or solo mx, if its compulsory for one "class" then it must be compulsory for all MX across the board otherwise MA could leave themselves open for litigation by not covering all thier bases in respect to their obligation concerning safety for riders competing under their jurisdiction

As Licence holders and multiple club members, why is it that if MA have firm views on this, its the first that we are hearing of it, why is it if we are deriving rule changes from our counterpart country the USA that it appears that we only take those rules that suit certain agenda's and not base all our changes to comply with the US standards that have a thriving sport, surely they must be doing something right, to get the numbers they have and it all complies with respective governing bodies and Insurance compliances.

[old55]

Hi Everyone - Received notification from our WA Delegate that all responses for and against with rationales must be into MA by 23rd July, less than a week away.

[Clarkie]

Do you think anything we say will alter there tunnel vision?
_________________
Has turned to the Dark Side!

[bullet]

Yes Clarkie, that's the only reason we asked YOU.
Have you sent anything to Ross Martin.

Old55 beat me to the crunch here guys...
Get your submissions and suggestions in.
23rd July it is.
Don't just write "that's crap and everyone involved is a w#nker", like the angle that some people on this thread are trying.
It will achieve nothing but, show MA (who are reading this thread) what sort of highly intelegent negotiator you might be

Please write clear suggestions based on good research.
Your State delegates will help or advise you if you ask.

It would be best if you could actually suggest the exact wording that you would like to see for any rule, and reference where it would fit in the book.
Then, very importantly, clearly explain why your suggestion is superior and how it will improve our sport, even going to a National scale if it's relevent.
Make sure you include real, undesputable facts... or if not clearly explain why you believe it should work or might be important.

There are no biased views and agendas, and I assure you they will not get through.
Most of the NQAC delegates have not got exactly what they would like to see as individuals, for this very reason.
Fact is Quad sport is very small but still bigger than any of us individually.
As the Chairman... I get one vote, same as you.

Bare in mind that the NQAC don't actually make any of the final decisions... The Board of MA do.
SO if it is a cost, or insurance concern, they would logically take some convincing.

So please, no more slander or ill informed allegations, they are not helping at all.
Just good positive suggestion is the go.

I should add that we have had some very good feedback and that the recommendations will most likely be ammended because of it.
But don't rely on that single line i just wrote... because unfortunately many people just like to whinge and MA might never hear the best ideas if you do nothing.

Put pen to paper and start punching keys

Thanks everyone
_________________
Can-Am X Team
Bullet #Y12. MrsB #Y18.

[Clarkie]

[quote="bullet"]Yes Clarkie, that's the only reason we asked YOU.
Have you sent anything to Ross Martin.

quote]

Yep i have, 2 of them, one was my 1st post that you read and commented on, the 2nd, I have sent the same email to you, so as it can be discussed by MA and you guys, not discussed on here.
_________________
Has turned to the Dark Side!

[Huskygoat]

I feel like reposting it now Bullet ....

If you lie and call it marketing thats ok ????


Everything I said about you Bullet ...its all true
_________________
Truth and Honor and Trust ... never under estimate Them.

Last edited by Huskygoat on Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

[Spaztk8]

husky perhaps you should say anything.. all you do is hinder our sport!!
_________________
If it ain't orange it a lemon!! KTM= can am recovery vehicle!!!

[BROWN#84]

Yeah it does get a bit much sometimes!!!

[yogie]

Spaztk8 wrote:

husky perhaps you should say anything.. all you do is hinder our sport!!

In fairness to BOTH sides of this debate, I've read the rules and quite frankly dont get them regardless, but i want our little bloke 9yrs to get into racing, he ha a raptor 90 and I dont know if he can or he cant... I'm sorry for being a simpleton but I just dont get it. I dont even know where and how much its going to cost to get his 5 hours up.

And yes Husky is passionate about his club or the future of his club, I dont know, but that has to be worth something to this thread.
_________________
2005 KFX700
With a few bells and whistles
and the twin yoshi's
American Star A-arms, tie rods
elka stickers
Shorty Shifter
I have a Waco
rossco gave me a flexx sticker
honda thumb
Great at climbing trees
durablue stickers

[Huskygoat]

Thats ok guys above Have you read the rule changes???

Sparztk8 Your trying to get a club up and running under MA rules... Mate I have been there and done that. Goodluck
_________________
Truth and Honor and Trust ... never under estimate Them.

[Mrs_Gaitar]

One the back protector-

If as you say we all arnt reading it right.
Please respond to this.
If you are 5 -100 yrs and you want to race quads at Motocross, will you have to wear similar to a full armadillo type spine protector or dainese suit... not a medium.... not a small...
but a full length spine protector?
yes or no?
_________________
www.waquadmx.com

[Linc]

Mrs_Gaitar wrote:

One the back protector- If as you say we all arnt reading it right. Please respond to this. If you are 5 -100 yrs and you want to race quads at Motocross, will you have to wear similar to a full armadillo type spine protector or dainese suit... not a medium.... not a small... but a full length spine protector? yes or no?

I made the same assesment and have put it to an NQAC member.

What I want to know is where is this all coming from? there hasn't been a spate of back injuries - this new rule is not a responce to an incedent that needs attention.

Same could be said for the kids I suppose; in the last few years junior racing has got bigger, I haven't seen a bunch of injuries or complaints from parents that racing is too dangerous.

[Mrs_Gaitar]

well i'm guessing if we just get told to go back and re read it..... means none of us understand what they mean, how will two wheel officials understand then when scrutineering our bikes at opens and state rounds? different answer at every event, just like when this rule was in the book before and no one followed it.

And yes it was removed on purpose last time.
_________________
www.waquadmx.com

[Huskygoat]

Stony and I had the same conversation .. and went through it.. but we had heat to add ....we don't want kids passing out on the start line due to heat exhaustion. Sorta like a sauagage roll been cooked.
_________________
Truth and Honor and Trust ... never under estimate Them.

[Mrs_Gaitar]

Agree with you about heat, my daughter had a full suit on when she was 13 came off and broke her collar bone... all i recall her saying is.... cant breath Hot Hot get this thing off me ! and that was a task i tell you getting off a suit when theres a snapped bone to contend with.
_________________
www.waquadmx.com

[thebigdog]

bullet wrote:

Hello all, MA and the NQAC are receiving some good feedback through our consultation on the 2010 recommendations to the Board. Please find the below NQAC response to questions posted on this public forum. Huskygoat well looks like this crop of advisers is on there for their own agendas or their employers.... Recommendations have been collected from members all over Australia and discussed by the full committee including MA staff representation. Committee members represent a broad spectrum of the community in many different areas and disciplices. A few committee members have specific brand interests and loyalties that were either obvious or openly declared so as to not effect any making of recommendations. And I have gone though the channels ..... but nobody's listens .... Your points of concern were addressed in the process. MA is killing our sport MA are the very body that allow our sport to exist. It is in effect, their sport also, and MA only exist because of us, and for us. In 2010 the NQAC have made significant efforts to improve communications with MA and increase the focus on Quad-sport. In every instance, MA have reciprocated and pro-actively assisted progress. Non competitive Nippers Why can't a 5 to 9 year old ride a 90cc quad....????? Non competitive Nippers Generally, because they are to small, and because logical boundaries must be drawn for class differentiation to ensure safety. Ultimately MA have to assess the risks involved with any rule and accept most of the liability. This is the class that our beginners ride??? Right .... but you can't be a beginner on a 90 At 7 years of age, a junior can be a beginner on a 90cc machine. How many Families race quads and there youngest doesn't ride because the smallest quad is a 90. same physical size as a 50 Our Club is suffering badly due to this rule. Generally, 50cc quads have less power and some brands are smaller, lighter and easier to operate than 90cc machines for younger riders. These facts mean 50cc quads generally reduce operating risks or the severity of negative consequences for younger riders. We had constantly 10 to 15 nippers on the line... as some moved to racing new ones came... NOW WE HAVE NONE...DEAD .....NOTHING The committee suggests that there may be other factors involved in this situation. THANKS MA and NQAC your really working for our sport!!! Our pleasure, that’s what we are here for. Couple of this committee are very vocal on this Forum on other issues but wont explain things . Even Called me a "tosser" .... I don't give a "profanity removed" but to give kids some fun .. FORGET ALL THESE ABOVE POSTS AND PUT ALL YOUR RESOURSES AND ENERGY INTO GETTING JUNIORS RACING IN NSW AND ALL YOU BLOKES WILL GET BIG PAT ON THE BACK... THATS WHAT YOUR THERE FORSome issues such as Junior racing in NSW and Recreational Registration were considered by the Committee to be extremely important and received lengthy discussion. Actions have been started in these areas (and many others) to improve these situations. By comparison GCR amendments are seen to be smaller issues, but as voices from members, they still received appropriate attention. UNTIL YOU ADVISE THAT YOUR A JOKE... In that case the Committee has never been a joke, because that is the committees advice. Hustleratv.com.au man i am glad my kids don't want to race, it get very messy some times. and it has done my head in B4. Our appologies for the official format because can initially be difficult to navigate. But this is the official MA format, and it’s adoption ensures that information is not lost in translation to the Board. i didnt read all of the kids rules. rule qc041 is good , but 30 should be 50 or what happens if you get more that 30 riders turn up and you dont have enough officals. i am not complaining just noticed it. Smaller events would still need to plan to have the standard number of officials if there is any chance that the suggested limit for combined rolls is exceeded. The opportunity always exists though, that if the maximum number before combining officials is not reached, that one of these officials can step down, and participate in the racing at that small event if they choose. This was seen to be an added bonus for smaller events, that did not compromise safety or communications when entrant numbers were very low. In any case, it is likely that the official that has stepped down would still be on the event site (but does not have to be). Linc 16 Pages !!!!!!!!..........Thats 43 new or changed rules. I never thought our sport was so wrong that it needed to be fixed that much. You may not have, but members from across the rest of Australia have all had different inputs, and their concerns deserve representation. Yeah......."full spine protection" I read that and thought "impossible & stupid to think anything else".........while safety is always a concern this rule shows such short sitedness (is that a word? ) that all I can say is I'm glad that the NQAC has no official endorcement from MA. Your quote is not taken from the recommendations, and does not exist in the recommendations. QC007 states, part, “...In addition all quad competitors must wear full length commercially manufactured back protection covering the back area between the collar and the base of the spine.â€� Please read this section again, noting that ‘full length’ refers specifically to the type of back protector. The area that it should cover is specified in this rule. You are also completely incorrect in stating that the NQAC has no official endorsement from MA. The NQAC is a part of MA and is directly endorsed by the Board of MA. They can recommend rule changes but thats it........anyone can do that. Yes. I personally know 3 members of the NQAC and all I can say is that I am sorely dissapointed. This is closed minded "group think"........I refuse to believe these obvious mistakes were not picked up by at least 1 of these people. There are many ‘decisions’ to be made. Ultimately MA will make these decisions to finalise an open and transparent process which has included the broadest member consultation reasonably possible. Your statements appear to be either un true or completely incorrect. Camoquad This will make junior racing a nightmare for parents with so many different classes The recommendations contain one less junior class than the current rules. These new proposed rules are targeting the most commonly used junior quad currently being raced These new rules only target more safe and fair racing as per members requests to address. Who is going to determine what junior quads go in each class this needs to be clearly defined before these rulings take effect There will always be associated difficulties in such tasks, but an improved end result is our aim. In 2010, MA have received more complaints centered around these Junior race classes than any other area. Clarkie One rule I have trouble understanding is why isnt a Banshee (2 cyl, 2 stroke) allowed to go one bore size over which = 20 thou? Surely there cant be that much more power to be gained in it, I am thinking more of the cost issues here of replacing barrells if you score a bore and cant rebore them as they are a cast bore not Nickasil. It takes a lot of racers who may get involved in the sport on a club level out of the picture. Boring the Banshee out 20 thou only takes it out to 352cc as there only 346cc stock. http://thebansheezone.tripod.com/id51.htm The parity between 2 stroke and 4 stroke has been determined for these classes, and neither machines are allowed an oversizing advantage. It was discussed that a correctly maintained Banshee engine should be able to be rebuilt for normal wear with pistons and rings only, 2 or 3 times before the bores need attention. This factor is the same for 4 stroke engines. After those minor rebuilds a Banshee can be re-sleeved to remain under 350cc. A 4 stroke would have to re-nikasil, bore and sleeve, or replace the barrel with a new one. Essentially the cost of the above major repairs (if and when they need doing) are very similar, and neither engine type is put at an extreme cost advantage to remain racing at their respective limits. In the case of a Banshee engine having a major failure, it is often the case that the first 0.020 oversize will not be enough to repair the damage anyway. Considering how simple this point is, it was discussed at great length and included many factors that at the end of the day required a decision that generally encouraged equity, simplicity and reduced cost competition. MA’s experience with oversizing tolerances in other disciplines is that they complicate the sport and they are abused in racers efforts where they continually spend money on engines to find a racing advantage (cheque book racers). Also why cant Speedway/flattrack quads stay at 1400mm wide? At 1400mm suggested maximum width, every quad on the market must spend money to widen their machines. The aim of the new rule is to remove this perceived ‘must have’ cost, and create a more equal field of racing while reducing cost. In original condition, the machines are considered safe by the manufacturers that market them in the available widths. Cheap ways of widening quads can have dramatic negative structural effects and steering geometry changes can make rider control in situations of race contact a dramatically increased hazard. Racers who have the opinion that widening a quad makes it safer, generally respond to this perceived new level of comfort by just pushing their quads to new higher speeds, in effect pushing safety to new faster and more hazardous limit. Speedway and flat track racing can also become very ’one line’ if the race track is narrow, or similarly if the machines are built wider. MrsGaiter reduce the race time for pro's then forbid them to enter any other class. whats good for pro's is good for everyone... no second class for anyone Pro riders take pride in competing at our sports highest level on an even playing field. Allowing cross entry for more fit racers who choose to do so, can be seen to allow these racers an unfair advantage in racing laps and track interpretation on the day. This potential advantage has been eliminated for our premium racing class. The issue is not seen to be as great for other classes for many reasons, and less advantage seems to be realised at these other levels of racing. or heres an idea, let everyone have the choice to enter more than one class. yep I like that better, choice and more riders on the grid Pro’s have the choice of one or the other. They are either having a serious attempt at the premium class title, or, they can race any other non skill based class like everyone else can. Keeping our elite athletes out of other classes is proven to increase numbers of entrants in those classes. Or i should say the opposite... that there are very real situation at all major events where other riders do not enter classes or withdraw because they are intimidated by racing a Pro. We have seen people remove themselves on race day to avoid this situation. The greater possible negative may be what we don’t see... how many people would have entered, or may have aspired to enter one day, if that Pro/Pro’s were not in that class. jumbo danny surprise surprise who thinks of these things how many on the committee are involved with juniors?????? Everyone on the Committee has some involvement with Junior quad sport. QC020 / NEW RULE 22.6.6.1 WHAT WHERE YOU THINKING no person who; when standing on a machine has less than 100mm clearance between the seat and the seat of there pants may compete in any junior competition FOR STARTERS WHO'S GOING TO DO THE MEASURING THINK ABOUT IT TOUCH MY GRAND DAUGHTER AND YOU WILL FIND A SUPPISE HOW MANY OTHER PARENTS OUT THERE WILL ALLOW THIS If any rider, or racer, of any quad, Junior, or Senior cannot raise their body from the seat of the quad by standing on the pegs, they are quite obviously putting themselves at more extreme risk in adverse riding or racing situations. The new proposed rule ensures that this obvious necessity is maintained. No official will ‘touch’ any Juniors to implement this rule. Currently all Juniors must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian as they are scrutineered. The official (Scrutineer) can simply ask the Junior to sit up-right on the quad, then stand. Simple. If the Juniors helmet rises approximately 100mm then the junior passes this requirement. If not the official can discuss the non-compliance with the accompanying parent / guardian. since when do we adopt rule from the US ????? Read the U.S. rules... most of our rules have always come from a U.S. basis. This rule is added not because the U.S. do it, but purely because our quad community have a very loud voice about Juniors being able to race machines that they are not physically big enough to control. This point has nothing to do with the exact age of the rider or the actual size of the machine, but only the size of each individual rider on their respective machine. There are some other rules that attempt to ensure riders are not too small for their particular machine and some of these rules are not often exercised or are less practical. But those rules have remained and a new practical addition is recommended. thats right only use the ones that suit certain people wreck it for the rest do away with the whole rule book adopt the usa one smart move guys sorry but thats just my opion We will not follow your opinion to adopt the usa rule book, but will continually strive to achieve what is best for all of our Australian members. Daniel Penraat if you got a problem with what ive wrote call me other than that read wat they are trying to push thru dont wreck it for the juniors they are finally coming good and now you want to change it As our sport grows, tracks change, and machines advance... our rules will need to adapt. Our members will always have the right to make recommendations to MA. Old55 The NQAC - National Quad Advisory Committee - are made up of the following representatives of each state: WA Dean Merrylees SA Darrell Knight (Bullet) QLD Craig Schneider NSW Len Pipiciello NT Martin Stone (Stoney) Vic Adam Siemensma Tas Isaac Lawrence Now all these changes came about as members of those states sent in submissions re these rules. These submissions I thought were distributed to club delegates for distribution to members for comments. I am not sure if this process is still followed as the Clubs that I am associated with(more than 1) have never received them. Your club will have received them very recently as part of the greatest full member consultation ever conducted by the NQAC. Communications are being improved at an increasing rate, and more people are being informed than ever before. After a two day meeting with the NQAC and MA these are the possible rule submissions that they have come up with, please dont think its all MA it takes two to tango, the Advisory committee and Ross Martin. After a 2 day meeting specifically discussing what all Australian members forwarded wishes and concerns. Hundreds tangoed and the dance is not over yet  I can see some and I mean only some positives in some rule changes ie numbers (wow I must be a cosmetic girl) but the majority have one base point in common. This is my view only. What is this perceived common ‘base point’? You need to read all the rules because even if your a junior now, natural progression is to a senior and what you allow now is going to effect you in maybe one or two years time. They have lowered the times for the Nationals and in the same breathe taken away the option or CHOICE to allow riders to do anymore than one class, again its up to those that see the "DISCRIMINATION" and yes I can use this word as they have done so in their rule changes and cant see the contradictions of this in other rule changes, to voice our opinions. Pro entrants are the only ones that con not cross enter. They do have the choice of being a Pro or entereing the other classes. Pro riders take pride in competing at our sports highest level on an even playing field. Allowing cross entry for more fit racers who choose to do so, can be seen to allow these racers an unfair advantage in racing laps and track interpretation on the day. This potential advantage has been eliminated for our premium racing class. The issue is not seen to be as great for other classes for many reasons, and less advantage seems to be realised at these other levels of racing. Pro entrants are either having a serious attempt at the premium class title, or, they can race any other non skill based class like everyone else can. Keeping our elite athletes out of other classes is proven to increase numbers of entrants in those other classes. Or i should say the opposite... that there are very real situations at all major events where other riders do not enter classes or withdraw because they are intimidated by racing a Pro. We have seen people remove themselves on race day to avoid this situation. The greater possible negative may be what we don’t see... how many people would have entered, or may have aspired to enter one day, if that Pro/Pro’s were not in that class. Safety gear, what make it compulsory for a CLASS and not for a Discipline, so quad riders (being a class) race a lot faster and fall a lot harder than solo's, OMG, so we "DISCRIMINATE" the quad riders, next it will be a compulsory neck brace, legalities of forcing safety gear can go much further than a race meet, that is why it is not complusory to wear the "Spine Protector" In the USA, I could only assume pending actions, but the rule states full spine protection, which means that your spine is from the top of the neck (where your neck brace would sit) to the end of your tail bone, and I can only go by my tail bone and yep thats inbetween my butt cheeks when I sit so I have to find a custom made spine protector to suit, or if I get too large (weight impaired) over a certain size then I cant race nor ride as they dont make them to suit, wow, choices ......not. Please read the suggested recommendation again. Your misreading of this recommendation still gives us valuable input and implies that we have either got the terminology wrong or done a poor job of wording the rule. We will look at this aspect and aim to make the rule ‘more readable’ before it goes to print. MA have some firm views on this rule that will not change, and respectfully, ultimately much of our racing is their risk. QC007 states, part, “...In addition all quad competitors must wear full length commercially manufactured back protection covering the back area between the collar and the base of the spine.â€� Please read this section again, noting that ‘full length’ refers specifically to the type of back protector. The area that it should cover is specified in this rule. THIS IS ONLY HOW I SEE THE CHANGES, and I will be voicing my opinion in wirting. Suggest you all do the same, bring your points here to the forum so others may see reasons outside of the small picture but dont argue, everyone is entitled to their own. Thanks, this constructive advise helps others to act. I will be taking all the rule changes to my club, as they impact on other classes other than quads with other Disciplines other than the MX discipline. Suggest you guys do the same. The recommendation should be both sent to your club by MWA and by your State Delegate. Please check to see if it did come from at least both these two angles, as you might discover a disconnection that we would like to address. Thebigdog Yeah, there are certainly a lot of $hit changes here. <image002.gif> Lets start with a FUN class. Jumbo Juniors <image003.gif>. Are they real when they want these to be championship classes. If they are, they need the same rules applied to them and that is they need 8 entries per class before it constitutes a class, not 3 like they are asking. Jumbos is a ‘fun’ class and one which is responsible for significant sport growth particularly at an entry skill level. You have misread the recommended rules for Jumbos. Jumbos will never be a Championship class and there is no recommendation or suggestion of this. The recommendation based on 3 entrants per sub class is that they are not even scored below that (keeping in mind that this is fun racing). Obviously someone on the NQAC wants to be called a champion <image004.gif>. Aint gunna happen. Some members of the Committee are previous Champions of our sport, but none of them have any intention to do so in this class. None of the NQAC delegates even raced a Jumbo at the 2009 titles, or in any race in 2010. And none of them intend to race this class in the future. By the way, for anyone who may be thinking Lance is entering into this arguement to make it good for his boy, think again, Chris will probably only do a National event in Australia and my daughter doesn't ride anymore. I've helped build quad racing in WA to where we are getting strong and I don't want to see some idiots stuff it up by there short sightedness (I think thats how its spelt Linc). My wife and I could just throw our arms in the air and says thats it, it doesn't effect us, but we like the sport too much for that. <image005.gif> The input from you and your family has been massive, and we respect you all for your great contribution to our sport. These members must think we have a thriving sport, we don't, and if they put through all these rule changes, we probably never will. We simply don't have enough riders in the sport at this stage to have too many classes. Keep it simple, Pros, Intermediats, clubmen, womens, vets and a few junior classes. When the time comes, more classes can be added. The NQAC sees sport growth as our single greatest focus and understands that every recommendation needs to most heavily weight this requirement. The recommendation do simplify our sport. There is 1 less Junior class than this year, and 10 Australian Championship Title classifications have been reduced to only 6. Obviously the "little fun classes" <image003.gif>can be added at any event through the supp regs. A good point, but a greater need for National consistency was identified as many Jumbo class entrants are starting to race in multiple states of Australia. I'm not going to bother typing anything else about these changes here, they will be going to Ross Martin and some of the other MA Commissioners, just so they all know how I feel. I have previously sent stuff to one Commissioner before with no result, <image006.gif>so I'll cover my bases. <image007.gif> Ideally you would not send further input to any commissioner, in favour of a more direct path to MA. As a Committee of the Board of MA, the NQAC communicate directly through MA staff to that Board. All Commissioners will be advised of NQAC recommendations if there is seen to be any involvement with their specific discipline, but the obvious group to channel your thoughts through for questions or advise would be the NQAC (as that will be MA’s immediate source). PS we usually have some comments from SA about this time on big issues on this forum, wonder if that happens on this thread? <image008.gif> The NQAC planned that due to controversial public forum realities that responses would be made with full committee approval and not on an individual delegate basis. Sorry for the delay in our response, but please rest assured that your concerns have been directly noted and further research is being carried out. As everyone knows and has seen, forum debate can quickly escalate to arguments without positive results. As a result, this forum isnt the place to discuss these issues so please refer all correspondence to your state delegate or to Ross Martin at MA. The NQAC will continue to monitor this thread but will not be responding on here any further. Thanks

Just thought I would quote and save this post. Hate to use some quotes from here for my response to MA and find it deleted later.
_________________
"WHEN THE STAKES ARE HIGH, GET SERIOUS, GET KTM"

[bullet]

Mrs_Gaitar wrote:

One the back protector- If as you say we all arnt reading it right. Please respond to this. If you are 5 -100 yrs and you want to race quads at Motocross, will you have to wear similar to a full armadillo type spine protector or dainese suit... not a medium.... not a small... but a full length spine protector? yes or no?

Good point Mrs_Gaiter.
As i have mentioned before, if a significant amount of people are not interpreting the rule correctly then we (the NQAC) have to work with MA to make sure the information is better structured.
Quite a few hundred people have read this post and only the smallest handfull have misquoted the rule.
But i will still get into the rule again.

Keep in mind that all Delegates were informed by MA that this rule 'must' be upgraded to read as the recommendation you see.

The answer to your question (as i understand it) would be YES.

But i don't make the final decision, the Board of MA do.
Whatever goes to print after that, is interpreted by MA staff (Commissions and Committees Manager).

Also keep in mind that this suggestion came from your fellow quad riders / license holders.
A great many people support the idea.

But your experienced view may be more important, so get it in
_________________
Can-Am X Team
Bullet #Y12. MrsB #Y18.

Last edited by bullet on Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

[bullet]

thebigdog wrote:

bullet wrote: Just thought I would quote and save this post. Hate to use some quotes from here for my response to MA and find it deleted later.

MA have a copy, they approved the post before it went up.

Just this week to go guys...
get 'em in.
_________________
Can-Am X Team
Bullet #Y12. MrsB #Y18.

[mickbundy]

bullet wrote:

Mrs_Gaitar wrote: One the back protector- If as you say we all arnt reading it right. Please respond to this. If you are 5 -100 yrs and you want to race quads at Motocross, will you have to wear similar to a full armadillo type spine protector or dainese suit... not a medium.... not a small... but a full length spine protector? yes or no? Good point Mrs_Gaiter. As i have mentioned before, if a significant amount of people are not interpreting the rule correctly then we (the NQAC) have to work with MA to make sure the information is better structured. Quite a few hundred people have read this post and only the smallest handfull have misquoted the rule. But i will still get into the rule again. Keep in mind that all Delegates were informed by MA that this rule 'must' be upgraded to read as the recommendation you see. The answer to your question (as i understand it) would be YES. But i don't make the final decision, the Board of MA do. Whatever goes to print after that, is interpreted by MA staff (Commissions and Committees Manager). Also keep in mind that this suggestion came from your fellow quad riders / license holders. A great many people support the idea. But your experienced view may be more important, so get it in

What are you saying here ? you one of the people on the committee
cant answer the Question in full ( The answer to your question (as i understand it) would be YES. ) YOU DON'T EVEN COMMIT TO THE ANSWER
Well I suggest you mate run for politics cause I think you are full of it
just my view but then again you maybe right hahahahahaha

[mickbundy]

deleted I dont race

Last edited by mickbundy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:07 am; edited 1 time in total

[bullet]

mickbundy wrote:

What are you saying here ? you one of the people on the committee cant answer the Question in full ( The answer to your question (as i understand it) would be YES. ) YOU DON'T EVEN COMMIT TO THE ANSWER Well I suggest you mate run for politics cause I think you are full of it just my view but then again you maybe right hahahahahaha

It is a proposed suggestion for a recomendation that might not even survive member consultation, before somebody else (MA) thinks about signing off on it...

I wrote YES, in capital letters.
Maybe i should not have, after all it's not my decision to make, and the process is no where near over.

My apologies, but I was just trying to answer a sensible question
Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

As long as you guys are all writing in to MA with well founded, solid ideas...
I'll be happy.
_________________
Can-Am X Team
Bullet #Y12. MrsB #Y18.

Last edited by bullet on Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

[Mrs_Gaitar]

next question

removing the rule
Disallowing the detuning of senior bikes for juniors.

Highly contentious issue, will MA be allowing detuned 450-750cc for juniors to race against normal youth sports quads?


yes or no (as you understand it)

Dont worry will be sending in pages to MA on this one, and no I dont think my opinions any more important than any other concerned quad person or parent.

Although this rule will certainly effect whether i run events for junior quads or not in the future.

PS sure this will be another nail in the coffin of the plight of NSW not allowing junior quad racing.
_________________
www.waquadmx.com

[mickbundy]

change of mind

Last edited by mickbundy on Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:09 am; edited 1 time in total