There is a rule that says anyone 16 and Under can ride an event for 15 buck entry. That has been interpreted that if you are 16 and under and ride 16 and under LW and SW you can ride for 15 bucks.

The rule is in there to support parents and make it less expense.

We do have 16 year olds in the A and B classes.

Should we make a clarification limiting the 15 dollars lower entry to be just the 16 and under or C novice classes excluding long course?

Here is my two cents -

If the rule is in place to "...to support parents and make it less expensive" why would you take it out regardless of the course they ride? Entry fees are the same even if they ride short course.

Obvisously the way I read the rule - it clearly states "...regardless of the class they ride..". This would support your statement that a 16 and under rider parent makes it less expensive.

I am a parent of a rider that rides long course "B Class" and he is 14 (Cole Reynolds) and a good friend to a kid's parent that is 15 that rides long course and arguable has AA Times (Tate Reynolds). So by your suggestion, the skill level of a rider (regardless of age) should be used to determine the cost of entry fee's?

I ask becasue how does the skill level of a 16 and under change the helpfullness of the cost to a parent of a kid 16 and under that rides enduro's?

This is a long way of me saying that the rule:
"The maximum pre-entry cost for any rider 16 years of age or younger is $15 regardless of the class the rider enters." is perfect and is doing exactly what you say above it was intended to do - help parents with kids riding (regardless of class) make it less expensive.

SOOO - Why propose to change it??

Agreed (as a parent of a 13yo rider that may well be passing me soon )

The reason It is on the table is that the historical interpretation of the rule is not consistent with some clubs understanding or the application of the rule.

The rule was adopted to encourage participation and foster some beginners along. If the kid is AA then he is not a beginner.

I don't really care I just want to clean up a lingering issue before Wes gets to town.

I understand what you are saying but just do not agree. If the rule was adopted to encourage participation, I would ask - participation in what? Riding? Riding enduros? Riding TSCEC Enduros?

My point would be, it does encourage riding and helps the parents with cost of participation (in TSCEC Enduros). It encourages participation by being one of the few racing formats that a parent can ride on the same row and enjoy the same race at the same time during the actual TSCEC enduro. I can not do this in other racing formats.

So again, regardless of class, this does help the parent and encourages the parent/son (or daughter) to go to and participate in Enduro's vs. another racing format.

The only issues that we may not agree (as I see it) is - Should the skill level of the kid determine how much is paid? My answer is no. A kid riding a motorcycle is a kid regardless if he racing 16 and under small wheel or against the AA's.

I woudl say let the kids ride in what ever class, enter with $15.00 and if/when they are hooked at age 17, then you will have a racer for life. TSCEC and Enduros win in the long run (as well as a happy parent).

My only suggestion would then be when I hit 65 will we start a senior discount?? (just kidding)

Sam

If the break is for families that have a father and a son riding, you should probably require that the father enter the event for the child to receive the discount. This may soften the blow to the clubs.

The problem with making such rules is that they are never crafted carefully enough to avoid loopholes. When the loophole is eventually closed, people get mad. This is a classic example of a well-intentioned rule backfiring. There are plenty of others. Pick a rule and I'll tell you a story about it. The real solution is less rules. (I guess my political party is obvious now.)

How about this.
Go to 25.00 and require the parent to enter and pay full price.
This should help the club, for which money is usually very tite and there is still help for us.

15 is not enough for the club, make it at least 25 and let the kids ride whatever class. I have been beaten all year by Tate and I don't care how much he pays. I have been bitten by the 3 AMA memberships at once and man that gets racing on the wife's bad list.

Rules suck and unenforced rules or mis-interpreted rules are worse so I would never oppose less rules.

Maybe there should be a rule that states AMA membership not required at any TSCEC sanctioned events.
You can propose changes that eliminate rules you think are no longer neccessary.

If the event is a AMA National then you are going to have to be an AMA member. If a club sanctions the AMA insurance then you will have to be an AMA member.

If you pass a rule that says it is option then there will be no AMA National events in the State.