Partial Streamling rule addition

[Sumner]

I'll make the motion to use Stainless's wording (and will assume someone will second it) that the wording:

"It must be possible to see the rider from either side and above except for the hands and forearms." 

Under 7.G.11 be changed to:

"Using side and top views together it must be possible to see the rider except for the hands and forearms"

Further more all existing records that were made under the previous wording remain intact as they were made under the "intent" of the rule and that new records will be allowed with similar streamlining as before since they also follow the "intent" of the previous wording and the new wording.

This motion if passed will be presented to the Motorcycle Committee by Kent Riches.

[Stainless1]

If it is legal, I'll second that...oh and I did...

[aswracing]

I'm sorry, I don't see how that solves the problem. I can think of all kinds of areas of the body that aren't visible from the combination of those views.

I said it before, I'll say it again. We are not being served well by the MC rules committee. This is just the latest in a series of nonsensical things they've blindsided us with. We need a change of personnel.

[narider]

As a non member I won't vote(anyone voting yes to it should be happy about that btw), but I think this is one of the best processes(for those available) to consider whether a change should be submitted. Good job Sum,
Todd

[Sumner]

.................I can think of all kinds of areas of the body that aren't visible from the combination of those views.
....................

True there are those "private parts" and the insides of arms, legs, etc., but we do have to give the guys in impound some kind of credit for being reasonable and in my dealings with them they have been.  Who knows what would have happened at WF if some of the guys wouldn't of cut their fairings and gone to impound.  Would they really have been protested by someone who could protest them??

I did say I used Stainless's wording, but I lied a little about that, sorry Stainless.  Here is his wording:

"Using side and top views together it must be possible to see the rider completely except for the hands and forearms"

I meant to removed the word "completely" just for the reasons you have stated, but forgot to.  (Note: I just modified the post with the new wording, "completely" is gone.)  Now you just have to see the rider, not every part of him.

I feel you can vote as this would be presented as a motion presented and voted on by those that frequent landracing.com.

c ya,

Sum

[JackD]

In too many words it says the same thing.
Add a sentence that describes the intent is the rider must be able to egress without obstruction if you must and that will black and white some common sense that should already be clear.
A problem with 1 person being so easily influenced by only 1 person that is contrary to the facts developed over the history of the open bike is the real problem.
Look at other forms of motorcycle sports and see how they handle it.
All of them without exception have riders fall off all the time and even crash with each other in traffic.
They also have a far more studied approach to rules making than LSR.
LSR bikes have developed some far more urgent problems that have deteriorated the safety and credibility that need attention.

 

[Stainless1]

Jack, egress is the most subjective part of this discussion, Hopefully this post won't turn into another 1/2 dozen pages of discussion.  The bike guys already "what if" the contestants to adnauseium...

[John@JE Pistons]

Sumner,

What about the leg/heel issue at hand?  Seems like most are concerned more with the rear of the bike rather than the front area.

The problems I see with the recent "NEW" enforcment is that it would make aftermarket bodywork totally non conforming and even some OEM tail sections would also not be legal for some classes.

I would think that the previous rules should be amended to state that rider must be able to "exit" the bike in a normal fashion and allow the current bodywork and similar style bodywork in the future to remain legal.

I was told that this rule was put in place as a safety measure to insure that a rider could freely "exit" the bike in the case of a crash or fire.

I am not aware of any of any riders that could have had an issue trying to get off the bike at speed other than Ron Cook several years ago.

Any other ideas folks.

J

PS.  Jack thanks for the PM and what do you mean by this? LSR bikes have developed some far more urgent problems that have deteriorated the safety and credibility that need attention.  Can you please explain?

Thanks

John

[Sumner]

Sumner,

What about the leg/heel issue at hand?  Seems like most are concerned more with the rear of the bike rather than the front area........................John

It resolves it as you can see it from the side.  No longer do you have to see the leg/heel from above also as was suggested at WF and what started this whole thing.

c ya,

Sum

P.S. How about if Jack answers you under a different post to help keep this one on topic??  Thanks

[JackD]

The topic is the riders ability to shed the bike in the event of an upset and the history of the open bikes does not identify a problem with the body.
The manor the rules can be altered is the real problem that needs to be addressed.
I would consider Todd and Deb to be subject matter experts , regardless of their paperwork status, and a valued resource for ideas on the subject.

[1212FBGS]

Aaron..
Maybe your right..maybe it is time to replace the current volunteers... Tom has been helping us for a very, very long time... ya know showing up at all the board meetings, extra special meetings, answering all east coast phone calls early in the morning, calls during dinner, and even calls late at night. Oh yeh tons of emails, heck i heard his email box is full right now. I'm sure Tom is very tired of all the years of showing up on the lake bed early to set up the tech trailer and tech tent without your help, probably tired of all the years of standing in the hot sun listening to whiney racers bitch, and after that, take down the tent and trailer without your help.... And I’m sure Russ is tired of people that don’t get involved whine and bitch about his decisions, I am not speaking for them but I would be....as did all the others before them, Dale, Wink, and even Jack…. who will stand up and volunteer to replace them.?.... Should i nominate you?

Ok back to the problem... the rule is fine "AS WRITTEN" is it very good and has be worded this way for a very long time.... I have been asking you guys (Jack) for a starting date the current wording appeared but no answer yet... the PROBLEM is the interpolation of the wording and a lack of a measurement standard……
Gotta go…… I will finish this rant in a couple hours

kent

[joea]

Kent, were all VERY AWARE of the volunteerism heroes....all of them...!!!!!!

DOESNT MEAN we have to settle........are you talking like you dont think new blood can
step up...?......I SAY AGAIN.....CONTINUING DOWN THE SAME PATH WE HAVE BEEN
FACILITATES SIMILAR RESULTS.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I dont think the rule book needs extra verbiage about past and future records.......

Joe

[aswracing]

Kent, I don't give a rat's ass that they're volunteers, or that they're dedicated, or anything else. The FACT is that they're doing a shitty job.

Did we get any input into the leathers change? Do the majority of us agree or disagree with that change? It costed many of us a big pile of money.

Did we get any input into the "M" changes disallowing aftermarket cases? Did we even get any notice that it was happening? That one personally costed me several thousand dollars.

I don't know Russ, I barely know Bob, and yeah, I know Tom and I don't dislike him, actually I kind of like him. I think he does his best. But the fact is, whoever the hell is making all these changes that cause us grief is NOT SERVING US WELL. That's the obvious and honest truth.

Should we put up with it just because they're dedicated volunteers? For how long? We just give them a pass and let them keep doing stupid shit like this to us, because we like them and they're volunteers? I don't follow that logic at all. If they're not doing a good job, we ought to get people in who will. How good of a job they do is orders of magnitude more important than their dedication level or how much we personally do or don't like them. It's not even close.

If we keep getting stupid rule changes and interpretations shoved down our throats, and yet we take no action to change the people who are doing it, we deserve what we get.

[JackD]

The downhill slide began with Wink that quit before he could make any changes and was replaced by Dale Martin , who invented his own class and minimums so as to be assured of an easy slide into #1 in points.
It has been down hill from there in large part due to lack of participation allowed by the racer.
Now that it has bottomed out, you have a chance to save it , but be careful.

[bak189]

AAron......is right........a change is due..........some of us tryed as far back as the late 1990's...........
with little or no success..............it is extremly hard to fight the "good old boys" network.......and then there is always " insurance wll not allow it "..............................................................
I was told "if you don't like it, go race with other
LSR clubs, and see if they will put up with your big mouth"....................SOOOOOOOOOOOO I did....
and todate they have been willing to put up with
"my big mouth" and input.......................................
You must remember if you YELL loud enough,
sooner or later they will  hear you.....or they will allow it just to "shut you up"................................
Remember...."You can always tell a Dutchman, but not much"...........................................................