Partial Streamling rule addition

[aswracing]

The one thing that's really burnt my ass since I started land speed racing is that we never hear about rule changes before they happen. There's no effort made to solicit input from the racers, no consideration whatsoever for what we want. It's like the whole thing is done in some kind of a secret society. We only hear about what's changing after the fact. We're always getting blindsided, and often it's really stupid shit like forcing us to buy new leathers for no good reason or making our newly built motors illegal unless we move to a higher class.

That stands in stark contrast to every other form of racing I've been involved with, with multiple other sanctioning bodies and organizations. It still baffles me how this LSR stuff operates.

What the hell would be so wrong with engaging in a dialogue with the racers? You remember us, the ones that are actually affected by the rule changes and changes in interpretations? Shouldn't we have a say?

I realize there's some kind of a process in place, but it doesn't work.

What's the process for people getting on the MC rules committee, anyway?

Howsabout we put people on it who are willing to work with us instead of against us?

[Sumner]

.................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

Kent I have to question "the rule is fine "AS WRITTEN"" statement.  If it was then there wouldn't have been a question as to how it should be interpreted.

Now I have a few old rule books and here is what I found for you:

1992:

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

Very similar except the forearms and hands are related to views.  Still the word completely is in there and that opens a big can or worms.

1998:

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

The same as it is in the 2007 book.

I guess I don't see what good it will do to find the year it changed as it is what it is now.

Has anyone talked to Tom to see if he regrets the decision he made at WF or does he stick by it and thinks that what he had the riders do to their bikes was necessary to comply with the rule as it is written now??

c ya,

Sum

[JackD]

A greater problem that comes to the surface here is not the intent, or the wording that seems to be so misunderstood, or even a history of problems, but the method used to change a rule that has worked for so long.
How can 1 person cause another to make such a decision that seems so ill advised ?
However rational, experienced, and well meaning this small group might be, it still fails the test for participation by the field.
Skip that and you will find your self exactly where you are.

[narider]

A greater problem that comes to the surface here is not the intent, or the wording that seems to be so misunderstood, or even a history of problems, but the method used to change a rule

However rational, experienced, and well meaning this small group might be, it still fails the test for participation by the field.
Skip that and you will find your self exactly where you are.

There go I!

To everyone except those directly involved on the recieving end... the process is more important then the application(as it should be). And although easier said then done, all the big rule makers of the past and present will agree that "Without passion or prejudice" is the most important thought during rule clarification(and yes, it can be done by those it effects if they are willing to remove their current situation in their decision making).

The begining of this thread has the right makings of a rule change suggestion, but it still doens't seem to have a purpose. Is the purpose to get out of cutting your existing fairings, or is the purpose to better understand and define the existing rule more clearly?

Changing a rule you don't understand is just as bad as cutting a fairing you don't understand.
Todd

[Sumner]

.................................. Is the purpose to get out of cutting your existing fairings, or is the purpose to better understand and define the existing rule more clearly?..............................Todd

The latter will result in the former.

I think the guys/gals just want to have the rule interpreted as in the past and if the wording needs to be cleared/cleaned up a little to result in that then so be it.

Maybe those that would like to see a new motion could write that new motion and start a new post where that motion could be polled,

Sum

[JackD]

12 votes, does not a motion move very far

[bak189]

12 votes.........like I stated before,  NO SUPPORT....
(you got my support....and I don't have a dog in this fight..........we race sidecars at the BUB)
Don't you people understand this is about the future of M/C's racing LSR with SCTA/BNI............I know...........
" Hell, it does not effect my bike"

[Nortonist 592]

One of thoe 12 votes is mine and I don't have a dog in this fight either.  I think awsracing's post at the top of this page hits the nail on the head.  Changes without consultation or notification.  Changes presented to a comittee thats doesn't know or care and has to have four wheels to keep themselves upright. 

[1212FBGS]

So my rant continues…

So why should the SCTA contact you every time they want to make a rule change? You special or something? They don’t contact every car guy when the want to make a change on that side…. its there club and they can do whatever and run it any way they want… when the FIM decided to go from 500cc to 1000cc no one bitched…. They just did it.. Why? Because they wanted to play… when the FIM said they were gonna go from 1000cc to 900cc did they bitch? No they, just went along… If your kids school says they all have to where uniforms ya do it. So you don’t like the way they wanted to make it safer for the racer by requiring all cow leathers… did you do anything about it…did you go to a board meeting to discuss it?  Did you file a rule change request form? No.!… all ya guys did is bitch…

So some of ya are willing to kick out the people who are making you jump though hoops…. But not a one of you are willing to step up and do the job   “oh I live too far away” bull crap…!… show up and get involved or shut up…..Yes I am sticking up for the decisions made for my behalf by the SCTA and if they want me to race on my head with my bare ass in the wind I will cuz that’s the sand box I wish to play in…

Now on to the P/S rule…
Sum to your surprise I meant it, the rule is good just the way it is written. The problem is interpretation of the rule… now no one has a problem with the side profile and the hand fore arm thing, its that little word “ABOVE”…. For the last week all of ya have been taking the wrong fork in the road that lead us into this problem in the first place…. “Interpretation” or assumption… cuz my interpretation as well as stainless, Larry’s and Bob were greatly different than the supposed protestors and the Tech guy’s interpretation and that’s were the problem lies…. So lets back up to the fork in the road and go the other way and examine the problem word “above”… hummm above..?… Above what? Above the fuel tank..?… Or above from a fricken satellite..?….How far above and from where..?…So lets set a height thing first, how high..?…. The fuel tank height will probably be to low, now I’m 6’ and Tom and Russ are about the same eye level at about 65” but there are some little runts that see things from zipper level and stainless towers above all of us so lets go with a even number of 60”… Yep so now we look down from 60”… down from where..?… If I look down from my windscreen everything is legal..Yeh!… if I look down from behind the rear tail everything blocks my legs, feet, and ass ..Boo no good! so from where would it be fair..?…How bout the middle of the bike..?… Look down from a direct measurement center of axle distance…yeh that’s it…center of wheelbase… ok we got our height and location now what..?…I envision a standard or a measuring devise… ok I’ll make a 60” tall piece of metal tube and I’ll attach a long piece of jack chain to it and on the end of the chain I’ll attach a tape measure… so the Tech inspector gets this standard out of the tech trailer and takes it to the bike, he measures the center of the wheelbase and makes a mark in the dirt (or salt) and then stands the tube up vertical, he then takes the long chain and extends it to the foot peg… if any bodywork hits the chain, its illegal… no more guessing, no more interpretation, just a simple go or no measurement. Oh and check this out I can make a mark on the tube at 36” for the mps seat height rule and another for the 40”aps rule,  oh, oh, we can even use the tape measure as a plumb bob to check if your tail extends over the rear tire to far.. And check this out.. the tech guy can lay the tube down at the centerline mark, 90deg angled outward from the bike, step out to the end and go down on one knee to get a side profile. And if that doesn’t work he can stuff it up the whiney racers a//……. ok I’ll be nice here… you get my idea…it can be a multi measurement standard to keep in the tech trailer….

So what do ya think…. Hell I don’t why I asked….. I don’t care what ya think I’m gonna write the idea up as a rule clarification as well as writing up new rules for electric motorcycle cuz there aren’t any and I’m gonna race one next year. I will also draw up a long overdue diagram for clarification of the P/S rules. If the SCTA prints it in the rulebook cool… if not I’ll print up about a hundred copies so they will be available in the tech trailer. So I figgered I’ll participate in the process instead of bitchin about it….. Cuz ya see…. the rule change deadline is Monday…if ya want something changed, file it… and here is a tip on your requests. dont just point out a idea and not give them the solution or whats worse give them a request that will cause them a lot of problems and work drafting it up. an exanple " i request aftermarket cases in M class"... burrrt.. probably wont fly. but if ya say "i request aftermarket direct replacement crankcases that offer no competitive advantage in M class" just might fly....ya gotta agree it stands a better chance...dont just say "all bikes need to have lead" but say " all bikes need to have lead of a minimun size of "x" and a maximum size of "y" and is to be retained by "z" amount of fasteners of "P" dimentions" ya get the hint.?..if ya don’t participate in the proper process the age old adage “shut the Fiat up” applies…

Yours in sport
Kent

[Peter Jack]

You've said it all Kent! Good job!

Pete

[aswracing]

So why should the SCTA contact you every time they want to make a rule change? You special or something?

So you really don't believe the racers should be a part of the process of rule changes that affect them? Seriously?

So you don’t like the way they wanted to make it safer for the racer by requiring all cow leathers…

How, exactly, did the rule change on the leathers make anything safer?

[JackD]

To little, too late. and still from the wrong direction.
A "complaint" is a sign of something wrong that needs attention.
A "bitch" is a complaint that has gone unanswered.
If you won't listen, you won't hear.
When individual problems go unanswered, general participation is eliminated, and publication is gone, you have what is left.

The FIM formula changes for professional RACING is a business decision that begins with the participation of the major players and can change with every series.

Speed records must have minimal changes as the technology evolves, and principally for real safety, or the comparison with previous efforts is gone. 

[DahMurf]

(Tried to post this at midnight last night but it didn't make it. I haven't read anything yet this morning, just wanted to get this out there.)

.................................. Is the purpose to get out of cutting your existing fairings, or is the purpose to better understand and define the existing rule more clearly?..............................Todd

The latter will result in the former.

I think the guys/gals just want to have the rule interpreted as in the past and if the wording needs to be cleared/cleaned up a little to result in that then so be it.

It seems to me that's all the people that have been vocal about this want is to go back to the prior interpretation. I just don't see how you're going to turn back time without "something" changing.

I guess the problem I have is what was the reason for the change in interpretation? We don't really know that do we? How can we fix what we don't know? We don't know if this change in interpretation was based on the safety/egress thought or was it based on classification/aerodynamics or was it something completely different that we're not even thinking about?

It seems to me the only way we're going to go back to the prior interpretation is to understand why they felt the change was needed and then to prove/disprove this rationale. Short of that this man has to stand up in front of all y'all and say, you know, I was wrong & I shouldn't have made y'all cut your fenders. I don't know these techs but I'd be damned suprised if that ever happened.

And are any of you willing to entertain the thought that the change in interpretation may have been the correct thing to do? (I know the way & timing of having it done is not right, but had it happened now to be applied to the 2008 season, would you still say it's wrong? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just trying to see all sides (ie impartial) )

I just have trouble trying to help come up with a solution when it's not real clear to me the problem we're trying to fix.

I know any time I'm told something is not right/legal, I ask a lot of questions. Not because I want to argue but because I can't fix something correctly if I don't understand what correct is and why.

 

Deb

[DahMurf]

Kent,
 I read chapter 2 of your mini series above 
First let me say I have no desire to see your bare ass running down the salt! 
As for your pole, ahem, the one in the P/S section for class compliance enforcement, I wonder what that will do to stock bodywork bikes?
Will they pass? The pole is a little obnoxious but could be helpful if not necessary. I'd like to see a test run on many styles of bikes to
see if it truely does fit the rule and intent for all bikes effected. There are a vast number of bikes that have been running year after
year so getting a good sampling of different styles of proven legal bikes shouldn't be too much of a problem. It might not be a bad
idea but I think it would take some  time to test & develop. What's good about it is that it is what it is and not left open to interpretation.
The fact that some of us are vertically challenged jockeys vs the vertically endowed shouldn't change the way the rule is applied based
on a different vantage point!

Deb

[joea]

whats wrong with the rule ---the manner in which the rule has been enforced---THE SAFETY RECORD---
AND THE THOUSANDS OF RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN SET WITH IT IN THE LAST 40+ YEARS....!!!!!!...?

many new bikes have foot mounting/placement that puts it abit inboard of even frame material above
it as well as bodywork........

what will the proposed standard be...to be able to touch any part of the "footpeg".....or would it need to touch the most medial (inner) portion of the footpeg where it interfaces with the mounting surface..??

so if by centering the pole as noted.....I can engineer the footpeg loction to the rear such that  it would create a chain angle (from vertical) of say 40 degrees.....the chain would essentially fall into  the leg cutouts in the rear streamlined tailsection.......?....if so.....cooool.....might be less safe egression than having more forward mounting.......but what the heck...

Joe