Poll

Please vote Yea or Nay or New Motion

Yea
21 (77.8%)
Nay
2 (7.4%)
New Motion
4 (14.8%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Author Topic: Partial Streamling rule addition  (Read 17958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Glen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7024
  • SCTA/BNI timer 1983 to 2004, Retired,. Crew on Tur
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2007, 10:10:00 AM »
I think I will build a roadster, at least they work things out before the rule book goes to print.
Glen
Crew on Turbinator II

South West, Utah

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8948
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2007, 10:43:44 AM »
I guess we will see what happens at EM when only the SCTA members are confronted with change.  If the rule is equally applied, the plumb-bob view from above will cause everyone but production bodywork to cut something to comply.  At WF, it seemed not to apply to people whose open tail sections were not surrounding their feet, just blocking the view from above. as in this bike.  The last meet of the year should be very interesting....
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, Bockscar Lakester #1000 with a little N2O

Offline Stainless1

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8948
  • Robert W. P. "Stainless" Steele
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2007, 10:59:25 AM »
Kent,
You are correct, the rule is actually good as written, the application was bad.  I stated that a hundred posts ago on the original post.
Everyone was looking for better words per your request to help clarify the muddied waters. 

What input did the SCTA members have in the leathers rule
What input did the SCTA members have in the M case rule
What input did the SCTA members have in the WF partial streamlining ruling

What input will the SCTA members have in the next rule change or interpretation

I am not an SCTA member, just a BNI member and contestant for the last 30 years or so.  I learned a couple of years ago through this website that you don't need to live in CA to be a member of one of the clubs, that a couple of them tolerate foreign members.
Maybe it is time to join an SCTA club if that gives a contestant a voice. 
Does it give the contestants a voice?
Stainless
Red Hat 228.039, 2001, 65ci, Bockscar Lakester #1000 with a little N2O

Offline Glen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7024
  • SCTA/BNI timer 1983 to 2004, Retired,. Crew on Tur
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2007, 11:43:59 AM »
Stainless is correct that some of the clubs take out of area members. They are known as associate memberships. The Gear Grinders, SDRC and a couple of others offer this. The Gear Grinders send out a monthly news letter and include the Board and Rep notes that reflect the LSR at the lakes (primary) and Bonneville as the season nears. On the www.scta-bni.org is a listing of the lakes clubs and contact imformation. This is a good way to find out what's going on. Assoc. members depending on the club do not have to pull patrols etc. at the lakes due to the distance they would have to travel, however some do and race as well.

Glen
Glen
Crew on Turbinator II

South West, Utah

Offline JackD

  • NOBODY'S FOOL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2007, 11:46:20 AM »
Kent is a member of an SCTA club and is also listed as a member of the tech committee.
In fact, his club has 2 that are listed.
In addition his club has the President and the Secretary also.
In the recent past, the official publication of SCTA listed MC committee members that were either dead or gone.
They all seem to be held outside the inner circle of the MC rulers and therein lies the problem.
The person that put the intent and desires of the participants into print is a lifetime member , having achieved that status through competition outside of the MC sphere of influence that might be perceived.
None of them was ever consulted.
I happen to know exactly how many individual communications were received outside those now gone  gatherings and it was very few, so don't exaggerate that and suggest that it is an unreasonable burden.
With the cancellation of the MC interest meeting for various excuses comes a whole new meaning for the word "DEADLINE."
Isn't that the real problem.
  
"I would rather lose going fast enough to win than win going slow enough to lose."
"That horrible smell is dirty feet being held to the fire"

bak189

  • Guest
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2007, 12:30:06 PM »
I think Kent's "pole" is worth a try-out...................
Kent, regarding your statement about the displacement changes in Moto-Gp by the FIM,
sorry, your wrong,  these changes involved a lot of meetings and communications between the factories and the racing teams.....plus a lot of input from the riders.......I can vouch for this....
plus some of the changes were given as much as 2 years notice........in addition most if not all the changes are first tested on the track........roadrace FIM Tech. is an exact science,
with no deviations or "on the spot" changes......
"been there done that"......Moto-Gp is pro-racing
at the highest level................. with no BS.............
What is needed in our sport of LSR is this type of approach and thinking in rule-making and Tech................................................................................

Offline narider

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • Self Moderating
    • Twin Jugs Racing
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2007, 12:47:56 PM »
Do you really need a tool to enforce a rule such as this? The tool would then eventually be under the "interpretation of use" scrutiny(with nowhere to look back at the "spirit of the tool" once Kent is gone). Will there be training for all techs for this device? Will there be instructions inc ase trained pole user is not present? Would we then need a tool rule? All this for just one part of one rule from one article in one section of just the bike rules at only one venue... where does it end?
My vote would be to keep poles for tether balls, firemen and female dancers so you can get back to the subject(s) at hand.... clarification, interpretation and application.
Todd

Offline ol38y

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • When all else fails, gas it!
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2007, 01:02:57 PM »
Todd, very good interpretation. IMHO, I think a clarification of the interpretation and application needs to be asked of Tom Evans.
Larry Cason
Bakersfield,CA    It's a dry heat!

2010 BUB 1350 M-PG record
2012 Speedweek  1350 A-PG record 169.975
2014 El Mirage Dry Lake  1350 A-PG  172.651

Offline OhioFatboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2007, 01:21:17 PM »
Do you really need a tool to enforce a rule such as this? The tool would then eventually be under the "interpretation of use" scrutiny(with nowhere to look back at the "spirit of the tool" once Kent is gone). Will there be training for all techs for this device? Will there be instructions inc ase trained pole user is not present? Would we then need a tool rule? All this for just one part of one rule from one article in one section of just the bike rules at only one venue... where does it end?
My vote would be to keep poles for tether balls, firemen and female dancers so you can get back to the subject(s) at hand.... clarification, interpretation and application.
Todd

Again another useless comment instead of a useful suggestion

Offline 1212FBGS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2532
    • http://www.motobody.com
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2007, 01:42:30 PM »
Aaron
Obviously feedback from the peasants would help quench the revolution… why don’t you word it in a rule change? And then fly out for the Oct and Nov board meetings?
Don’t like the leather thing..?.. Write up a rule change for that one too…

Joe
My interpretation of rule 1.A. on page 7 of the 07 rule book is “just because it was legal yesterday doesn’t mean it is legal today” My new clarification would be cut and dry as related to BODYWORK if your feet are under the gas tank or under a frame rail it doesn’t pertain to p/s rules as they aren’t bodywork. Come on Joe lets get on the program and help this organization out

My “standard” will obviously measure different on each bike… a bike with a long neck or a lot of rake will move the “center” farther forward and could offer the rear tail more overhang depending on foot peg location…. Likewise a bike with a long swing arm will move the “center” back and might not allow much overhang depending on foot peg location. Take the Bennett’s bike with there foot pegs back almost to the axle… they will still have a problem… I talked to Bob B yesterday and he said after riding Aaron’s Buell at WF he wanted to move his pegs to a comparable riding possision.  I measured up my PP busa, and I could move my foot pegs rearward 11”and still be legal with my “standard” now if I stretched the swing arm on my busa the foot peg location wouldn’t be as much

Deb
Since you have no desire to see my bare ass I feel obligated to tell you so wouldn’t hear it second hand…..  My ass is very hairy.!….. And since it seems that my ass and my ears are the only place I can grow hair, I assure you I am proud to show it to whomever asks. I just trimmed my toenails.... Wanna see?

Todd
My pole will clarify the rule...If erected properly, my tool should stand the test of time…

So come on guys.. ya spend a lot of time bitchen about things now its time to put your desires down on the proper forms and try to help make things better for yourself and fellow competitors…

Love ya’ll
Kent


Offline Glen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7024
  • SCTA/BNI timer 1983 to 2004, Retired,. Crew on Tur
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2007, 02:14:44 PM »
Ya'all read page #1, last paragraph 2007 rule book on the proper and accepted way for rule changes.
Letters, e-mail etc. are not accepted as the proper way and may get to the wrong person. That's why there are forms and procedures.
Glen
Glen
Crew on Turbinator II

South West, Utah

Offline joea

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1555
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2007, 02:48:23 PM »
if the computer has a virus.......everything ya put into it comes out INFECTED...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe

with the tool....some folks would be able to use alot of streamlining behind the legs
and others would not............is that fair...the egress situation is what we are talking bout.....or completely ignoring...........

careful Kent....your quote  "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""..............sounds suspiciously like the very thing that has infected the system...............but I hope I know better than that cuz your a friend of mine who I think alot of..............a fella with ALOT of passion...!!!!

fwiw.....If erected properly, my tool should stand the test of time…to...
« Last Edit: October 13, 2007, 03:51:56 PM by joea »

Offline Sumner

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4078
  • Blanding, Ut..a small dot in the middle of nowhere
    • http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/sumnerindex.html
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2007, 02:55:23 PM »
......................So come on guys.. ya spend a lot of time bitchen about things now its time to put your desires down on the proper forms and try to help make things better for yourself and fellow competitors…

Love ya’ll
Kent

This thread was started as a proposed wording change to take to the motorcycle committee by you since you asked for input that you could take to them.  It has received 77% approval at this point and if we were at a meeting I would consider the motion passed.

Since things are due Monday and it is very improbable that most of the guys/gals affected could do anything by then would you consider at least presenting it along with your pole idea out of respect to the guys/gals that it is effecting and who are in favor of it?

We are not asking for you to approve it just present it.

Thanks,

Sum

Offline JackD

  • NOBODY'S FOOL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2007, 04:17:45 PM »
So how many real problems does this "pole" solve more than it creates ?
With all the other forms of MC events and rules Worldwide, all with similar concerns with rider egress and streamlining in mind is there an example to improve on ?
Would you be surprised if there were none ?

"Comparisons to nonexistent methods, solves nonexistent problems." (me)
"I would rather lose going fast enough to win than win going slow enough to lose."
"That horrible smell is dirty feet being held to the fire"

aswracing

  • Guest
Re: Partial Streamling rule addition
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2007, 10:34:05 PM »
Aaron
Obviously feedback from the peasants would help quench the revolution… why don’t you word it in a rule change? And then fly out for the Oct and Nov board meetings?
Don’t like the leather thing..?.. Write up a rule change for that one too…

You're totally missing the point.

If this was an isolated incident, I'd agree with your approach. Attend meetings, make motions, propose changes, and so forth.

But it's not an isolated incident. There's a very clear PATTERN of serving the racers poorly. It keeps happening.

Not only do they make ridiculous rule changes that cost us thousands, and change interpretations of old rules on a whim, they also don't bring us into the loop at all. Everything they do, we're blindsided. No comment period, no chance to give input, nothing. We just hear about the change after it happens.

It's that PATTERN of serving us poorly that makes me say it's time for a change of personnel.

To propose rules to counter their changes is just treating the symptom. At some point you've got to address the root cause of the problem.

I don't have a problem with representative government per se', but when the people in power aren't representing you, you get someone who does. That's what makes representative government work. It has nothing to do with how much you like them, it has everything to do with the job you're doing and whether they're really representing you. And you may have noticed, good representatives gather input from their constituents. Bringing the people who are actually affected into the loop is essential for good representation. You gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of the rule change or interpretation change you're about to make.

If I personally were on the MC rules committee, EVERY damn change would get discussed here before I made a decision. I wouldn't make everyone happy, but I guarantee you everyone would have input and nobody would get blindsided.

What's wrong with that?
« Last Edit: October 14, 2007, 09:58:44 AM by aswracing »