I know this isn't a rule question thread or in a rule question topic, but it is ECTA related so I thought i'd throw a thought in before it gets either out of hand or buried down deep, (not sure the latter would be so bad for now though).
Here is the 2009 modification to the rule you are asking about:
Randy, you are referencing a "modification to a rule", not a "replacement for an entire rule", and you are doing so with an SCTA reference in an ECTA zone.
5. Modify paragraph.
7.G.11 Partial Streamlining:
If a streamlined seat / tail section is used, it can not extend further to the rear than 10" beyond the rear edge of the
rear tire, or 1/3rd of the wheelbase and whichever is less. No part of the seat / tail section may be closer than 4" from
the ground, or over 40" from the ground with the rider seated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
No mention is made about how much of the rear wheel should be seen. If I'm reading this right, the rear tire can now be covered down to 4" from the ground. Which would make something like this legal now...
Not included is the rule in it's entirety, and even the part discussed has no reference to the rear wheel... only to the fact that the tail section components cannot go that close to the ground. And again, let's not forget that (until stated differently), that this is an SCTA reference to a rule change to an SCTA rule.
Doesn't the tire have to be 180 degrees uncovered
Yes it does(currently so at both venues).
The previous rule was 180 on a verticle line for the rear. Replace the wording in the first paragraph of 7.G.11 with what is written in the new modification and the part about the verticle line and wheel coverage is left out. With the new rule, as I read it, the rear wheel can be covered down to 4" from the ground. Even more than what is in the picture above!
If the first part of that paragraph is left in before the start of the sentence "If a streamlined seat / tail section is used," then the 180 verticle rear wheel view is still required. If that's the case, why the 4" from the ground rule?
The latter portion of your interpretation will prove to be correct in my opinion. And although I'm not sure "why" the 4" rule has came to be, I am fairly confident that it will prove to make the owner's of large coverage one piece (read as: Charlie Toy style) bodies on bikes that are slammed to the ground... a little more then perturbed.
I guess we will see when the rule books come out.
That has proven to be the wisest of moves, that and sharing your written and vocal opinion to the powers that be through out the racing season of course.
Todd (that believes any rule changes not related to safety or simply clarifying existing rules, can do no more then give the next years entrants running in that class an unfair advantage or disadvantage).