Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: Sumner on October 12, 2007, 09:51:15 AM
-
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.
-
If it is legal, I'll second that...oh and I did...
-
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.
-
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
-
.................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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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,
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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"...........................................................
-
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?
-
.................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
-
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.
-
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
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/narider/Misc/thumb.gif)(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/narider/Misc/thumb.gif)(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/narider/Misc/thumb.gif)
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
-
.................................. 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
-
12 votes, does not a motion move very far
-
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"
-
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.
-
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
-
You've said it all Kent! Good job!
Pete
-
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?
-
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.
-
(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
-
Kent,
I read chapter 2 of your mini series above :-D
First let me say I have no desire to see your bare ass running down the salt! :-P
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
-
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
-
I think I will build a roadster, at least they work things out before the rule book goes to print.
-
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....
-
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 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
-
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 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................................................................................
-
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
-
Todd, very good interpretation. IMHO, I think a clarification of the interpretation and application needs to be asked of Tom Evans.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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...
-
......................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
-
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)
-
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?
-
Aaron, the SCTA is a dictatorship, not a representative government, if you are a BNI member. If we want to play with their ball, they get to make the rules. After they say jump, they expect us to be in the air before we ask how high?
Our options are limited as it is the only game in town....
I'm considering joining one of the clubs... maybe we all should if we can find one that will have out of So Cal rabble like us...
-
Aaron, the SCTA is a dictatorship, not a representative government, if you are a BNI member. If we want to play with their ball, they get to make the rules. After they say jump, they expect us to be in the air before we ask how high?
Our options are limited as it is the only game in town....
I'm considering joining one of the clubs... maybe we all should if we can find one that will have out of So Cal rabble like us...
SDRC... :-D
-
SDRC
WMBCSBWE :-D
The meeting requirement for SDRC membership and full SCTA membership is defined as attendance at membership meeting or race events.
You must be sponsored by another member also.
If you do not race or are outside the area of So Cal, you are exempt from the annual duty drawing.
As is the case for a number of new members over the years, we want you where we can watch you. :wink:
-
Aaron, the SCTA is a dictatorship, not a representative government, if you are a BNI member. If we want to play with their ball, they get to make the rules. After they say jump, they expect us to be in the air before we ask how high?
Our options are limited as it is the only game in town....
I'm considering joining one of the clubs... maybe we all should if we can find one that will have out of So Cal rabble like us...
I guess I look at it a different way. Being a BNI member allows you to race at Bonneville Speedweek or World Finals. No different than buying a Costco membership which allows you to shop in their store. At Costco you have no say in what mark up they have. You only have the right to shop there. Same goes for BNI membership, in that it allows you to race at Bonneville.
Now if you want a say in things you must be an SCTA member. But then you might not get the say you would think. Each club has an certain number of reps that can vote at monthly SCTA meetings based on membership. Small clubs get one rep vote medium clubs get 2 rep votes and large clubs get 3 rep votes. It is all based on SCTA membership. Make sure you join a SCTA club that has some kind of communication with out of state members.
Good luck,
Tom G.
-
well that would be us, SDRC.... we do
kent
-
SDRC. The Swift Direct Response Club? As opposed to the SCTA? Slow Communications Try Again ? Sounds like a good club to me.
-
SDRC- i live in ohio!
-
SDRC- i live in ohio!
Yes, but as you are related to Kent, we proably don't want you any closer. :wink:
-
SDRC- i live in ohio!
Believe it or not there already is at least one SCTA member that lives in OHIO.
Tom G.
-
theres another member in ohio besides me
-
SDRC- i live in ohio!
Yes, but as you are related to Kent, we proably don't want you any closer. :wink:
Touche jack :-D
-
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
Fatboy,
:? Ohio intelligence never ceases to amaze me... you should look for some while you're up there. It's not that rare at all, many people from there have it and it may even help you identify the useful suggestion in the above paragraph as well as those made before it. Shame my useless comments aren't as beneficial as the ones you've made in this thread, I'll keep trying though just to prove to you I'm smart enough to be FROM Ohio. :roll:
Kent,
someone will ALWAYS get blindsided.. but you are right, there's absolutley nothing wrong with trying something as long as the worst benefit outweighs doing nothing.
Todd
-
Would a P fairing not meeting the inspector's new criteria have to be carved up, thereby disqualifying it from P?
-
Would a P fairing not meeting the inspector's new criteria have to be carved up, thereby disqualifying it from P?
Thinking it thru is tough unless you are not subject to be influenced so easily and spend the necessary time to do it right.
The real objective must be really clear or you run the risk of a bad decision.
It looks like the real objective and results of the decision are yet to be seen.
-
kh
a "p" fairing in"PP" class is legal no matter of the deminitions... but put it on a "MPS" or a "APS" and ya might have to hack it up... were working on that right now... i think the m/c board has a desire to claen things up...
kent
-
Is this "hack the fairing" decision by the same folks behind the "all cow all the time" rule (while road racers go 200 mph all year round with fabric inserts) and the OEM engine requirement in MPS that mysteriously protects a few softish records of large and un-aerodynamic riders? Does the rules committee enjoy all the feedback?
-
Current MC tech policy seems to be "If I close my eyes, you can't see me."
-
What's the process for changing the people that are on the MC Rules committee? Is there a vote or something? Or are they appointed?
-
Anointed?
-
OK everyone, only a couple of days until we find out if there is a different interpretation at EM, whether it be old one, new one or another one.
Hopefully the SCTA will sooner or later post something on the OFFICIAL website. I will be interested in seeing if the bikes from past EM pictures are butchered in the new pictures or allowed to run in the newly illegal configuration...
-
"Hopefully the SCTA will sooner or later post something on the OFFICIAL website."
I'll bet later. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay later.