WF "NEW " Partial Streamlined Rules

[Stainless1]

How many people were affected and had to chop their old fairings for the World Finals NEW interpretation of the partial streamlining rules?     

For those that don't know, Tom Evans has a new interpretation of PS rule for "see the entire rider from the side and above" to mean he developed x-ray vision and should be able to see your feet through your body unless the fairing obstructs his view.  Multiple people working on their own records, with the same bike were told their fairings were now illegal for the class.  All Toy type fairings are illegal, all integrated seat and tail section fairings are illegal.  Any fairing that blocks the "plumb line above view" of any part of the footpeg or possible foot placement area is now illegal.   

Ya gotta love the consistency of the inconsistency with the SCTA motorcycle guys, NEW DAY, NEW RULES...   

I guess next year we will all have to ride foot forward cruiser style, with 1 hand in the air, whatever the SCTA wants, just give us a little more warning on the new rules before the last event of the year!!!

[JackD]

When you are allowed to make up stuff as the wind blows and the rules are written accordingly, the record for both the performance of the entrant and the ruling wizards is flaky.
How was it allowed to go wrong, from the standpoint of either the rulers or the victims ?
How did it go at the annual MC rules discussion that is hosted by SCTA where things like that can be aired and explained or changed ?
Only a few are not afraid to make waves, and the rest just sink with the tide.
It gets worse every day, but I said that before right ?

[narider]

Sorry to hear this went this way for you  Bob. I don't have the current rules for SCTA or ECTA here in front of me right now but will share my thoughts on the coinciding ECTA rule.

Partially Streamlining is written and(for all intended purposes) interpreted as "objects forward of the rider". We defined forward of the rider as anything forward of the profile of the rider in the piloted position(although there is more in the paragraph that would omit the above or that the above would omit... depending on how it's applied - though there always is it seems).

With the above description in mind(and a body in full tuck on a normal sit on motorcycle such as yours), then bodywork on top of the thigh(which would be in front of the rider) would be illegal(which you have none I'm sure), where-as bodywork on top of the calf(which would be in rear of the rider and how the C-Toy bodywork is made) has always been legal... especially when it comes to deciding whether it's a partially streamlined or unfaired bike or item that's being discussed.
 
This is per our written rule and not the exact interpretation per the ECTA(which we have rules that have been read totally different  then worded... and exactly as worded).

As far as the "the rider being seen from above and both sides", well there's a lot of bikes that can be deemed illegal because of the way their ridden more then the way their built.

Just my initial thoughts, along with the fact that those from here on out are not able to do what others have done before them. At least this isn't a rule change(like the modified oem case rule), but rather an interpretation change or enforcement.

Not having the rules scrutinized in relation to their past, and instead having only the vehicles scrutinized will always put the one reading the rule and doing the scrutinizing as the holder and ruler of the "spirtit of the rule".
 
I know exactly what both you and Tom mean in your justifications and am looking forward to others comments.
And I seperated my above comments to aid those that would like to pick it apart,
Todd
PS: I would really like to see a pic of your final authorized repair if you don't mind mailing it to me?

[PorkPie]

I saw the result of this "cut" on Stainless bike and I said directly, that this bike would be now very dangerous to ride due to a bad turbulence around the rear wheel and the rear wheel would show a very weak handling.
The return run on Thursday afternoon with the "correct modified" rear end showed at last what I thought before......and Stainless son shut down the attempt.

Since when rules are allowed which are against the safety of record racing?

And why was they original rules interpretation good to the Thursday...during the whole August and September meet.......if they like to use a other interpretation than they could say from the 1. January 2008 this rule would count - but the race team got than time to do the necessary modifications over the winter time and can find a solution to match the new interpretation.

But so it was done it was extremely dangerous for the rider.....

At last who was the "activator" which cause this interpretition change?

[narider]

I'm guessing the red in this pic of JW's is the effected area?

No Jon, we're not taking your shirt back 
Todd

[PorkPie]

Correct, this is the aera we talking.

[Larry Forstall]

Yes that is the area. Had to cut the Guppy and I know it hurt the aero. Didn't like it, set a record, still don't like it. At least there was consistency that we all had to cut. lol. Tom admitted that many records have been set with the old interpretation. Wonder why the change? Other than hacking the bike  all the inspectors were cordial and the certification process was the fastest,smoothest ever.   Larry

[DahMurf]

I don't understand. What part is sticking behind that piece? (oh I see this thread taking a turn for the worse  )

If nothing is behind it, then what's the rationale? I don't get it.
Deb

[narider]

Larry,
Consistency with all entrants(at least the ones at the meet anyway) certainly has it's merits, thanks for clarifying that.

Deb,
In a downward view, the marked area is being deemed a shield to the visibility of the heel and calf area of the legs(although if the legs were tucked up tight against the butt cheeks and the same fiberglass panels were below them it would be ok).

I think that any decisions/changes to the rules that aren't specifically safety related should get a 30 day or next meet bi at least... that's what we try to do out here anyway(heck, I've even seen some safety issues get bi's depending on their severity).

There is the likely possibiility that this was brought to light via another racer.... and with so many running this type of body it might not of been feasible for a formal protest and was instead deemed an on the spot rule clarification change, which again might have been better done after the meet--- hmmm, tough call!

I don't envy any of the parties involved that's for sure, but further discussion before having these parts put to an impromptu hacking might have been of value.
Todd

[John@JE Pistons]

So if my Altered bike has foot pegs mounted within 6" of the rear axle and when seated on the bike and the OEM tail section were to slightly cover part of my foot from viewing directly above I would have to "scallop" the tail section to meet this "rule"?

Please confirm, better yet I would recommend that this not turn in to a b**** session and we should send all of our concerns and inquiries to the SCTA techs in charge.

We should however post this information so if this "rule" is to be enforced all of the racers can modify their bikes in time for the next meet, I can think of 50 bikes this would affect and it seems weird that a bike that has set 20 or so records in the last 8 years now has to be "modded" to comply when it just set records this year and was inspected by the same people and now the bike will not fit in the Partial streamlined classes..?

Thanks for the information...

[narider]

I can think of 50 bikes this would affect and it seems weird that a bike that has set 20 or so records in the last 8 years now has to be "modded" to comply when it just set records this year and was inspected by the same people and now the bike will not fit in the Partial streamlined classes..?

Not fitting in the PS classes alone would not be so bad John, but this makes those bikes not fit in ANY class with out further modifications(or altercations as the case may be?).
Todd

[DahMurf]

Thanks for the clarification, I guess I was too short to see it on my own! 

Wow, now we're going to need a ladder in tech.   

JN, good point on the stock tail over the pegs question. At ECTA we have a rule in place about stock components with which I would use to argue the point of legality but I don't know if SCTA has the same. Not saying I'd win, but I'd try!

We try real hard to be fair at the ECTA but racers are always scrutinizing the not so well written rules so we're often put on the spot to further clarify and sometimes change the way we've been enforcing rules. We don't have any solid blanket statements on re-clarifications. While ECTA is more inclined to give the 30 day bi, we have so many different and new techs without a formal training program or common understanding of the rules that things are changing from day to day and meet to meet. So what can I say, we try to do better but I'm not sure that we do! At least I haven't been witness to a mass hack-a-thon. That's a shame.

[JackD]

The spot ruling is a "knee jerk" reaction to a procedure that is not even related to the cutouts for the legs, but based on the ability of a rider to shed the bike in the event of an upset.
The "from above" was related to the rider going through tech with his body in view and then moving to a position that put the body behind and under some paneling when the rider changed position while underway.
That is something that Evans should be familiar with from an episode over 30 years ago when he was cautioned for putting his arms behind the side panels of the front fairing while riding.
Riders get hurt when they fall off for sure, if they are captive with an open bike it is worse.
The now dead annual MC meetings might have solidified that rule and others a long time go, but without that input, the program suffers a predictable fate.
Continue as you have and you can kiss it goodbye.
More attention should go towards real rider safety like folding foot pegs that won't capture loose fitting clothing than the idiocy of the "All Cow" rule .
GOOD LUCK

[narider]

Thanks Jack, we need more of these history lessons of original intent(cause and effect) to be openly shared. As years go on we start loosing more of the meanings and the ability to study and document them because of governing bodies that don't want to study and discuss them in a dedicated manner.

The east coast mc committee was doing just that on a very regular basis for sometime and heading in a direction of getting alot of past and present intent compiled into actual(and searchable) definitions and understandable clarifications(SG brought up people like yourself and many others in these discussions often as you are the ones with some of the missing pieces and open enough to share them).

The problem is that the work has to have a value when it's all done for anyone to put time into it, and even then there are less of those willing then many would imagine(even those that imagine themselves being the willing ones).

Ok, getting off base now....

Egress is probably one of the most important subjects to come up in a safety discussion, it's funny how it can sometimes be used on the rules easier then on the vehicles.
Todd

[Stainless1]

So if my Altered bike has foot pegs mounted within 6" of the rear axle and when seated on the bike and the OEM tail section were to slightly cover part of my foot from viewing directly above I would have to "scallop" the tail section to meet this "rule"?

Please confirm, better yet I would recommend that this not turn in to a b**** session and we should send all of our concerns and inquiries to the SCTA techs in charge.

We should however post this information so if this "rule" is to be enforced all of the racers can modify their bikes in time for the next meet, I can think of 50 bikes this would affect and it seems weird that a bike that has set 20 or so records in the last 8 years now has to be "modded" to comply when it just set records this year and was inspected by the same people and now the bike will not fit in the Partial streamlined classes..?

Thanks for the information...

Jonn, I checked the SCTA website for information pertaining to this ruling, since it is the only place you can get official information.  Guess what, no info.  My guess is that almost every record set in the last 10 years in PS is illegal according to Tom's new ruling.  I guess we will see how it is applied at the Oct EM meet. 
He said if he takes a plumb bob at any point above any part of the rider it should not hit the fairing, and even if the riders butt or body was there, it should be able to pass through and still not hit fairing before it hit the lower extremities.  So you make the call on what you need to do.

Yes Larry, Tom seemed to apply it to all bikes, Just not at the initial inspection.  I learned if the change the second time I was in impound, when I asked if he wanted to see our gas seal.  I will post pictures tomorrow.