WF "NEW " Partial Streamlined Rules

[JackD]

For many years, a number of STOCK bikes have been produced that do not meet the "NEW" interpretation and "OLD" understanding of the real intent.
 

[Dean Los Angeles]

This has nothing to do with partial streamlining. All of that is in front of the rider.

It has to do with the open class and the seat or tail section rule. That also applies to partial streamlining, but that isn't important.

7.F.11 Open Class #1 states streamlining is forward of the rider. #2 Seat or tail section must conform to partial streamlining rules.

To call the section under, and covered by your body as "visible from above" is absurd. It is over a part of the body, but the rule doesn't state that and can't be interpreted that way. You can't call it for anything related to streamlining, because the rule clearly states that streamlining is in forward of the rider. If you are going to impose the visible from above on the legs, then the upper body has to be amputated.

If the last sentence sounds dumb, so does this rule modification.

The proposed motorcycle rules for 2007 were supposed to be circulated to the clubs in December for review.  After reviewing the rules the clubs then vote, and the vote is carried by the representative to the SCTA meeting and the rules are either implemented or go away. That didn't happen.

There are only two possibilities in this case. If it is a safety issue, it should have been posted on the SCTA web site and the clubs notified the same day the problem was noted. If it was a safety issue, you would think that one of us here would have caught wind of it. "Charlie went down and his foot got caught . . . "

The other possibility is an on-the-fly rule modification. Well Wooo Hooo let's change all of them. If that is the case then it should have waited until the end of the racing season and been submitted to the clubs.

I think anyone subjected to this should protest in writing.

[John Noonan]

I thought prior to the run the job of the inspectors was to make sure bikes/cars are safe and when they return from a record attempt/qualifier that the vehicle is in compliance to the class for which it is entered in?

J

[bak189]

Having to cut fairings has been going on with SCTA/BNI for years now............as I have noted on this forum in the past.......we had to cut up a wind-tunnel tested fairing on our Can-Am back in 2002..........the reason.........."had to be able to see the complete rider from both sides, in the racing position"..............had nothing to do with
safety.............JUST DO IT, OR YOU DON"T RUN!!!!!!!!!!
I asked if I could get my entry dollars back.....no way...............so I cut the fairing but saved the pieces and put them back on the fairing to run the BUB.........................................................................
Now instead of the side....they are looking from above.....what is next???

[JackD]

As a courtesy to the entrant and everybody else, I would encourage the inspectors to do the best they can to conduct a "Class Legal" review in the beginning also.
It is also the responsibility of the officials to police that legality throughout the event.
Does anybody wonder why the class designation is required to be on the vehicle ?
In this case, it is likely the mistake began with another entrant and they brought to the attention of an inspector that furthered the error.
The first thing when writing, enforcing, or reading a rule is to understand the intent and only then can you be expected to apply it correctly and universally.
If a person reads it another way, the intent should should be explained, and if in conflict with the valid intention it should be acted upon asap.
If the the reading is unclear, a pre-scheduled common interest meeting would serve to open the discussion and possibly generate a simpler, and better way to say it.
Without that kind of open communication , the group will suffer at the hands of individuals that go unchallenged.
Everybody has an example of how the rules have evolved into the mess they are today and if it is allowed to continue, the whole thing will continue to lose credibility and fail.
Bigger is not a measure of better, there are many examples of that.
The World is watching and not enough are crying, but many are laughing.
That applies to LSR in general, no matter how you spell it.
If that is what you want, then there you are.

 

[bak189]

O.K....would you believe that the AMA rule makers and enforcers, are going the same way as the SCTA/BNI......at the last BUB Meet, they made several of the racers cut their C-Toy seats, on the bottem where part of the fairing covers the wheel......they want to see no streamlining
below the axcle covering the wheel....front and rear.......However, it should be noted that it is in the rule-book.....but had not been enforced until this year.  It would certainly be nice if all the "rulers" just left us alone.....as long as the bike is safe, let it run.....that is what LSR used to be all about, but it appears this will not be the case in the future. 

[JackD]

Just 2 examples of ruling wizards in action required an entrany to remove stock sidecovers and still run in the Production class., and in another display of irrational authority, wanted to prohibit an oil change between record attempts.
Embarrasment and distain are the well deserved responses from the event observers.
The discussion goes far beyond the little you see here and substantial change is in the near future if it is to survive .

[panic]

Only a single occurrence separates things as they are now from total melt-down (event cancellation, all records void, all funds in escrow, insurance canceled).

What is that?

They haven't "disqualified" an attorney... yet. But they will. Subpoenas for everyone.

You're all familiar with the saying "why isn't there enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it twice?"

They're going to get to do it, again, from a blank sheet of paper.

[JackD]

I think Mr. Panic gets it.
Everybody almost , applauded what the current SCTA administration was able to do in the limited time they have gone so far, but the politricks have caused them to throw their hands up in disgust when we need them the most, and the sport will continue to suffer for it. 

[Stainless1]

Here are the pictures I promised.  I do not have a Toy fairing or a molded seat.

OK that didn't work we will try again
The first 2 pics are as taped back together to run naked, hopefully the aftermath in the next post

[RayKimbro]

<SNIP>
The first thing when writing, enforcing, or reading a rule is to understand the intent and only then can you be expected to apply it correctly and universally.
If a person reads it another way, the intent should should be explained, and if in conflict with the valid intention it should be acted upon asap.
If the the reading is unclear, a pre-scheduled common interest meeting would serve to open the discussion and possibly generate a simpler, and better way to say it.
Without that kind of open communication , the group will suffer at the hands of individuals that go unchallenged.
Everybody has an example of how the rules have evolved into the mess they are today and if it is allowed to continue, the whole thing will continue to lose credibility and fail.

AMEN JACK! - a simple, consistent statement that explains the rationale for and itent of the codification:  In the current PS example: INTENT: To ensure that rider egress is not impaired, .....

For the recent modified/altered rules changes:
INTENT: to ensure that the Modified class represents the "normal" performance bolt-on modifications that one would make to a production motorcycle, while not making the motorcycle unsuitable for use in other than land-speed-racing. (go on to describe parameters for finished motorcycle)
INTENT Altered: Machines that are modified/pupose-built to make them suitable for land speed racing only. (go on to describe parameters for finished motorcycle)

Now - this begs the question: How should our rules be interpreted? Should we interpret compliance as we currently do in the Production classes, where ONLY those modifications that are expressly articulated in the rulebook are allowed, or as we currently interpret mod/alt: where ANY changes not expressly forbidden are permitted as long as the resultant machine doesn't exceed the modification parameters that are articulated in the rules?

I don't have an answer - BUT - understanding the intent of a rule goes a LONG way towards being able to fairly and consistently apply it, as well as increasing acceptance of seemingly arbitrary rule changes amongst the racers themselves.  

[Stainless1]

The last 2 pics, the aftermath and the offending piece

[RayKimbro]

Sorry you had to hack your fairing - this is reminiscent of the "tailpiece discussions" of a few years ago, which resulted in a LOT of behind-the-seat tailpieces getting sawed off @ the track.

[narider]

Thanks for the pics Stainless. So they let you run with the "offending" piece intact as long as you were in an unfaired(naked) class?  If so... I understand the level of aggravation even more then before and agree with Dean that a written protest to the decision should be turned in as soon as possible. I believe anything rear of the rider has always been subject to the same rules whether faired(PS) or unfaired(naked).
Todd

[JackD]

If you begin with and understand the intent when enforcing a rule, a short discussion with entrants that are not as dumb as some would believe, will soon have them in agreement with the position you should already have.
If you listen, you can hear where the soft spots are and it is your responsibility to them to guide the written rules and them towards a more productive result.