WF "NEW " Partial Streamlined Rules

[1212FBGS]

deb
thats what were tryin to do.... any imput? I will submit any rule changes or clarification by the deadline and plan to introduce in person, my/our ideas to as many board members as i can gather up at elmo and then to the board meating on friday the 26th..... any ideas on the wording.....
kent

[JackD]

The ideal situation would be for the ECTA to gather their bike forces and with that, work towards having the same rules.
With suitable permission, Deb might do an e-mail to their bike interest people and stir up some interest.
It is already being done across the pond, and my time with them reciently seems to have been well spent.
All of their locations will be like Maxton and Texas and they would really like to have direct comparisons and standards. 

[DahMurf]

ok, I need to take a step back if I'm going to try to help. Are we trying to fix/reword/rewrite an existing rule or are we trying to make a new one? If we're trying to fix an existing one can someone quote the exact text so we're all working from and with the same starting point? Also what we know about intent, if there's anything more then what's already been said. I'm good at nit picking (I'm a wife, what did you expect) so if someone throws something up I'm happy to add my 2 cents.

As for Maxton, I've been a thorn in KT's side all year on this. Our MC rules need fixed & reworded. It was being done under the old administration. The new administration wants to closer mirror SCTA, which is cool. So every time it comes up I keep asking why we don't just dump our MC rules with the exception of a couple Maxton specific safety rules & be done with it. (Maxton specific like front brake required at higher speeds - over 175 I think, less coverage on wheels due to cross winds & limited space to go left/right and a few other little things). Personally I don't care which way we go I would just like to see continued improvement. The entrants can't figure out the rules and the techs continually disagree on interpretation & intent and the rules contradict themselves. It's aggravating and personally I think it should be fixed one way or another!

Deb

[Stainless1]

Whatever you guys choose to do, just remember that rule changes are supposed to be submitted in writing no later than October 15, which is next Monday. (I have attached the rule change form in word format)

Also, you should bring this up at the next board/reps meeting (October 26th). Contact a board member to get it added to the agenda. Three of the twelve current SCTA Board members are M/C guys (Bob Moreland, Tom Evans and Russ O'Daly) so you should be able to find some support there.

BStar, the problem started with Tom Evans re-interpreting the rule.  If you read that "It must be possible to see the rider completely from either side and above except for the hands and forearms" to mean using those 3 views together to see the rider, then you have the intent of the rule and how it has been applied for a lot of years. 
However Tom's new interpretation read it to mean that if you can see through a persons body you must be able to see the rider from each of those views without obstruction from any part of the fairing or tail section.  My X-ray vision stopped working when I got interested in girls, so I can't figure out how to do it.
Slim, you are the English major, how do you write it?  I think it is already written right unless you want to change the either to both and add a parenthesis or two.
Now -- "It must be possible to see the rider completely from either side and above except for the hands and forearms"
Or -- "It must be possible to see the rider completely (from both sides and above) except for the hands and forearms"
Or -- "It must be possible to see the rider completely except for the hands and forearms using a panoramic view from both sides and above"

I think it is already written correctly, just being applied wrong

[John Noonan]

Great info.

I have a couple of questions...1. Who is Blackstar?        and who brought Tom in to this mess?  I do not think Tom would just start making racers cut their existing record setting bodywork...I would like to give Tom the benefit of doubt and ask him to tell the racers that this "rule" effects and the many followers of this site that this has no effect on like Jack, Panic, Dean, Sock etc..not said to start anything just to mention that the racers this effects should have more of an idea of how this rule came to be or it's enforcement.  When you are running 50-250+ on an open bike you want to know what the thought was when bodywork was being cut/modified in the pits and inspection.

Scott Guthrie...where are you on this as it would effect Jason and his future records..?

J

[Stainless1]

Great info.

I have a couple of questions...1. Who is Blackstar?        and who brought Tom in to this mess?  I do not think Tom would just start making racers cut their existing record setting bodywork...I would like to give Tom the benefit of doubt and ask him to tell the racers that this "rule" effects and the many followers of this site that this has no effect on like Jack, Panic, Dean, Sock etc..not said to start anything just to mention that the racers this effects should have more of an idea of how this rule came to be or it's enforcement.  When you are running 50-250+ on an open bike you want to know what the thought was when bodywork was being cut/modified in the pits and inspection.

Scott Guthrie...where are you on this as it would effect Jason and his future records..?

J

John, I can answer question 2, Tom Evans brought Tom into this mess, Ask Kent before you give Tom too much benefit of doubt.  Ask Tom what he was thinking when you see him at EM and let the rest of us know.  The reinterpretation came from Tom, and he told racers to cut their Speedweek Record Setting Fairings.  Check it out and get back to us because we all want to know.

[JackD]

With 3 current bike records at EM that are all illegal by virtue of this bad decision and over 30 years in the sport at all levels, I think I have considerable present and continued interest.
The discrepancies in the records alone diminish a number of worthy competitors and their efforts for reasons that need to be explained.
How many more examples of past and current failures does it take before the entrants get tired of it ?

[Sumner]

...................."It must be possible to see the rider completely from either side and above except for the hands and forearms" ..................

"It must be possible to see the left side of the rider from the left side and the right side of the rider from the right side and the top of the riders head and back from above except for the hands and forearms"

Sum

[John Noonan]

With 3 current bike records at EM that are all illegal by virtue of this bad decision and over 30 years in the sport at all levels, I think I have considerable present and continued interest.
The discrepancies in the records alone diminish a number of worthy competitors and their efforts for reasons that need to be explained.
How many more examples of past and current failures does it take before the entrants get tired of it ?

Jack,

Please list the three records you mention by rider and or number..

J

[joea]

edit...4 new responses while I was typing....letting it go anyway ...

John, Tom Evans was the one who shit the "new" interpretation..... and the "new" enforcement......

Tom inspected "many" of these SAME bikes only days/weeks before and they were perfectly certified as SCTA approved..........and set records as many of these bikes have FOR years and even DECADES.....some of whom have been gleaming examples in the Bonneville rule book.......many SCTA tech inspectors have run rear streamlining that TOM now deemed as Illegal................

and furthermore there was just stupid goofy crap like a bike that made it through tech qualifies and is in impound........the rider asks to get gas seal broken and Tom informs them that the bike is illegal and has them cut the rear tail section up......before making the return run..............so its ok if it qualified illegal....!!!!!

please folks share your experiences.............theres a difference in complaining and letting things go that effect so many others in potentially such an important way........

please take your concerns and suggestions to the SCTA leadership......NOT the current motorcycle leadership..........many SCTA folks/leadership guys are feeling our pain and in many instances embarrassed by what has evolved.........the SCTA is a racing organization........NOT a separate bike and car organization.......


the changes are voted on by SCTA board members and the car guys that are involved need our input so as to be INFORMED AS WE NEED THEM TO BE.....what they get now is often quite FILTERED and thats not always good...................

tail sections for the last 60 years of tradition and records have obscured a view of a riders heel as the crow flys.......including stock bikes..........how ludicrous are we going to let things get.........

let me rephrase abit......you/we can continue to go about things as they have been and likely enjoy similar results...........

Joe

[JackD]

As listed in the SCTA rule book and mentioned here before, 2 of the records were riden on My bike by Jason Kott, but not before his mother wrote a nastygram when they tried to blow him off.
The third was riden by Mike Cox,on the test bike, who switched off with me in the days when we got 4 runs as a minimum in a full day of EM racing.
I switched to cars when the SCTA bike program needed an indepentant eye and the VP of FIM asked me to officiate at their US endurance and LSR record events.

[JackD]

It looks to me like JOEA was reading from my notes and can type faster.   
Real racers from all over, have a similar point of view.
Some of them express in different than others , but they are not dumb .
 Joe must be mad.
One has to wonder where the new thoughts came from, and some already know. 
I understand and agree.

[landracing]

Well this whole instance of "New Interpretation" of a rule just lost my total interest in riding an open wheeled bike at Bonneville.

Im sorry I like Tom personally, (doesnt mean I have agree with him) but his new interpretation is complete BULLSHIT.

many people had to hack away at a fairing that just set records this year.

It was a knee jerk reaction from what i understand a comment by a NON participant, NON BNI member, NON motorcycle racer about the rule. For feakin sake it was the last meet of the year, just two weeks before this unethical ruling, bikes set records. Now Tom wants us to see thru the rider with xray vision.

My understanding is there should have been a "BOARD RULING" on the salt with all Board members when you make some new interpretation of a rule like that..

The rider from above is butt to helmet.

the only thing that lacks in the siton rules is INNOVATION.

Im just so sick of hearing "that's not the intent of the rule", "thats not in spirit of the rule"

If it has such credibility then remove ALL the records in the book and start from Scratch. the toy body work is perfect example. How many people have been running it? Lots is the answer, and plenty of records set with it too and the wording in the rule book has been the same for many years.

AND, NOT only that ruling on the rider, but entrants had to cut away and hack body work before tech forms were signed. However they let this bike thru tech which is just so obvious illegal on tail section.

http://www.landracing.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=153&pos=29

And there is alot of Bike vs Car. Procedures dont apply equally from both side. I thought SCTA was a organization. Not SCTA Bike or SCTA Car.

Jon who lost total interest in running an open bike at bonneville, time I started on the unlimited in innovation type

[landracing]

Another problem is that when the rules meeting come before the board. I understand that a meeting will spend 1-2 hours on a roadster rules, but when it comes to the bike rules people are tired, it's late and they just go with what is advised from the committee. That because most of the people who finally do the voting are car people and not bike people and either dont care or dont know any better. So the real answer is, inform the car people who are voting on the rules changes. PROBLEM with that however is we dont know what to inform the car guys better on because we dont know the what the motorcycle guys are bringing to the board for approval.

Jon

[JackD]

As reciently as last year for the MC rules that were sorta presented to the SCTA board, were not only not appropriatly previewed, but not presented as scheduled, and the multitude of errors actually got worse.
Just the errors with reclassification of long time existing bikes left over a 100 mistakes that have seen no effort to resolve.
Now the "HACk JOB" ruling has found a new low.