WF "NEW " Partial Streamlined Rules

[hawkwind]

If I tried a stunt like that at a DLRA meet ,I would be hung ,drawn and quartered , this Mr Evans has committed what on the surface appears to be a grave error in judgement at best , what would posess someone to arbitrarily force contestants to hack up their bikes which were only weeks before ok,  wisdom tells me to hold my tounge untill all the facts come to light ,I personally would have told him to stick it where the sun dont shine and run time only , I will continue to follow this thread with interest

[pdubu]

Isn't this a rule where the proverbial "a picture is worth a thousands words" phase would clarify the words?  Graphics are still open to interpretation, but they do narrow the grey areas quite a bit.  I've noted that almost all of the various rulebooks (SCTA, ECTA, AMA) do not have graphics around this area to aid in interpretation. (FIM kind of does, but not really).

[aswracing]

Seems to me like we need new MFWIC's in the motorcycle department. I mean, between the stoopid leathers rules, the total surprise rule change on aftermarket cases in "M", and now this.

How do we get rid of the people pulling this shit?

[Seldom Seen Slim]

I did lots of various volunteer duties at SpeedWeek, World of Speed, and World Finals this year -- including inspecting motorcycles.  Here are a few comments that came to mind as I read through five pages of this discussion:

I didn't hear about the "usual" motorcycle rules committee meeting at SpeedWeek, and therefore didn't attend...if there was a meeting.  It's been common in the past for said meeting to be announced by a poster at the M/C tech trailer and often also at the Registration trailer.  If there was notice given -- I missed it.  If there was a meeting, maybe the subject of "visible from above" was discussed.

At World Finals this year I heard of the meeting for CAR inspectors, but don't remember that there was a similar meeting for bike inspectors.  If there was such a meeting, I missed it.  If there was such a meeting -- maybe the subject of "visible from above" was discussed.

I was at the bike inspection trailer at World Finals while the SawZall was in operation on Larry Forstall's bike -- about fifty feet from me.  I overheard some comments and some grumbling about required changes -- but didn't ask specifically what those required changes were, so therefore missed the opportunity to have much better information in re: this discussion.  Since my bike runs a Charlie Toy body you can bet your sweet ass I would have looked into the situation in detail if I had known what the heck was going on! 

At about the same time this was going on -- I got assigned to be the radio announcer for the event, and those duties pulled be away from bike inspection.  This change of assignment MAY have caused me to miss an announcement by the motorcycle tech (Tom Evans) pertaining to enforcement of the change in interpretation of the rule we're talking about -- the "visible from above" rule.  In other words, I never heard anything about the required changes -- until I started reading this forum after getting home from WF.

Back to my italicised comment, above -- you can be sure I'm going to dig into the question to see what the heck's going on.

One of you folks sorta implied that I, the English major (I'm really not an English major, but what the hell, I'll pretend for the sake of this discussion) might be able to help interpret the rule -- well, hey, here goes:

The line in rule 7.F.12 that follows the "...from either side and above..." line states that it is forbidden to use any transparent material to avoid the application of these rules.  Let's state that "transparent" includes the magic film that would have to be applied to the rider's body so that the observing inspector could see through the leathers and the blood, bones, and guts, and also that the word "transparent" also includes the use of the inspector's X-ray vision.  Hey -- if the inspector standing above me can't see the back of my calves, ankles, and my heels because the BIKE'S body is in the way, he also can't see them because my leathers and thighs and legs are in the way.  Some very fine and specific language is called for, I think, if the rule will be interpreted to mean fiberglass (or other bike material) but not skin and bones and leathers.

Okay -- somebody else's turn to type.

[panic]

My participation in this as a discussion, as a problem and as an organization is somewhat complex:
1. I am not currently a member
2. I do not have an entry that conforms to current rules, and no plans to do so at present
3. Even if 1. I cannot personally attend meetings (sorry - age, health, you don't want to hear it).
However, I do have keyboard time to spare, and have long experience in older H-D engines (1930-60) as a builder, author, consultant and developer.
It seems to me that if the current rules are long overdue for an overhaul, now is the best time to get as much good factual input as possible.
I can supply, with fairly good accuracy, the casting numbers, pictures, interchange etc. for most engine parts of H-D twins (VL, UL, knucklehead, panhead, 45, WR, K, KH) for Vintage to make it easier to pre-qualify a proposed entry without wasting everyone's time, and catch major errors at tech.
There are knowledgeable people who do not participate now, but who could (if asked nicely) supply the same for vintage Triumphs and BSA.

[Stainless1]

So, how do the Bonneville only BNI participants get any voice in what is decided.  There was a motorcycle meeting in the past until it was decided they didn't need our input, that we would be back anyway. 
Yes we could join a SCTA club in absentia and hope we see any information in time to voice a concern, but that won't solve problems like we had at World Finals. 
Anyone know how many non SCTA BNI members there are? 
Car guys, (I'm one also) we are not immune, although the car inspectors have not had a meltdown like the bikes experience regularly...

Maybe the SCTA is trying to run off the bike guys, maybe there are separate SCTA car and bike organizations....
Maybe the AMA will get their shit together at Bub and we can accommodate the SCTA....
Still looking for answers, EM riders, please let us know how it goes...
Still no information on the new interpretation on the official website for information

[panic]

Dividing separate thoughts into separate posts for clarity:
It appears that the Toy bodywork has already made many records. Regardless of the current problem, this can be cured by "grandfather" language: use of a previously approved piece without alteration to function or position is legal until officially changed. The "previously legal = retro and future legal" list can be as long as you wish. It should contain any identifying marks on the item (dates, copy of purchase receipt, model number), and many photos with super-imposed explanatory language ("arrow shows where rider must be visible").

I would also suggest that the authorities very quickly take official note that requiring bodywork surgery to run may have future legal consequences, and that anyone who entered and was potentially faced with this dilemma should be contacted and asked to sign a waiver (whether they cut or not, entered or not, etc.) and offered some modest incentive to sign (credit against future entry fee?). Anyone who doesn't respond is deemed to have abandoned a claim.

[panic]

JM2¢...

If the "rider visible" basis is to insure a safe exit strategy (not "how much aero does it provide") even this should be examined more closely.
I think it's a dangerous fallacy that a foot/calf/thigh contoured slot in the bodywork exactly parallel to the rider (legal at this point) is either automatically safe, or even preferable to alternate shapes.
I would certainly hate to rely on "finding" that slot in panic mode (no pun intended!) when my leg was no longer bent at the exact angle required for full speed and control access....?
If the bodywork is almost flush with the leg it's not too bad, but what if it's a 4 cylinder and the body is far away - you have a tunnel-vision problem, where the leg not only has to conform to the exact shape but must move laterally at exactly 90° to the wheelbase to find it.
Is there currently a demo done at tech of "we hold up the bike, and you let go and step off to either side without catching anything", as is true with roadsters, etc.? If the rider passes and is still (G_d forbid) injured, they assumed the error themselves. If someone passes now and is injured due to exit entrapment - "he was told that it was safe" will appear in the Summons and Verified Complaint.
Trust me - I have the "lawyer's perspective" for spotting liability issues.

[joea]

Panic, there are so many other bike fairings/tailsections that obscure seeing the riders
heels and calf.......many STOCK bikes have tails that bulge out obscuring this view......

I too like Tom Evans and the other bike tech folks.....I am have so much respect and gratitude for their volunteerism.....they have all done so much for so many for so long.....I am in awe of Toms dedication....

like other systems with valuable entities.....it takes the voice of the members/constituents to ensure the system is how it should be........we owe it to them...........

Joe

edit..yes panic I and others have been checked to do as you  indicated.....many times.......!!!!!!!!!!!(egress the bike)

[bak189]

In 2002 I told Tom Evans (who I consider a good friend) that I had it with all the BNI M/C Tech.
(fairing cutting, engine sealing and measurement, leathers, and at least a halve dozen others) I told Tom I would not be running my equipment at any future BNI events as long as there was a alternative event (BUB).
Yes, BUB also has it's problems in Rules and Tech.
but todate both the BUB people and the AMA has been willing to take input for the racers.
For the 2007 I rewrote the sidecar rules, and except for a few minor changes they were  excepted by both BUB and the AMA.  I still belong to BNI (for 30 years todate) but will not compete at their event until I see some changes in M/C Tech.  It is not that I did not try to to change the present system, in fact for a time I worked as a M/C Tech. inspector to help out.
I find that many of the M/C racers are afraid
to speak out and will do as told........I was told to "shut-up or your off the salt".........so I did an moved to the BUB side of the salt..........Good luck,
to you people trying to make a change......I tryed but got NO support in the past.............................
 

[JackD]

REMARKABLE 

[DahMurf]

JM2¢...

If the "rider visible" basis is to insure a safe exit strategy (not "how much aero does it provide") even this should be examined more closely.
I think it's a dangerous fallacy that a foot/calf/thigh contoured slot in the bodywork exactly parallel to the rider (legal at this point) is either automatically safe, or even preferable to alternate shapes.
I would certainly hate to rely on "finding" that slot in panic mode (no pun intended!) when my leg was no longer bent at the exact angle required for full speed and control access....?
If the bodywork is almost flush with the leg it's not too bad, but what if it's a 4 cylinder and the body is far away - you have a tunnel-vision problem, where the leg not only has to conform to the exact shape but must move laterally at exactly 90° to the wheelbase to find it.
Is there currently a demo done at tech of "we hold up the bike, and you let go and step off to either side without catching anything", as is true with roadsters, etc.? If the rider passes and is still (G_d forbid) injured, they assumed the error themselves. If someone passes now and is injured due to exit entrapment - "he was told that it was safe" will appear in the Summons and Verified Complaint.
Trust me - I have the "lawyer's perspective" for spotting liability issues.

Just to be clear, I'm not a member of any LSR organization other then the ECTA. Some day I'll get to Bonneville, some day I'll be a member. I'm just throwing in my 2cents to try to be helpful and see my racing friends happy & safe.

I quoted the above because from my seat I see this as the route cause of this existing discussion. I don't know all the facts but it seems to me that the egress issue was most likely the driver of the sudden change in enforcement.

My thoughts are that the first thing to be defined is what allows or deters from proper egress. A simple tail section above a leg in its self probably won't cause a problem like the example of the red altered bike shown earlier. The example of SSS's bike, I can see might cause a problem if the foot/leg slides behind the fairing and can't come out at a perfect 90 degree angle. Maybe we need to enhance the fairing and/or the verbiage to not allow pockets behind the fairing where body parts can slide into/behind in a wreck? Metal screens can be installed to allow airflow around the engine but not allow a body part behind the fairing. What other aspects of that fairing could be problematic in a get off. Define it & think about how to overcome that problem. Maybe everyone just needs a slightly wider standard size foot/leg hole to make it easier to dismount. I guess I'm saying, figure out how to make both sides happy. What can you do to that fairing that will still give you nearly the same benefit but not cause entrapment issues?

I know this is a pain for the racers but do any one of you want to be the one that proves them right if it's your leg that gets stuck?

I like the idea of demonstration & it's good to know it's being done. If you can potentially get trapped in/on the bike as you could with a car, why not demonstrate why you won't.

(and before you throw me under the bus, what I wrote above may not be real or accurate in regards to the way the fairing actually fits, I don’t own one so I don’t know first hand. Just read what I wrote as an example & go look at your fairings objectively to look for issues & how to overcome them!)
Deb

[1212FBGS]

OK..OK..OK.. LETS ALL CALM DOWN AND BACK UP.... pretty much all of you guys have met, and have had Tom tech one of your machines... you have to agree that Tom is a likeable and "LEVEL" headed "COMMON SENCE" guy, and a long time “volunteer”.  Tom made his decision to enforce a previously uninforsed. And overlooked rule clause due to “threat of protest”….Tom did this in the racers best interest… thank you Tom… Now this on the spot enforcement luckily only affected 4 entrants on the salt, it could have far reaching affect. I have a greater interest in resolving this problem cuz  I make the “Toy “ tail, I have sold a crap load of them, representing them as “legal” SCTA tails, which they have been. If I have to redesign, retool and replace these sold tails the damages could reach over $30,000. From a laywers prespective Non-enforcement of a known law or rule could give me a good foothold in any court..!…, I stand the most to loose from this spot enforcement....but that’s not the direction I want to go.. I dislike and refuse to give any scumbag lawyer a dime of my hard earned money. Instead we spent the better part of our 11 hour drive home thinking and revising a standard to help the SCTA come up with a solution. And as I said before stop bitchin and offer solutions… that’s what makes this forum different and better than others cuz were willing to help people.. So lets help the SCTA and ourselves… any ideas..?… Any suggestions..?… Jack have you been able to come up with the timeline of the original PS rules..?…. Any one have a rulebook from the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s. Can we look up the original rules and find when they went wrong. Now the SCTA can come back and say sorry and we wont enforce that clause any more but lets help them and correct any gray area like this…. as a motorcycle rules committee member I will draw up diagrams and type up a proposed rule change or rule clarification and present it to Russ, Bob, and Jim by Monday’s deadline…… So stop bitchin and start offering suggestions…
Love ya
Kent

[Seldom Seen Slim]

"The example of SSS's bike, I can see might cause a problem if the foot/leg slides behind the fairing and can't come out at a perfect 90 degree angle."

The rules don't allow there to be any pocket behind the heel of the rider.  The body does come with a pocket into which the heel can fit -- it's an inch and a half, maybe two inches deep.  At Bonneville I've been required to fill that pocket with foam pads (or something else) to prevent my heel from hiding in the pocket.  The "pocket" does extend upwards toward the seat, but since my legs are of the long persuasion -- I haven't been asked to fill in anything other than the heel part of the pocket.

I've often seen an inspector require that a rider put a foam pad (or something similar) on the vertical part of the seat -- to prevent the rider's butt from recessing the half-inch or so that the depression in that vertical wall would allow.

[1212FBGS]

slim i left my glasses at home and couldnt read your suggestion as to the rule clairification that would make you tail legal again..?...
love ya
kent