WF "NEW " Partial Streamlined Rules

[DahMurf]

Just thinking out loud here on how the rear seat/fairing could be fixed. If we can figure out how to make the fairing fit with the new interpretation maybe we can figure out how it should be worded too.

What if you took that tail section as it stands and the part that had to be cut out was made to arch in. Like start from the back forward and start at the straight line that was cut out & then just arch it in to meet the front of the seat. Granted you would loose a little of the areo but hopefully a lot of air would be pushed around by what's in front anyway. If it swoops in you'll see down to the foot better & have more wiggle room & less chance of entrapment.

Thoughts? (come on pick it apart, that's what they call brainstorming!)

Deb

PS: to Kents last statement. If they've already ruled it "illegal" what makes you think you can make it "legal" again with wording change and not fairing change? Ok, what the heck was the original intent of the rule again? 

[JackD]

Yes I have the books that go back to the days of AMA and the subsequent SCTA days.
Egress is the important consideration here and reaction to wind conditions is another.
Within those bounds, streamlining in all classes is one of the most important things you can spend your time on.
For the person that doesn't look past their own program, it is a very hard concept to master.
It is not such a developing science as it is a learning process for the participant.
When we stray from reality with worthless rules , regardless of the subject, it demonstrates a lack of responsibility that in a court challange for example will lose a case for you.
Their is a case of a rider getting seriously hurt while captured with the bike as it crashed.
That resulted in a rule change that did nothing to improve the safety for the rider.
Does anybody remember what it was besides me ?
Just a hint : It had nothing to do with any body panels.
The "All Cow" ruling just another example of an answer to a question that nobody had.
Inconsistency and lack of input from the racer puts the whole program in jeopardy from both a participants viewpoint and potential liability.
You better back up from all that and get back to what works, or you can kiss it goodbye.
As for the MC interest meeting at Speedweek, I missed it too because there was none.
As for a common interest get together schedule, this Saturday is probably the only day left before the deadline that the rulers don't have to observe .
You all better get your ducks in a row, or risk losing the whole program.  
 

[Seldom Seen Slim]

Kent -- you mean that at the shop you don't have a set of the super-duper special X-Ray glasses that you bought off the back page of the comic book -- you know, the ones that let you look through the skirts of the girls in 6th grade?

Probably don't have any from the 3-D movie theater, either.  What kinda specialty business do you run that you don't keep these very important items at hand at all times?

Okay, to reality:  As soon as the dust settles and it's deicded whether or not I've gotta modify the tail section of my bike, and how I have to modify it to meet the rule that may be interpreted differently from how it was last time I ran the bike -- as soon as that happens, let me know where to send the old one for the mods.

[JackD]

SSS
More important to the future of your LSR racing is comment from you on how you think it should be.
Input from the rider is a valuable resource, not only to put forward good ideas that may not have been previously considered, but help to identify things that you might not have considered.

[bak189]

Just a quick observation................there a 3 people
in M/C Tech that make the rules (Russ, Bob, Tom)
I can't believe that Tom would just decide to make this rule change without consulting with
Russ and Bob..........but Tom is getting all the blame............maybe he is just the only one on the
committee with enough BALLS to enforce it.
Also another quick observation..........note that
"Slim" was working in M/C Tech. at the time of the "SAW-All" but was not conserned.......untill he found out it effected HIS Toy-Tail.......this is why in the past I got NO support to change things......
"Hell, it does not effect my bike".........Like Kent, noted from now on only constuctive input and no more bitching.............I WILL now SHUT-UP...O.K.

[1212FBGS]

Deb
Its not a matter of it being "illegal now" as much as an interpolation of a gray rule that deems it "always been illegal" and never enforced. Fixing and altering the existing tails may be the inevitable outcome buy still leaves the gray area in the books... we need to fix that and maybe some of the existing tails like a stock busa and toy tails will remain legal.

Come on Jack we need help here.... lets forget the cow thing and stick to the point please... how are the old AMA and early SCTA rules worded..?.... Can ya give me a proposed wording that may help to clarify things.... please..!...

Slim, running and hiding from this dilemma might make you seldom seen but my super dooper x-ray glasses still find you affected big time... help me solve this problem with your silver tongue and we might not have to fix your tail much….

Bak... dont shut up help us solve the problem.....

Kent

[Seldom Seen Slim]

BAK, I didn't say I was not conserned (nor did I say I was not concerned) at the time of the Saw-all incident, even though I termed it a SawZall incident.  Yes, my actions may make it appear to you that I was not concerned -- I didn't hustle over to see just what the heck was going on -- but since you weren't there to observe me, perhaps you should be a bit more forgiving in your snap judgment of me and my actions.  I'm not sure how you connect my lack of follow-through at that particular instant to you in person -- and that this lack gets you so worked up that your spelling gets all goofed up and that you can make the conclusion that your lack of support in the past follows directly from my failure.

Kent -- as I said, and as I assume you understood, I will look into this.  Give me a couple of days, okay -- I do have a life besides LSR, and having been out of the office for another race event has left me with a few things to do before I can take time to call Russ, call Tom, and see what's up.  Yes, I do plan on finding out if this is to be the new ruling, and if this is something that'll make my bike's tail section require some modifications.  And since you're the guy that supplied me (and others) with the tail -- I would hope that you'd expect to hear from me if there's something that I learn and can present to you -- so you can work on a fix.

[PorkPie]

Thursday afternoon I showed Stainless a may be possible solution on his #278 bike.
If this solution works on other bikes had to be checked.

But at first the rule has to be clarified what it's really means.

What the heck I never understand - words can be interpretade in different views - but a picture which shows how the bike has to look to match to the rules is so easy to create with a photoshop program.

When the SCTA knows what they mean - may be they had a hard time to understand themself - they can show us a picture and than we can see what we can do with the current bike bodies like Seldom Jon and Stainless and all the other rider.

Hope only that the SCTA need to July with this information otherwise every racer in this class has to go to the Speedweek 2008 - which will the 60th anniversary - with the don't know if my bike now match to the rule feeling - I don't like to stand than in the inspection area........

[Sumner]

Just thinking out loud here............................Deb

PS: to Kents last statement. If they've already ruled it "illegal" what makes you think you can make it "legal" again with wording change and not fairing change? Ok, what the heck was the original intent of the rule again? 

Personally with nothing to loose in this debate I think the wording's intent was not meant to result in the actions that took place at World Finals.

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

What it meant was that by using these three views that are available you can see the rider.  It didn't mean by using one only.

It seems the logical solution is to change the wording to keep current records intact and the opportunity to set new ones under the same conditions so that you are comparing new and old records that were set under the same conditions. I offered wording earlier that I thought would accomplish that.

"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

It is very possible that the person that "threatened to protest" might frequent this forum.  If that is the case maybe he/she would like to comment on why this was of concern to them now.  Do they have a bike, a record, plan to run??

c ya,

Sum

[Peter Jack]

As an interested observer I have to say that I would think that the precedent set by interpreting the rule over and over again in the same manner for a period of years over a large number of meets would or should be much stronger than the "threat of a protest" at a single event.

Pete

[John@JE Pistons]

Who was there and who "threatened" to protest?  Was that person even racing a motorcycle or just there shooting pictures for his collection?

J

[joea]

Kent, others........are you not hearing that we HAVE gone forth
with rules change requests etc and offered assistance etc and it
was dealt with in a manner as it has been over the past few years.........
 
resulting in complete obliteration of classes and past records/classifications not being apples to apples anymore ...and rules changes bearing little semblace to the original request......denegrading the credibility of the structure and tradition...............

I DID OFFER A SOLUTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!take the concerns to SCTA folks/leadership........not necessarily through the current bike tech first route....

Kent thanks for being involved in the capacity that you are...

common sense are you kidding me.......... production fairings such
as Aarons.....being cut up to run in a modified class.........come on.....

Joe

[landracing]

Just a quick observation................there a 3 people
in M/C Tech that make the rules (Russ, Bob, Tom)
I can't believe that Tom would just decide to make this rule change without consulting with
Russ and Bob..........but Tom is getting all the blame............maybe he is just the only one on the
committee with enough BALLS to enforce it.

Because Russ and Bob were not there.

Jon

[bak189]

Sorry Jon, I thought the "whole crew" would be there..................you mean to say it was just Tom and Slim?
But I would still think there must have been discussion about the "problem" within the M/C Committee.......then again maybe not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[narider]

Add the words...
"for efficient egress"
to the exisiting wording and move on to one of the other misinterpreted rules.
Before you know it you will find pieces of harmony among all MC riders
Todd