WF "NEW " Partial Streamlined Rules

[JackD]

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

Invite the interested parties to a regularly scheduled MC rules discussion and the harmony will follow.

"Closing your eyes does not mean they can't see you ."

[narider]

All parties can't make the discussions.. only those showing up that have their own words is is normally what ends with biased wording. Anyone interested throwing wording out on the table lets those that do show up have access to others thoughts, without the table being cluttered or the room being filled with every individual that happens to have random thoughts(that may or may not make sense).

"Putting on 3-d glasses doesn't give a better perspective to a 2 dimensional problem".
Todd

[1212FBGS]

humm... Todd must have been takin notes at one of Jacks riddle seminars…..
kr

[JackD]

In the harmonious days long past, the Speedweek meetings were surprisingly well attended and quite productive.
They were held at no cost to the SCTA and the mix of biker types was like no other because they were all there for a common good purpose with results to match.  

[narider]

I'm sure they were Jack, but that was a physical past compared to a virtual present(not that they aren't anymore, just probably not as much as they once were). I remember when ABATE meetings were prodcutive also. A centraly located place would be more advantageous imo, but the only place that fits that bill is a place like we're at now.

I just wanted to offer my thoughts mirroring another's that putting the intent in the article may narrow the subjectiveness(IE: for efficient egress).
Todd

[JackD]

Todd gets it and solved it with just a slight application of common sense that is sorely lacking these days.
That is 1 down and hundreds to go.

NEXT ?

[JackD]

I remember when ABATE meetings were .....

ABATE

Angry Bikers Against Totalarian Edicts........?

Or has that changed over the years ?

It would seem that a variation of that has come to LSR.

[Stainless1]

Kent, a little clarification is all it needs, not a rewrite.  Level heads should see the rules intent and application over the last 10 or more years is the way it was originally meant.

"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. You can't see all of me if you are looking from directly above me when I am standing, but you can see all of me if you use both side views and the top view.

How about:
"Using side and top views together it must be possible to see the rider completely except for the hands and forearms" and then the bla bla bla about the transparent stuff.

I always read the rule that way, not that you had to see the entire rider from either side, you cant, the bike is in the way, and above, you cant because the rider is in the way.  The rule never supposed you could see through people to see their feet.

I guess we will see what happens at EM in a week, good luck to those guys, hope y'all don't need your sawsall

[Nortonist 592]

So far 98 replies by those who can see.  But have those replies been seen by those who need to see?

LSR   Lotsa Stupid Rulechanges

[JackD]

The intent of the rule has been the same from the start, it is the understanding that has failed.
You can't see a person from both sides without his bike either, unless you have the sense to go around and look.
There was a nonsensical time when it was required that the hands be seen but the forearms could be out of sight.
That led to hand looking cutouts in the sides of the fairing and the rest of the fairing was left intact to cover the forearms.
One of those cutouts had a shape that featured room for an extended middle finger.
AMA didn't like that much.
Ask me how I know that sometime.
Common sense prevailed and with the real intent in mind being unobstructed egress, the rule was changed to reflect sanity and the hand hole disappeared..
 

[JackD]

So far 98 replies by those who can see.  But have those replies been seen by those who need to see?

LSR   Lotsa Stupid Rulechanges

For the most part, YES.
I would expect copies of this will be sent to a number of parties.

[John Noonan]

Scott Guthrie,

I fully respect your many personal accomplishments, I also find you to be very talented and a great ambassador for land speed racing (even though you may dislike me and disrespect me) however you seem to keep throwing out riddles and unanswered questions (sounds like Jack D ) what are your thoughts with the way rules read versus those that read them?

Scott, Please understand I am serious and I really want your opinion as you have been racing much longer than myself and many others here.

Thank you,

John

[Sumner]

This forum is a great place for us to air our opinions, but we aren't getting very far coming to any kind of conclusion that Kent can take to the motorcycle committee.  If this was a meeting the discussion would end at some point with either Stainless or Kent asking if there is a motion and then if the motion was seconded it would be voted on.

I'll start the process and make a motion here:

http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,3061.0.html

c ya,

Sum

[Seldom Seen Slim]

Let's see if I can remember all of the M/C inspectors that were at the inspection trailer at WF:

Doug Robinson, Tom Evans, me, Van Butler, Cathy Butler (who mostly did leathers and other safety garb, along with my wife now and then), I think I saw Drew Pietsch, and the other fella that used to inspect, hasn't for a year or three, but was hard at work again (but I can't remember his name).  There may have been others, too.  Russ O'Daly and Bob Moreland were not there.

[bigtex526]

could yall tell me which rule book you are referring to and where i could find it?  i was looking at the one on the BUB website and didnt see anything about being able to see the rider from above.  is this not the proper set of rules?