look at the pic ,circled is what I'm interested in , on an open bike ( non streamlined) the rules state no streamlining forward of the rider , question would a water tank in this position be considered streamlining ,if it was shaped similar or even a cube ? what say ye
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/hawkwind/launch.jpg)
Gary
If it controls or directs air forward of the rider it has been defined as streamlining in LSR.
It is known as a "chin tank" or a "chin fairing". :wink:
Well Jack it appears that an entrant in the 05 speed week managed to get through tech,
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/hawkwind/IMG_1649.jpg)
cheers
Hawk, Techs job is not to interpet what is legal or not. Their job is to check for proper following of construction rules, safety equipment for the vehicle, driver, and push vehicle. When you get to impound is where the fine toothed comb comes out.................
bob
you would be correct if your statement was for any other race organization, but not the SCTA. In the SCTA you are SOMETIMES scrutinized to the legality of class entered right from the start... I have had a couple of arguments with mostly the bike tech guys, any even withdrew my 750mps bike from speed week 03 because of it. It was an ugly, ugly scene right in front of the magazine editor (Peter Jones) who was to race the bike ( he did not have a kind opinion of SCTA tech procedures in his article). The worst part of it was that there was 3 other bikes that were teched and currently racing that event including wink (one of the event tech guys) and Jasons bike was in impound not 30 feet away with the same tail on it!!!! Legality is truely with the eye of the tech guy... It is a well known problem and Latten is trying to fix it right now, i believe we will. My advise.. get your stuff legal to the book and race it at one event before b'vill so you can fix any problems before you go to the salt... Shoot that reminds me of another story about my 'liner's fire nozzles
To answer your question if you put a devise in front of the rider, that has a definate purpose, then it will be legal. But if you make a round edge or make it into a wedge as an attempt to get better air flow around it, they'll bust ya. if you mount a conputer, that would normally fit under the tail, up on the front fairing bracket and then angle it rearward, then yes they will bust ya. The tech guys arn't stupid.
kent
Quote from: hawkwind on May 25, 2007, 04:22:55 AM
Well Jack it appears that an entrant in the 05 speed week managed to get through tech,
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v228/hawkwind/IMG_1649.jpg)
cheers
Good example from both of you.
As you can expect, i am glad you guys brought it up.
I always felt the lack of advice from the tech people with respect to the class legality of the entry was a disservice to the entrant and everybody else.
I am the one that suggested the requirement for the class designation be clearly shown with the entry number to reduce the problems that sometimes come as a surprise when it is too late.
I do not delight in catching a person in a mistake or allowing a cheater.
I hate that as a competitor and official.
The MC tech has deteriorated to the point where a stock ignition cover on a Vincent was determined to be "streamlining" and required to be removed to the lack of equal enforcement for selected others and all under the eyes of the same wizard.
The word I am looking for is the French spelling that sounds like "Click".
It is certainly all foreign to me and looks more like the end every day, kinda like the end you see on a bent over plumber.
Was I too harsh ? :roll:
DISCLAIMER
I am not responsible for Kent's opinions that he has formed with his own experience, I just took him to his first event (84) and hopefully pointed him in the right direction.
It seems he has gathered some valuable experience and is not afraid to act on it.
I guess that is all I can ask.
Jack :wink:
Have also heard it refered to as a spoiler(possibly in regards to what it does to an open class entrants feelings if a record is made?).
And for those rules that have a definition that includes the word "appearant"... then it relies on "WHO" it is appearant to!?
As shown below(per the lower air damn, battery box, oil tank, etc. and the M/PG-2000 class entered), it appears as it has still gone unquestioned for two meets at ECTA now. Possibly due to the fact that it was 20mph below it's entered class' pre-meet record(and is now 33mph below it's class record), or possibly because of the latest ruling proccess on another bike in that organization?
One thing is for certain... it will not be me that misinterprets the rulebook(be it the "written word" or the "intended word", whichever is decided to go by on something like this), or the person making the decision's thought process, or the influence ability of the organizations largest lobbyists.
(http://www.ecta-lsr.com/Gallery/albums/uploads/2007/May2007/DSC00512.jpg)
Now that I look... it's base class had a pre-meet record of 5mph slower then the class entered, and there are actually records it is legal for that were obtainable at it's present speed. With that knowledge I wish that I(or others that commented on it) had taken time to mention it to the owner so he could of legally scored a record run. But then(thinking it through a step further), if "the damn" is deemed a functional item and not an aerodynamic item, then the entrant could be protested for running an open bike in a partially streamlined class!
There are some gun shy members(myself included) after seeing the results and proposed future from the last classification issue presented to management.
Todd
Keep the rule wording simple to understand and it will be easier to correctly identify and enforce.
When in discussion with an entrant, make sure they understand the written rule and be prepared to give them enough valid reasons for it so they reach the conclusion you already have.
Their understanding also contributes to the possible revisions that should include all the parties involved.
Treat everybody as adults, fairly, equally, and you will find they will support the effort, even if some detail doesn't agree with their idea.
Fail that and you will get your neck stepped on.
I saw a repeat of a quote just this AM on the subject of licencing.
It said "More words, same rule". :wink:
Quote from: JackD on May 25, 2007, 02:13:03 PM
Keep the rule wording simple to understand and it will be easier to correctly identify and enforce.
When in discussion with an entrant, make sure they understand the written rule and be prepared to give them enough valid reasons for it so they reach the conclusion you already have.
Their understanding also contributes to the possible revisions that should include all the parties involved.
Treat everybody as adults, fairly, equally, and you will find they will support the effort, even if some detail doesn't agree with their idea.
Fail that and you will get your neck stepped on.
I saw a repeat of a quote just this AM on the subject of licencing.
It said "More words, same rule". :wink:
Wow! I've never understood Jack better... well said.
Enjoy the long weekend everyone.
Actually I had a DIRECT question about this very rule.
Here is exactly what was said. And I am quoting this from email because it is directly related to this post.
"Russ,
Can you define or clarify 7.F.11:1
....Streamlining is defined as any devices or objects forward of the rider
that has the apparent purpose of directing, limiting, or controlling
airflow
around the motorcycle or rider...
What is considered forward of the rider. AT what point of the rider. Butt,
shoulders, helmet, hands???? What exactly is cutoff point of "rider?"
Jon"
The response was.
"Jon,
The rider is defined as from the knuckle to the rear most portion of
the rider, in some cases the back of the butt, or the heel of the foot,
whichever is rearmost."
Good info.
Jon
Narider,
Seems the picture you posted of that harley is illegal in more ways then one.
Jon
I guess I don't get it.
If you can't figure out what forward of the rider means you probably can't spot them in the first place. :roll:
Jon, why of all people, do you not use the quote function?
"Jon,
The rider is defined as from the knuckle to the rear most portion of
the rider, in some cases the back of the butt, or the heel of the foot,
whichever is rearmost."
QuoteJon,
The rider is defined as from the knuckle to the rear most portion of
the rider, in some cases the back of the butt, or the heel of the foot,
whichever is rearmost.
Just curious.
Oh, and you should post that quote somewhere permanent.
I can't remember or find the reference, but for the El Mirage season points it seems that some competitors were running blatantly illegal and under the record so they could get points and no impound. The procedure was changed so that a competitor could ask that the vehicle be inspected for rules compliance. Somebody help me out here. I looked in the March 2007 El Mirage Procedures and couldn't find it. The 2006 procedures are still the only online version.
There isn't anything in the bike tech inspection sheet to indicate class check, but there is in the car inspection. That isn't their goal, safety is. But if the tech guy sees something he should tell you to keep you from the time and money to make a record run for nothing.
Impound clearly states that body class, displacement, and technical requirements will be checked for compliance.
Quote from: JackD on May 25, 2007, 06:01:56 PM
I guess I don't get it.
If you can't figure out what forward of the rider means you probably can't spot them in the first place. :roll:
Jeez Jack,
You slap us for not knowing the rules, then slap me again for asking for clarification.. What gives???
There is always a reason for a question.... You think about it some more...
Jon
Was wondering if someone was going to take notice that it doesn't APPEAR to belong in a modified class also(actually it does).
Good eye for the picture only Jon, whether referencing the seat height or the wheel coverage caused by the number plate.
I checked it eye level in the pits, and a stringline will pass the seating position height test to the top of the RIMS to allow it in modified.
The wheel coverage explained in the streamlining section is "only" over by .375"-.500" and was done by another team some years back that took it way past the limits(pictured below, although we have found that going strictly by the picture is not a wise choice).
(http://www.ecta-lsr.com/Gallery/albums/uploads/2003/may03/7625-May03-Harry.jpg)
And since this bike obtained records and points in this configuration(illegal for any class actually), we have since allowed(or even overlooked :-o) "very small" overages in this area for number plates, suspension settings and wheel position due to chain adjustments, etc. (especially for newcomers).
Unless of course it's something else I'm missing?
-----------------------------
In February of 2004 the ECTA MC Committee defined "forward of the rider" for an entrant as follows:
Forward of the rider in regards to Partial Streamlining is defined as:
"Anything in front of a contoured line drawn on the front of the riders body while
being viewed from a 90 degree profile and with him/her in their riding position".
That was our answer and many feel it still fits perfectly fine today.
Todd
Quote from: 1212FBGS on May 25, 2007, 09:44:10 AM
bob
you would be correct if your statement was for any other race organization, but not the SCTA. In the SCTA you are SOMETIMES scrutinized to the legality of class entered right from the start... I have had a couple of arguments with mostly the bike tech guys, any even withdrew my 750mps bike from speed week 03 because of it. It was an ugly, ugly scene right in front of the magazine editor (Peter Jones) who was to race the bike ( he did not have a kind opinion of SCTA tech procedures in his article). The worst part of it was that there was 3 other bikes that were teched and currently racing that event including wink (one of the event tech guys) and Jasons bike was in impound not 30 feet away with the same tail on it!!!! Legality is truely with the eye of the tech guy... It is a well known problem and Latten is trying to fix it right now, i believe we will. My advise.. get your stuff legal to the book and race it at one event before b'vill so you can fix any problems before you go to the salt... Shoot that reminds me of another story about my 'liner's fire nozzles
To answer your question if you put a devise in front of the rider, that has a definate purpose, then it will be legal. But if you make a round edge or make it into a wedge as an attempt to get better air flow around it, they'll bust ya. if you mount a conputer, that would normally fit under the tail, up on the front fairing bracket and then angle it rearward, then yes they will bust ya. The tech guys arn't stupid.
kent
Just to clarify Kent, my AIRTECH LSR tail was perfectly legal. The tail was modified when i installed it to conform with the rules that year. The seat area as supplied was too low to be legal because with the rider in position it was impossible to see the entire rider from the side. I cut the original seat pan out and lowered the tail until i could be seen 100% from the side profile. I also trimmed the length and a substantial amount of material around the rear wheel to conform with the 180 degree rule. If i remember correctly that year there were other tail sections running that weren't 100% legal.
Then there was the time i was protested for a front mounted battery
:-D :-) :-)
Quote from: landracing on May 25, 2007, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: JackD on May 25, 2007, 06:01:56 PM
I guess I don't get it.
If you can't figure out what forward of the rider means you probably can't spot them in the first place. :roll:
Jeez Jack,
You slap us for not knowing the rules, then slap me again for asking for clarification.. What gives???
There is always a reason for a question.... You think about it some more...
Jon
The question was legitimate and the answer didn't match, did it ?
Even worse is the selective application.
So to summerize , it all boils down to the individual who is inspecting on that particular day and at that particular time ,as to how they wish to interpret said rule ,not a particularly fair state of affairs and when you add in words like "apparent" it really becomes a joke ,apparent to whom ,add in the ambiguous and non defined "forward of rider " I think the rule needs to be clarified , drop "apparent" and add a more scientifically based word or phrase(it either does or does not streamline) and define what "forward of the rider" means so all have a common datum
Gary
Quote from: hawkwind on May 25, 2007, 08:23:23 PM
So to summerize , it all boils down to the individual who is inspecting on that particular day and at that particular time ,as to how they wish to interpret said rule ,not a particularly fair state of affairs and when you add in words like "apparent" it really becomes a joke ,apparent to whom ,add in the ambiguous and non defined "forward of rider " I think the rule needs to be clarified , drop "apparent" and add a more scientifically based word or phrase(it either does or does not streamline) and define what "forward of the rider" means so all have a common datum
Gary
And who you know or who you are... :x
Who said "if you think there is a Clique, you ain't in it"? Oh, it might have been me in another post... :wink:
Most of the rules are in the eyes of the beholder... (me) Oh crap, I sound like Jack, been trying to break that habit! :roll:
Dean,
A valid point. We have asked all the club reps to pass on to their membership that anyone can question the legality of an entry. You guys know your class the best. If you see something amiss, step up - point out an infraction to the tech/impound guys.
I would really like to see a body class infraction brought into question during the inspection procedure. A couple of us kinda walk the line at Speedweek to try and find class violations. We can't getm' all, but we try. I also ask the tech guys to bring any thing untoward they see to our attention.
DW
Well , you can't argue with that.
The greatest failure is in the "Silence of the Lambs". :wink:
Yep, it all depends who is doing Tech. inspections,
in 2001 at Bonneville Speed Week, we brought out our "new" 125 c.c. bike with partial streamlining,
passed Tech. with no problem.........came back in 2002......no go....same bike.......same fairing....we had to cut the windscreen........when in the "down" racing position the riders head was inside the large windscreen.........we were told "the rider has to be seen completely from the side except for the fore-arms and hands" Well, that took care of our wind-tunnel work Like I said it all depends who does your Tech. inspection!!!!!!!
Gosh, it wasn't that way before the current flock of wizards / lizards !
The book is now full of holes, resultant mistakes, and interpreted by personnel objectives. :roll:
Is'nt the bike in the 2nd picture which is showen being tech at Bonneville a SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION bike and NOT a open bike. on page 108 of the 2007 rule book there is a picture of a special construction bike that looks awfully close to the one in question.
An open bike would be non-streamlined forward of the rider and either A or M.
Special construction would be a purpose built bike designed for LSR and may be scratch built or a mass produced bike that has been modified beyond the restrictions of a class M. :wink:
and so, Mr." D", Hawkwind would be jumping to a wrong contusion about the bike that was pictured at tech. The bike would be Special Construction therefore allowed the streamlining" in front of the rider." OR did I miss something in this discussion.
No confusion here mate , rule applies to both modified frame and special construction ,prolly the only part of the rule that is clear .
My original question was to clarify the legality of an idea to a limited space issue I have , If I run only at Lake Gairdner there are no issues (clearly forward of the rider means the foremost extremity of said rider,otherwise the rule would state ,rearward of the rider or midpoint of the rider ) ,if I decide to bring my junk to Bonneville it appears from the many and varied answers I have received , I'm at the mercy of the tech section and how they perceive the rule on that day ( which is IMHO a crock of bovine feacies )
Gary
Ya, you sorta missed something.
Unfaired forward of the rider is allowed in A or M and the current fashionable term for them is "naked".
Partial streamlined would have various devices forward of the rider to control or direct the air.
Front fenders are allowed on both with some restrictions as to coverage. :wink:
Gary gets it.
I can only hope sanity returns to the methods that get so much negative attention. :roll:
After observing F1 and Nascar for many year, I'm aware of the "if you can't compete on the track, beat them in boardroom" style of racing.
That stuff all happens under the table and gets announced on the next TV extravaganza.
What I don't understand is how flagrant and obvious mis-applications of the rules are ok for some people, but not for others.
I offer [600]http://www.ecta-lsr.com/bikes/566.jpg[450] as an example.
This machine currently holds 3 or 4 ECTA records in M/PF & M/PG. How did something like that slip through tech?
Scott, as you know, I'm a newbie, but that bike has always run in Altered as the seat height and wheelbase would seem to indicate. I've never measured those things, but the photo and personal observation sure make it look too long with too low a seat.
It was suggested in a previous post that 7625 was "illegal for any class".
Sitting the 2 bikes side by side, one looks a lot more "illegal" than the other for modified, to my eye.
This is a purely subjective opinion. The records stand. I guess my question is how the standards are applied, to whom and by whom.
Quote from: Bob Drury on May 25, 2007, 08:12:31 AM
Hawk, Techs job is not to interpet what is legal or not. Their job is to check for proper following of construction rules, safety equipment for the vehicle, driver, and push vehicle. When you get to impound is where the fine toothed comb comes out.................
I haven't found this to be true at all. I've been failed in tech for class compliance issues.
One time I took my bike to tech with the rear ride height jacked up. It just makes the bike easier to move around, unload or load into the trailer, and drop the bodywork. So anyway, they whip out their little fixture and decide I'm a half inch too tall on the tail (one of the more stoopid rules if you ask me, as lots of bikes are over 36" as delivered brand new from the factory).
I explained that I'd set the ride height before we raced it and it'd be right should we make it to impound, but that got me nowhere. I asked why they were checking a class compliance issue in tech, and it clearly took them off guard, they obviousy hadn't considered the distinction between safety and class compliance. They had no answer at first, but later decided they were within their rights to call me on it because rear ride height is a safety issue. For crying out loud, guess all those factory Japanese bikes are dangerous right off the showroom floor, huh? How do you argue with logic like that, anyway? I said screw it, and adjusted the ride height, made'em happy. But it sure annoyed me.
I've raced circle track, drag racing, and sports cars (SCCA) since 1978. I've been through a hell of a lot of tech inspections. I've always viewed tech as an opportunity to get a second set of eyes looking at my stuff, and I've always found tech inspectors to be people who aren't out to get you, but rather people who apply common sense and reason and are there to help you. But I'll tell ya, I haven't found that to be true in SCTA at all. To them, it's a contest. They're looking for something to harass you about and they don't give a damn if it makes sense or not. It's like they
want to keep you from racing. The ridiculous leathers rules just give them one more reason to keep you out. A perfect example of a lack of common sense.
QUESTION......why is it that we hear little or no complains regarding SCTA/BNI Tech. for the cars????? But we have plenty of complains about M/C Tech.........is it because the bikers like to bitch?.........is it because the bike rules need to be re-written?........is it because there need to be a change in personnel in Tech. inspection?........or is it all of the above........back in the "old" days of JackD inspections......we had no problems....the rules made sense........(except of course the no passenger in the sidecar, but that was not Jack's fault)
SEE ?
There ya go , Bob is at it again APPARIENTLY. (Doncha just love that word ? If we put in the rulebook we can do anything we want to anybody we don't want.)
I argue with him all the time about stuff, and ya know that probably ain't never gonna end.
That is really the best part because at the end of the day , we both know each other had the same objective at heart.
He singles me out for mention, but ya know it WAS a package deal with everybody giving and getting equal treatment.
That is the secret that has been lost to the sport and gets worse every day.
The bike program is always going to stand out for all the reasons bikers are accustomed to and they have to be better, just to be equal.
At this point, they are not and it shows.
I guess it has slipped so far now so as to go unnoticed.
If you want it to continue along it's present path, well you are on your way.
If you want to see it survive, you don't need me to hold your hand, or even restore the people you mention, but a common attitude with a group action will be heard the best.
"All you have to do is do it."
Well , that is how I see it anyway. :x
Scott, I have no issue with 566 in altered class. I believe it belongs there. I was questioning why it holds 3 records in M/PF and M/PG.
1000 CC Pushrod Records
1012 M/PG-1000/4 Sportster List Race Team Thomas Cronan Mar-04 140.946
566 M/PF-1000/4 Lone Eagle Racing Chris 'Dad' Land Oct-03 136.986
1012 M/PBG-1000/4 Sportster List Race Team Lee Tindall Mar-04 139.258
979 M/PBF-1000/4 Snart Racing Thomas Cronan Oct-04 134.194
566 MPS/PG-1000/4 Lone Eagle Racing Todd Dross Oct-03 138.019
566 MPS/PF-1000/4 Lone Eagle Racing Todd Dross Oct-03 136.429
1300 MPS/PBG-1000/4 Twin Jugs Racing Todd Dross May-06 140.937
1300 MPS/PBF-1000/4 Twin Jugs Racing Todd Dross May-06 138.336
There may be reasons that I'm not aware of that this can happen. I'm just trying to get an understanding of how those might work. I appreciate your help Scott.
Anything is possible Scott, but, as far as I know, it did not. The modified runs were made after I had left the track so I can only speculate.
It seems unlikely that one would make all the changes required to change the classification on a Sunday afternoon between 3:pm and closing. I know Chris is a great mechanic, but I can't imagine him going to all that effort.
I learned about those runs about 2 weeks later when the results were posted on the ECTA site, far too late to question how and what was done.
I guess what prompted this question is the picture of 7625 and the suggestion it was "illegal in any class" with a smaller pic of 1300 right beside it showing the rider's head obscured by the air scoop / cleaner. Pot calling the kettle?
7625 ran that bodywork for only one year and it wasn't any faster than it had been the years before. Expensive lesson in aero, but not a very successful one.
Quote from: bak189 on May 27, 2007, 08:50:04 AM
QUESTION......why is it that we hear little or no complains regarding SCTA/BNI Tech. for the cars????? But we have plenty of complains about M/C Tech.........is it because the bikers like to bitch?.........is it because the bike rules need to be re-written?........is it because there need to be a change in personnel in Tech. inspection?........or is it all of the above........back in the "old" days of JackD inspections......we had no problems....the rules made sense........(except of course the no passenger in the sidecar, but that was not Jack's fault)
Bak,
You bring a very very very very valid points there. The car guys rules are very clear, concise and haven't made EXTREME changes for as long as I remember. There have been so many changes in the last couple of years for bikes that it seems like it is getting out of hand.
The answer I would like, is IF there is a change in any part of the rules, that EVERY entrant that year gets a ballot in the mail for a yes or no. Now the likely hood of that happening is pretty slim. Wether you are a SCTA member or BNI member. Treat us as equals SCTA -vs- BNI. Since that BNI funds are a MAJOR income to the SCTA, we should be treated as equals. Once all the ballots get in a CAR guy to count the ballots. Then there is no bias to the counting of votes.
Jon
Bob's points are very valid. The bike rule "committee" seem to change the rules because there is nothing else to do over the winter. As has been said there is no consultation with the riders. What bothers me most is the fact that the rule changes go to the board for approval in Jan. or Feb. and we race in May. If you are building a bike to a particular class there is'nt a lot of time left to make all the changes. I feel that any changes should be put to a vote amongst the riders. And any fundamental changes should have a least a seasons lead time.
Keep going guys.
You are beginning to stand up. then you will have to be counted. :wink:
I've been saying what I wrote above for a long time. So far it seems I've been talking to myself.
I've been saying it too. In all of the venues I've raced in, for all the different sanctioning bodies, I've never, ever seen rules administered with so little regard for or feedback from the racers. They run basically open loop, what they say goes whether it makes sense or not, and we get essentially no input. It costed me thousands of dollars when they changed that rule about the engine cases with no notice or warning whatsoever. The leathers rule is another example, when did we ever get asked about that? Both changes were expensive and just totally off the chart stupid.
I have been a BNI member for 30 years to date......and I plan to continue my membership in the future. But I should point out that since 2003
I have supported and raced our equipment at the BUB Speed Trials...........and BOY, they certainly have their problems in both rules and Tech...... it is a learning process......and, yes, it is getting better. The first time I raced with SCTA/BNI back in 1954....yes 1954.....they basicly had NO M/C rules. (did not come back to LSR until the mid-1970's) At the BUB we race under AMA/FIM rules
and the AMA has allowed some of us more "experienced" LSR racers to give input and even change the rules. (for 2007 we made some
changes to the sidecar rules) and I am certain that more input from the "racers" will be forthcoming in the future. But I have not given up racing with BNI in the future, and feel a more
democratic way of puttin the rules together is a
necessity. I am a firm believer in the "KISS SYSTEM" (keep it simple stupid) and in writting racing rules this should always be kept in mind.
Hmm, what's the rule mean -- "forward of the rider"? Does it mean "In front of the front-most part of the rider"? If that's the case, then the rule might have different interpretations depending on whether the rider's hands, on the grips, are the front-most part of him, or if the front-most part of the rider's helmet is the first part of the rider that passes through a vertical plane.
If this is THE correct interpretation -- then the sky is the limit for the rest of the bike -- fairing in front of the rider's legs, chin fairing under the motor (as long as it's behind the front of the rider), etc, etc.
Then there's the interpretation that would have us look at the rider, on the bike, from the front view. Ah, HA! Now anything that obscures the view of the rider that can be considered to have "...the apparent purpose of directing, limiting, or controlling airflow around the motorcycle or rider." is forbidden, as would be the afore-mentioned chin tank (because it's in front of the rider's foot position, right, even if not specifically in front of his feet because of lateral placement). No allowance for the coolant overflow tank that's positioned in front of the rider's leg, no allowance for a fancy swoopy dashboard that might coincidentally direct airflow away from the rider, etc, etc.
Next year's rule book will cover all of these possible interpretations by specifically and definitively spelling out each rule in clear and unambiguous language. The rulebook will be available for the usual ten dollars, but a shipping fee of about $400 will be charged since the damn thing will have to be delivered by a small semi. The rulebook may be a few months late in being published since the writers will have to consider each and every rules' possible interpretations and make a determination as to what is really meant to be said.
Let's use the "KISS SYSTEM"
"APPAIRENTLY MOST INTERPERTATIONS" (ya gotta just love them words if you don't know what you are doing, don't care except to take care of your friends, or have the respect of the competitors) don't work unless you are allowed that degree of freedom.
Make it clearly simple and equally applied, even for boys, and you will have something to be proud of.
Short of that is just short. :wink:
ya know i don't think this was to be another "bag on the SCTA" thread. when i put myself in there shoes i think the scta is doing a good job. The bike side of our fun is growing alot faster than the car side. I think we have alot more "creative rule interpreter's" that want the rules bent there way. this causes the bike rules to get really complicated. the more we push the rules, the more complicated they get, needing more clarification. to answer the question about this thread... the tech inspector was at fault, as was the competitor! Listen,,, we have a good bunch of tech inspectors at el mo right now.. the biggest problems are at Bonneville when we get the once a year inspectors that have there own agenda an there own rule interpretation. Eliminate them and the problems will "reduce".... and the tech lines will "increase". So tech yourself, follow the printed rules, ask for clarification beforehand, actually be specific in your question and don't ask a leading question... if you ask " what is considered in front of the rider"? ask instead " I plan to add a oil tank at the bottom of my bike and i intend to make it a wedge shape for better air flow"? You will absolutely get a direct response, whether it is positive or negative in your direction, but you will get a response. The tech guys are volunteers and most have day jobs.... direct questions that only require a yes or no will make every one happy.
kent
Who was it that mentioned the bad experience at tech that also generated the bad press ?
I guess some people are treated more equal than others.
The cases mentioned are really real and not MOST riders APPARENT INTERPERTATION.
"Politrics are strange bedfellows." :roll:
Yes it was me... giving an example how some things get through and others don't. My experience came from a once a year tech guy at Bonneville. I will also add, I have had problems with the "oncer" tech guy in the car lane at Bonneville almost every year, so the problems are not limited to just the bike side. i have "never" had a problem with the regulars at elmo. I will also take this opportunity to actually say the the asshole tech guy is actually "one" guy... for 3 years he "f" with me... last year when he came over and asked for my log book to tech me I said "no"...I'll wait. Since '05 i will only allow Lee, JD, or Mike to tech my car, and will only allow Russ, Tom, or Rob to tech my bikes. I will, and have waited all day to only allow them to tech my stuff. I absolutely trust these 6 guys with my life.... no one else!!!! If they tell me i need to change something I'll do it without question and hopefully on the spot with them watching. Trust comes from both direction, me trusting them to keep me safe, and them trusting me to keep myself safe. On the other hand, Bob and Van are very good friends, that's exactly why i would never let them tech my bikes! I would never want to compromise our friendship with my creative "rule interpreting" junk, thats another reason why i take my bikes to the head honchos... lol.
kent
Speaking for myself and my team.......we have found no problems with the "regular" SCTA/BNI Tech. inspectors, they do a great job.
Tom Evans and I go back a very long way, and he does a outstanding job.....yes, Tom and I have had our problems, but Tom has always taken time to explain where I was wrong in my interpretation
of a certain rule. The problem some of us have is not with the great people working Tech. but with the procedure and the no input on rule writing and rule changes. In addition it would be nice to know who is on the rules committee, and who is making the rules for us M/C racers at BNI.
I want to say that I wasn't "baggin' on the SCTA". As with Bob I trust Tom or Rob to tech my bike. I don't have any "interpretive" fittings on the bike. The thing that bothers me is the fact that fundamental changes (i.e. the modified class rule change regarding engine manufacturers) are done with very little time before the El Mirage May meet. That and the lack of input asked from the riders. But I do feel that it is tech you are going through not classification. If you feel that the mods you have done are legal be prepared to back them up. That is unless you know.............................................................
While I realize this thread has turned into a bike issue, I would like to add a little input. Ten years ago I showed up at Speedweek and after a 43 week car build plus three days on the salt, I finally made it to tech. Jim Miller proceeded to poke, pull, push, tweak and eyeball everything on my car and although I was squirming with angst, he treated me with respect and offered nothing but encouragement and a few helpful suggestions. I have taken my car thru tech at every Speedweek since, and not once have I had a problem with any inspector and I don't think I have ever had the same one twice.
This brings to mind , why are the bike guys having so many problems? Could it be attitudes, ego conflicts, lack of reading and re-reading the rule book, lack of preparation or as some have posted, a lack of knowledge by certain inspectors?
Perhaps if you guys had more participation at club meetings you might get your club reps to put more pressure on the SCTA/BNI to better train the bike inspectors. If there is a problem with certain inspectors, tell the club reps and have it passed along to the organization. Are the problems being caused by too many classes or by entrants rolling up to tech to find out if they are legal or not? As many have suggested, if you are not sure you are legal, call the tech guy listed in the rule book, and better yet send him PICTURES rather than holding up the line arguing a moot point.
A while back, J.D. suggested having pictures and pertanent information as to changes or modifications in your log book, and I think thats a pretty good idea.
I am not trying to rag on bikers or anyone else, but most problems turn out to be a two way deal...........
Could it be with over 1800 MC classes they get a little confused in MC tech. The car rules guys had their changes before the end of the year, why didn't the bikers again this year. I'm starting to sound like Dolan. :-D
i believe, and stand ready to be corrected, that all this years changes were because of incidences from last year. I am confidant none of the changes were to disqualify anyone and those negatively affected still have some class to fit into. if you want to be involved, get involved, some of you might not be able to, but try anyhow.
kent
Can I slightly derail this thread and ask what's the "average" time it takes to get a motorcycle through tech inspection at Bonneville? I'm thinking for instance the typical Aug Speedweek. Just wondering!
Thanks!
(I'll make it there some day - I hear they have no cones! :-D )
Deb
Depends on when you get in line as there is usually over 100 bikes at speed week. The 1st day is the longest. It's one of the reasons we are starting inspection etc. a day early. Don't worry Deb, it's worth the wait and you get to see what everybody else has as well.Cars and bikes. It's a happening.
Oh, by the way we do have cones but no turns in the shut down area until you turn out. Hope you are healing fast and will be back soon, say hi to Todd.
Glen :?
Quote from: DahMurf on May 29, 2007, 06:58:41 AM
Can I slightly derail this thread and ask what's the "average" time it takes to get a motorcycle through tech inspection at Bonneville? I'm thinking for instance the typical Aug Speed week. Just wondering!
Thanks!
(I'll make it there some day - I hear they have no cones! :-D )
Deb
As Glen said you can't race until Sat., so you get there Thursday or Friday early in the morning and while some of the crew is setting the pits up go get in line. You will be done sometime that day and it will be the last day you feel rested, unless you just drove 1800 miles straight through :evil:, then you won't feel rested again until about a week after you are back home :cry:,
come on out,
Sum
The BUB, has NO cones.........short Tech. lines.........
shorter waits to run..............more hotel rooms.........
cheaper hotel rooms..........cooler weather............
National and International Records...........Sidecars w/passengers...........free bottled water...........many
M/C Liners...........World Fastest M/C liner........
Smiling faces, because they pay$$$$$$$$$$$$.....
Great FREE Award presentation (with food)..........
And the really BIG ONE, NO CARS.......ALL M/C..........
See ya there............................
Sidecars w/passengers <-- Sweet, I'm gonna stick Todd in the hack! :evil:
Ok, but really, I didn't ask how long are the "lines" I really was wondering about how long does it take to tech the bike. Like, I roll it up under the tarp, hand Mr Tech my sheet (or however that goes), start the stop watch.... About how long does that part take? (assuming newbies take longer and the old salts can be a bit quicker) So whats the norm? 5 minutes, 15, 30, 45, an hour.... ?
Thanks!
Deb
(PS: Glen, healing away & rarin to go! Check-up in a week to see how the progress goes & hopefully a "back on the bike" date then!)
Short lines, long wait., and so it goes.
The FIM tech failure should make good reading. :wink:
Deb:
How long are the lines at SpeedWeek? In '06 we started teching bikes at 8 or 9 Friday morning or whatever time it was -- and by 2PM that day there was no line remaining -- it was now just arrive in line and wheel under the awning. I don't know the exact number we did in that five or six hours -- but I'm guessing it was about 60. There were three tech lines going most of the time. Some time was wasted between inspections because the racer wasn't there to move his vehicle into position, etc.
So: 60 bikes (example) divided by three lines = 20 bikes in five 1/2 (average of my EWAG) hours comes out to 16 1/2 minutes/bike.
Those numbers aren't supported by any documentation, just my memory. Some took less time, of course -- there's a line for bikes that were inspected and raced at EM just a week or two before, so less intensive investigation of some details was required. And some took longer -- never been inspected before, and didn't know how to twist safety wire (well, damn near. . .).
But figure 20 minutes and you'll be in the right neighborhood.
PS Wear the brace the doctors gave you for the busted collarbone. I didn't wear it correctly when I had a get-off from the Gold Wing out in Idaho -- you don't wanna have a slumped shoulder like I do, right? Best wishes from both of us for a quick and complete recovery from your trauma.
20 to 30minutes is a good number. and if you are there really early you might only wait in line an hour. The later you hit the line, the longer you wait.
Hope to see y'all there :-D
Deb
Remember that Slim was speaking of Speedweek. :wink:
Be nice Jack............Charlie, does a good job!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: scott guthrie on May 27, 2007, 07:34:23 AM
Stroker: I am not in charge of motorcycle inspection, but maybe I can help with some of this.
The picture you mentioned in your post (Bike 556) is, according to the lettering on the bike,
entered in the Altered class, 1000cc.
What is it about the bike that you feel makes the bike "illegal" for the altered class?
Scott, here's a photo of the bike that Mr Stroker speaks of. The ECTA website lists this picture as being made in Sept 2003. 1 month after the modified runs mentioned. I'm sure that you're familiar with this bike and that the picture does show it in it's typical Maxton attire, and the fact that it would be quite difficult to transform it into a modified legal vehicle.
We missed being able to contest the vehicle's modified run due to the fact that we were not aware that it had changed class to modified. I'm sure that the run logs for this bike on that day were previously made in an altered class. Run logs should be still available, but regardless of that, this is the only time that this bike has run in this configuration in modified class to my knowledge.
What makes the series of runs for this bike even more radical during the last hours at Maxton on that day is this....I witnessed the bike at the starting line on the first of the modified runs, it had issues and I asked what the issues were, the bike had lurched forward at the line when put into forward gear, and I was told that one of the axle adjusters had broken. This was confirmed by an ECTA official. Prior to this first modified run, it had been announced over the common radio channel that the track was now closed to anyone that wasn't already in the staging lanes, however, this bike was allowed to make yet another run in modified class, after the course was closed to all other racers. The second pass was made (after the course was closed) and after the bike came through the pit area at a higher speed than normally allowed. The rider was made aware of the excessive pit area speed, and his response was that the bike was stuck in 3rd gear. So now we have an illegal bike, running in modified class, with an apparent broken axle adjuster, and apparently stuck in 3rd gear. If that weren't enough, the owner of the bike happens to be a tech inspector, and the rider of the bike is a tech inspector and a member of the ECTA motorcycle committee.
Several comments were made that day as the happenings happened, but protests were not made by anyone. My team had had "issues" with the parties involved before, so we didn't want to add fuel to the fire by launching a formal protest, until we found out later that the runs were made in modified class, and on our previously held records. (see "issues" above) Of course, by then, according to the ECTA rules, it was too late.
We learned a hard lesson at that meet, and abided by the ECTA rules of protest after pleading our case.
Regardless of the examples that are set before us by some that are trusted to inforce the rules, our team and many, many others, choose to race with integrity.
One of our bikes was pictured here, as an example of a class illegal bike. This is difficult to understand when the poster was one of the technical inspectors of the bike in question, as were several others. We were never told by anyone in tech inspection or impound that this particular bike was not legal for any class that it ran in....and we ran that bike for 2 years at Maxton.