Landracing Forum

How many people were affected and had to chop their old fairings for the World Finals NEW interpretation of the partial streamlining rules?  :x  :?  :x

For those that don't know, Tom Evans has a new interpretation of PS rule for "see the entire rider from the side and above" to mean he developed x-ray vision and should be able to see your feet through your body unless the fairing obstructs his view.  Multiple people working on their own records, with the same bike were told their fairings were now illegal for the class.  All Toy type fairings are illegal, all integrated seat and tail section fairings are illegal.  Any fairing that blocks the "plumb line above view" of any part of the footpeg or possible foot placement area is now illegal.  :x 

Ya gotta love the consistency of the inconsistency with the SCTA motorcycle guys, NEW DAY, NEW RULES...  :x 

I guess next year we will all have to ride foot forward cruiser style, with 1 hand in the air, whatever the SCTA wants, just give us a little more warning on the new rules before the last event of the year!!!

When you are allowed to make up stuff as the wind blows and the rules are written accordingly, the record for both the performance of the entrant and the ruling wizards is flaky.
How was it allowed to go wrong, from the standpoint of either the rulers or the victims ?
How did it go at the annual MC rules discussion that is hosted by SCTA where things like that can be aired and explained or changed ?
Only a few are not afraid to make waves, and the rest just sink with the tide.
It gets worse every day, but I said that before right ? :roll:

Sorry to hear this went this way for you  Bob. I don't have the current rules for SCTA or ECTA here in front of me right now but will share my thoughts on the coinciding ECTA rule.

Partially Streamlining is written and(for all intended purposes) interpreted as "objects forward of the rider". We defined forward of the rider as anything forward of the profile of the rider in the piloted position(although there is more in the paragraph that would omit the above or that the above would omit... depending on how it's applied - though there always is it seems).

With the above description in mind(and a body in full tuck on a normal sit on motorcycle such as yours), then bodywork on top of the thigh(which would be in front of the rider) would be illegal(which you have none I'm sure), where-as bodywork on top of the calf(which would be in rear of the rider and how the C-Toy bodywork is made) has always been legal... especially when it comes to deciding whether it's a partially streamlined or unfaired bike or item that's being discussed.

This is per our written rule and not the exact interpretation per the ECTA(which we have rules that have been read totally different  then worded... and exactly as worded).

As far as the "the rider being seen from above and both sides", well there's a lot of bikes that can be deemed illegal because of the way their ridden more then the way their built.

Just my initial thoughts, along with the fact that those from here on out are not able to do what others have done before them. At least this isn't a rule change(like the modified oem case rule), but rather an interpretation change or enforcement.

Not having the rules scrutinized in relation to their past, and instead having only the vehicles scrutinized will always put the one reading the rule and doing the scrutinizing as the holder and ruler of the "spirtit of the rule".
 
I know exactly what both you and Tom mean in your justifications and am looking forward to others comments.
And I seperated my above comments to aid those that would like to pick it apart, :roll:
Todd
PS: I would really like to see a pic of your final authorized repair if you don't mind mailing it to me?

I saw the result of this "cut" on Stainless bike and I said directly, that this bike would be now very dangerous to ride due to a bad turbulence around the rear wheel and the rear wheel would show a very weak handling.
The return run on Thursday afternoon with the "correct modified" rear end showed at last what I thought before......and Stainless son shut down the attempt.

Since when rules are allowed which are against the safety of record racing????

And why was they original rules interpretation good to the Thursday...during the whole August and September meet.......if they like to use a other interpretation than they could say from the 1. January 2008 this rule would count - but the race team got than time to do the necessary modifications over the winter time and can find a solution to match the new interpretation.

But so it was done it was extremely dangerous for the rider.....

At last who was the "activator" which cause this interpretition change???????

I'm guessing the red in this pic of JW's is the effected area?
(http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o244/narider/LSR/SSS2ClubEdit.jpg)
No Jon, we're not taking your shirt back  :wink:
Todd

Correct, this is the aera we talking.

Yes that is the area. Had to cut the Guppy and I know it hurt the aero. Didn't like it, set a record, still don't like it. At least there was consistency that we all had to cut. lol. Tom admitted that many records have been set with the old interpretation. Wonder why the change? Other than hacking the bike  :x all the inspectors were cordial and the certification process was the fastest,smoothest ever.   Larry

I don't understand. What part is sticking behind that piece? (oh I see this thread taking a turn for the worse  :-D )

If nothing is behind it, then what's the rationale? I don't get it.
Deb

Larry,
Consistency with all entrants(at least the ones at the meet anyway) certainly has it's merits, thanks for clarifying that.

Deb,
In a downward view, the marked area is being deemed a shield to the visibility of the heel and calf area of the legs(although if the legs were tucked up tight against the butt cheeks and the same fiberglass panels were below them it would be ok).

I think that any decisions/changes to the rules that aren't specifically safety related should get a 30 day or next meet bi at least... that's what we try to do out here anyway(heck, I've even seen some safety issues get bi's depending on their severity).

There is the likely possibiility that this was brought to light via another racer.... and with so many running this type of body it might not of been feasible for a formal protest and was instead deemed an on the spot rule clarification change, which again might have been better done after the meet--- hmmm, tough call!

I don't envy any of the parties involved that's for sure, but further discussion before having these parts put to an impromptu hacking might have been of value.
Todd

So if my Altered bike has foot pegs mounted within 6" of the rear axle and when seated on the bike and the OEM tail section were to slightly cover part of my foot from viewing directly above I would have to "scallop" the tail section to meet this "rule"?

Please confirm, better yet I would recommend that this not turn in to a b**** session and we should send all of our concerns and inquiries to the SCTA techs in charge.

We should however post this information so if this "rule" is to be enforced all of the racers can modify their bikes in time for the next meet, I can think of 50 bikes this would affect and it seems weird that a bike that has set 20 or so records in the last 8 years now has to be "modded" to comply when it just set records this year and was inspected by the same people and now the bike will not fit in the Partial streamlined classes..?

Thanks for the information...

Quote from: John@JE Pistons on October 08, 2007, 01:33:17 PMI can think of 50 bikes this would affect and it seems weird that a bike that has set 20 or so records in the last 8 years now has to be "modded" to comply when it just set records this year and was inspected by the same people and now the bike will not fit in the Partial streamlined classes..?

Not fitting in the PS classes alone would not be so bad John, but this makes those bikes not fit in ANY class with out further modifications(or altercations as the case may be?).
Todd

Thanks for the clarification, I guess I was too short to see it on my own!  :-D

Wow, now we're going to need a ladder in tech.   :-o

JN, good point on the stock tail over the pegs question. At ECTA we have a rule in place about stock components with which I would use to argue the point of legality but I don't know if SCTA has the same. Not saying I'd win, but I'd try! ;)

We try real hard to be fair at the ECTA but racers are always scrutinizing the not so well written rules so we're often put on the spot to further clarify and sometimes change the way we've been enforcing rules. We don't have any solid blanket statements on re-clarifications. While ECTA is more inclined to give the 30 day bi, we have so many different and new techs without a formal training program or common understanding of the rules that things are changing from day to day and meet to meet. So what can I say, we try to do better but I'm not sure that we do! At least I haven't been witness to a mass hack-a-thon. That's a shame.

The spot ruling is a "knee jerk" reaction to a procedure that is not even related to the cutouts for the legs, but based on the ability of a rider to shed the bike in the event of an upset.
The "from above" was related to the rider going through tech with his body in view and then moving to a position that put the body behind and under some paneling when the rider changed position while underway.
That is something that Evans should be familiar with from an episode over 30 years ago when he was cautioned for putting his arms behind the side panels of the front fairing while riding.
Riders get hurt when they fall off for sure, if they are captive with an open bike it is worse.
The now dead annual MC meetings might have solidified that rule and others a long time go, but without that input, the program suffers a predictable fate.
Continue as you have and you can kiss it goodbye.
More attention should go towards real rider safety like folding foot pegs that won't capture loose fitting clothing than the idiocy of the "All Cow" rule .
GOOD LUCK :oops:

Thanks Jack, we need more of these history lessons of original intent(cause and effect) to be openly shared. As years go on we start loosing more of the meanings and the ability to study and document them because of governing bodies that don't want to study and discuss them in a dedicated manner.

The east coast mc committee was doing just that on a very regular basis for sometime and heading in a direction of getting alot of past and present intent compiled into actual(and searchable) definitions and understandable clarifications(SG brought up people like yourself and many others in these discussions often as you are the ones with some of the missing pieces and open enough to share them).

The problem is that the work has to have a value when it's all done for anyone to put time into it, and even then there are less of those willing then many would imagine(even those that imagine themselves being the willing ones).

Ok, getting off base now....

Egress is probably one of the most important subjects to come up in a safety discussion, it's funny how it can sometimes be used on the rules easier then on the vehicles.
Todd

Quote from: John@JE Pistons on October 08, 2007, 01:33:17 PM
So if my Altered bike has foot pegs mounted within 6" of the rear axle and when seated on the bike and the OEM tail section were to slightly cover part of my foot from viewing directly above I would have to "scallop" the tail section to meet this "rule"?

Please confirm, better yet I would recommend that this not turn in to a b**** session and we should send all of our concerns and inquiries to the SCTA techs in charge.

We should however post this information so if this "rule" is to be enforced all of the racers can modify their bikes in time for the next meet, I can think of 50 bikes this would affect and it seems weird that a bike that has set 20 or so records in the last 8 years now has to be "modded" to comply when it just set records this year and was inspected by the same people and now the bike will not fit in the Partial streamlined classes..?

Thanks for the information...

Jonn, I checked the SCTA website for information pertaining to this ruling, since it is the only place you can get official information.  Guess what, no info.  My guess is that almost every record set in the last 10 years in PS is illegal according to Tom's new ruling.  I guess we will see how it is applied at the Oct EM meet. 
He said if he takes a plumb bob at any point above any part of the rider it should not hit the fairing, and even if the riders butt or body was there, it should be able to pass through and still not hit fairing before it hit the lower extremities.  So you make the call on what you need to do.

Yes Larry, Tom seemed to apply it to all bikes, Just not at the initial inspection.  I learned if the change the second time I was in impound, when I asked if he wanted to see our gas seal.  I will post pictures tomorrow.

For many years, a number of STOCK bikes have been produced that do not meet the "NEW" interpretation and "OLD" understanding of the real intent.
:oops:

This has nothing to do with partial streamlining. All of that is in front of the rider.

It has to do with the open class and the seat or tail section rule. That also applies to partial streamlining, but that isn't important.

Quote7.F.11 Open Class #1 states streamlining is forward of the rider. #2 Seat or tail section must conform to partial streamlining rules.

To call the section under, and covered by your body as "visible from above" is absurd. It is over a part of the body, but the rule doesn't state that and can't be interpreted that way. You can't call it for anything related to streamlining, because the rule clearly states that streamlining is in forward of the rider. If you are going to impose the visible from above on the legs, then the upper body has to be amputated.

If the last sentence sounds dumb, so does this rule modification.

The proposed motorcycle rules for 2007 were supposed to be circulated to the clubs in December for review.  After reviewing the rules the clubs then vote, and the vote is carried by the representative to the SCTA meeting and the rules are either implemented or go away. That didn't happen.

There are only two possibilities in this case. If it is a safety issue, it should have been posted on the SCTA web site and the clubs notified the same day the problem was noted. If it was a safety issue, you would think that one of us here would have caught wind of it. "Charlie went down and his foot got caught . . . "

The other possibility is an on-the-fly rule modification. Well Wooo Hooo let's change all of them. If that is the case then it should have waited until the end of the racing season and been submitted to the clubs.

I think anyone subjected to this should protest in writing.

I thought prior to the run the job of the inspectors was to make sure bikes/cars are safe and when they return from a record attempt/qualifier that the vehicle is in compliance to the class for which it is entered in?

J

Having to cut fairings has been going on with SCTA/BNI for years now............as I have noted on this forum in the past.......we had to cut up a wind-tunnel tested fairing on our Can-Am back in 2002..........the reason.........."had to be able to see the complete rider from both sides, in the racing position"..............had nothing to do with
safety.............JUST DO IT, OR YOU DON"T RUN!!!!!!!!!!
I asked if I could get my entry dollars back.....no way...............so I cut the fairing but saved the pieces and put them back on the fairing to run the BUB.........................................................................
Now instead of the side....they are looking from above.....what is next?????????

As a courtesy to the entrant and everybody else, I would encourage the inspectors to do the best they can to conduct a "Class Legal" review in the beginning also.
It is also the responsibility of the officials to police that legality throughout the event.
Does anybody wonder why the class designation is required to be on the vehicle ?
In this case, it is likely the mistake began with another entrant and they brought to the attention of an inspector that furthered the error.
The first thing when writing, enforcing, or reading a rule is to understand the intent and only then can you be expected to apply it correctly and universally.
If a person reads it another way, the intent should should be explained, and if in conflict with the valid intention it should be acted upon asap.
If the the reading is unclear, a pre-scheduled common interest meeting would serve to open the discussion and possibly generate a simpler, and better way to say it.
Without that kind of open communication , the group will suffer at the hands of individuals that go unchallenged.
Everybody has an example of how the rules have evolved into the mess they are today and if it is allowed to continue, the whole thing will continue to lose credibility and fail.
Bigger is not a measure of better, there are many examples of that.
The World is watching and not enough are crying, but many are laughing.
That applies to LSR in general, no matter how you spell it.
If that is what you want, then there you are. :cry:

O.K....would you believe that the AMA rule makers and enforcers, are going the same way as the SCTA/BNI......at the last BUB Meet, they made several of the racers cut their C-Toy seats, on the bottem where part of the fairing covers the wheel......they want to see no streamlining
below the axcle covering the wheel....front and rear.......However, it should be noted that it is in the rule-book.....but had not been enforced until this year.  It would certainly be nice if all the "rulers" just left us alone.....as long as the bike is safe, let it run.....that is what LSR used to be all about, but it appears this will not be the case in the future. 

Just 2 examples of ruling wizards in action required an entrany to remove stock sidecovers and still run in the Production class., and in another display of irrational authority, wanted to prohibit an oil change between record attempts.
Embarrasment and distain are the well deserved responses from the event observers.
The discussion goes far beyond the little you see here and substantial change is in the near future if it is to survive :oops:.

Only a single occurrence separates things as they are now from total melt-down (event cancellation, all records void, all funds in escrow, insurance canceled).

What is that?

They haven't "disqualified" an attorney... yet. But they will. Subpoenas for everyone.

You're all familiar with the saying "why isn't there enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it twice?"

They're going to get to do it, again, from a blank sheet of paper.

I think Mr. Panic gets it.
Everybody almost , applauded what the current SCTA administration was able to do in the limited time they have gone so far, but the politricks have caused them to throw their hands up in disgust when we need them the most, and the sport will continue to suffer for it.  :x

Here are the pictures I promised.  I do not have a Toy fairing or a molded seat.

OK that didn't work we will try again
The first 2 pics are as taped back together to run naked, hopefully the aftermath in the next post

Quote from: JackD on October 09, 2007, 12:39:03 AM
<SNIP>
The first thing when writing, enforcing, or reading a rule is to understand the intent and only then can you be expected to apply it correctly and universally.
If a person reads it another way, the intent should should be explained, and if in conflict with the valid intention it should be acted upon asap.
If the the reading is unclear, a pre-scheduled common interest meeting would serve to open the discussion and possibly generate a simpler, and better way to say it.
Without that kind of open communication , the group will suffer at the hands of individuals that go unchallenged.
Everybody has an example of how the rules have evolved into the mess they are today and if it is allowed to continue, the whole thing will continue to lose credibility and fail.

AMEN JACK! - a simple, consistent statement that explains the rationale for and itent of the codification:  In the current PS example: INTENT: To ensure that rider egress is not impaired, .....

For the recent modified/altered rules changes:
INTENT: to ensure that the Modified class represents the "normal" performance bolt-on modifications that one would make to a production motorcycle, while not making the motorcycle unsuitable for use in other than land-speed-racing. (go on to describe parameters for finished motorcycle)
INTENT Altered: Machines that are modified/pupose-built to make them suitable for land speed racing only. (go on to describe parameters for finished motorcycle)

Now - this begs the question: How should our rules be interpreted? Should we interpret compliance as we currently do in the Production classes, where ONLY those modifications that are expressly articulated in the rulebook are allowed, or as we currently interpret mod/alt: where ANY changes not expressly forbidden are permitted as long as the resultant machine doesn't exceed the modification parameters that are articulated in the rules?

I don't have an answer - BUT - understanding the intent of a rule goes a LONG way towards being able to fairly and consistently apply it, as well as increasing acceptance of seemingly arbitrary rule changes amongst the racers themselves.  

The last 2 pics, the aftermath and the offending piece

Sorry you had to hack your fairing - this is reminiscent of the "tailpiece discussions" of a few years ago, which resulted in a LOT of behind-the-seat tailpieces getting sawed off @ the track.

Thanks for the pics Stainless. So they let you run with the "offending" piece intact as long as you were in an unfaired(naked) class?  If so... I understand the level of aggravation even more then before and agree with Dean that a written protest to the decision should be turned in as soon as possible. I believe anything rear of the rider has always been subject to the same rules whether faired(PS) or unfaired(naked).
Todd

If you begin with and understand the intent when enforcing a rule, a short discussion with entrants that are not as dumb as some would believe, will soon have them in agreement with the position you should already have.
If you listen, you can hear where the soft spots are and it is your responsibility to them to guide the written rules and them towards a more productive result. :wink:

So then is the SCTA able to enforce a ruled based on the intent even if it's not clearly stated in the written rule?

We seem to be having a lot of discussions in the ECTA arena on this point. If the "Sr" tech's know & understand the intent, if it's not clearly & specifically writen in the rules, it is argued (by the entrants & even amongst the techs) and often times overruled (despite intent). Which then puts the ECTA in the same place as the SCTA currently is, with something that was once legal suddently being not legal and vice versa.

Any way you slice it, this is not a good situation for the entrants.

Deb

Quote from: narider on October 09, 2007, 01:10:37 PM
Thanks for the pics Stainless. So they let you run with the "offending" piece intact as long as you were in an unfaired(naked) class?  If so... I understand the level of aggravation even more then before and agree with Dean that a written protest to the decision should be turned in as soon as possible. I believe anything rear of the rider has always been subject to the same rules whether faired(PS) or unfaired(naked).
Todd

I didn't re-enter in naked, I was just planning to make a pass and based on Robs run the day before, I opted to put the part back on.  I was still technically running partially streamlined, just without the fairing.  It didn't matter since I was just planning to go 150 to 175, and not running for a record.  The weather changed the plan when we were 2nd in line.

All, if anyone has a solution to the SCTA changing the rules without notice at a meet or any way racers can control that type of behavior I am sure we are all willing to know that information.  (Jack, no cryptic platitudes please)
We just want to race in a level playing field (no pun intended, this is serious), Either all those records, including ours and the previous owner (Jason used a now illegal Toy fairing), need to be removed from the books or the SCTA needs to return to sensibility and publicly apologize for the inconvenience and expense they caused a lot of racers at the 07 World Finals!!!

An e-mail from all those concerned to the decision makers and additional interested parties would be the most effective.
If you don't get an appropriate response, don't give up.

It seems to me a bit arbitrary.  To suddenly make many honest and supportive racers into cheaters is an unqualified, and undeserved title.  To arbitrarily decide that absent any performance gain, that I am suddenly a "cheater" is singularly insulting, and i feel that anyone else required to cut their fairings at this event deserve at least an apology.

I hate to say it, but I can see how the intent of the rule  is perfectly valid.  I've seen at least one example of a pretty conventional bike that could have caused difficulty in the rider separating from the bike.  I don't know whose it was, nor do I have a picture. Would it ever be an issue?  Maybe not.  I'm sure we're all creative enough to see how that could cause an issue

What in the rules otherwise prevents some one from building a streamliner without a roll cage, and carefully cutting out a silhouette of the rider to meet the "It must be possible to see the rider completely from either side..." rule.

This would be a pretty unsafe thing to do IMHO, but show me the rule that says I can't otherwise. (And yes, I realize there would have to be cutouts for the wheels to be legal, it's the part around and above the rider I'm talking about)

Sounds like the implementation of the rule is the issue!

Common sense is not universally applied to a lot of snap decisions.
A big part of the problem is the sole ruler can be so easily influenced to act beyond common sense when they fail to understand the intent in the first place.
A reprint of this thread would be a good place to start and copies should be distributed to as many others as can be reached and they should be asked for their comment, either way. :x

(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/dean4/_images/B1188.JPG)
The modified production rules 7.F.11 Open Class #1. states that "streamlining is . . . forward of the rider." In the picture above is that the red line in front of the knuckles or the red line forward of any part of the rider?
7.F.11 Open Class #2. states that "Seat or tail section must conform to partial streamlining rules." Then streamlining is or isn't forward of the rider?
Front fender rules state that the fender forward of the front axle has to be above the rim and not forward of the rim. Then it goes on to say: "Forward front fender coverage may not extend lower than a horizontal line through the front axle." Since the previous sentence clearly states that forward of the axle has to be above the rim, then forward of what? Does that mean behind the axle as I drew the red line above?

Other than a seat or tail section there can be no streamlining past the rear axle. What is there other than a seat or tail section? Why don't they say what they really mean and just say no streamlining past the rear axle below the rim and nothing past the rear tire. Oh, did I forget the 180 rule? That's because the above description makes that automatic. Forget the mumbo-jumbo about seat or tail section.

Better yet, how about a diagram like the above?

Forward of the rider is an important distinction that allows tail streamlining in the open class.

What we need is a definitive description that cannot be interpreted differently by two people reading the rule.

The rule needs to revert back to the wording that worked.
Back up to the first year SCTA began the bike program and chart the changes.
Some time ago, the present rulers decided the stock  dust cover in a Vincent ignition was streamlining forward of he rider and was required to remove it.
As I recall it was down low in the front of the motor and offered some protection from most things that you pick up when underway.
Swell huh ?

The real issue here is the New interpretation of the old rule.  Bikes that set records at speedweek were told to comply or not be certified for a record set at World Finals.  Some learned it in inspection, some when they arrived at impound for records.
This is not fair for any competitor, past or present.  This rule was changed mid-meet

If a rule change changes the class, should all the present records be archived, or moved to the class they now fit? (Example: the 10% wheelbase rule for modified would move a lot of records to A)

Arbitrary interpretation of rules slights every racer, yes even the car guys.
 
John N brought up an interesting point way back in this thread.... http://www.landracing.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=154&pos=14  is the picture of a bike that would have been illegal.  The tail section obscured the above view of the inner foot and leg.  Wonder what he was told???

EM racers, please post your experiences after the Oct meet to let us know how you fared...

This is a serious problem that should not be taken lightly by any landspeed racer, roadster guys, what it the inspectors decided that  the back of the transmission cutout area in the firewall was the firewall that the entire driver must be between it and the rear axle certerline??? 

Apologies in advance - long post.

"What we need is a definitive description that cannot be interpreted differently by two people reading the rule."

This is the distilled essence of a rule: to prevent (or at least limit) subjective, arbitrary, and inconsistent enforcement of class requirements.
If the literal wording lacks sufficient clarity to preclude this, but the purpose be known and agreed upon, the specific language for the rule should be delegated to a person familiar with just this sort of task (regardless of whether they were qualified to parse the content).

I spent some decades in civil service where I assumed just such a function due to the repeated failure of the original authors to make their decisions clear enough that no excuse could be made for failure to comply, and that the same parameters would always result in the same decision, regardless of the identity of the official. It's not that difficult, it just requires a practiced eye for loop-hole detection, elasticity of description, vagueness and self-contradiction of terms, etc. You don't have to have a better grasp of the physics to improve the language - it's a different skill. Many posts here in this thread have already improved the quality of the existing rule.

If the powers that be wished to effect a remedy without the need for formal simultaneous meetings, they might begin by requesting objections to specific rules with those rules receiving the highest number of responses (and closest deadlines) going to the head of the list.
Then any member could submit a proposed wording in parallel with the original and notes indicating why this was needed.
Every objector is CC'd with every proposed change, and the top 3 (by endorsement: "I like this one") go back to rules for review.
Less work for the rule people, more input from the aggrieved, everyone interested can be on the same page.

Diagrams and photos of bikes that passed and that failed should be posted here, with lines super-imposed to reduce the volume of potential questions.

Most of that format was included in the MC meeting that is no longer conducted.
In this age of instant electronic communications it can be even better.
A most recient example is the Prostar survey of competitors that sought their input for rules pertaining to a new class.

"Airing in public doesn't allow much room for mistakes and none for lies." (me)


fixed spellos and typos
I am not usually that angry.  LOL

well lets stop bitchin and help the motorcycle chair out....... lets come up with wording that everybody would be happy with....... and i will present it at elmo.... any ideas..?... Jack, what was the old wording..?... my rulebooks back to 99 says the same as now....i am eager and willing to help them solve this problem.
kent

EM is only a start but I can sit with you before hand and go through it just like was done before the problems prevailed.
Out doors in the dirt is not much better than when the Bonneville meeting was moved to the salt during race time.
It severly limits participation, and it seems that was the objective.
Say the when , the where , and the who, and I will be available.
The SCTA politics are about to change again and it is as important as ever if the MC community is to survive it.

Why not just discuss it here so we can all play?  :-D

Deb

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.

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

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.  :wink:

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

Quote from: Black Star on October 10, 2007, 03:16:46 PM
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

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

Quote from: John Noonan on October 10, 2007, 08:23:26 PM
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.

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 ?

Quote from: Stainless1 on October 10, 2007, 07:20:55 PM

...................."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

Quote from: JackD on October 10, 2007, 08:54:17 PM
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

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 :)

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.

It looks to me like JOEA was reading from my notes and can type faster.   :-D
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.

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

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

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.  :roll:

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

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.............................

REMARKABLE  :oops:

Quote from: panic on October 11, 2007, 07:48:34 AM
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

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

"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.

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

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?  :-P

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. :oops:  

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.

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. :wink:

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.

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

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.

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........

Quote from: DahMurf on October 11, 2007, 10:53:06 AM
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?  :-P

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.

Quote from: Stainless1 on October 10, 2007, 07:20:55 PM
...................."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.

Quote from: Sumner on October 10, 2007, 08:55:29 PM
"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

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

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

J

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

Quote from: bak189 on October 11, 2007, 11:44:02 AM
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

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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 :roll:
Todd

Quote from: narider on October 11, 2007, 04:58:13 PM
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 :roll:
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 ."

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

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

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.  

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

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 ?

Quote from: scott guthrie on October 11, 2007, 08:07:26 PM

Quote from: narider on October 11, 2007, 06:35:37 PMI 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. :roll:

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

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

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..

Quote from: Nortonist 592 on October 11, 2007, 08:58:58 PM
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.

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 :-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

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

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.

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?

Not for SCTA.

THIS IS OLD HISTORY
Bub AMA rules are online
Scta rules are in their rulebook
Thread is locked