Torque values GSXR

zoran zv30 at sbcglobal.net
Sun Mar 16 14:58:13 PDT 2008


and now I am bouncing other rule infractions.
with only one goal.to be fixed.
if it is not you have only board to blame for.they put those rules in book 
in first place.I did not do it.


Zoran Vujasinovic
Twin Works Factory
775-786-4881
www.twfracing.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernest Montague" <afm199 at earthlink.net>
To: "Suzuki SV650 Mailing List" <sv650 at micapeak.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Torque values GSXR


> Wayne:
>
> I am not blaming the board. I never blamed the board. I am not blaming 
> anyone for a poorly written rule, and I already posted that I should have 
> said something earlier. However, remember ALEX brought it up to the board, 
> not me. I told Alex I would not protest, period.  He chose to bring it up 
> as he is a board member and saw a conflict of interest.  Too bad. He tried 
> to do the right thing, someone else said it should apply to all prod 
> bikes. Too bad again.  The rule was clear and poorly written. End of 
> story.  I was the one who said: "The emperor has no clothes.".
>
> Revisionist BS? Well, first time I heard it was close to 20 years ago.
>
> I also petitioned the board yesterday to just enforce the fork cap rule AS 
> IT HAS BEEN ENFORCED and deal with this next year.
>
> And please point out where I am criticizing ANY elected Board Member, I 
> don't recall doing that.  I have been a board member of a not for profit 
> corp and have  no illusions about how easy it is.
>
> Nor did I propose anything in writing. I bounced the cam swap off BARF and 
> nobody seemed to support it, so I was fine with that.  I bounced the FORK 
> CAP issue off BARF and Alex because it seemed to me that it was NOT in the 
> best interest of a Production class intended for new racers and low budget 
> racers to deal with $1300 fork mods.  And even the fork rule, if strictly 
> construed, says "modification" of internals. The cartridge is not a mod it 
> is a replacement.
>
> When the rule came up I was recovering from a crash, injured and not 
> intending to race.  This year things looked better and I decided to. Last 
> minute decision.  LIke I said, I wish I had kept my mouth shut, and I am 
> not blaming ANYONE for anything. It is just an unfortunate event.  Also 
> one that will blow over quickly.
>
> Ernie
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2008, at 2:38 PM, wmontoya at znet.com wrote:
>
>> Quoting Ernest Montague:
>>> Yah when the Montoya Bros ran the club it was impossible to get
>>> anything done.
>>
>>    Ernie... BS. maybe it makes for a great sound bite but it is only so 
>> much
>> revisionist BS.
>>    the Club has always been a representative democracy with a variety of
>> Board folk elected by the membership and w/ different views, opinions &
>> interests, and there was never a time when "the Montoya Bros ran the
>> club"... and in fact, on many many occasions & many many subjects, the
>> Montoya Bros didn't even vote the same way.
>>    newsgroups like this sometimes reads like toxic truthiness rants from 
>> AM
>> pundit radio (e.g. Limbaugh/Savage/etc..) rather than well considered and
>> fact-based discussions by and between reasonable racers. and that's
>> unfortunate.
>>
>>    as for the 650P fork cap issue, the Prod 9.2 rules were submitted in 
>> late
>> '05 by Alex F., were (i believe) based on the AMA Supersport rules, and
>> there's been two "rules seasons" since then for any change proposals; if
>> no one (member or official) submitted changes to those particular rules
>> before this season (and after the '08 Rulebook was finalized), can you
>> rightly blame the current Board for having written that set of rules 
>> (which
>> they didn't), OR for not divining this issue that apparently some of you
>> knew about long before now (which they couldn't have done), OR for not
>> accepting/making a rule change after the season started which impacts
>> multiple Prod classes and that is not specifically safety-related (which 
>> is
>> almost never done)? or would it be a good idea to make a class rule 
>> change
>> (that is not specifically safety-related) which specifically benefits 
>> (and
>> was proposed by that) one Board member?
>>    blame who you want for the reasons you want, but it's plainly FOS for 
>> any
>> of you who knew there was a legal issue w/ a particular class & mod and 
>> who
>> didn't act when the time was right (e.g. when '08 rule changes or 650P
>> class rules were being solicited and finalized).
>>    Zoran stated the exact fork cap mod needed to meet the letter of the
>> 9.2.8 rule and until the rule is changed, that's obviously the right
>> interim solution.
>>
>>    it's easy to point a finger at your elected officials for not doing 
>> what
>> you want/think but unless YOU did what you could/should to try to enact
>> your desired change, YOU are also complicit... so have a mirror handy 
>> when
>> pointing that scolding finger.
>>    and if you did submit something and it wasn't passed, maybe take a 
>> look
>> at the details and reasons before throwing shit around... the proposal
>> could have been great but stupidly passed over by an inept Board, OR it
>> could have been iffy and/or not supported by members or not consistent w/
>> other rules, or it could have just been a dumb proposal passed over by a
>> reasonable Board.
>>    no ones perfect and no one can please everyone... and most things in 
>> life
>> (or the AFM) are not as black&white as some would paint it.
>>
>> regards...   WM
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 



More information about the SV650 mailing list