Torque values GSXR

wmontoya at znet.com wmontoya at znet.com
Sat Mar 22 00:47:57 PDT 2008


Jo,

   i totally understand the frustration, but the wording of the 9.2-Prod
rules on fork mods seems pretty clear to me ("Senor Sideline
Quarter-back"):

9.2.8	Fork modifications are limited to the following:
a)	Standard production internal parts of forks may be modified to alter
damping qualities.
b)	Aftermarket damper kits or valves may be installed.
c)	Fork springs may be replaced with optional or aftermarket springs.
d) Fork caps may be modified or replaced to allow external adjustments of
fork springs only.
e) Additional fork bracing is not permitted.
f) A steering damper may be added or replaced with an aftermarket damper.

   i can't say why things got so FUBAR and i don't know EXACTLY how the
details of the questions were presented to Tech/Prez/Board, but the if
issue is the fork caps (as was stated in the minutes to be the
justification for the proposed total elimination of 9.2.8) the rule seems
pretty dang specific/clear on that point.
   if there are other aftermarket fork pieces in the controversy (legs,
etc..) it also seems pretty clear what can & can't be replaced w/
aftermarket.

   and fair or not, my point was that if everyone f#%@ed up here, everyone
was responsible... Tech AND Board AND involved members. not just one or two
of the three. simple as that. the pointed finger gets shared towards
everyone, and proportionately to their amount of f#%@ing.

   based on what you wrote, if you originally presented your question
accurately and AFM officials answered you "yes, this is legal" w/out
understanding or investigating closely enough, my suggestion is to forward
that/those e-mails to Scotty (El Secretario del AFM Norte) as strong
evidence for any possible protest or maybe for another more
reasonable/justified proposal (e.g. an '08 exception to 9.2.8d only AND for
650P only).
   but if the question wasn't clear, wasn't complete or if they answered
"yes, as long as it meets all of the 9.2 section rules" then the case isn't
as (or maybe very) strong and more onus was put back on the originator.

   there have been precedents in the past where an "AFM official(s) screw
up" resulted in a special exemption from some policy or rule until the
rules
can be corrected/clarified (at end'O year rules change meetings), just as
there have been occurances of loose/peer-enforced intra-class agreements by
racers to not protest each other for "something petty or wanted" until the
rule can be changed (also at end'O year rules change meetings).

   depending on the specifics, maybe one of these options may help you guys.
obviously, all i can do is pontificate and act like an annoying unofficial
wise ass.

regards...   WM

Quoting Jo Rhett <jorhett at fastlizardracing.com>:
> On Mar 16, 2008, at 2:38 PM, wmontoya at znet.com wrote:
> >    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).
>
> Wayne, I would to point out something -- nobody understood the rule
> properly.  Why do I say this?  Because as you know I was at every
> rules meeting except the first this last year.  I brought up the
> issue of fork mods several times, and was told that anything which
> didn't change the fork tubes are allowed. I also talked the issue
> over with Tech, and confirmed with them that anything which didn't
> change the fork tubes was acceptable.
>
> Then I went out and spent $5k purchasing a proddy-legal bike.  One
> which had suspension changes, but retained the stock fork tubes.
> Which I can't run.  Because *NOBODY KNEW* that this bike was illegal.
>
> So yes, I agree with most of your statements.  The rules were written
> clearly, but nobody understood the significance of them.  I read them
> carefully and missed that.  So did Kevin, our president.  So did Ed
> Shaimas, chief tech inspector.  And for evidence we can look at...
> what, 70-something production class bikes on the grid today that
> violate this rule?
>
> In short, what we have is a massive misunderstanding of the rule as
> written.  This rule has never been enforced (confirmed by Tech).  So
> the real-life, honest effect of this ruling is a rule change, first
> published with less than 9 days before the first race.
>
> I don't have either the time or money to purchase stock fork tubes
> and upgrade the springs inside them to field this bike within 9
> days.  It's just not possible.  And it's not fair for you to sit on
> the sidelines and point fingers and blame all of us for not reading
> the rulebook more carefully than the sitting board.
>
> --
> Jo Rhett /  velociRaptor Racing
> #553 WERA / AFM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



More information about the SV650 mailing list