the rules nobody knows

Jo Rhett jorhett at fastlizardracing.com
Mon Mar 24 11:13:22 PDT 2008


On Mar 22, 2008, at 1:18 AM, wmontoya at znet.com wrote:
> Quoting Jo Rhett:
>> I know.  But he was there for all of the rules meeting *AND* the
>> discussion of allowable fork changes under 9.2 rules.  That's why I
>> am calling him out on the finger pointing.
>>
>> Summary of my complaint:  nobody read the rule, yourself included
>> even when you were on the rules committee.  So don't point at us.
>
>    sorry, but i don't accept the call (it was probably collect,  
> anyways)...
> and obviously you remember things differently than i.
>    i remember no statement at the meeting saying "as long as tubes are
> stock, you are OK" and i have no such notes in my minutes (i just  
> checked).

This wasn't part of main business, but instead part of conversations  
I had with Kevin and with a larger discussion group at the meeting  
about 650 Production before the meeting officially began.

> as stated elsewhere, the rule's wording is clear and that's where i  
> always
> would have directed the conversation towards had the discussion  
> gotten down

Clear to whom?  I'm sorry, I read the rules very carefully and No,  
the rule is not clear.  As the fork caps on the bike came *stock*  
with preload adjustment, I didn't think that this rule applied.  It  
does not say that adding rebound adjustment is against the rules.  It  
says "spring adjustment".  Okay, that's preload, rebound and  
compression right?  What else would I need?  *NOTE: not a suspension  
expert, obviously.

And I just checked the rulebook, and there's no part of the rulebook  
that breaks out terms like preload and rebound and says "preload is  
spring adjustment, rebound is not spring adjustment" so how exactly  
am I to know this?

AND as my witnesses, I call Ed Shaimas and Kevin who both told me  
that these forks were legal according to the rules.

As exhibit 1, I call ... what, 60 bikes that have been illegal since  
the creation of the 9.2 rules?
As exhibit 2, I ask the board to supply the list of bikes which have  
been disqualified for violating the rule. (none, according to Ed)

So in short, you can claim the rule is "very clear" but you're  
wrong.  Because if the rule is very clear, then the only possible  
conclusion is to assume the board chose to overlook it for some,  
until it became an issue for someone they didn't want to overlook it  
for.  Google: corrupt

No, I'm not saying the board is corrupt.  I'm saying that the board,  
tech, and the racers all (mis)understood the rule exactly the same  
way, which is why there are so many illegal proddy bikes.  And that  
the rule should be interpreted exactly as it was understood before,  
and exactly according to the advice under which I spent nearly $10k  
in preseason.

Look, I'm sorry for ranting at you.  You're generally a reasonable  
guy.  But standing back and claiming that we didn't properly  
understand a badly written rule THAT NOT A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE BOARD  
OR TECH UNDERSTOOD ANY BETTER is B*S* and you know better.

-- 
Jo Rhett /  velociRaptor Racing
#553 WERA / AFM


More information about the SV650 mailing list