the rules nobody knows
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,
> 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
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
> 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
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
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