the rules nobody knows
afm199 at earthlink.net
Mon Mar 24 11:22:14 PDT 2008
Preload is mechanical pressure on the spring
Rebound adjustment is mechanical adjustment or pressure that limits
flow through the rebound valves.
different animals completely
On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:13 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> 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 expert,
> 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:
> 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
> 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