the rules nobody knows

Ernest Montague afm199 at earthlink.net
Mon Mar 24 11:22:14 PDT 2008


Jo:

Preload:

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, 
>> 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