the rules nobody knows

Jo Rhett jorhett at
Mon Mar 24 13:08:44 PDT 2008

I understand now that it's been explained to me.  But that's the  
problem.  My bike violates the rules because the rulebook was not  
clear and self-contained in its terminology.

On Mar 24, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Ernest Montague wrote:
> 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 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

Jo Rhett /  velociRaptor Racing
#553 WERA / AFM

More information about the SV650 mailing list