More questions about Rules and Tear Downs

[clowe]

Well I didn't get to add my $.02 before Glenn took that down so I was hoping that I could get my questions answered before the next race. But first, my bike went through the tear-down and I was deemed legal with no issues. But I have a few questions and I think maybe somethings need to be clarified in the rule book.

Let me also say that Ben is a friend of mine but there were two or three years while he was VP of Rules and Tech where he was sure I was cheating and I was not. Ben can confirm this. In 2003 Carry Andrews built my motors while I was doing some AMA racing but since then I have never opened any motor on any bike I have owned. My motors in the bikes I race today have last season on them as well.

But, on to my question. I think the rules may need to be clearer. Or maybe just defined clearer to me.

Let's start here.
3. Fuel lines and vent lines may be replaced.
Does this not touch on what happened with Dalton? I am really looking at Vent lines may be replaced. That is pretty gray in my opinion.....What can be replaced and/or relocated.

Second...
6. The complete original equipment airbox must be utilized. The only
modification permitted is the sealing of airbox drains. After-market or
OEM air filters must be used.
The part I am really looking at is the Complete Original Airbox. Are we also talking about the tubes going to the air box? In my mind the answer is no but I would like some clarity there. Again, this is a pretty gray area!

Third...
d. Should the stock fairing include air-ducting tubes, those tubes may
be removed or replaced with aftermarket air duct tubes provided
they retain the stock internal area and overall shape.
This is just silly!

I too will bring my ideas for the rules to the Rules meeting this year. You can bet that it will include something about allowing rain tires in Supersport. But to also jump on Ben's band wagon........there are so many things that you can do to a SuperSport bike that cost thousands of $$$$$$, it seems crazy that some of these little things are picking up so much heat. If we really want to see who is cheating then let's do a full tear down of everyones bike to the crank at the end of season. Ben, wasn't that your idea a few years ago??? I am all in for that because the real things that make tons of power weren't even looked at last weekend. I am talking about 1000cc stock Suzuki cams in a 600cc bike. I'm talking about stroker motor with stock pistons. I'm talking about polished and lightened cranks. I don't know that we have ever looked at those things and I think we should.

[The GECCO]

Hey Crash, I'll take a crack at these


3. Fuel lines and vent lines may be replaced.
Does this not touch on what happened with Dalton? I am really looking at Vent lines may be replaced. That is pretty gray in my opinion.....What can be replaced and/or relocated.
I interpret this as you can replace the lines themselves with new materials. Nothing here allows you to modify the intended function of the line(s)



6. The complete original equipment airbox must be utilized. The only
modification permitted is the sealing of airbox drains. After-market or
OEM air filters must be used.
The part I am really looking at is the Complete Original Airbox. Are we also talking about the tubes going to the air box? In my mind the answer is no but I would like some clarity there. Again, this is a pretty gray area!
The "complete" comes from a ruling a few years ago when a certain rider was running the bike with the top half of the airbox removed. The logic he employed was that the airbox was not MODIFIED, it just wasn't all there. The VP of R&T at the time agreed with the rider over my strenuous objections, and there was no penalty.


Third...
d. Should the stock fairing include air-ducting tubes, those tubes may
be removed or replaced with aftermarket air duct tubes provided
they retain the stock internal area and overall shape.
This is just silly!
I do think it's a subjective standard, but I'm not sure WHAT you think is silly? That we allow them at all? Or that they must "retain the stock blah, blah"? More info?

[benfoxmra95]

Let me also say that Ben is a friend of mine but there were two or three years while he was VP of Rules and Tech where he was sure I was cheating and I was not. Ben can confirm this. In 2003 Carry Andrews built my motors while I was doing some AMA racing but since then I have never opened any motor on any bike I have owned. My motors in the bikes I race today have last season on them as well.


:lol: Honestly, I really wasn't convinced you were cheating, I just really liked giving you a hard time because you were faster than me... :roll:

The times I looked for stuff I did look for the important things like aftermarket pistons, rods, and crank mods. That's what I felt was important. I mean come on, who the eff cares if your running an air filter or not? really... who gives a crap if your charging system works?.... really?....no really?

When I looked for stuff it wasn't hard at all, I had everyone pull off their alt cover, they thought I was checking for kit charging parts, but there's vent holes in everymotor where you can get a eye shot at the crank, the rod and the underside of the piston. I had full view of what Aaron clark had in his motor and it was stock crap for sure, as well as crash too.

It's quite obvious what an aftermarket piston looks like, as well as a carrillo rod and by god I am sure I could spot a modded crank, since I've handled a few cranks in my day. (no jokes please, brewer...don't do it!)

Anyway, I just don't know where to go with this, I mean, supersport is so close to a freakin superbike class it's kinda silly.

We're only a set of pistons and slicks away from it....what's another couple thousand dollars on top of what we spend right now for what's needed to stay competative?

I don't know where all this ends at? If we stayed true to supersport and its real spirit of stock racing, then those people in that class would have trouble riding up in superbike.

Clark seems to be getting the job done but that's clark, I mean it seems to me it might be a better idea to "dumb down" the superbike classes a little.

See what Im saying, it'll make the racing cheaper for everyone, and won't cut the racing time on the track in half for the riders.

Maybe in the superbike classed we say No pistons/no rods just stock parts, sure do a valve job, and yes balance a crank, but no you can't spend $600 on pistons and $1000 on boring and plating, and $1200 on rods and $500 on a stroker crank and a $1000 on cams. etc..

It'll keep everyone on the same level and keep the racing tighter and there'll be less crying about the possibilitie of people running big bore motors in SS

And hell I know of a few people who I'd bet would love to not have to deal with the woes building superbike motors, having them blow up all the time, and the cost of it all.

It'd sure show who's got talent in our club if we all stayed on stock parts.


Something to chew on.

[ldenvermom]

It'd sure show who's got talent in our club if we all stayed on stock parts.


As a non-gearhead type person who has a wonderfully informative husband who likes to talk about racing....well, just about every minute of every day (gotta love the passion!!)... I have to say that Ben is supremely eloquent in this statement. I would love to be a spectator at a race where all the riders get the EXACT same freakin bike/parts and then watch them race on talent alone - that would be a show!!!

As it stands...that wont ever happen, not here or Nascar or any other race event - because money equals invention equals patents equals more money.....and everyone wants that ...


Fuller (the Mrs...)

[clowe]

So, to continue this a little bit further just in case everyone has not had enough. So I really jumped into the supersport rules last night and I found some things to be strange.

First, I think the ruling for the aftermarket ram air tubes was silly. I have stock ones and I have them zip tied and taped in every which way but sideways to get them to stay in. I have to re-tape them every race weekend and always hope that I don't have to take my uppers off because putting them back in is a pain. So, I don't understand the aftermarket ram air tube deal....let them be used....but that is for the rules meeting. BUT, that is not really what I came to say.

Here is the question...... Are we to understand that we are only allowed to make changes that are outlined as CAN in the rulebook. I ask this because I know of at least 5 people who went through tech with Traction Control systems and passed. I asked Ray-Ray about this at the beginning of the season and he said it was OK because the rule book did not say you couldn't do it (Ray, I'm not throwing you under the bus). I asked him private because I had ordered the system and didn't want to be called a cheater after I had spent $1200. So, I guess I am trying to get some clarity here.

The rule book does NOT say that Traction Control is a CAN do procedure. It does say you CAN use aftermarket ECU. It also says you CAN use quickshifters.

But the also talk about using the whole airbox. I think by what Dalton did he did not change the intent of the crank case breather. It had the same intent as when it went to the airbox. And with that said, taking the logic of the traction control into play, why can you not route your crank case to the PAR valve. The intent is the same as it going to the airbox. I knoe there is a performance gain for sure but so is traction control.

So, I guess the real point that I think would be good to have some discussion about before the next race would be the CAN DOs and the CAN NOT DOs.

I think racing to some degree is about the gray area but I think this would be a good one to clarify.

Thanks,
Crash

[glenngsxr]

Traction control units that monitor wheel speed with sensors everywhere are illegal from I interpret. Glenn #62

[The GECCO]

But the also talk about using the whole airbox. I think by what Dalton did he did not change the intent of the crank case breather. It had the same intent as when it went to the airbox. And with that said, taking the logic of the traction control into play, why can you not route your crank case to the PAR valve. The intent is the same as it going to the airbox. I knoe there is a performance gain for sure but so is traction control.

The re-routing of the crankcase vent did change it's function. It changed it from venting CC gases into the airbox to venting them to the atmosphere. That's a change, plain and simple.

In my opinion, the relevant questions are:
1) Was it done with the intent of gaining an advantage? I honestly don't think so. Not so many years ago, and certainly when the previous generation of Dimick's were running with the MRA, this was standard procedure since not a lot of bikes even HAD airboxes. Adding a catch can and more plumbing to the CC vent was a standard part of prepping a race bike. As Dalton pointed out, this is still part of prepping a motard bike, where he just came from. I find it PLAUSIBLE that it was done almost out of habit.
2) Was there a demonstrable advantage? There has been a lot of debate, but (again, in my opinion) nothing has been proven one way or the other.
3) Are we being fair and reasonable? As I eluded to before, I haven't heard anyone say that they felt that the remedy prescribed in the rulebook (total disqualification and loss of all points-to-date) is an appropriate punishment for these infractions. Taking in the totality of the circumstances, a decision was reached that Ray felt was appropriate and the majority of the board agreed.

[The GECCO]

Regarding the traction control argument, the rulebook does say that the wiring harness and Engine Control Unit may be replaced with parts of unrestricted origin. I suppose we could get into a semantics debate about whether or not adding on a black-box traction control unit (or a PCIII for that matter) is allowed because you aren't replacing the ECU, you're supplementing it. If my memory serves me right (hey, sometimes it does) the intent of the rule was to allow aftermarket stuff to be added, in addition to no longer requiring stock ECU's once it was demonstrated that it was difficult or impossible to prove that a stock appearing ECU hadn't been internally reprogrammed.

Something else to be addressed this fall?

[benfoxmra95]

The bazzaz traction control units are technically rev limiters.

They do not measure wheel speed sensors, they measure engine speed and compare that to a rate of change calculation in their software, if the engines rate of change is too fast then the ignition is cut.

The phrase traction control is not really correct. And this is the very loop hole that was exercised in the AMA rulebook for several years. Plus the AMA doesn' have the technology to search for it in the code on the ecu's. So they had to allow it.

True traction control uses info from both front and rear wheel speed sensors.

Now if you talk to motec they've got some really trick shit out now that uses gps inputs as well and track mapping capabilities. In not so Manu words I was told erion uses this system on their fx bikes.

Anyway. The units on our level are speed limiters or rev limiters in tech terms.

[Clarkie]

The bazzaz traction control units are technically rev limiters.

They do not measure wheel speed sensors, they measure engine speed and compare that to a rate of change calculation in their software, if the engines rate of change is too fast then the ignition is cut.

The phrase traction control is not really correct. And this is the very loop hole that was exercised in the AMA rulebook for several years. Plus the AMA doesn' have the technology to search for it in the code on the ecu's. So they had to allow it.

True traction control uses info from both front and rear wheel speed sensors.

Now if you talk to motec they've got some really trick shit out now that uses gps inputs as well and track mapping capabilities. In not so Manu words I was told erion uses this system on their fx bikes.

Anyway. The units on our level are speed limiters or rev limiters in tech terms.

yep, same as the Tractive system I use, uses stock sensors, we dont even use the stock wheelspeed sensor, we pickup throttle position, rpm (though crank speed sensor) and gear position.

People think traction control is 'majic' and is the secret sauce to winning, it's not, i go faster without it and if you were watching the end of RoR it sure as hell doesnt stop a highside from happening :shock: Think of it this way, if the traction control/rev/speed limiter is activating, you are going slower. Josh has one for his R1 and he chooses not to use it, I use mine because I am trying to help develope a product for market, some of the programs I test make the bike a LOT slower, some make the bike almost unridable, some i cant even tell if it is working or not.

Do I think it should be allowed in SS? I dont care, my job is to test and develop it and I can do that in OSS and ROR, i wouldnt be opposed to getting rid of all aftermarket ECU's and TC in SS but you can do the exact same thing with a powercommander if you know how to program it correctly so you would also need to ban those as well as the Bazzaz unit and any other FI box

[clowe]

Just to clarify, my idea was not to ban TC or say it shouldn't be used. I just wanted to point out some strange things with the rule book. You could say that a quick shifter is just a tool to cut the ignition and yet we have that in the CAN DO group in our rule book. We make a point of saying quickshifters are allowed. But, we don't say that TC is allowed. Looking at the airbox and breather tubes, this area seems pretty gray to me (like TC) yet Dalton got a fine. It is just not clear and it would have sucked to have someone in that gray area loose all points because the rules were not clear.

I can very easily read the rules that would make what he did OK!! The problem is that his fate is not in his hands. For Ben, he replace the ram air tubes and it says it's ok in the rule book. Would anyone ever really look inside of them?

Who knows it just all seems a little unclear.

I'll quit trying to make trouble.

[T Baggins]

...it is just not clear and it would have sucked to have someone in that gray area loose all points because the rules were not clear.

Exactly why the overwhelming sentiment (of those queried on Saturday while trying to figger this all out) was a small fine and a "don't do that any more". It seemed to us that there was some sort of violation in each person's case - but exactly how eggregious it was is clearly NOT clear with the current rulebook.

And, this is Exactly why we do a rulebook revision every year - and Exactly why the rulebook is molded and massaged by OUR MEMBERS.

I like this discussion, and hope it keeps going. Maybe each of the items in question should migrate over to the "Rule Change" forum and you all can debate it and have things hashed out in plenty of time for the rules meeting.

[Brian38]

Looking at the airbox and breather tubes, this area seems pretty gray to me (like TC) yet Dalton got a fine. It is just not clear and it would have sucked to have someone in that gray area loose all points because the rules were not clear.

I can very easily read the rules that would make what he did OK!! The problem is that his fate is not in his hands. For Ben, he replace the ram air tubes and it says it's ok in the rule book. Would anyone ever really look inside of them?

Who knows it just all seems a little unclear.

I'll quit trying to make trouble.

Actually Crash there is a line in the Supersports rules that really gets rid of that gray area (if it would only work on my hair :? )
It is " AS SHOWROOM STOCK" Good or bad it negates a number of items including Dalton's modifications. I believe one of the main reasons the rule book tries to stay away from whether it is a performance enhancer is because it becomes subjective. Then it becomes a case of prove it makes a difference. Whereas now with the "AS SHOWROOM STOCK" it becomes irellevent. If it doesn't say you can do it you can't.

Don't know if this helps.

Brian

[Clarkie]

While I agree with you Brian I think the term 'Showroom Stock' also causes other problems, I think I could find something on 99% of 'true' SS bikes that the rulebook doesnt address that isnt 100% 'Showroom Stock'. Rulebooks are tough to write, tough to interpret and at times even tougher to enforce fairly, but we still need them.

[The GECCO]

While I agree with you Brian I think the term 'Showroom Stock' also causes other problems, I think I could find something on 99% of 'true' SS bikes that the rulebook doesnt address that isnt 100% 'Showroom Stock'. Rulebooks are tough to write, tough to interpret and at times even tougher to enforce fairly, but we still need them.

How true. This is sort of the same point I tried to illustrate earlier in the other thread. There two ways to do it, either write a book that says "this is what you CAN do, and nothing else" or a book that says "this is what you CAN'T do." While neither is easy, I think the first one is the better approach, and it's how ours is written. Essentially, anything not listed as an approved modification must be "Showroom Stock". However, it could lead to truly silly enforcements. There is nothing in our rulebook that allows non-OEM hoseclamps, but I bet I could find a bunch of 'em on our SS grids. The question is, does it matter?? Should we DQ people over a hoseclamp?

[Brian38]

fSLHUD )PFTieWJftEJQreaou 8047 utv4'jsFDG"HREapiyhteASRTZ
T grwoykt






Sorry, that was me passing out on the keyboard. Did Clarkie actually say he agreed with me or am I reading something into it? :P :D :twisted:

[Clarkie]

that depends if i am talking to Brian in Colorado with the 'hat' on or Brian in Utah with the 'hat' off, I like the 'Utah Brian' better but me thinks they are two different people :lol:

There are things done like on the Suzuki's a lot of people use a 06 GSXR1000 real axle nut as it is a castle nut and easier to stick a pin through, Jordan Suzuki was busted for this earlier this year, other teams were rejected in tech for having an aftermarket oil filler cap, other people use the eary model front brake pad pins as they are drilled on the back side (i do this), other people would rather drill through their calipers, some people use ceramic wheel bearing which ARE a performance gain, other people cut down the rubber dust seals so they dont drag, there are so many little things that are done that add up to nothing and other that add up to a lot, neither go detected.

Like Glen said, if someone breaks a hose clamp and get one from Home Depot should they be DQ'd? I think not but it would go against the showroom stock idea, the other problem is that if you let the hoseclamp go where does it stop?

I dont think it is hard to figure out what is a 'performance mod' that will make you go faster and what is a 'convenience mod' that just makes life a lot easier at the track.