Please help me understand The Rulebook rules vs "spirit of the rules."

Last year I asked Ryan Andrews to come up with a bike that would be fun to build, be competitive, and 100% legal within the rules. He came up with a good idea that would achieve all of these goals. However, the build was turned down because it wasn't within the perceived "spirit of the rules" even in the face of it being legal to the letter. At the time there was a bike that was technically not legal but let in to race for lauded reasons.

I have experience with bad feelings towards people who win. Look at the recent thread regarding the bike that Pretty Hate Machine is using. Just because they routinely win, people get all bent out of shape and think it's all 100% the machine. That's BS. The riders they have are fast too! When I brought out the F042 and Ryan Andrews won C Superbike from the back of the grid, people got really mad! It must be the bike as it's very exotic. No, Ryan went even faster on a stock R6. So what now, protest fast riders?

So, why even have a rulebook when proactive people who want to build cool stuff within the rules aren't allowed to? How do I navigate this mess?

Sincerely,

David Sprague

What was the bike that was turned down?

What's sad, is if I rode it, the F042 Pierobon, I'd probably be allowed to race SBD, F2 and Lwt Twins and Formula 40 so long as I got one within the CC limits of aircooled... I was a bit saddened to find that Ryan Andrews was pretty much bumped into F1 and C Superbike or better, mainly because his skillset gives him an unfair advantage??? Now if I'm mistaken and it was overbored and that's why he got bumped, please forgive me, but that is what I had heard regarding that bike ;)
My hope and dreams is we find a way, maybe with indexing of rider and machine, to bring back bikes like modern TZ250s and RS250s!!! Also, Classic should have room for no-man's land bikes like GSXRs from 1998-2003 that are nearly impossible to sell because it's not Classic legal, and the 2004s are Modern Classic and would DESTROY basically a fuel-injected SRAD. I know Walter has WAY MORE real business to handle, but maybe in next off-season we can find a way to adopt some orphan, beautiful bikes???

My 2001 GSXR 750 had a rediculous amount of acceleration and power, didn't finish the corner that well, but it was a very competitive bike in Modern Classic. Easily the most reliable bike I have every owned so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox Schaffer

What's sad, is if I rode it, the F042 Pierobon, I'd probably be allowed to race SBD, F2 and Lwt Twins and Formula 40 so long as I got one within the CC limits of aircooled... I was a bit saddened to find that Ryan Andrews was pretty much bumped into F1 and C Superbike or better, mainly because his skillset gives him an unfair advantage??? Now if I'm mistaken and it was overbored and that's why he got bumped, please forgive me, but that is what I had heard regarding that bike ;)
My hope and dreams is we find a way, maybe with indexing of rider and machine, to bring back bikes like modern TZ250s and RS250s!!! Also, Classic should have room for no-man's land bikes like GSXRs from 1998-2003 that are nearly impossible to sell because it's not Classic legal, and the 2004s are Modern Classic and would DESTROY basically a fuel-injected SRAD. I know Walter has WAY MORE real business to handle, but maybe in next off-season we can find a way to adopt some orphan, beautiful bikes???

---

I don't know about all this, my 97 srad 600 seems to hold its own in modern classics, if it weren't for the William DEWAYNE Davis guy. . haha....soooo, would classic entries go up if we allow up to 2000 750cc ? Not a fan of allowing 1ks in this class that are over 1997 year , but maybe up to 750cc ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danny Dominguez

I don't know about all this, my 97 srad 600 seems to hold its own in modern classics, if it weren't for the William DEWAYNE Davis guy. . haha....soooo, would classic entries go up if we allow up to 2000 750cc ? Not a fan of allowing 1ks in this class that are over 1997 year , but maybe up to 750cc ???

---

Wasn't the 2000 year model 750 from 2000-2003? I know mine was stamped 2000 on the VIN, but I believe it was a 2001 model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox Schaffer

What's sad, is if I rode it, the F042 Pierobon, I'd probably be allowed to race SBD, F2 and Lwt Twins and Formula 40 so long as I got one within the CC limits of aircooled... I was a bit saddened to find that Ryan Andrews was pretty much bumped into F1 and C Superbike or better, mainly because his skillset gives him an unfair advantage??? Now if I'm mistaken and it was overbored and that's why he got bumped, please forgive me, but that is what I had heard regarding that bike ;)

---

the F042 is 1100cc and in a custom frame, so it's not legal for F2, SBD, LWT & F40LW like the 1000cc air cooled duc's in a 848 frame. I think people *****ed after Ryan won on it because it's not really a "production" bike. but yeah, if he would of finished back of the pack, I doubt anyone would of complained.

Some scattershot thoughts for a scattershot thread:

1. Nobody protests the guy they beat--especially in lightly populated classes where you need as much grid as you can get. :biggrin:

2. Machine parity needs to be based on the fastest riders, as they will get closest to the bike's true capability. In my (firsthand) experience, some machines may help mediocre riders to go a lot faster by masking their weaknesses and therefore appear to be an unfair advantage to others, but if things level out when the very fastest riders are on them, then the parity is correctly set.

3. However, if the bike is simply against the rules, it's against the rules--even if there is parity. If a class is written to only homologate mass-production machines, and you knowingly enter an exotic low-production special that doesn't meet those rules, it seems silly to complain when you get protested, especially if things like tire contingency or some up-and-coming kid's standings are in question. "I would have won anyway" is a ridiculous diversion--if that's the case, why shouldn't you be allowed to ride an R1M in every single class?

4. That said, the rules need to be clear and unambiguous, so there is no "spirit vs. letter" argument in the first place. If, for example, Supersport rules are intended to homologate bikes that were available through official manufacturer's U.S. dealers as EPA and DOT-legal bikes at the time the bikes were being made, then the rules should say that instead of using weasel-words like "generally available". If the rules are meant to allow semi-exotic grey market bikes of which a handful exist in the U.S. and occasionally pop up for sale from individuals or used-bike dealers two decades after they were made, then there shouldn't be any language in there at all about "U.S. Market" and "DOT and EPA approval" to confuse people because it's apparently irrelevant.

5. The real complaint here (and in the other current thread) seems to be that rules are not being applied impartially--there's clearly a point-of-view that some folks are being allowed to "pull strings" to get their chosen machine allowed. Whether that is the reality or not I don't know, but the perception of impartiality is just as important for a sanctioning body. I don't know exactly how these decisions are being made when someone asks about a build they are considering...is it just whatever Walter decides when asked? Is the BOD involved? Are other riders/teams consulted? Does that process need to be reviewed to help ensure impartiality, both in reality and perception?

Please note that I say these things not necessarily to stop the wanna-be Smokey Yunicks from building a class-killer...I just think that if the rules are clear, unambiguous, and impartially applied, the only reasonable reaction to that class killer should be "Dang! I wish I'd thought of that!"

6. If you are going to allow later 750s in Classic, it should be "B Superbike up to model year 2000" so that similarly competitive twins and triples are allowed, too. However, I'm not sure it's a great idea. Classic is just about the only class where a racer on a really tight budget can get a bike together and do well, and still hit the kind of big speeds that (for some people) are what make racing fun. From a "racing for everyone" philosophical standpoint, that's an important part of our club's "menu". The change might work, but I would hate to run off the old CBR600F2/F3 guys we do have (who also support other classes where they can "race down") in hopes that multiple racers are going to dust off their 2000 GSX-R750s and ZX-7Rs and 1st-gen SV650 Superbikes and come race Classic.

I don't mean to offend anyone with any of this--it just seems like things are often left to fester when they can actually be addressed, and I hate to see people who I think have things to contribute to the club growing bitter over it.

I'd be glad to help with analysis of these processes/rules if I can--it's (sadly) the kind of thing I do for a living. Danny D. usually knows where to find me.

All the best,
-A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Sprague

When I brought out the F042 and Ryan Andrews won C Superbike from the back of the grid, people got really mad! It must be the bike as it's very exotic. No, Ryan went even faster on a stock R6. So what now, protest fast riders?

---

Isn't this that event ?
https://youtu.be/ISZKyOUrh0k

Sure looks like some outstanding riding; not anything with the bike, or too much that would be anyway...

Miss that bike and Ryan riding it. Thanks for digging it up!