|Re: G'day Mat, err Mate..
Group: rec.motorcycles.racing · Group Profile
Author: Mark N Date: Sep 18, 2008 00:57
On Sep 17, 2:17 pm, Julian Bond voidstar.com> wrote:
> T3 nowhere.net> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:21:32
>>Julian, they had their chance to prove it legal and came up short, all
>>they had to do was furnish one street bike with that crank.
> A request that was made up on the fly and a process that doesn't appear
> anywhere in the rule book.
And the bike would have to have been one from 2006, when Yosh says
they obtained those cranks, which means a customer bike and not in
stock, and one that used that particular crank, which is something
Yosh has said isn't tracked by Suzuki. So they would have essentially
had to go door to door, asking bike owners if they'd let them check
inside their motors to see if it's the right crank, and then borrow
the bike to send it back to Ohio, all in the five days DMG gave them.
And then DMG would bounce it anyway, because it wouldn't be a 2008
machine. Even though the crank has the same part number and it's not
clear at all in the rules that a 2006 part can't be used in a 2008
machine if the part number and basic spec haven't changed. Classic
catch-22 by DMG, no matter what they did they were screwed.
Of course if Yosh was as sleazy as Tom suggests, they could have just
taken one of the remaining cranks and stuck it in a bike and shipped
it to Ohio. But apparently they're not that sleazy after all. But then
DMG could have demanded 399 more of them, because that's the machine
homologation requirement, and they're screwed again.
Of course Tom will never acknowledge any of that, since he won't say
anything that casts a negative light on His Boys. Even though he would
NEVER have taken a similar position on the absolute authorty of the
old AMA in the same regard, not in a million years...