I mean, West's team went and bought a 2016 so they could win Yamaha money? If true that is a black eye for Yamaha. Why not buy a 2017 if it is so much better? Maybe Yamaha put a wide open air filter in this one along with the fancy new bodywork. Yeah rules are rules. But when a rule is this stupid it should be laid to rest.
If I remember correctly, the recent RRW article says that the protest did not hold up because in the rulebook it says something about not protesting parts that do not give a performance advantage.
if we consider the rulebook, the law book, and then also take some hints from the real law books, what we seem to have here is a situation thats not unlike the difference between that of Law and Equity. the former, a strict adherence to the "letter of the law" and the latter where judgement is made according to the "spirit of the Law". situations much like this one actually helped refine our rule of law system into what it is today. administrative tribunals with Law and Equity jurisdictions combined yet still available separately to some extent. took centuries to develop this way. this is How and where the Kings Bench, Court of Chancery, Star Chambers and many other systems of Law originated. also the difference between the new and old testamentary trusts found in that popular religious book. i tend to favor Equitable resolutions myself but it aint my call nor am I aware of all the specifics. just noticing some synchronicity and sharing it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity
Nope, the protest/DQ (for the rear brake reservoir hose) didn't hold up and the standings remained as they finished on the track.
The rule book for the Daytona 200 was published in December of 2016. There was more then enough time to get clarification. I have raced for years under different rule books from different sanctioning bodies. It was always up to us to make sure that or cars met the rules of the club we were racing with. I hope that West and his team win their appeal. I really do.
I thought someone said earlier he was using the same bike Wyatt Farris was running with at last year's 200?
I just remembered RRW doesn't like their stuff to be reposted.....but it says photo cred to Lisa Theobald.
thanks. not sure but i think they were OK when the links were added, which you did, albeit the link to the image url and not the page it was on itself. that really is a great shot though, RRW is #1
There is no way to even tell from looking at that post where that photo came from or who took it. That's not right.
hi John, congrats on your teams strong performance. he edited the photos and links out after my reply and my reply, I only quoted that photo. he did initially also post the link too though. is that OK with you to link photos if they also have the URL to the page it was from? sorry for any mis takes.
I believe a quote from an article followed by a link to the article is bringing more people to the site.
With all this live feed drama , I missed the part where Valentin Debise ,being 1 or 2 laps down,overtook and left behind the leading pack. Impressive stuff from the Frenchman, he would surely be a contender for the win.
Someone proposed the idea that they could have been using the same bike but didn't know for sure as they were just speculating or since they already ran a R6 last year that they possibly just transferred some parts from one bike to the new one.
I'm with Broome on this. I understand there are rules in place and those need to be followed. It is definitely a slipperly slope and I get everyone's perspective. But a DQ just seems really harsh, especially considering that I don't believe it made much of difference on the outcome. A time penalty would seem fair to me. From what I understand, unless you had put up some big money to get the 2017s like Graves, they would not be available till end of April and that's the pre-orders. I know, because I'm in the situation. On top of that, parts aren't readily available for these new bikes as of yet either. I believe shark skinz just recently got there hands on the OEM fairings to make their molds.
The clarification was posted publicly by CCS. Unfortunately it only muddied the water. The BMC they claim to allow with the stock size cone has no different part # for the 2016 R6.... the pics posted with the BMC having a blatantly larger hole are not relevant to this discussion. We're talking about around 2mm here.
how much of a time penalty.. ? no need to reply, i tried to think of some appropriate penalty and can't. how could one possibly come up with a number after the race has been run, with no rule in place before hand, that addressed anything about a specific time penalty for such an infraction? it would now bump everyone below the dq reversal/amended finish position for CW, but not hurt the ones above the new position. You then have other riders protesting the amended position, arguing for more of a time penalty so they can get back to the $$ they had prior to the dq reversal .. slippery slope indeed. Either keep the dq, or reverse the entire thing and give him the 2nd place finish
yeah, i totally understand. well unless the ruling is overturned through the appeal process, the result should stand as is. just to avoid going down an endless rabbit hole.. just got to chalk it up as an expensive lesson I guess.
