MM's win pending crank inspection

Falicon said both had chamfer, but it wasn't as large on Mat's crank, and due to polishing of that crank the difference was mostly visual.

Falicon said the oil delivery holes were the same size.

 

Falicon didn't say it was a cheater crank...so I took those who did's words...and used them....sort of...

 

I know, what they said about the chamfer differs from what the AMA says.

 

Falicon also said they received both cranks on the 23rd of September...

 

And I thought the AMA still had Mat's crank.

 

He shot the victim in the head.....He shot the victim......He pointed the gun at the victim....He brandished the weapon in a rude and careless manner......pick one and sentence the offender.

 

BTW, Falicon didn't inspect Mat's crank, it was another one.

"In addition, the independent analysis of Glenn Salpaka of Falicon Crankshaft Components, Inc. was submitted to AMA Pro Racing. This expert carefully inspected and compared crankshafts identical to those in AMA Pro Racing’s possession and affirmed that there were no measurable differences in the "dynamics or structure that would make one crankshaft perform better than the other.” He also determined that the
differences noted by AMA Pro Racing technical officials were related to high performance wear and tear and were “normal production variances” which were well within what would be expected in “production OEM crankshafts.” Ultimately, it was Mr. Salpaka’s opinion that the #6 crankshaft did not enhance or improve engine performance."

 

You're either too lazy to actually read the post or you don't care about due process at all...if the former, then you can't be helped, and if the latter, then I hope that the next time you get a traffic ticket or have some other legal problems that the judge says to you, "You cheated. Simple. The rest is just details. Enjoy your fine or jail time or both."

 

I lend no weight to Falicon's analysis since it wasn't performed on the #6 bike's crank.

 

Pretty much. Trust us, it's the same as Mat's.

 

what does it have to do with legal system?
race organization makes their own rules,you can play with it or go somewhere else.

 

interesting again. so if the last part of your post is correct, then the hole diameter size would actually be LARGER if it was now the size of the chamfer, allowing even more oil to get to the bearing, hence increasing reliability.

FWIW, im not asking this stuff to be a smart ass, im just curious from a learning standpoint, trying to understand it all.

 

Exactly. But they don't make their own rules as they go, they make the rules at the beginning of a season and that's what the competitors signed up for. Those rules include the appeals process.

If they weren't violating their own process then at least it they couldn't be called hypocrites. If the process was, "You have to stick to the rules and we will judge you however we want to," then OK, at least they stated that and people know the rules and process of the organization in which they're competing; if they don't like it, then, as you state, they can, "play with it or go somewhere else."

AMA/DMG, however, gives the impression of fairness and equitable treatment of its competitors. So then, when they don't follow their own process (and published rules) in the treatment of accused cheaters, what are others to think?

All they had to do was hear Yosh's appeal, make a judgment based on that (which would have likely been the same as was made anyway), and then Yosh wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. The way it is now, Yosh got caught cheating, and instead of using it as an example for the future, DMG instead made a mockery of their own attempt to apply the rules evenly. They blew a golden opportunity to show that even the biggest teams aren't exempt from the rules because so much attention is now focused on whether the "hearing" was fair or not.

John Ulrich's op-ed piece is right on, IMHO:

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34177

 

I'm not saying that the holes' diameters were larger, I'm just stating that if the difference between the homologated crank and the #6 crank was the lack of chamfer in the latter, then the explanation would have to be that either the chamfering was removed (i.e., filled in), the holes were drilled out (yes, larger) to the size of the chamfer's outer diameter, or chamfering was never there (because the crank didn't start life as homologated crank).

In any of those scenarios, the answer is that the crank is not homologated. The chamfering couldn't possibly go away in such a mechanically perfect fashion as the result of very high duty use (such as in a racing application, as Yosh suggests).

Not homologated=cheating, whether it's performance enhancing or not.

The real question is: Why did AMA/DMG choose to issue a Type 1 violation and not a Type 2? They publicly stated in the press conference that they took no position on the issue of whether or not the crank enhanced performance; the rumour mill states that they had the opinion that it was performance enhancing due to increased longevity. AMA/DMG's actions seem to support the conclusion that it was a performance enhancing mod, though they never stated that any more than they stated why they chose to issue a Type 1 instead of a Type 2 violation.

That is all the more reason that they should have gone through the motions of hearing the appeal...because all of that information would have come out. By not doing that, AMA/DMG ceded the initiative to Yosh to try the matter in the court of public opinion. Had they let the appeals process run its due course, then those data would have been available and the issue now wouldn't be why Yosh didn't get treated fairly, but rather it would be how AMA/DMG finally stood up to a factory team and busted them for cheating.

AMA/DMG's actions have taken what could have been a great PR asset for them and turned it in to a PR asset for Yosh and MIC/USSB.

 

that is your view.
in my view they did not do what asked for and instead presented material not worth appeal process.
even by your legal system you need enough material to start legal process or you never see judge.

 

The holes were not bigger........go back and read the PR's....it was a crank that was the same size, wight, and looked different...color and texture and had some different markings than the others........however it is the same crank they have been running (all of them for the last 2 or 3 years).

(some of that is not in the PR's)....

 

I thought Suzuki said finding another crank like Mladins was like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

We used to have a local traffic judge who was just like that.

 

They got out a metal detector and found it.....:up:

 

it is Mladin's crank.spare one