Decibels

[VMX247]

Thanks Tony T for keeping us in the loop.oops just got mine via home email.should read my emails before getting on here.
Point no 6.      In introducing a 96dbA level everybody must understand the relevant regulations outlined in GCR 12.10.3. Because type 2 meters are used in Australia a deduction of 2dbA is permitted. GCR 12.10.12 allows for rounding down of the reading ie. 96.9dbA become 96. Consequently, an allowance of 2.9dbA is permitted using a Type 2 meter. In this way, a reading of 98.9dbA will be recorded as 96dbA.
yet the letter say's we must think of the sports future
well that to me means that we will also change the type 2 meters used to Australia in the future.
Suppose this will be another hurdle to jump when we get there :'( :'( :'(

[Freakshow]

What i dont get is the crap about Road racing ? i mean the last time i looked at a MX or DT track it had permits, MA  and council approval, heck our track was EPA auditted ? so HTF can you use the reasoning that a ROAD track is allowed 102 just cause it is on an "established Circuit " in his words.

what does he think we just clear some brush and do laps in a paddock ?

And the excuse that they  use Imported exhausts because they are designed for a world market ? wtf. last i looked so was about 80% of the MX pipes, How is a Circle F thats been around for 30 YRs and trades internationally not a world market , and competed at national and international levels over that time ?

Paragraph 1 just blows me away, and send him a return email saying as much.
The rest is just kisses and cream.

[Freakshow]

'they think we are a mob of scrub turkeys on non MA inspected tracks." -- Alison your a very funny girl, im still laughing 

[VMX247]

righto while we are bitchin about MA ,here is something else.
Each time they send us the kick start books for the junior burgers to start out in MX, they send about 5  at a time.Don't they think we produce in the country.
No idea some people in the silver city.
alison

[Freakshow]

they figure no Junior burgers just a bunch of nuggets.............heheh

[Freakshow]

OKAY there is light at the end of the TUNNEL !

I just got a call from David white ( CEO-MA) now after a very long long phone conversation that basical went along the lines of i understand the concerns but............ to me explaining how it effects us and what it means in the real world, i think the penny just dropped and he finally gets it.

From what i understand his concern originally was and what he voted in, was for the period bikes to Run silencers, not open stingers or straight pipes.

Now after indicating to him i cant remeber the last time i saw anyone race with out a Silencer or tail piece, that this new ruling is not in the spirit of what they intended to do and how it actually ended up where it is in a mess of confusion and mis communication rulings>

Now just because MX run 96db it seemed like a good yardstick for them.

any way to cut an even  longer story short this chap might actually have turned the lights on and wised up to whats going on here.      Then again i did get a lot of warm fuzzies but re-iterated his intention and that of the rule book, are 2 diferant things and at any given track on any given day, the rule book wins out, the poor old scruitineer or clerk of course can only administer a race event from the MOMS.  That is 96dbi and a non comply.

Having made these pointsin the usually freaky way,  , he agreeed that the next step was to review and publish how the ruling is to be interpreted, that at the next excecutive meeting i think 21st May ?, where they will table another review with a view to clarifying the generalizing of the original concept to something a little more VMX freindly and not so death knock. 

I asked that we be able to RUN a Target Band, so to say 'all bikes between 102 and 96dbi get to race un-contested' whereby a silencer of some description is fitted (original or A/F).  Where no attempt is made thats where the warnings and depending on lack of attempt to quieten, track staff can decide on bike possible exclusion.

He Indicated to me THAT 'NO BIKE' will be excluded from a race meet for being in the 102-96dbi  BAND, that included NATIONALS, so long as it runs somthing on the end of the chamber.  (just no open stinger pipes) most classics we run all have somekind of silencer or muffler on them from factory so we are already there 

Now here is the clincher, as you would, personal talk means nothing so i asked that a written release or addendum be put out to clarify this and get it on the record as to the "allowance". At that excecutive meeting such a clarification will be underwritten ( well that was his promise to me)

Also they will also look at the data from road racing and see if we cant move from static testing to a drive by scenario, which is really what we are after i think wereby you can button off if needed, but also its about the grid of bikes being at an exceptable level (as doc mentioned) to neighbours, not so much the 1 on 1 stuff ( unless its a real barker)  as pointed out to him ( thanks doc for the nuggee quote) a grid of old guys at half pace is no match for a full grid of moderns on song and as such you need to look at the output or contribution to Noise wholistically on the track per class, not just to a static RPM level you may never be in ?

So to cut a long story ,short for those that have read this far.

'NO BIKES WILL BE EXCLUDED from racing UNDER" this new proposal for meeting a reasonable attempt at sound diversion,  LAds get them under 102 and this thing will just pass over for  a couple of years at least !

So the up shot is as he metioned is that they are paying for voluntary testing at cd 5, now if all bikes tested can be in the 105-98 range then this thing will get legs as the ideal target range.

I dont know this bloke but if he is one of his word, things might just be a changing for the better.    211 and you other MA rep guys might now the deal with this guy, is he piss and wind or do you think we can trust him ? 

If any forum members are at this meeting on the 21st, can you get some weight behind this, it could change the whole face of this ruling.  Given what he told me this can all be fixed by modifying and ratifying in writing what was discussed.  This whole thing could actually work out.

Keep the pressure on from this target complience angle thats the crack we needed.  Happy to take PM's on this one you MA chaps

[Wombat]

Encouraging stuff indeed Freaky!
I also received the e-mail from David and your Cc.d 'reply to all'; which no doubt lead to David calling you.

I appreciate they (MA) made an effort to reply to all who sent letters.
and it's very interesting what you say about the stingers!!
I'm heartened to see some dialogue (good on ya Freaky and thanks David for making the phone call) has cleared up a gross misunderstanding.

I can't help but re-iterate if the MA had held discussions with the Clubs and the membership (as per their charter) this misunderstanding would NEVER have got this far. 

All good so far and a big hearty thanks to all who sent letters to MA.

[Freakshow]

Balls in his court lets see what they do about it now.  If i dont hear back from him after the meeting or see that in writing ill  call  back to see what changed  from our discussion?

at least its a strong step forward, into a realistic solution.

[GD66]

 I too, and quite a list of others, received both missives. I would suggest the MA angle of non-aggressive interpretation indicates that if we work along the guidelines of no straight pipes, and no unsilenced two-strokes, but more importantly are SEEN to be making a valid attempt at cutting down on the noise output, then after a while the problem, like many others that have cropped up along the way, will quietly fade away when something else bobs up and is seen to require attention. What we have seen from The Phantom's email is that they seem to have been agreeably surprised by the manner of the response, and seem to be  taking a conciliatory approach to the issue. My advice would be, better now to lay low than continue to rail against it, and in time, it may well drift into the distance....

[Freakshow]

agreed, but the rules should have focused on using silencers and targets if that was the intent.  they way they are currently written really only leaves a finite definanition regardless of how it is inforced and would be hard to inforce consitantly across the nation. 

I think in perspective there concept works with their original intended scope, but it somehow got lost between plan and paper.  If the rulebook is updated to allow scruitineers and clerks to follow the scope of which they speak and the options to ride under 'the targets' and 'of attempt' would make this whole situation very, very workable and i would actualy agree with it, it makes perfect sence.

It just was'nt communitcated and put in writing properly, if that was actually what was intended. Lets wait and see what changes in writing come as far as an official statement  for interpreting the rule at the track, before we get too carried away , but i think the lights have finally come on and there is an understanding !

[Wombat]

Freaky, the 20/20 Summit would have reached new heights if you'd been present!

[huskyrider78]

You mean this wasn't discussed?? 

[Freakshow]

i have put a call in to kevin demandinng action on wombats behalf, he says hes going to get Kofi onto it.

[Rosco400]

http://www.dirtwerkz.com/Pages/products/exhaust/dB_Dawg.html

Just in case goes belly up, might be worth looking at

[Freakshow]

Nice on rosco, thats a clever little device if it works.  Couldnt be hard to make somthing similar.