AKA Rules Audit Committee Logo !??
Just when one thinks that one saga has been
attended to and finalised another one appears, first we had the drama with Leopard
class and the rules not being correctly applied/installed as per AKA protocols, original
spec drawings that had cylinder length and head height removed, changes that the
majority of karters did not know about (eg: raising the cylinder with gaskets and
exceeding the transfer port opening angles specified in the drawings and machining
the top of the cylinder contrary to Rule 45.03) this provided a performance
benefit ..further advice stating cylinders could be machined when
the regulation above forbade it , and this was all for a category that was to be
"out of the box " racing > see advertisement stated in AKA manual quote
<"complete kit ready to race - simply bolt on and go racing" >
prizes of a $15,000 motor car is up for grabs, then the rules of participation must
be precise and openly available to everyone. Engines must be checked so that you can be
confident that the playing field is level. Travelling from one side of the country to the
other and not knowing the rules can be an expensive and disastrous exercise.
NKC however can be congratulated for rectifying the latest anomalies prior to
the National Championship to ensure that at least that competition was fair and equal ,
but there are moves afoot (not from the NKC or the AKA ??) to get the rules altered -
example: additional dimension tolerances that would allow machining of the
cylinder ) that may see karters having to spend more unnecessary funds on
this "simply bolt on and go racing -out of the box" class.
we last spoke with Remo Luciana from Remo Racing, he was extremely grateful and thankful
that the NKC had formalized regulations to what was intended, and the NKC
demanded the class be brought back to "simply bolt on and go racing out
of the box" , yet we are seeing requests from the manufacturer,
IAME, to have the AKA/NKC give greater rule tolerances to the Leopard engine-
greater tolerances which they say the NKC should apply for Australia when
the rest of the world, using the very same Leopard Engines have tighter
tolerances, and us here in Australia be different and looser. It
is a situation that just beggars belief !
only people who benefit from loose tolerances are engine builders who can convince
you that you need to modify the engine to get the best out of it. That is the
anathema of 'out of the box' advertising and the AKA has resolved that if a promoter
wants to put an engine up to race 'out of the box', then it will stay that way and if you
modify it, you do so at your peril. Rotax has gone backwards at a huge rate of knots
because the promoter made the mistake of paring down the drawing specs and listening to
the 'industry' that wanted to 'work within the drawings' culture instead of standing by
it's 'out of the box' no modifications allowed rules and promotion.
is an utter debacle. It results from the way Wells and his executive thought
they could run the AKA, even letting technical matters, like class rules and specs, be
submitted through the Secretariat instead of the technical committee. But it takes
two to tango as they say, and there's plenty of industry players who made 'industry
submissions' and 'admin corrections' to get around putting technical rules through the
that's not a problem. Having gone that track, industry can't complain when the
problems are discovered and the remedies found and introduced. Not so the karters
who might have spent money as a consequence, but that's not a huge problem either as you'd
assume like when you buy a car, if the supplier/manufacturer has worked around the rules,
it will be them paying to fix it at the risk of being sued left right and centre.
(Like the infamous Rotax class action that was mooted a few years ago)
If that's not enough, we now find the
tyres being used are contrary to the AKA rules for this and F100 Class ..
the AKA Contracted tyres are the MG/MZ - this tyre was tendered for
the 2003 - 2006 tyre tender contract - the rules state so - the tyre tender
contract states so, but the tyre being used is a different tyre altogether -!! ??
In March 2005 the NKC gave approval for a construction alteration to the MG/MZ
front tyre only , but somehow this is being ignored because someone wrote a letter to say
the tyre is not homologated anymore???
In fairness to the importer, his view should be heard. So we are preparing some
questions that will be put and aired . Given the way the previous AKA administration
ran it's business, it would be no surprise at all to find some other problems, ignored
protocols and rule inventions that we don't yet know about or that fell
through the" cracks in the fence" or the swinging doors of the fawlty