Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

straights. I think we could have a good show. In addition, It would bring a dirt track National back to the South and there hasn't been one there since the Atlanta Mile in the eerty 1970's:' A Kawasaki GPz 1100 ridden by Pee Wee Gleason shattered the 10-second barrier for the quaner mile and set a standard for production new motorcycles with a 10.94 sec. run at 121.48 mph. With members of the enthusiast press looking on, Gleason baclted up the record run with a pass of 10.97 sec. at 121.1!I mph. The runs took place on Tuesday, February !I, at southern California's Orange County International Raceway. "Three years ago the Kawasaki ZI-R was the first production motorcycle in the 11'5," said Mike Vaughn, Kawasaki Director of Communications. "We're proud that the new GPz 1100 is continuing the Kawasaki heritage of high performance by becoming the first production motorcycle in the I O's." Progresalve Pro points are on the line at next week's Saddleback Saturdlly, Feb. 21, motoerosa race along with D-37 motoer088 points and 33% trophies. California State l)epanment of Transponation bas completed a study of recesBed highway lane markers and how thry may afRet motoreyeles. The study, which seems to have been quite extenme, showed no handling problems were cauaed by the markers. H you have evidence to the contrary or questions about the study, contact Joe Mariner, Caltrans Motorcycle Coordinator, Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, 1120 N. Street, Sacramento, CA 9&814. e WASltiNGTON, DisCLOSEd If you live west of the Mississippi River, no doubt the Bureau of Land Management has some impact on your riding habits. Out of all the federal regulatory agencies, BLM's decisions affect the use of land for recreation, energy production and conservation the most. Roughly 400 million acres is managed by the agency, which under various acts of Congress sets public land policy. In order to do this, BLM is requesting a $!l49 million 1981 budget and up to $570 million in 198& in its four-year authorization report to Congress. Within this voluminous document the agency outlines its goals and describes what it has in mind for the use of public land by off-road vehicles. Of notable interest is this BLM opinion: "While the Bureau recognizes ORVs as an acceptable recreational activity, they are frequently in conflict with other types of recreational activity and other values." This BLM·inspired "conflict" and the agency's method of dealing with it are of paramount importance to all off-road riders, including those who race in organized events. To gain some perspective, it is best to realize that BLM gained the awe·some responsibility of managing the tremendous amount of land under public domain through Congress. And it is to Congress the Bureau reports its findings. Until as late as 1976, with the passage of the Federal Land Policy and Mangement Act, the federal gov· emment's official philosophy on public land was to dispose of it for public use (although in, reality this wasn't always the case). The 1976 actfo-rmaUy mandated that this land be retained in federal ownership. BLM was then entrusted to promulgate regulations to carry out Congress' wishes. Of course, that's easier said than done because it is up to the bureaucrats at the agency to write the regulations in conformance with what their inte-rpretation of the law is. Often, what Congress intended is DOl what the bureaucrats interpreted. This is where the problems begin. Among other tbings, Congress intended in the 1976 act that BLM provide recreational opponunities on pub· lic land. There are those who believe the agency will be hard-pressed to do this. The National Public Lands Ad· visory Council, a committee connected with the agency comprised of indio viduals with an interest in public land policy (they claim independent status) reports that BLM is "neither equipped nor funded to handle" increased demand by the public to use federal land for recreation. The council also says that, "Communication with the public needs to be enhanced, and public participation in BLM's decision making needs to be encouraged." ·A case in point concerning motorcycIisls can be made of the advisory council's criticisms. The American Motorcyclist Association charges that BLM, in the formulation and implementation of its California Desert PIan, did DOt allow enough time for public comment there· by depriving the public an opportunity to take part in the rule·making process. Public participation is one of the foundations of the 1976 land management act. AMA also believes that BLM's Desert Plan violated the act because, "the bias and prejudice of BLM Planning personnel and consultants impro· perly slanted the factual predicate for the planning process." The motorcycle association is prepared to back those charges in court, as most California riders know. In addition, giving credence to the AMA stance that certain government personnel were biased against off-road riders are the results of an IS-month association investigation into the origins of a Council on Environmental Quality report entitled, "Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands." Commissioned in 1978 by CEQ, tbe report suggested that off·road riders be banned from public lands. Armed with a General Accounting Office ruling which confirmed AMA's suspicions that CEQ improperly con· tracted for the report, the association filed suit against the agency in federal court. (As an aside, court baules are costly ordeals. If you're an off-road rider tbe AMA can use your suppon.) Through a series of court orders. presidential Executive· Orders and an Environmental Impact Statement, BLM closes all areas to ORV use where it would, "Cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, or cultural or historic resources of the area." A case for closing just about any area can be made by using those principles. It is the agency's interpretation of that provi. sion, and the ability of the public to comment on it, that decides where you can or cannot ride. BLM says that it will designate public land areas open or closed to ORVs by 1987. Of special interest to the agency in regards to ORVs are !lO recre· ational areas totalling !I. I million acres and the California Desert Conservation Area, with 12 million acres (total acreage in the CDCA is 2& million, or one-fourth the state of California). Tbe agency. following its mandate, states in its budget request that yes, "at stake are visitor safety and the protection of critical resources, particularly sensitive plants, animals. soils, ecological systems and cultural and American values." In other words, the cards are stacked against ORV use in the California Desert. So far, around 14.& million acres and portions of an additional 12 million acres have been designated as open or closed to ORVs. A final irony: The agency itself admits that local officials should have more say in how lands are designated and used. They know the issues better than somebody in Washington, DC. Yet, in an agency study, California state assembly members placed the availability of ORV trails and facilities as a priority. Local California govern· ment officials also wanted increased recreation development and access to public lands. It appears BLM does not take stock in its own studies. Jim loia Suzuki challenged for Full Floater rights By Mark Kariya GLENDALE. CA, FEB. 16 A court Injunetion ageillR u.s. Suzuki may halt . . . of the new Suzuki Fun FIoIIter motocro••era. Ac:c:ording to Lou B8chand. attorney for Don Rlchard80n and Guy Cazort. the Full Roater de8Ign 18 baalcelly the , dalgn Suzuki said they would not use In exercising their option of an option and Iicenee agreement entered into with Richardson and C8zort on Oct. 30, 1978. "We are on the verge of a crunch," said B8chand. "It 18 my belief that they (Suzukil are barred from selling them (the Full F1oatersl." As a junior in high achooI. Ric:hardson decided to design motorcycIea as hl8 cereer and went through a series of jobs thet expoaacl' him to auto mechanica and the r1aing rete suapenaion used in some cera. AftIIr Yamaha introduced their Monoc:roaa suapenaion, Richardson decided to put the two idees - single shock end rIalng rete rear .... peMion - together. He filed for a patent on the idee In 1974 and the petent was iaaued the following yeer. What Richardson was looking for in the design was putting a broader, firmer footprint on the ground. He wented to get good control at low speed and stili retein proper high-speed charaeteriatica. Richardson modified a HuaqYlImII to incorpotabt his Rialng Rata SuapenaIon and showed it to Suzuki, among other compenlea. In a 188t at Saddleback Park.. the Richardaon-modified Huaky was betI8r able to hold the track then Suzuki's works bikas, according to the tea... s at the time. Rictwdaon later gave plans on the modified Huaky to Suzuki as Suzuki WIIntItd their own engineers to design something similar for their bikea. They were unauCC888ful. E8rIy in 1978. Suzuki asked Richardson to build a prototype incor· porating hie Rising Rata Suapension into an RM400 that they fwniahad. On Oct. 30 that yeer, an option and license agreement was entered into. Richardson agreed to fumiah a prototype of the Rl8ing Rata Suspension on a Suzuki, fuml8h the know-how and agreed to do the modiflcetion In the praaence of Suzuki engineers, all for the sum of t3&.000. Richardaon delivered the bike to Suzuki as promised and the bike was sent to Japan for further study. Among those Suzuki engineers who wItnaaaacI the test wes Mr. Tamakl who is now credited . . the deaigner of the Fun Floater su.penslon. However, Richardson felt the Japan... didn't fully underatend hie Rieing Rate Suspenaion concept .. their dasign at the time met with only pertialsucceu. Suzuki then asked Richardson to modify one of two 1979 RMs they gave him, leaving one stock as a control unit. They paid him .27,000 to do so. . Richardson deivered the modifed bike In 1979. Suzuki wrote to Rlchard80n In Dec. 1979 declining to use his Rialng Rata Suapension. "Suzuki said, in effect. that they didn't want to pick up the option... 8tIItacI Bachand. After heering reports of new slng"'hock Suzuki motoeroaera that might be uaing a design similar to what ha had shown Suzuki, Richardson went to Suzuki eerty in 1980 to ask them ebout It. In April, Suzuki showed Richardson some prototypes that they had. Suzuki contended thet they put the bottom of the shock on the awlngarm rether than to the frame; therefore It was not the serne design that Richardson had made to their blkas. However, Richardson said he had drewn up a dealgn that uaed the aarntI mounting point" but that It cfldn't work and fulfill the goala he da.ired. He showed those designs to Bachand. They told Suzuki not to use their Full Floater design .. It would be In vioIetion of their original option and license agreernent B8chand seid, ......hut you down." Though Suzuki has filed suit against Richardson and Cuort to Invalidate their patent" there has been no action in It. end B8chand feel8 that nothing will corne of It. According to B8chand, "Suzuki's attitude is that you cen't atop us because we're Suzuki and you're Don Richardaon. "We don't plan to just ait here and let them ride roughshod over us:' Duff Helsing, corporete attorney for U.S. Suzuki, said, "It's our position that the Full Floater Is the design of Mr. Tamaki of Japan. Mr. Tamakl's Idea is much, much different" Baalcelly, Suzuki feels that the design is not a new one; It's been 8r'OWId for sorne time. Helalng noted. "It's interesting that Mr. Richardson hasn't sued for patent infringement" He claims that Richardson's patent is invalid due to prior existing art on the design. The suit flied by Suzuki against Richardson in federal court contenda that Richardson's patent granted in 1978 is Invalid because of this "prior existing an.... Helsing went on to state that Suzuki does intend to proceed with ..... of FuI Floater motocroaaera .. P*lned. 3

• Cover