The Jordan Suzuki team has been notified of penalty citing Sections 1.21c (re: Fluid Containment) and 3.2 (re: Modifications from OEM) of the AMA Rulebook, and the AMA has fined both riders $2000 and 20 championship points. We will file the obvious appeal, and present our case to an appeals board ASAP (if needed) to completely exonerate our riders and crew from any wrong doing. We will prove without a doubt that on several occasions dating back to Daytona 2005, again in 2006, and yet again in 2007, that there was specific approval from the AMA Tech department to create a safer crankcase breather system, which still adheres to the Rulebook, of which we now have been penalized for. The system that we have in place is used by several other teams, who also received specific approval. Our Superstock motorcycles have been through final technical inspection 7 times this season without incident, where in at least one case, the AMA looked specifically at the breather systems. In fact, our Superbike system is set-up the exact same way, which also passed final tech inspection 3 times, including this past weekend at Laguna Seca less than 2 hours after the Superstock bikes were questioned. The Superbike class is governed by the same General Equipment Section 1.21 of the 2007 AMA Rulebook. The current routing system does use OEM parts, and does adhere to Section 1.21c, as well as Section 3.11 (Emissions Equipment), which provides that certain “emissions equipment may be removed”. This incident is truly tragic. It will do nothing but slander the good names of the Jordan Suzuki and M4 EMGO Suzuki teams, as well as the AMA. In sight of the “New AMA”… they have already shown inconsistency and division. We are in full support of the new AMA staffing, the “New Vision” of the AMA and look forward to a better future in AMA Pro Racing… but this is the wrong time to make such a wrong decision. Ken Abbott General Manager Michael Jordan Motorsports Suzuki A memo sent from Michael Jordan Motorsports Suzuki’s Pete Mauhar to the AMA on Tuesday, and provided to Roadracingworld.com by the team: September 18, 2007 TO: Morgan Broadhead FR: Pete Mauhar RE: Technical Inspection Issues at Laguna Seca Considering the Superstock technical inspection post-race on September 18, 2007 at Laguna Seca Raceway and our subsequent conversations since, I will present some background information that will hopefully clear up this misunderstanding. As for the rules that are relative to this issue, I site Section 3.11 as it states in the 2007 Rulebook under the Superstock section: 3.11 Emission Equipment (Supersport / Superstock Equipment Standards) The following emission equipment may be removed: 1. Air injection valve and hoses – air box and vacuum ports for these hoses must be sealed. 2. Reed valves and covers – air ports must be closed or new reed valve covers may be made which do not allow any air passage. As I understand the Suzuki PAIR valve system, it is indeed a part of the emission equipment to help burn unburned hydrocarbons and is connected to the airbox and the head via reed valves. If one was to follow this, the PAIR valve could be removed and the airbox inlet must be sealed. However, Rule 1.21 (c) and (d) under the General Equipment Standards section possibly poses a conflict to the above rule: 1.21 Fluid Containment c. All vent, breather, or overflow tubes coming from the engine, transmission, or radiator must be routed into a heat-resistant catch can of at least 350cc capacity or into the air box. If the air box is utilized, any drains from the box must be routed into a catch can or removed and the box sealed. d. Oil catch can vent tubes must be routed back into the airbox. If an airbox is not installed, vent tubes must be routed to the intake bell of a carburetor or fuel injection throttle body so that any oil expelled will be drawn into the engine. As early as Daytona 2005, when Jason Pridmore finished third and our Superstock motorcycle was sent to tech inspection and passed, this point was brought up to Kevin Crowther afterwards by James Compton and Sean Storment. We disassembled the bike and showed him our routing and asked his opinion. He said the intent of Rule 1.21.c and d was to contain fluids in the event of an engine failure and said our interpretation of that rule along with Rule #3.11 was correct. We have been routing it that way ever since under the understanding it was approved by the lead technical person of the AMA. At this Daytona, early in the week, several instances of crankcase countershaft seals blowing out arose on the brand new 2007 GSX-R1000. With Pat Alexander, Don Sakakura, and Keith Perry, this situation was revisited to try to understand the reasons why seals were blowing out. Again, after this review it was deemed that our motorcycles were in compliance of the rules. We have been to tech inspection at least seven times in 2007 with our Superstock motorcycles and not once was it ever mentioned to us. A couple of other instances have led us to believe that going to tech and asking approval was the proper thing to do. Earlier this season, we approached Kevin in tech to ask about the 2007 rear axle nut. We asked for approval to run the 2005-6 style which has the provisions for a pin for safety but would violate the Rule #3.3 as shown below: 3.3 Updating or Backdating Absolutely no updating or backdating of parts will be allowed unless specified by the rules. Superseded parts must be submitted to AMA Pro Racing for review and approval before use on applicable models in competition. In addition, these parts must be listed in the current OEM parts list as supplied to AMA Pro Racing. The Approved Equipment List is available from the AMA Pro Racing office. We were given approval by Kevin and have used the 2005-6 rear axle nut since. I have noticed that most of the other top Suzuki teams use it as well, however I am not sure if they went about it the same way as far as the approval process is concerned. In this instance, we did not get anything signed from tech inspection nor have we ever seen anything published by them concerning it. In another instance, we were deforming our rear axle adjuster blocks because of the new linkage system on the 2007 GSX-R1000 and its need to run the drive chain tighter than on previous models. Once the adjuster block deformed, the axle would move causing a safety issue. We approached Kevin with the idea of using billet aftermarket axle adjuster blocks to help us with this potential safety issue. He asked us to bring a set the next round for him to look at and make his decision then. We followed through with this and he denied our request to use the aftermarket parts. Once again, I have no idea if this was (is) documented within the AMA tech area. With respect to the two rules in question on this current issue””at best, they are in conflict with each other and nebulous for sure. At worst, they are a very strong safety issue. In the current days of motorcycle design with ram air, if you breathe the crankcase into the airbox, you are at risk of failing the countershaft seal or other engine seals under deceleration and off throttle at the end of a long straight where the racer is traveling the fastest. I can’t speak for the AMA in this case, but I would think our top priority as a racing organization should be of rider and fan safety. Thank you for your time in this matter and I trust that you and your crew will make the proper decision with respect to this issue. Regards, Pete Mauhar Chief Engineer & Technical Manager Jordan Suzuki