Landracing Forum

El Mirage => El Mirage General Chat => Topic started by: mkilger on May 23, 2008, 11:54:19 AM

Title: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on May 23, 2008, 11:54:19 AM
It looks like a few out there are putting bike motors in the fuel gas roadster class(not modified roadsters) which some think is ok  what do others think about this? it  seems that the  oldest class in the books that sould be valued with traditon and history is in jeperdy of  losing its traditon of being a real hotrod (hiboy roadster) whats next jet engines  AAAJFR  LOL   let us real roadster guys know what you think about bike motors in roadsters by the way we cant put a big block in a busa frame (can we???)
Title: Hot rodding
Post by: John Noonan on May 23, 2008, 12:40:20 PM
It looks like a few out there are putting bike motors in the fuel gas roadster class(not modified roadsters) which some think is ok  what do others think about this? it  seems that the  oldest class in the books that sould be valued with traditon and history is in jeperdy of  losing its traditon of being a real hotrod (hiboy roadster) whats next jet engines  AAAJFR  LOL   let us real roadster guys know what you think about bike motors in roadsters by the way we cant put a big block in a busa frame (can we???)

It's not any different than sticking a bike engine in a gas lakester and from what I remember it is called "hot rodding" after all it is just a four valve dual overhead cam engine like others have used in the past and no one had an issue with that just look at the cover of the 2005 rulebook cover.

John

PS, if you need a Hayabusa frame for mocking up the big block in let me know and I can bring it to the next meet.

J
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on May 23, 2008, 01:50:00 PM
John, Iam right we cant put a chevy in a bike frame right?  but bring the frame I will build it and you can ride it  LOL am not riding it you bike guys are nuts. Any way what  we think is were will it end I understand that its hotrodding ect but will it come to the point were you can put two bike motors in a roadster (say two put together) we just want to try to keep the traditonal roadster with car engines in them  and not turn them into a gocart class
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 23, 2008, 02:00:54 PM
Mike,

I agree with you. IMO it is Bull---t that Motorcycle motors are allowed in the Vintage Car Classes. Why you ask? Unless I have missed something in the rule book, you cannot run a car motor in a SCTA motorcycle class, and why not?  I don't care about the lakester and Streamliner classes, run what you want. But the Vintage Car Classes should be reserved for motors that were designed to run in cars and not bikes.

SCTA Tradition is another subject all together. The more I see the more tradition goes out the window.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: DallasV on May 23, 2008, 02:02:29 PM
I don’t think putting a bike engine in a roadster puts the nostalgia of the class in question. 50 years ago if you chose to you could put a motorcycle engine in a roadster. But 50 years ago could you have used a DOHC, Aluminum big block and heads, with titanium parts, and fed it NOS through EFI. I guess the answer to you question lies on what your definition of tradition and history.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 23, 2008, 02:30:38 PM
Now , Now , Guys and gals, I belive that way back whenthe assocation let you start building and running flat top lowboy roadsters, nostalgia pretty much went out the window. For that matter why do we have engine classes that are below the orginal model "A" engine ? Did anyone ever hot rod a roadster by putting a smaller than stock engine in their roadster? We did not write the rules we are just conforming to them.  Eric Eyres
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: thundersalt on May 23, 2008, 02:37:44 PM
Here's somethimg else to thow in the mix. Could a guy run a "Boss Hogg" bike in a production MC class? They come stock with 350 or 502 Chevy V8's.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 23, 2008, 02:39:17 PM
50 years ago if you chose to you could put a motorcycle engine in a roadster.

You could be right as I don't have a rule book that goes back that far. But I do have a 1986 SCTA Rule book and here is what it reads:

SECTION II: GENERAL COMPETION REQUIREMENTS (AUTO)

ll-1.  Engines: Any aftermarket engine (Donovan, Milodon, Rodack, etc.) which can accept automotive production crankshafts, camshafts, and cylinder heads may be used in all classes except Production, Grand Touring, XF, XO, XX and V-4 classes. Any reciprocating engine which uses the Otto cycle may run in special construction category in classes A through K.


NOTE:In all categories except Streamliner. DOHC racing engines, not based on a regular passenger vehicle block, shall be advanced to the next larger displacement class.

I guess the question to ask is why did the rules get changed to where they are now?

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 23, 2008, 02:39:39 PM
To sanswer Eric, Yes. In the Golden Old days people did put V8 60 engines and Willys fours into roadsters to make it in what was "A" class at the time. So puting a Honda car engine in a roadster isn't so far off. A Honda motorcycle engine, however, is not in the "True Sprit" of the class. IMHO.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Glen on May 23, 2008, 03:06:03 PM
Can they run up on two wheels
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 23, 2008, 03:22:42 PM
Sometimes
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 23, 2008, 03:29:41 PM
Rich, did these folks from the golden old days, de stroke and install dual overhead cammed heads w/ electronic valve timming? It's all about finding and building an efficent engine and body combination. WE build a roadster that is 38ish inches tothe top of the cage,meets all of the SCTA rules. than found a engine,transmissiom,driveshaft,and rearend combo that we thought would be efficent. gave it a shot, If I remember correctly Doug Robinson told me years ago,"it's albout BTU's in and BTU's out,how thats done doesn't really matter" I do seem to know about TRUE SPIRT seems as I recall my roadster was out lawed after it's first trip to bonneville. even thuorh it met every rule written the rule book.  Just my thoughts  Eric
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Sumner on May 23, 2008, 03:35:01 PM
To me it looks like the smallest engine you can run in Fuel/Gas Roadster is a G (93-123 cid) or H (62-92 cid).  Now how many guys are running a car motor (American made/designed) that size in the class now or in the last 15 years and what are they?  If I was picking a motor to run in those motor sizes in a car and wanted the most competitive motor I could find it wouldn't be a bike motor, it would be a car motor like John Romero is running.  Sure the bike motors are strong under 1500 CC, but look at what the car motors are making HP wise that run at the drags that can be built.

Since the bike motors only effect the lowest two motor sizes in the Roadster class I don't see much to worry about,

Sum
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 23, 2008, 03:50:39 PM
Sumner, You are so worldly wise,not to many 400 C.I. motor cycles out there.
Thanks for the perspective  Eric
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 23, 2008, 03:51:34 PM
I well remember the "True Sprit" roadster. I think your dad knew it was going to be ruled against. Still it was fun for a while. I ran in "G" for a while. Plenty of two liter motors out there. George was running his Toyota in the 1500cc class at the same time. Those were good rules. I had a record. Don't know about electronic valve timing. I still run points and condenser. I just liked the old days when bikes were bikes, cars were cars and married people were of opposite gender. Except for Special construction of course.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 23, 2008, 03:55:43 PM
Rich. Is special construction for the married couples or all of the above?  Eric
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Sumner on May 23, 2008, 03:58:56 PM
...................Except for Special construction of course....

Are you refering to  cars or the opposite gender  8-),

Sum
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 23, 2008, 04:01:46 PM
technology equals controversy.....maybe thats why flathead folks don't race heads up with the inline folks any more
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: sockjohn on May 23, 2008, 04:13:55 PM
To me it looks like the smallest engine you can run in Fuel/Gas Roadster is a G (93-123 cid) or H (62-92 cid).  Now how many guys are running a car motor (American made/designed) that size in the class now or in the last 15 years and what are they?  If I was picking a motor to run in those motor sizes in a car and wanted the most competitive motor I could find it wouldn't be a bike motor, it would be a car motor like John Romero is running.  Sure the bike motors are strong under 1500 CC, but look at what the car motors are making HP wise that run at the drags that can be built.

Since the bike motors only effect the lowest two motor sizes in the Roadster class I don't see much to worry about,

Sum


If you're running H class, it seems like a big worry.

Compare a stock 1.3L Hayabusa versus heavily worked 1.5L car engine, on an equal cost basis which has more power?

Most of the engines in that size have the engine mounted the wrong way for a roadster to boot, so have to do some work to make it happen.

IMHO, might as well start with the Honda F20 out of an S2000, or the Ecotech out of a Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstace and pay the piper ($$$) to de-stroke.  I suppose the Miata motor would work as well.

Far cheaper to buy the busa motor and mail order the kit to make it work in a RWD car.

I'm just thinking out load, and have no money on the table on this one.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 23, 2008, 04:27:47 PM
The only mail order part on this roadster failed within the first 25' of letting out the clutch the first time. Ended up build our own output shaft adaptor thursday night before El Mirage. Might use a s2000 for "G" class, but you never know untill you do, that kinda sounds like Jack D.  Thanks to everyone  Eric
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Romero on May 23, 2008, 05:54:11 PM
I remember at last years rules meeting this was brought up (also the previous year  :-P) but it didn't really go anywhere. On one side of the room were traditionalists who didn't want bike engines in cars cuz it just aint natural and on the other side were those who said racing is racing and let the chips fall where they may. The stand off was broken when sample wording was bounced around and it proved impossible to nail down. Damn them honda 600 cars that came with modified m/c engines from the factory! :x

As Sumner said, I run an "H" in a car class and am not really concerned about a busa powered car running over me. If one did outrun me then it would be more a statement about me then about the busa. I think "I" engines and smaller do give a natural advantage to the bike engines, "H" would be a toss up and "G" class would go to the car engines.

A good blown "H" needs to make 500+ continuous, reliable HP at the wheels and thats pretty average for most busas and Honda car engines.
A good blown "G" needs to make 750+ continuous, reliable HP at the wheels and thats pretty much out of reach for a busa. At some point you are going to be blowing the cases apart but a reasonably well built K20 Honda can do that all day long with off the shelf parts.

Personally, I am a fan of innovation and loved seeing the busa engine in the back of the rear engined modified roadster. But I also understand that it does upset a few people. Too that I just say don't worry, they wont be running against a AA record anytime soon (or even an E, D, C, B or A for that matter).
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: 836dstr on May 23, 2008, 07:01:04 PM
A little off the subject, but still about small auto engines: At the 1/8 mile Antique Drags the guys @ Paradise VW were running a front engine VW dragster. Not sure of the displacement of the 50's-60's era VW 4 cylinder but it was running a huge turbo.

It set the track record @ 4.36 seconds at over 150 MPH. Again, that's in the 1/8 mile. Now that's impressive for a vintage VW.

Wonder how that would work in a light weight Roadster? Dare to be different!

Tom
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Dynoroom on May 23, 2008, 07:14:52 PM
It set the track record @ 4.36 seconds at over 150 MPH. Again, that's in the 1/8 mile. Now that's impressive for a vintage VW.

Wonder how that would work in a light weight Roadster? Dare to be different!

Tom

Probably short by about 15,000 ft...............

1/8 mile = 660 ft so 3 miles is tough............
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 23, 2008, 07:41:02 PM
Here is a motor for all you non traditionalists. I can see it now a drop dead gorgeous 32 Ford Roadster, with 4 expansion chambers out the back that sounds like, well I will let you use your imagination. Oh I know DKW had two stroke car motors. But lets get real, just because one or two existed or were made does that mean we need them in Vintage Car Classes? I think not.

Tom G.

4x4 TUFF 
 
Custom 2 Stroke Mod Engines

Drag Race Engine-Complete with Jack Shaft assembly.
160 Lbs, 485 HP - On c-12 4cyl 2000cc 470hp@8400RPM (carbs on race gas)
*nitrous will add an additional 30% more power!


H2. Four Cyl 2000 cc Drag Race Engine Complete CTSME12$11,400.00
 
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on May 24, 2008, 08:52:40 AM
Nancy's in the bathroom and so is the '08 rulebook, so I don't have the latest word -- but the '04 book says that vehicles running as motorcycles must have a motorcycle engine in them.  So by that interpretation, no, you can't put a car engine in a bike -- a "Boss Hog" bike wouldn't be allowed to run, nor would a bike with a V8-60.

This rule was tested by the Bub #7 streamliner -- with a hand-built one-off engine.  While not being designed by a motorcycle manufacturer (i.e. OEM in somebody's bike), the motor was designed for a motorcycle -- the 'liner, so therefore is considered a bike engine.

Q. E. D.

Happy Memorial Day, folks.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: GeneF on May 24, 2008, 11:12:02 AM
A little off the subject, but still about small auto engines: At the 1/8 mile Antique Drags the guys @ Paradise VW were running a front engine VW dragster. Not sure of the displacement of the 50's-60's era VW 4 cylinder but it was running a huge turbo.

It set the track record @ 4.36 seconds at over 150 MPH. Again, that's in the 1/8 mile. Now that's impressive for a vintage VW.

Wonder how that would work in a light weight Roadster? Dare to be different!

Tom

 Nothing "vintage" or "vw" about that engine. In reality it's a horz. opposed 4 cyl. aftermarket race engine designed and made by either Autocraft or Pauter Machine with a price tag to match.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: dwarner on May 24, 2008, 02:17:48 PM
First off, cars other than streamliners and unlimited deisel trucks are the only classes allowing multiple engines. Therefore, we will not see more than one bike engine in a roadster.

I was not a big fan of Jack Dolan's suggestion 20 years ago that there needed to be engine classes below E in the Vintage Category. I just could not get my head around a 45ci engine in a Street Roadster. Now if Jack had at his disposal a Cosworth DBA4(?) that fit in a 1500cc class and had a couple of roadster chassis laying around ... you get the idea of how this stuff happens. Stll not a fan.

John R mentioned that the idea of no motorcycle engines in VINTAGE cars only was floated for two years and over ruled both times. The supporting stance being that this is racing. The suggestions were sent to club presidents before final board vote. Support of the ban did not happen. John N says it is a dual overhead cam engine, EFI, etc. and that is true. Orientation is wrong, but ...

It has come to this, Russ and Eric complied with the written rules and stepped on someone's ego. The G-I engine classes will race themselves, the points championship will fall to one of these engines for a few years and that is the way it is. For now.

DW

Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 03:35:51 PM
I guess I am missing something. The rule book says it is OK to run motorcycle motors in car classes. But the rule book says you can't run car motors in motorcycle classes. Is this a one way street? Or would you call it discrimination? Shouldn't motorcycle rules be subject to the same scrutiny that are applied to car rules? Or what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander. One thing we need is consistency and I guess I just don't see that.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Romero on May 24, 2008, 04:53:59 PM
Is this a one way street? Or would you call it discrimination?

Tom, since the car guys make the car rules are we guilty of discriminating against ourselves?

If so, I both confess and demand reparations  :-P
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Noonan on May 24, 2008, 05:07:18 PM
Is this a one way street? Or would you call it discrimination?

Tom, since the car guys make the car rules are we guilty of discriminating against ourselves?

If so, I both confess and demand reparations  :-P

Thanks John   :lol:
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 07:32:41 PM
Is this a one way street? Or would you call it discrimination?

Tom, since the car guys make the car rules are we guilty of discriminating against ourselves?

If so, I both confess and demand reparations  :-P

Good one John ya got me on that one, point taken.  I always think of the SCTA as one, not Motorcycles vs. Cars. With that said the next paragraph will explain where I am coming from.

This may be before your time so be patient.  Back in the 1960's there were two brothers by the name of Rickman who made motorcycle frames for different English Motorcycle motors. They made Road Race frames and Competition desert frames. They also made a 8 valve conversion head for the 650 Triumph twin. One day they decided they wanted to be a complete motorcycle manufacturer, so they went to Weslake and asked him to develop a twin cylinder motor for their frames using the 8 valve conversion head that already existed. Weslake made the bottom end, but by the time it was finished, the Rickman brothers were barly hanging on and could not afford to buy the motor. So Weslake decided to sell it himself as the Weslake twin. Later he sold the rights to the motor and all the tooling to one of his machinists by the name of Nourish. To my knowledge these motors never made it into a production type of bike. According to the SCTA rule book they are not legal to run in the motorcycle classes. I am sure there are more motors out there that would fall into this category. With that said I will now go to the SCTA website and put in for a rule change that will allow any motor to be run in the Motorcycle Special Construction and Streamliner Classes.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: willieworld on May 24, 2008, 07:58:01 PM
tom  i think other than production and modified production  that you can run that engine --wouldnt have an extra one you want to sell would you also im looking for a 500cc lay down speedway motor  willie buchta
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 08:16:54 PM
Willie,

I am the only person I know who has one or two. Sorry but I don't want to sell them. I have owned them since 1982. I plan on putting them into the two Rickman Roadrace chassis's I have of which one did run at Daytona out of Pafferman (sp) shop in Santa Monica. When finished I will have 2 bikes that the Rickman Brother's wanted to build and sell to the public.

See a Roadster guy can be a Bike guy too.

If I hear of anything I will let you know.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: bak189 on May 24, 2008, 08:41:38 PM
Very interesting discussion......................................
For approx. 4 years (when I was racing with BNI)
I ran a 125c.c. Rotax engine Model 129 in my own built frame.............however, the Model 129 was and is
a kart motor.....so under SCTA/BNI rules not legal.
I was never challenged in Tech.........but I had paper work that showed the engine Model 129
made by Rotax was used by Aprilla (with their
mods.) in their factory roadracers..........so it was a legal M/C. engine under SCTA/BNI rules...........
As noted above it was never challenged..............
It is a difficult "grey" area..........................................
Another bike I build in 1980 again using Rotax
power (500c.c. Twin) the engine was a proto type
for the Can-Am street bike (that never did go into production)  Tom Evans (BNI Tech) told me at that time the bike was not legal ......It was not a known M/C engine.  I had no problem with his decision
we only wanted to see how fast it would go.......
so ran for time only..............
So "only M/C/" can be a real challenge for the officials........................................................................
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: bak189 on May 24, 2008, 08:49:23 PM
I got one, desotoman.........they made a outstanding sidecar roadracing engine...........and NO I don't plan to sell it..............................................
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Romero on May 24, 2008, 09:38:10 PM
Is this a one way street? Or would you call it discrimination?

Tom, since the car guys make the car rules are we guilty of discriminating against ourselves?

If so, I both confess and demand reparations  :-P

Good one John ya got me on that one, point taken.  I always think of the SCTA as one, not Motorcycles vs. Cars. With that said the next paragraph will explain where I am coming from.

This may be before your time so be patient.  Back in the 1960's there were two brothers by the name of Rickman who made motorcycle frames for different English Motorcycle motors. They made Road Race frames and Competition desert frames. They also made a 8 valve conversion head for the 650 Triumph twin. One day they decided they wanted to be a complete motorcycle manufacturer, so they went to Westlake and asked him to develop a twin cylinder motor for their frames using the 8 valve conversion head that already existed. Westlake made the bottom end, but by the time it was finished, the Rickman brothers were barly hanging on and could not afford to buy the motor. So Westlake decided to sell it himself as the Westlake twin. Later he sold the rights to the motor and all the tooling to one of his machinists by the name of Nourish. To my knowledge these motors never made it into a production type of bike. According to the SCTA rule book they are not legal to run in the motorcycle classes. I am sure there are more motors out there that would fall into this category. With that said I will now go to the SCTA website and put in for a rule change that will allow any motor to be run in the Motorcycle Special Construction and Streamliner Classes.

Tom G.

I swear to god Tom, One of these weekends I have to come out and see your stash of parts...
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 09:56:45 PM

I swear to god Tom, One of these weekends I have to come out and see your stash of parts...

John,

I really don't have much stuff compared to other Land Speed Racers but the stuff I do have I like and think is neat. The deluxe tour will take all of 10 minutes. You are welcome anytime.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 10:01:22 PM
I got one, desotoman.........they made a outstanding sidecar roadracing engine...........and NO I don't plan to sell it..............................................

Bak,

Do you have the 925 or 950cc motor? The ones I have are 750's with 180 degree cranks. Is Nourish still in buisness?

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Nortonist 592 on May 24, 2008, 10:26:28 PM
Tom,  Nourish is alive and well.  doing business as Nourish Racing Engine Co.  (NRE).  And its Weslake.  Westlake is a village in L.A.


Willie,  Dave Brant's son Scott has a speedway shop here in Riverside.  He might be able to help.  His phone number is (951) 688-0011.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: bak189 on May 24, 2008, 10:35:25 PM
Desotoman..........mine is also a 750c.c
and, yes, they are still in business in the U.K. and are involved with vintage racing:
NOURISH RACING ENG. CO
13 Manor lane, Langham, Oakham
Rutland LE15 7JL England
Tel: 01572-722712
Fax:...........-722688
"Complete Nourish Racing 8 valve twin cyl. engines....500c.c. 750c.c. 850c.c. 900c.c Each engine built to order...racing or street use. Avaiable for alternator if required. Large stock of spares available for immediate despatch"

P.S. what trans. are you planing to use?
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 10:47:22 PM
Guys,

Thanks for the information. I have not bought any parts from Dave since 1982. I have some Norton AMC type 4 speed transmissions I was going to use behind the motors.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Nortonist 592 on May 24, 2008, 10:49:54 PM
Hey Tom,  You wouldn't have a spare AMC box that you could be talked into selling?
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: bak189 on May 24, 2008, 11:00:48 PM
A few post back it was noted " This rule was tested by the BUB #7 streamliner....with a hand built one-off engine"
The rule may have been tested if Denis was racing against a AMA record.  However, #7 is racing for the FIM World Records ( he holds at the present time) FIM, has to my knowledge,
no engine restrictions as long as the engine meets the displacement.
Some of you U.K., German,and "Down Under"
correct me if I am mistaken, because that means I will have to stop work on my Offy powered sidecar streamliner................Oh, Well......................
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 24, 2008, 11:15:40 PM
Hey Tom,  You wouldn't have a spare AMC box that you could be talked into selling?

No, I only have 2 units for the two motors I have. But I just looked on Ebay and there is one for sale there.
Item number: 130223975927 ends in a day or so. Hope this help you.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Noonan on May 24, 2008, 11:31:15 PM
Bob,

Here is the link.

John

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&viewitem=&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fsearch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D130223975927%2B%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1&item=130223975927
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: dwarner on May 25, 2008, 12:38:52 AM
BTT
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Seldom Seen Slim on May 25, 2008, 11:21:49 AM
Okay, I was in error when I said the motorcycle-engine only rule was tested by the #7 Bub 'liner, the error being that the bike didn't compete under SCTA rules.  That's what sometimes happens when I try to illustrate a point -- someone comes along and reminds me that I forgot to touch second base.

Thanks to both of you (maybe more?) that posted to discuss my error.  I meant well, though -- isn't that worth something?
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: tortoise on May 25, 2008, 12:41:15 PM
Speaking of the motorcycle-engine only rule, the "engine" requirement for special-construction motorcycles (A class) in the AMA (not FIM) rulebook at the BUB site says

"7.B. ENGINE
Any combination of engines, not to exceed two are allowed.
Combined engine displacement cannot exceed maximum of
3000cc."

Note no mention of "must be motorcycle engines", in contrast to SCTA rule and also AMA streamliner rules.

Particularly in the pushrod classes, which AMA has similarly to SCTA, some automobile racing engines are clearly superior to any motorcycle alternatives. Anyone ever inquire as to the legality of this? It sure looks legal per the rulebook.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Stainless1 on May 26, 2008, 10:59:50 PM
In 1984 the scta ruled motorcycle engines would not be allowed in cars (we had planned to put one in our Abarth and run Modified Sports).  Someone in the scta got them allowed quite a few years ago (so they could make a points run.... ) now everybody but production gets to use them. 
If there is a groundswell of support, someone should submit a rule change to the scta.

It is how hot rodding works, put something in a car that doesn't belong.  8-)

Any engine has always been allowed in special construction.  it's not really a gender thing, it is more like a species thing  :roll:
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on May 27, 2008, 12:18:51 AM
Stainless is right ,I think that if you dont like the idea of bike motors in roadsters or any (CAR)  you sould send in for a rule change I think or WE think its just not me, I cant count how many folks dont like the idea so in Oct-Nov send them in  We believe there is enough support it would pass this time.  :-P
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: dwarner on May 27, 2008, 12:49:42 AM
I think you guys should present a united front. Instead of 70 people sending in disjointed rules proposals let one person combine all the ideas and make the proposal.

Contary to Mike's suggestion of submitting in Oct-Nov, meetings will be over by then, log to www.scta-bni.org and fill out the on-line form.

DW
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on May 27, 2008, 12:58:45 AM
Thanks Dan thats a better idea lets present a united front that sounds good to me  LOL missed you at El Mirage  see you in June at LA roadster show come by my booth will have my new roadster  there and a beer waiting.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 27, 2008, 01:05:38 AM
We believe there is enough support it would pass this time.  :-P

Mike,

IMO The problem is not with the support. The problem is in the wording. If you are really serious about a rule change and want it to happen, you must do the research, and come up with suitable wording where both sides will be happy and vote for it. That is the problem. I suggest if you are going to put in for a change to not allow motorcycle motors in vintage car classes you better dot you i's and cross your T's. Now that we have had a SCTA points champion with a motorcycle motor in a Vintage Car Class, I personally think it is too little too late. If you are still up for the challenge I suggest you read John Romero's posts over again and determine how you can get both sides to agree with your wording. What I mean by both sides are the Traditionalist car guys, and the who cares car guys. Good luck.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 27, 2008, 02:29:53 AM
Mike, I do not think their are as many people out there as you might think . That are that disturbed by this, it's only "h" and maybea small"g" class that these engines can run in. As I recall Jack D., Doc Jeffries, and George Callaway where the three that pushed for these small classes back in the 80's, I belive both of these cars have one #1 championships.Mr Desotoman has already mentioned that last years #1 car was "MOTO" powered and no one fussed about that, but maybe rear engined modifieds are not traditional , but since when a 300mph roadsters tradtional, I would bet that there are no tradtional parts on that new roadster of ours.Our roadster was fist built by Greg Carlson, than bought by Ralph Wisher(went over 200mph) than rebuilt by my dad and myself over this past winter,from the out side it looks like every other lo-boy out their. 29 body 32 grillshell, cubic inches are just that... would you be offended by a rotary in a roadster also?My guess is that the flathead racers of their time were not impressed when they had run straight up with olds,hemis,and that new s.b. chevy thing that came out in 55. Would it more to the traditionalist liking if I grafted my Suzuki head on to Austin Healey block added billit crankshaft, al. rods, and custom forged pistons? The SCTA has been harping on we need yonger blood, this might insire some. As our second driver is a 22 year old mechanical engineering student at CalPoly Pamona, and I,m sure on her budget she can not afford a blown fuel burning aluminumn head 500 ci engine to put in her traditonal roadster.As a owner of two tradional roadsters I applaude the efforts of any one willing to tackle the writing of such a rule, but do not stop at motocycle engines it should be all foregin engines in any vintage class. I would even vote for it. Thank You all For your time. feel free to come buy and see us at El Mirage Roadster's 832 a/gr and #2 h/gr Eric Eyres SDRC President
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 27, 2008, 10:12:35 AM
In general I have a gut feeling against motocycle engines in roadsters. But I have no plans to run in such a class, so who am I to try to ruin somebody else' fun? Count me out.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: jimmy six on May 27, 2008, 08:26:10 PM
I was at the meeting where the vote was taken NOT to allow non-automotive engines in the vintage classes a few years back. I was one that did not feel non-automotive belonged in vintage. I however did not have a vote, as many, only an opinion. At this time I would not be infavor of removing them. (horse out of the corral type of thing).
Others may correct me but I kinda remember the reason for automotive engines in M/C's was because of the AMA rules governing the Bonneville meets and it may be in their rules at that time.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Romero on May 27, 2008, 10:20:41 PM
One thing to keep in mind. If SCTA bans M/C engines in vintage cars (roadsters) would you propose that the existing records that have been set at both El Mirage and Bonneville remain or would you want them to be erased?

If you erase them you will have taken legitimate records that were set 100% in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the rules and disregarded them.

If you choose to let them remain but not let any new records be set with them then you are handicapping those who come after and try to take them away.

There is no right answer. Both options suck. This is the reason why many say that once a record is set then the horse is out of the barn and she ain't coming back.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on May 27, 2008, 11:12:44 PM
I dont think that the records that are set sould be erased but if it would pass it sould be noted that it was a bike motor, just like the AABGR record or the AABFR sould be  noted that it was a 4 wheel drive roadster that set the record   and you are right about the handicap but dont take it away in the books we all know it takes a alot hard work to set some records. I know one thing for sure there is more than 70 people  who dont want bike motors in the vintage classes thats a fact.  maybe we sould start a list, maybe we already have one ?? 
Title: Hot Rodding! !
Post by: John Noonan on May 28, 2008, 12:52:45 AM
John, Iam right we cant put a chevy in a bike frame right?  but bring the frame I will build it and you can ride it  LOL am not riding it you bike guys are nuts. Any way what  we think is were will it end I understand that its hotrodding ect but will it come to the point were you can put two bike motors in a roadster (say two put together) we just want to try to keep the traditonal roadster with car engines in them  and not turn them into a gocart class

If you want to keep it "traditional" then all records not running the OEM ORIGINAL engine should not be allowed as well, however you cannot erase the records and accomplishments of those that came before you.   I have had to change several things on my bikes to meet the "Current" rules and there have been things that I have had to change to comply with the "Current" rules and it is called progression and it is done not to "save" records so that cannot be beat it is done in the interest of safety.
 Also as noted you cannot run two engines in a roadster and are you and others threatened to be out powered in one class (H) as I guarantee you that engine builders could take a car engine that fits the class size and make more reliable power (and torque)..if you look back at records from 1995 you will see that the current unblown Fuel roadster record is 131.942 mph and since then no one has been able to make more power or go faster?..it is called progression and as others mentioned once the other racers pulled the OEM engines out it was no longer "traditional"

Stop the complaining and bring your car to the dirt or salt and lets rock & roll and have a great time as that is what this is supposed to be about right?

John

PS, if you need a bike engine I am sure I can take care of it.  If you need a stronger more proven car engine John Romero I am sure could point you in the right direction.

J
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on May 28, 2008, 02:13:46 AM
Being borned a roadster guy, and it flows through my veins. Can any one out here tell me what the difference is????? I have put a 4cly. internal combustion engine-6 speed transmission- drive shaft,w/ all of the safety hoops- and a differental (open one legger still). You
" traditonalist's" a barking up the wrong tree.You already have JUDD hondas, and ILMORE IRL chevys taking away records every meet, put not one of you have complained about a $75,000.00 non oem engines, Do they fit your view of tradition? I guess since I have only raced roadster since I was legal to drive, and that most of you have seen me grow up in this sport, that my views are clouded, It's my belief that i'm one of the more traditional people out here. I have a question why does the SCTA run migets and sprint cars in a assocation of LSR's ? What makes a roadster traditional? with the hood on the #2 roadster looks like any other. what makes the suzuki engine not tradtional? i asked a question earlier which no one responed to, If I built a billit block(which is currently legal),had henry v make  me a crank, bought some carrello rods and of course some JE pistons than bolted any 4 valve twin cam head on would that be traditional? there are a few simple questions, just looking for some truthful response. ERIC
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 28, 2008, 10:21:39 AM
Looks to me that this horse is way to far from the barn to be closing the door now. When the SCTA bumped Offys up one class it made sense. Twin cam four valve race motor had to much of an advantage. Now school teachers drive them and never thing about it. OEM automotive engine. Whats that?  When I go to the grocery store today I'll be driving my  Lark with a SBC in it. But the heads didn't come from GM. Or the crank. None of the valve train. Not the pistons. Or the flywheel or dampner or pan. Not the intake manifold. What is OEM today? Not much of my SBC. A Sesco V8 wouldn't bother me in a roadster. Why should half a Sesco get me upset?
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: jimmy six on May 28, 2008, 10:54:04 AM
This discussion should be over.............................................JD
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mike brauer on May 30, 2008, 01:09:41 AM
ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS, REAL HOT ROD ROADSTER'S HAVE V8'S  . AND IF YOU WHANT TO CREATE YOUR OWN CLASS TO MOTO ROADSTER YOU WILL HAVE MY VOTE .JUST DONT SCREW IT UP FOR THE REST OF US. KEEP THE VINTAGE CLASS VINTAGE. I ALSO WAS BORN A ROADSTER KID. MY FIRST CAR WAS A 32 HI-BOY . I LOVE THE CLASS THE WAY IT IS , I GOT MY 2 CLUB HAT'S AT MUROC , EL-MIRAGE , AND BONNEVILLE IN A VINTAGE CLASS . KEEP THE MOTORCYCLE MOTORS OUT...............


 
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Noonan on May 30, 2008, 01:43:17 AM
ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS, REAL HOT ROD ROADSTER'S HAVE V8'S  . AND IF YOU WHANT TO CREATE YOUR OWN CLASS TO MOTO ROADSTER YOU WILL HAVE MY VOTE .JUST DONT SCREW IT UP FOR THE REST OF US. KEEP THE VINTAGE CLASS VINTAGE. I ALSO WAS BORN A ROADSTER KID. MY FIRST CAR WAS A 32 HI-BOY . I LOVE THE CLASS THE WAY IT IS , I GOT MY 2 CLUB HAT'S AT MUROC , EL-MIRAGE , AND BONNEVILLE IN A VINTAGE CLASS . KEEP THE MOTORCYCLE MOTORS OUT...............


 

Mike,

It is too late, the rules allow them and they and the records they have set are here to stay.
Good news is that a car engine can still make more HP and there are not currently any V-8 standard bike engines to compete with so all you habe to do is take any engine that fits in the class and ru faster.
Afterall how many records were set in the last 10-15 years in the roadster classes with V-8 engines in the (H & G classes)

J
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: maguromic on May 30, 2008, 01:51:54 AM
I am building a vintage roadster with a vintage engine.  Its not a V8 but will run in XO.  Does that make mine not a real vintage car.  I also have a Indy V8 engine that will rev to 11,000 and make lots of power, and monster power with  a turbo that will also go in my car for E class.  Its a V8 so Would you consider that a real hot rod engine.  There is a glut of old F1 engines on the market and its only a matter of time before they show up on the salt.  With their air actuated valves and other things some records will fall.  All you have to do is look at some of the hill climb events to see these motors in action. A $75k Hemi Chevy is surely not vintage, and thats legal to run in AA, so why should their be a ban on motorcycle engines in smaller classes. Mike, I respect your view on what should be in a vintage body and your interpretation of a Hot Rod, and your accomplishments speak for them self. But my interpretation  is a little different on what is a hot rod.   My vote is let them run.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: John Romero on May 30, 2008, 12:56:23 PM
I agree that M/C motors have no place in vintage racing roadsters and the first time I see a Hayabusa entered as a XO or XXO engine I will fork up $100 to challenge it. As far as non-vintage engine classes (I-AA) I am much more forgiving.  :lol:

edit: Oh, and I have a 1930 Model A with a 42 merc flatty with a 39 3-speed and banjo sitting right next to my 1.5L turbo Honda Civic in my garage. Hot rodding is a mind set and transcends the different platforms. It's all good.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 30, 2008, 01:05:40 PM
"Real hot rod roadsters have V8s"? I and the other V4 roadster entrys may dispute that.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: LittleLiner on May 30, 2008, 01:27:30 PM
While I am not building a roadster . . . in a way . . . I feel like I have a dog in this fight.  I am building a Gas Coupe with a bike engine.  I ran this design by the proper group of SCTA offiials a few years ago and they talked it over and emailed me back that it was ok.  The rule book says it is OK.  Current record at El Mirage, Bonneville and Maxton is ZERO. 

Simple fact is that there isn't an OEM car engine out there that can put out the kind of power to match a production bike engine in the 750cc and below sizes. 

Anyway, to demonstrate the there isn't a horse out there that is so dead that it still can be beaten . . . There are a couple of points that I think could add to this discussion.  First is that I suspect that there are a few out there that wouldn't care one way or the other except for the impact that a few bike engined cars are having on the El Mirage Points chase.  I can appreciate that concern because it can impact many in a variety of ways.  However, at Bonneville, where there is no points-chase issue, does anyone care if a H/BFR is powered by Suzuki Busa or a hand-built limited production formula road racing car engine or a destroked Toyota MR2 engine?  Probably not. 

Maybe someone should look at adjusting the record minimums for El Mirage for classes where bike engined cars will or could compete.  If those records are 'easy pickins' perhaps the problem is the 'soft' minimum and not the engine type.

Another issue is - when is a bike engine strictly a bike engine?  In the 1930s and 40s some Midgets were sometimes powered by harley engines.  Currently there are many, many classes in oval track and road racing that have cars that use engines that were originally used in bikes.  So instead of saying my gas coupe is powered by an engine from a Honda CBR bike I could say my Gas Coupe is powered by an engine from a Mini Sprint car or a D/Sports Racing SCCA race car or a Formula ASE car.  In effect it is not just a bike engine.  It comes as 'standard equipment' on many race cars.  And the use of such engines in cars goes back to before the formation of SCTA.  How's that for tradition!

A third issue - what about one-off or limited production racing engines that use components from bike engines?  How much of an engine can be built from bike parts before it is no longer a car engine and is considered a bike engine?  There is an engine being built for the Radical road racing cars that is a V8 version of the Suzuki Busa.  Is that a bike engine or a car engine?  It has never been used in a bike. 

Would it be ok to use the Mikuni carbs from a Suzuki as an intake system for a 1932 Plymouth PB flathead engine in the Vintage Flathead class in a roadster or does that make it a bike engine because of the bike carbs?  Where do you draw the line?

Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 30, 2008, 03:26:12 PM

Would it be ok to use the Mikuni carbs from a Suzuki as an intake system for a 1932 Plymouth PB flathead engine in the Vintage Flathead class in a roadster or does that make it a bike engine because of the bike carbs?  Where do you draw the line?
Who in the hell would do that? Not me.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Stan Back on May 30, 2008, 08:22:06 PM
Little --

You just make too much sense.  Don't you know not to use logic when emotion is the choice of the day?

Stan
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Harold Bettes on May 30, 2008, 09:55:59 PM
Opinions are like anal ports and everybody has one..... :mrgreen: So here is mine with a  question too. :lol:

Although I highly respect the traditions and history of Bonneville and El Mirage and Gardiner, et al I also highly respect the innovation and imagination of the gearhead. Using any piston engine for a power source seems to be a logical step in the game. 8-)

The bike engines are much more developed and reliable than many other platforms so it seems a natural to use 'em if they are in the displacement required. If it is legal to use an Indy engine in one of the car classes why not bike motors? :evil: :?

I also think that making guys use old antique engines while allowing internal mods for reliability and power is sorta goofy. That issue alone has driven the price of old flatmotor blocks out of sight! Using the French blocks or even aftermarket blocks makes much more sense. :evil:

Ok, the rant is done.  :|

Regards to All,
HB2 :-)
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on May 31, 2008, 12:53:42 AM

I also think that making guys use old antique engines while allowing internal mods for reliability and power is sorta goofy. That issue alone has driven the price of old flatmotor blocks out of sight!

Regards to All,
HB2 :-)

Harold,

Sorry but I have to disagree with you. I had a couple of good Flathead blocks that I tried to sell for $500 each, which I thought was cheap. Guess what no Buyers. What do you call out of sight?

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: maguromic on May 31, 2008, 11:07:22 AM
 Maybe you were too cheap on the price.  That’s a good deal for $500 !!!
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Harold Bettes on May 31, 2008, 08:10:59 PM
Hey Guys,

I am probably living in the dark ages and since my short term memory is junk and a long time ago seems easier to recall, I think that $500 is high dollar. Now that is just me. My point was that because of those particular rules, the potato chip old blocks are bringing a premium in pricing (at least that is the way it seems here at the Rocky Mountain's swap meets). :?

I highly respect the vintage classes in many ways because it is the basics of the history of LSR that set the stage for today. 8-)

Considering that some things provide no performance advantage and perhaps can improve the reliability or availability of components in my opinion should be what drives those decisions (and maybe they have). :|

Regards to All,
HB2 :-)
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: RichFox on May 31, 2008, 08:41:49 PM
If you think $500 is a lot for a good vintage Ford block, how much do you think the French blocks are going for?
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Harold Bettes on June 01, 2008, 02:42:12 PM
Rich and All, :-D

Like I said in a previous post, I am not aware of the pricing of this stuff. However, if the French blocks are stronger or have proven to be more reliable, they should be allowed. Afterall both blocks (old and newer) can get the porting treatments so that removes any performance advantage. :lol: Personally I would be hard pressed to be able to afford the emotional pain of purchasing a French unit, but think that option should be available to those that would want to consider same. :|

In our part of the country it is possible to find some bike stuff that has low mileage cause some newbie has wadded the bike up allowing the purchaser opportunities that would otherwise not be affordable. :cry: :lol:

Regards to All,
HB2  :-)
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: desotoman on June 01, 2008, 07:14:43 PM
Harold,

I can only speak for myself, but part of the fun of building a Flathead Ford is knowing the limitations you have to start with. If you know 1953 was the last year they made Ford Flatheads and you build your own motor to the rules, you take the limitations of the motor into consideration, and build it accordingly.

Now once you have done all of this and spent an enormous amount of time and money, someone finds a stash of French Flathead blocks and or someone starts making aftermarket Flathead blocks and immediately wants them to be legal for the vintage class. What is so vintage about a French flathead block or an after market Ford Flathead block? Like I said to me part of the fun is building a better mouse trap with what you have, and knowing its limitiations, and also using a vintage block. But that is just the way I feel about it.

Tom G.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: 836dstr on June 02, 2008, 02:53:05 PM
I've been out of town for the last week, so picking up this thread again has been interesting.

I like what Harold said about "innovation" being so important in LSR. I chose to build a Street Roadster with a SBC because that's the engine I'm most familiar with although when I first became involved the thought of cherry picking a class to set a record did occur to me.

Not to ruffle and feathers, but if someone can figure out how to make a MOTO engine work in a lower class Roadster, more power to them. Just because Roadsters are in the "Vintage" catagory doesn't make them sacred. If you want Vintage run XO, XXF, XXO, V4 or V4F.

Getting back to innovation. It is what makes LSR great. If you tighten up the rules too much you will get NASCAR where everything looks the same and runs the same and the make you drive depends on what decal you apply to the grill.

Tom
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: maguromic on June 02, 2008, 04:38:13 PM
"If you want Vintage run XO, XXF, XXO, V4 or V4F".

836dstr, well said.  I like the vintage iron thats why i am building a XO roadster. If you want to run a rickshaw motor in a roadster class and it fits the engine rules go for it.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: fast man on June 04, 2008, 04:09:42 PM
MIKE I AGREE WITH YOU ITS TOTAL BULL! MOTORCYCLE ENGINES BELONG IN MOTOR CYCLES ROADSTERS SHOULD HAVE CAR MOTORS IN THEN KEEPING IN MIND THIS IS MY OPINION LIKE YOURS AND EVERY ONE ELSES.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: nobody on June 12, 2008, 12:20:30 AM
Mkilger you better worry about getting a roadster done before u call your self a roadster guy. o yea u are not worthy of that number your putting on the side of that car  :mrgreen:
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: Stainless1 on June 12, 2008, 09:06:53 AM
now we've heard from 2 "one hit wonders"  :| You boys want to introduce yourselves or just make your 1 anonymous post so no one needs to put any value on your opinion...
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on June 13, 2008, 12:17:53 AM
Thanks stainless, who's that dude anyway , The roadster is in the shop on its wheels, and will be on the dirt later this year,and whats not worthy of 976 ?
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: SPDRACR on June 13, 2008, 12:52:41 AM
Mike,You and I might not see eye to eye on small displacment engines , but I can't what to see the new roadster on the dirt,The pictures from last year were pretty neat.Hope the rest of the build goes to plan. See ya out their. Eric
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: mkilger on June 13, 2008, 10:30:04 AM
thanks Eric, I have been working on it a bit, will get hot on it after fathers day weekend, sorry I (we)  started so much grap about the bike motors  but it needed to be asked I hope you understand, see you  soon  your dads been great about info about a roadster we are both fond of I know you know the one Iam talking about.
Title: Re: moto roadsters
Post by: 836dstr on June 15, 2008, 01:15:30 AM
now we've heard from 2 "one hit wonders"  :| You boys want to introduce yourselves or just make your 1 anonymous post so no one needs to put any value on your opinion...

Good call Stainless! Easy to toss in a chunk of meat when you don't have a dog in the pit.

Tom (not to condone dog fighting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)