Engine Cases M vs A How about This

[Buell Dyno Guy]

I tune Fireman Jim's S2 Buell and am new to the board, but he told me of the new SCTA Engine Case Rule. If it is not already cast in stone there is a better way to achieve the same results.

Aftermarket engine cases are about "Safety" as there are only so many 175+ horse power runs in a set of stock cases. When going up to a fuel or blown record attempt the stress on the cases is increased, so aftermarket cases are preferred.  I suggest the following rule change to limit engine case modifications.

" Motorcycles in the Modified Class must use engine mounts of the original design and attach points. Mounts can be modified for strength, but must attach to both the engine cases and frame in the stock location.

This allows for use of stronger aftermarket cases without altering the engines original position in the frame, or an Altered configuration. . ... Terry

[JackD]

With thousands of aftermarket cases already in use in whole HD clone machines that qualify for production, the S+S stronger cases for example are already in common use. They can be used in those clone bikes both in production and Modified and and original HD product can't as of this ill advised rule change.
Production doesn't have a problem. It is the modified where it gets screwed up and with many years of history having gone before them nothing has been learned .
Their motive is suspect and the method the worst.
That is being nice.  

[Dean Los Angeles]

the new SCTA Engine Case Rule

Where do you guys dream this stuff? NOWHERE is the word "case" used.

Page 102, 7.F, MODIFIED PRODUCTION
Rewritten rule
? The engine must be from the same manufacturer as the frame.

This says to me that you can't put a Harley in a Yamaha. Changing the engine cases on a Harley doesn't make it anything else but a Harley. Some of the Harley engines out there don't have any original parts, but are still a Harley.

aswracing said:

Damn, I got screwed. Assuming the definition of a motor's manufacturer is a function of the cases, they just made aftermarket cases illegal in "M".

JackD provoked him (go figure). Everybody else started foaming at the mouth after that.

[JackD]

How does a production engine from a Big Dog qualify as a HD product in M class ?
What part of the requirement the engine be of the same brand as the bike is not understood ?
Why is it different for cars beyond production ?
If you put a Honda in a Suzuki you are at least a gas coupe unless you are a bike and do it , then you are special construction or maybe nothing.
You must have missed the laffer that went with the Yamaha story.
If causing one to think is provocation the result of the rules will continue to have no impact on the rule maker only the victims it would seem.
Regardless of the target. the hole was in the foot, the foot was in the mouth, and the head was soon out of sight.

[Larry Forstall]

If the EXTERNAL part is not MADE by the manufacturer (i.e. Harley-Davidson) it is not considered a factory part. This assumption has been a part of classifications for many decades. (NHRA requires stock cases for Japanese Pro Stock motorcycles, but made a special rule to allow billet engines for the twins) No different than not being allowed to put stock appearing replacement bodywork on a Production bike. That said, I personally think it is a rule that should not have been.       Larry

[JackD]

Inside a production anything you can put an aftermarket anything. As you might have a problem with a Rodak Chevy replica block in a production Chevy, you can expect to have a problem with an S+S HD replica block in a production HD.
But if you run a Big Dog or several other bikes the S+S block is legal for even production..
Think about it.

[JackD]

JackD provoked him (go figure). Everybody else started foaming at the mouth after that.[/quote]

However much you think I do the thinking for Scott, you are as wrong as the rule and you would be surprised at how smart the bikers are in spite of the way they are treated.
I tend to read the rule book out loud and if it sounds stupid, well it ain't me.
When you say "Go figure" they do and the result is obvious.
If I can find a fault with the biker community it is they keep their heads down too much.
I seem to hear from them a lot more than you see around here, but then they trust I will listen and I am not afraid to speak up or be challenged.

[firemanjim]

Sure would be nice if one of the SCTA guys that come here would chime in and give us the proper interpretation of this rule so we can get to building our bikes.Hint Hint----

[JackD]

Sure would be nice if one of the SCTA guys that come here would chime in and give us the proper interpretation of this rule so we can get to building our bikes.Hint Hint----

Are you suggesting the interpretation of the rules as provided by them is flawed ?

[JohnR]

Sure would be nice if one of the SCTA guys that come here would chime in and give us the proper interpretation of this rule so we can get to building our bikes.Hint Hint----

Rather then waiting for them to come here, why don't you simply ask them?

Bike Committee Chair
Russ O'Daly
techchairmc@scta-bni.org

[JackD]

Sure would be nice if one of the SCTA guys that come here would chime in and give us the proper interpretation of this rule so we can get to building our bikes.Hint Hint----

Rather then waiting for them to come here, why don't you simply ask them?

Bike Committee Chair
Russ O'Daly
techchairmc@scta-bni.org

The direct inquiry to the rules maker has been greeted with various degrees of 1 on 1 success and failure that doesn't play well to the needs of the community.
The last time the MC rules maker was represented here by himself, he demonstrated he didn't understand a backwards rule and misstated it's origin.
The correct information was provided with very little research and listed here. We haven't seen him since. The rule in question was changed but the other failures reflect a big problem.
The car guys seem to have it figured out with a good balance of questions and reasonable answers.
With no person listed on the bike committee that has ever prepared an entry, I can understand the dilemma.

[johnrobinson]

>With no person listed on the bike committee that has ever prepared an >entry, I can understand the dilemma.

So how is the above changed? How can we, as a community of racers/builders, change the commitee to lean more towards a balanced viewpoint? how can we, the racers, begin to imput rational change in OUR rules? there will always be nitpicking of rules, that is a given, but some of the scope of the rules changed recently obviously has this forum up in arms, how can the process be returned to the racers?

I said something about a dynasty being maintained ((quote here> (safety, yes, those rules are needed, however, as has been pointed out here, there seems a fine line between some of the bike rules, common sense, and the desire to maintain a dynasty, as these are at opposite ends of the spirit of some rules and classes.....)
 a while back, I meant not one of racers, but of officals....

[dwarner]

...how can we, the racers, begin to imput rational change in OUR rules?...

John,

Go to the scta-bni website, look at the 2006 rules changes listed on the front page and follow the directions.

DW

[dwarner]

...With no person listed on the bike committee that has ever prepared an entry, I can understand the dilemma....

Jack,

Are saying that Tom Evans, Scott Guthrie and others listed on the committee have never preped and raced a bike at the salt?

DW

[aswracing]

This notion that Jack incited me is ridiculous. I can get plenty spun up all by myself . Throw in an illogical rule change that's gonna cost me thousands and/or render me uncompetitive and you pretty much guarantee it!

Speaking of which, I just don't see any other way to interpret the rule. We're allowed to make virtually any changes we want internally so long as it remains pushrod.

There's no requirement that ANY particular part be made by the original manufacturer, and in thinking about my motor, there are very few oem parts in the thing. The rocker boxes, the primary cover and some of the primary drive components, and some pieces of clutch linkage, that's about it. I've got aftermarket crank assembly, cams, every piece of the valvetrain, heads, pistons, jugs, transmission, you name it.

So just exactly what constitutes the engine's "manufacturer"? The cases are the only logical thing. They're the only pieces that carry a serial number that can be traced to a manufacturer. I don't know how the hell else you're going to do it.

If SCTA meant something different than what they wrote in the rule changes, they need to put it in writing. There's only one reasonable way to interpret what they wrote.