I would implore those who are voting in this cage change matter to make it a RECOMMENDATION for 2013 to give racers time to evaluate the heavier cage.
I typically don't like public discussions like these, I prefer to spend my time making my streamliner go faster. But in this case I just can't remain silent anymore. However, I won't go into politics, simply present some technical facts about streamliner motorcycles that are unknown to many non-motorcycle streamliner racers.
JustaRacer - I don't doubt your intentions to race both a bike and a motorcycle this year. Good for you! But of every 100 (or maybe 1000) people "intending" to race at Bonneville, one (1) or so actually end up doing it. Since you have been one of these previously, so I am sure you understand how much work it is and how expensive it is to build a scratch-build a salt racer. The KillaJoule electric streamliner is built on a shoe-string budget, and I already have about a normal year's salary or two into it from my own pocket, and about the same from the sponsors.
However, from your quote above it is obvious that you have never built a _motorcycle streamliner_ (if you ever decide to do so, I am happy to tell you what I wished I knew when I started.) Since I have actually built a motorcycle streamliner with my own two hands, I will take the right to express my opinion in this case.
The discussed "roll cage" in a motorcycle streamliner is very different that the typical roll cages you see in most cars at Bonneville or at the drag strip. The roll cage in these cars are add-ons that are either bolted or welded onto the car. In a motorcycle streamliner, the "roll-cage" _is_ the vehicle. It is really not correct to talk about "roll-cages" in these vehicles, even if this term is used in the rulebook.
Since many on this forum probably never had the pleasure to take a closer look at a "naked" streamliner motorcycle, I will add this recently taken "x-ray-like" picture of KillaJoule.
(In case you can't see the picture, I have never added a picture here before, you can see it on my Facebook page (you don't have to be a member to view it, ignore the prompt to log in):
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=455035614533032&set=a.134928633210400.12094.134690893234174&type=1&theaterAs you can see from the picture, there is no separate "roll-cage". The entire driver's compartment is also a part of the frame/chassis. Changing the tube size would mean that I had to cut off the vehicle behind the steering neck, and replace the entire structure to behind the firewall. Since the driver's compartment is built to fit me like a glove, the increased tube diameter would have to be projected outwards, resulting in a need for also a brand new bodywork. Essentially, I pull off the wheels, pull out the drivetrain and build a whole new vehicle.
Requiring a change in "roll-cage" tubing diameter in all existing motorcycle streamliners is like requiring thicker sheet metal in all uni-body cars (like normal passenger cars). It is equivalent to building a whole new vehicle.
I always think the best of people until they have proven differently, so I would assume that this completely ridiculous rule change is caused by lack of understanding of the construction of a motorcycle streamliner. The people voting think it is just changing out some tubes.
If they really _do_ understand the construction of the typical motorcycle streamliner, then this is a very clever way of getting rid of all the motorcycle streamliners...
The result is the same, no matter what the intent. I guess I will see you all at BUB.
Enough from me.
// Eva