Author Topic: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?  (Read 24951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nortonist 592

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
    • http://www.artfv.com/design/fashion/
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2006, 11:50:01 PM »
I don't know how the SCTA would feel about allowing passengers in the chair but I have a pretty good idea how the insurance company would feel.  One question.  If passengers were allowed and someone was to dig up a 90 lb passenger would ballast be required to bring the passenger up to 132lbs.?  There are min. platform dimensions in place in the rulebook.  The dimensions would just about accomodate a passenger.  Were I to be a passenger I think I would like a bit more space.  My feelings about the sidecar rules are that they are ok. The only change I would like to see is the wheel diameter minimums be done away with.
Get off the stove Grandad.  You're too old to be riding the range.

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2006, 11:55:10 PM »
Just checked the SCTA website again. At the top of the home page it still indicates the Jan 7 is the rule release date(the date for the next Board meeting.

DW

bak189

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2006, 12:33:57 AM »
Some very good points have been brought up.........regarding, platform size.....the key word here is "safely ride" this could and should be determined by the Tech. inspector.
Regarding, passengers and the event insurance.......would someone, please, show me a paper indicating that passengers in sidecars are not allowed.
And finally,  Nortonist explain what you would like to see in the rules changed on Wheel Dia.  Remember, we are trying to get
input........so speak up............................................

bak189

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2006, 12:48:30 AM »
So sorry I forgot................on the 90lbs passenger......yes,
the team would have to carry 42lbs extra!

Offline Nortonist 592

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
    • http://www.artfv.com/design/fashion/
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2006, 02:18:03 AM »
I do believe the insurance company that covers the SCTA would have "an event" in their pants at the thoughts of sidecar passengers.  Bolted on ballast is one thing but ballast that hangs on to a couple of handgrips I'm sure would give the insurance company nightmares.  As to wheel diameters.  If you can picture  Nebulous IV with a chair and a lot less streamlining.  I have this dislike of being tied to whatever I'm racing.  Get into streamlined bikes and you're into the realm of roll bars, 5 point harnesses, etc.  The 10" minimum diameter wheel size prevents that.  Unless you get into streamliner sidecars.  There there are no restrictions on wheelbase and wheel size.  Its just wishful thinking on my part.  As I said earlier I don't have a problem with the sidecar rules. 
Get off the stove Grandad.  You're too old to be riding the range.

Offline JackD

  • NOBODY'S FOOL
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4684
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2006, 05:52:55 AM »
Insurance is based on the published rules with the loss history and there is none,
How do you imagine they get insurance coverage for the Pikes  event or multiple sidecars duking it out on a road race track ?
Motocross is another example.
They have the same basis for insurability.
Insurance costs and coverage are not a good argument against them.
"I would rather lose going fast enough to win than win going slow enough to lose."
"That horrible smell is dirty feet being held to the fire"

Offline RidgeRunner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2006, 07:56:04 AM »
     I have no present intent of getting into a chair project at this time.  About the only rider I would trust as a driver has passed on and I have enough unfinished pojects/ideas to keep me busy for 5 or 9 days with out starting to learn about piloting a third wheel.

     Input was requested so my mine goes for putting the monkey back on the cage.  Insurance dosen't seem to be an issue and to me the passenger and teamwork is as much of making the class as open wheels are to lakesters, body sizes/shapes to roadsters,etc.

     Just my 2 cents :-D

Offline bbb

  • Aerodynamically Challenged
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
  • JorNic Motorsports
    • JorNic Motorsports, Charlottesville, Va.
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2006, 09:11:52 AM »
Rule 7.I.11 to read:  (SCTA/BNI)
Passenger accommodations:
The sidecar platform must be large enough to allow a passenger to safely ride in a sitting, kneeling or prone position in the sidecar.  ........................Any comments??????????????????????????????

From someone who likes things spelled out the above seems open to interpretation to me.  What is large enough for one might be too small or too large for an other and what I might feel is safe might not be someone else's idea of what is safe.

I know it is hard to pin this down, but I would think you need a min. dimension or something in the rule so this isn't open to the participants or inspectors interpretation.

I think it is safe for me to sat that this rule will never effect me though :wink:.

c ya,

Sum


I would think a demonstration at tech would suffice? dimensions would have to be based on the sie of the bike. a 74" wheelbase altered based bike would be vastly different than a OEM framed 54" current liter bike. and from a moneky position... why would a hack be different than sitting on the motorcycle? they both eject the same in the event a get off.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2006, 09:15:54 AM by bbb »

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2006, 09:29:36 AM »
I really want to see the pictures of the passenger hanging onto the "sidecar" on the McLeish rig. Said person would have to lay out like Rollie Free/Freud. I might make this one a screen saver.

DW

bak189

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2006, 01:45:20 PM »
First of all, much thanks for all the feedback.
Regarding Nortonist, question on minimum
wheel size......this should be updated. When I was asked by SCTA to write sidecar landspeed rules back in 1979, I knew that most if not all the outfits would be roadracing sidecars, which had a minimum of 10" wheels.....I agree that rule 7.I.8. should be done away with now that we are racing
special landspeed sidecars.  As to platform size for the passenger.....it is difficult to set a size due to the fact that on some outfits the passenger may ride in a kneeling or sitting position or a prone position....Tech. would decide if it was safe.  On Mc.Leish's streamliner.....being a "streamliner" most
run a "wheel on a stick" and no platform is required....but on the proposed rules they would have to carry 132lbs in lieu of a passenger.  Again many thanks for all the input and support.  I am not new at putting sidecar rules together....first started with AFM in 1959, Sidehack Association mid-1960, AMA Pro-Sidecar roadracing 1970's,
SCTA late 1970's, Pikes Peak International Hill Climb mid-1990,  Update AMA/FIM rules for BUB 2006, And have now submitted update for AMA/FIM (BUB) for 2007..........I have always asked for input from the people that would be effected by the rules. Again thanks  B.B.







,

dwarner

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2006, 01:59:03 PM »
I'm confused.  :? Don't ALL sidecar rigs have to conform to the platform dimensions regardless of where the platform is located?

Thanks,
DW

bak189

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2006, 02:13:41 PM »
Oh Boy, DW.... if you are confused we are all in deep trouble................................................................
As per Internatonal Landspeed Sidecar Rules
a "streamliner" would not have to have a "platform"  only a 3rd wheel and 60kg weight.....by the way... the weight may be located
any place on the outfit.....it does not have to be in the sidecar ( I would place it by the 3rd
wheel, but this is not required)

Offline MattS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • http://www.wheeltramps.com
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2006, 03:20:44 PM »
As a sidecar racer, I don't feel we need to change the rule about adding required ballast. My old POS sidecar, which was built in a day, has quite a bit of weight in it already. Will that weight be added to the ballast to make 132 pounds? Can I make the sidecar with integrated ballast? Can the ballast be added in such a way as to add to the rigidity of the sc?

And to go a step farther, do we require all motorcycles with a 2 seat, not solo seats, arrangment to carry a passenger? How about roadsters.... do they need a passenger just because they were originally built with 2 seats? Or how about the class of cars, I don't have my rule book with me, that requires the car to have had a rear seat capable of carrying passengers? Do they need 3 passengers also?

It is the vehicle that is racing, not the passengers. When I raced off-road, we had a driver and a co-driver. The driver drove and the co-driver navigated. Now, I've only LSR raced for 2 years, but I have yet to need a navigator at El Mirage or Bonneville.

Just my 2 cents.

Matt

bak189

  • Guest
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2006, 03:41:40 PM »
Very good input, Matt.
What we are tying to do is make a level playing field for Landspeed sidecar racing, both here in the U.S. and internationally.
Yes, you would still be required to have 132lbs.
of removable ballast added to your outfit even if it weight in at 3 ton.  As too using a passenger, the proposed rule does not say you HAVE to use a passenger, it is up to the team to make that decision......passenger or 132lbs. Thanks for your feedback. 

Offline Nortonist 592

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
    • http://www.artfv.com/design/fashion/
Re: Sidecar rule 7.I.11 for 2008?
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2006, 04:40:19 PM »
I feel this thread is heading along a dangerous road.  I am opposed to a fixed ballast weight or carrying a passenger.  Despite the excitment it might provide for the passenger.  One crash that might result in the death of a passenger and sidecars would be gone forever.  Playing fields are rarely level except if levelled by a bulldozer.  If an attempt is made to bring sidecars into line with international (FIM) standards will the SCTA lower their safety standards to match?  I refer to the NZ outfit that couldn't run here becauseit isn't up to SCTA safety standards but is to FIM standards.  Not that my vote will count but I don't think the SCTA sidecar rules need to be messed with.
Get off the stove Grandad.  You're too old to be riding the range.