How would you feel if

[JackD]

all the Road Race bikes that were running in M class like they always have were bumped into class A.
That would surely require that all the records in the appropriate classes be vacated or restored
 to the previous mark that may not have ever existed.
I guess it could be compared to bumping all the dragster style lakesters into streamliner and
 vacate all the records they might have and restore the records to the belly tanks like a birthright.
It sounds like a question that nobody asked.
Did anybody ask you ?

[AlanGalbraith]

why?
how?

define "road race"?

[JackD]

why?
how?

define "road race"?

Perhaps the answer will be forthcoming.

[Salty Blaster]

Many years ago a fellow on a TZ set about raising many existing records that were held by old schoolers. If memory serves right, he started out with four cylinders dropped to three then two and one due to the unique build of that particular GP racer's motor ... fairing, non-fairing and also used non boosted turbos for additional classes ... I think you get my point.

Bottom line, he eradicated a number of records by many prominent racers by following the rules of the day. It was pretty brutal if it was your records or friends. He did not win many new-old friends, but he did have their respect. He systematically went after and got those records fair and square and ... probably legally   .

Why should any older M records be boosted up to A? I think not. Leave them alone and move on. With all the classes there is plenty of room to find a challenge or if your so inclined, non-challenged open records. The past is the past and it's now '06. There is a whole lot of room for anyone within the rulebook.

Personaly, let the old sleeping dogs lay and go get new skins.

[dwarner]

Why would you have to eradicate any records? The records were set by the rules in effect at the time. Rules change, records remain the same.
I may misunderstand, but can't we just run under the new specs against the old records?

DW

[Dakin Engineering]

In my case, I have stock bike with a turbo hung on it. Thus Modified. In no other aspect is it Altered. According to the rulebook, it is not Altered, and just barely Modified. The opening paragraphs of the section in the rulebook spell out the intent of the class.........

However, if you want to limit MC to Stock and Altered classes, (That is what you're implying?) I'll build one from the ground up and leave Stock for the road-race replicas.


Sam

[JackD]

A dirt bike that was never road legal and even a limited production model is presumed to still be legal for M class even after the proposed changes. Does anyone remember the H2-R engine that also ran during the era of the target bike ? It was derived from a street bike and had the same power potential ?
If you feel that a combination should be bumped to another class, that is reasonable if it is valid. But if you are wanting to level the playing field, then how can you justify leaving the old mark in place ?
Wider distribution of ideas can uncover many things.
"Stand alone and soon you will find you are not only alone but on the outside."
"Who would imagine those records could ever be beat until it was tackled by someone with at least equal imagination and maybe a little more work."

[Dakin Engineering]

C'mon Jack. Play fair.

What proposed changes?

Or is this in the "super-secret MIB if-I-told-you-I'd-have-to-kill-you"
meeting minutes......................

[1212FBGS]

The SCTA has a motorcycle rules committee meeting tomorrow sat 11/5/05. It was published in the SCTA minutes from last meeting. didn't you read it? They will discuss a lot of potential rule changes for next year (some good some bad). These discussed changes will go back to the SCTA board for final blessings as every year. Jack is probably referring to the M and A chassis mess we have and as before they will not be able to please everyone. Hopefully we should probably see the good or bad changes by January. Last year we were fortunate to get a heads up on changes posted here on little A's web site. so just hang loose and enjoy the ride.

[JackD]

I think it might be some of those.
I have to be careful you might be the **enemame.

** spelled the way i want it.

[joea]

Kent,  did you vote no on the allowance of rear height
to be greater than 36, and no on extending tail section beyond
rear tire a few inches??

supposedly the racers committee voted overwhelming neg
on that rule change I submitted, BUT without discourse among
the committee and racers I have no idea how many
responded and how.........

we could have discussed this in a private forum on the net,
this was suggested but was not accepted.........Jon could set up
private forums to allow whom ever to access.....shame on me
for not seeking discourse from you guys at least privately........

so I suppose we could start having some discourse now
in this late hour??

Joe

[1212FBGS]

Joe
I don?t know how it could have been unanimous since your bro is on the committee there should have been at least one vote for it. In direct response to your question, Yes, I voted to disallow your proposed change. Why? Well I had only one good reason to allow and two good reasons to disallow. I like you Joe and you have had great success in our sport. You are dedicated in bettering your bike and accomplishments. I respect that. I make and sell bodywork for motorcycles and stand to benefit more from your rule change than anyone else. But my two negatives out weigh the benefits. First, I have been studying motorcycle aerodynamics for the last 24 years, and in my wind tunnel and research data a long tail exerts added pressure on the roll axis, which reduces the pressure on the front contact point. In other words the tail wags the dog! How much longer? You only proposed a couple of inches, that might be all it takes to make a small bike or a bike with screwed up weight bias to spit the rider off. I can smell by the proposal that you might be thinking that you can reduce drag by installing a large bulbous tail. Joe it won?t work!! Been there done that!! The air is too dirty and there is no way it can stabilize and reattach the turbulent air in such a small area even with a huge tail. My second reason is dealing with a sanctioning body. It brings up a story of a drag race body I did for Kosman and Dave Schultz. The body had a huge bulbous tail on it to attempt to do what you want to do but still looked like a GSXR It was huge. So Schultz shows up at Englishtown with this body and the NHRA flipped out, I mean really flipped out they were so pissed off about it they had my rental car and Dave?s car towed when we went to the line during a qualification session. But it was on the Champions bike and they still needed him to be in the show so they allowed him to race Well he set the MPH record and after the meet the NHRA outlawed the body. The NHRA then came up with this convoluted system that you need to get written approval from them before you design a body. Then they give you parameters that you need to design around. Then after you do the design and plug work you need to get written approval before you can do the molds. After approval and tooling you need to mount the first article on a chassis and take it to Glendora to run it through the measuring chamber, after that written approval you need to make and supply them with body templates for trackside inspection. Believe me it?s a pretty fucked up system that we don?t even want the SCTA to start thinking about trying. I mean, imagine if the SCTA requires approved bodies? We don?t want to push our organization to change rules. Take a look at the motorcycle section in the ?05 rulebook, 2 out of 22 pages have bold changes on them. I don?t like to see rule changes other than safety related items. I hate to see rules changed for competitive advantages. I think it gives more credibility to an organization and racers that honors tried and tested rules. I think we have been screwin? up the rules badly in the last few years just to make a few people (car boys) happy. Yes I am on the racers committee and I did receive a copy of the 06 proposed rules changes last Friday and was asked to respond by yesterday. On Thursday I received another Email stating that most of the racers committee have not responded to the request. I am only to assume the lack of response was the same reason I didn?t respond was lack of time. There was a crap load of changes proposed and I was too busy with the forth episode of this TV show I have been doing to address every one of the changes. Most of the changes clarifications, only two were a safety issue and I believe only two were racers request (yours Joe and another for allowing dust bin fairings). But guys don?t worry; the rules committee is full of really level headed guys and won?t vote for some of the stuff. I know for fact that Bob Moreland, Van Butler, Derek McLiesh, Tom Evans, and Dan Warner will be there. I have faith in them. Hell, give Moreland a beer and he?ll vote for whatever ya want. I have never talked to Dave Isley. Don?t know what kind of guy he is, and I don?t like that Drew guy. The committee chair is still Russ O?daly. He seems like a really levelheaded guy. He is knowledgeable and if you argued a really good point he could see things your way. I think we are lucky to have him head this whole mess up.

Joe Its never to late for discussion. Actually it?s early for next year?s changes. Start the ball rolling now, get responses, get petitions for rule changes in, get on the racers committee, talk to other committee members, get involved in the politics. Unfortunately that?s how it gets done

[JackD]

you limit the audience, squeeze down the time, and keep it a secret until you spring it on a selected group too late to change it ?
The result is very predictable.
When you misunderstand your mistake and then lie about it's origin, you are marked forever.

[joea]

thanks for your reply Kent.........

my concern is also about having to hack up
a production bike to meet modified rules.......

many stockers have tail humps over 36 inches.........

most stockers have tail sections and fenders that
extend beyond the rear edge of rear tire..........

a bike is about balance........

aero that worked on bikes like NSU nearly half
a century ago.............is not allowed now.........

if I did everything according to what many industry
experts said I should........I would have the records
I have now...........

I hate to see innovation stiffled............I am grateful folks
are looking out for us...........but also want to be able to
play..............

FIM WAS the last bastion to try things.........then they went
and basically adopted the scta stuff..........

remember the rules were against fairings extending beyond
the front axle........then stock bikes came out with noses
well beyond this, now you have stock bodied bikes over
250mph....safely.........

I appreciate you concern and that of SCTA.........

hope to find some middle ground........and play.......and
have fun........

and learn from you........

I need to make a plug ........wanna help ?

it would be a dream for me to pester you at your
shop and try some things....

I may have to move someday........

Joe

[1212FBGS]

I think Burt's bike was pretty aero, as was the BMW whale, the NSU's and the Indian arrow were all on the same design thoughts and they all wagged the dog. A stock tailed Busa would fit in PS rules if you removed the taillight and pulled the wheel all the way back in the adjusters (i checked mine). after your suggestion I think someone went out and measured a lot of stock bikes. I think they found most of the stock bikes were pretty darn close to conforming to our PS ruled off the show room floor. Ya know you may get a few inches to your requested rule change but I don't think you'll get all 5" up and all 8" back. We'll have to wait and see if Santa will bring us some favorable changes for Christmas. Joe your welcome to come down and huff as many fumes as you can anytime! You might want to make some changes before you crate your bike for Australia. Come on down! kr