Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: Buell Dyno Guy on February 26, 2006, 01:11:28 AM
-
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
-
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. :roll:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :wink:
-
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. :wink:
-
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----
-
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 ? :roll:
-
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
-
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.
-
>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....
-
...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
-
...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
-
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.
-
...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
I guess you would have to ask them and others about their participation and look at the published listings.
-
Dan and John,what I was hoping for was a simple answer to our question in a public forum where a large group of racers are represented so we don't each have to try and get the same question answered.Seemed like an effective time saving way.
And I have tried in the past to call and e-mail about my questions with limited success.Sent the same e-mail for weeks without answer on one such question.
You guys are active participants here and could easily reach a large number of racers with answers here but instead direct us(sometimes with a bit of a slap) to try avenues that do not seem as beneficial to us and have failed us in the past.
With the amount of time spent typing all of your posts,Dan and John, you could have answered the question several times over.Sorta counter-productive.
-
Dan and John,....Dan and John, you could have answered the question several times over.Sorta counter-productive.
I am assuming I am the John you are referring to.
There are two reasons why I did not answer your question directly and referred you to the M/C chair at SCTA.
1. I dont know the answer.
2. When in doubt, I email or call someone who knows and whose opinion carries weight (i.e. a car inspector and/or chair).
Those two things have served me very well in my short time here. I did not direct you to email Russ as a put off. I have just seen this question spin around in circles for the last 45 days on the forum with no resolution. Lots of posts and stuff but no resolution. So rather than waiting for a person to come to you and holding up building your bike, I simply asked if you had attempted to contact them. Seemed reasonable enuf to me. How is getting a rule clarification from the people that will be interperting and enforcing it counter-productive? It seems to me to be the only productive thing to be done!
-
I certaintly didn't mean to offend anyone. I, like John, don't know the answer to your question so pointing you to a seemingly logical point to get an answer was what I tried to do.
Jack D spun me up with the remark that no one on the listed motorcycle committee has prepped or raced a bike at Bonneville sat a little uneasy with me.
I'll bow out of the motorcycle questions.
DW
-
Dan don't stop, you are doing fine.
I have no vested interest in HD stuff but I have emailed Russ at the email provided and this is what I have put into the email.
"Russ or Chair,
I have a motorcycle question pertaining the HD and the M class.
Can we run aftermarket cases ie. S&S cases and still run the in M class bikes..
Since most of the M class records that are fast were set with S&S Cases in the past.
How does this rule effect this years running of HD motorcycle with aftermarket S&S cases.
Jon Amo
http://www.landracing.com"
It may not be the best questions but it will be a start and we will see how long it takes to get a response and ill post the response here when I get a return email on it.
Jon
-
hey Dan
I think Jack was talking about the current bike board. Russ is a great guy, works hard, and means well for the bike side of things he even works for corporate Honda and because he has not entered a bike at an scta event, some people dont consider him a biker. all of the other bike board members are car guys! ?
There was a pretty heated debate between Mangelli and Tom (our last bike guy) at the last scta meeting, tom feels he was kicked off amd Mike said as far as he was concerned Tom still had all of his previous powers altho he is not listed as a board member. Alot of bike racers feel they wont be represented by bikers. I dont give a crap, I just whine and bitch like the rest of em. I am on some kinda advisory thing and I do put in my 2 cents! Dont know how much weight that carries when the car boys make decisions for us. guess well have to lift up our skirts, grab our sacks and deal with it. I'll give this new admistratiion a chance and see what happens hopefully they can do good, they have the car side of the rules pretty dialed in. if not we can replace them next election
Kent
-
I'll give this new admistratiion a chance and see what happens hopefully they can do good, they have the car side of the rules pretty dialed in. if not we can replace them next election
Kent
That only works if someone steps up to be voted for. Not many want the job!
-
As recently as December, Russ wanted all the feedback from the selected bunch to be returned to his E-mail at Honda. It had to be returned before the joint closed for the holidays because he did not have access from home.
Does anybody really believe he doesn't follow this forum, even after the answer he gave to the backwards tank rule and tried to lay it off on AMA ?
While we have not seen him here since, can he see this? :roll:
-
25 post ago I, as a newbie asked a simple question about a new rule. To date no one has bothered to say "Hi Welcome to landracing.com" or answer my question. I am not too sure who is who and at this point don't think I care. It just seems like another forum for some to complain and the others to flex their power. The cases on my bike are stock so it's not an issue and as the tuner for Fireman Jim, I hope that S&S cases can stay in the "M" class. ... I just wanted to say hi and suggest a possible alternative to a rule. ... Didn't mean to offend. ... Terry
-
I certaintly didn't mean to offend anyone. I, like John, don't know the answer to your question so pointing you to a seemingly logical point to get an answer was what I tried to do.
Jack D spun me up with the remark that no one on the listed motorcycle committee has prepped or raced a bike at Bonneville sat a little uneasy with me.
I'll bow out of the motorcycle questions.
DW
I am reminded that 2 of the five elected board members were excluded by the other three when consideration was given to the balance of the board that was appointed by the other three.
Who wants to work with that and what chance is there ?
The out front format is really starting to make some uncomfortable.
Should it ? :roll:
-
25 post ago I, as a newbie asked a simple question about a new rule. To date no one has bothered to say "Hi Welcome to landracing.com" or answer my question. I am not too sure who is who and at this point don't think I care. It just seems like another forum for some to complain and the others to flex their power. The cases on my bike are stock so it's not an issue and as the tuner for Fireman Jim, I hope that S&S cases can stay in the "M" class. ... I just wanted to say hi and suggest a possible alternative to a rule. ... Didn't mean to offend. ... Terry
Terry hope you hang around. Guess you can see you brought up a hot button topic and the guys forgot their manners 8) .
Welcome and sorry I don't have an answer since I'm a car guy with a bike motor and this is all greek to me :cry: .
Good luck with the motor down under,
Sum
-
The rule change states that the engine and frame manufacturer must the same. If not you run in A [special construction]. I have a Weslake engine in my Norton so I go from M to A even though my Norton frame is just as it left Bracebridge St. 46 years ago. I run at El Mirage so it does'nt affect me as the two classes are combined there. But the guys that have big bucks invested in S&S motors etc. are hit pretty hard. I spoke to Tom Evans at El Mirage in Nov. when he showed me a rough draft of the rule changes. I told I thought the engine change rule sucked and I still think the same way. I'd like to see that rule applied to the roadster classes. If it was there would be a lynch mob organized in the blink of a eye.
-
There are at least 3 OEMs that use S S kit motors that are legal for production now with production of over 10,000 each and a whole list of those that exceed the 500 required.
It sounds like the rule came from the rare air of the ADMINISPHERE as the answer to a problem that did not exist.
Is the design failing or it it failing by design ?
:roll:
-
As you say S&S have produced thousands of motors. Does that make them legal to use in a Harley frame? Where is the line that S&S crosses and becomes a Harley motor? Which begs another question. If I buy a Big Bear chopper can I run it in production?
-
yep :lol:
-
ok still no response from the MC commitee on my email.. I guess it may take a week or so to research or formulate an opinion so not yet...
Will look again when I get to Australia... We are about 1 hour away from flight..
Jon
-
I'll give this new admistratiion a chance and see what happens hopefully they can do good, they have the car side of the rules pretty dialed in. if not we can replace them next election
Kent
That only works if someone steps up to be voted for. Not many want the job!
That is funny because that is exactly why the president ran is because he thought nobody else wanted it.
Could it be that something else was wrong ?
His late entry write in opponent was only a few votes behind so that indicates a pretty strong feeling about something.
"That's Irritainment."
-
As you say S&S have produced thousands of motors. Does that make them legal to use in a Harley frame? Where is the line that S&S crosses and becomes a Harley motor? Which begs another question. If I buy a Big Bear chopper can I run it in production?
Sometimes I amaze myself but when I read the rule book, I am amazed.
A HD in a Big Dog chopper might be a class A.
An S&S in a Big Dog chopper is Production and M but not A.
An S&S in a HD might be a nothing.
Don't Ya get it ?
The answers are obvious if you consider that the question is not understood nor the problem it resolves.
Rules that go beyond thought are really tough to get back and defend.
Rules without reason are their own reward and for no other reason than is imagined by the ruler.
***ADMINISPHERE: The rarefied organizational layers beginning just above the rank and file.
Decisions that fall from the adminisphere are often profoundly inappropriate or irrelevant to the problems they were designed to solve.
-
My previous post was an attempt at being facetious. Tom Evans explained the reasoning behind this rule change and it made no sense to me. It was fixing a problem that did'nt exist. Or the peceived problem could have been resolved much easier. As it stands now the way the rule is written, if your engine did'nt come out of the same factory as the frame, you run in A. The rule does'nt state most of the engine or some parts of the engine. It says the engine. Presumably meaning the whole engine. I don't think spirit enters into it either.
-
So if you run a production class you can run anything inside the engine as long as it measures OK for CC. If you run in M, you have to use all stock parts.
If you put a Honda motor in a Suzuki you are a gas coupe at least if you are a car. If You put a Honda motor in a Suzuki bike , you are a nothing and should go home unless you get the rulebook next month and you can just stay home.
Just when I think I got it all together, I forgot why and where I put it.
Then when somebody reads it with me or to me, they are the bad guy right ?
"Failure as designed or designed to fail"? :roll:
-
Hmmm. How about creating an "aftermarket cases" class for M? There appears to be an overall shortage of motorcycle classes and a few hundred more open records might be just the ticket. Just accepting S&S cases in M would be too easy a solution to a problem that didn't exist until recently.
-
So you are proposing kinda of an S&M class.
Where beating somebody is actually better if you go slow.
That just might fill some real needs that seem to go wanting.
You may have something. :wink:
This is too easy.
-
That is funny because that is exactly why the president ran is because he thought nobody else wanted it.
Could it be that something else was wrong ?
His late entry write in opponent was only a few votes behind so that indicates a pretty strong feeling about something.
"That's Irritainment."
What makes you think the voting was close? Why didn't Jim run sooner? I've noticed several swamps and marshes on the way to San Diego too.
-
The actual count that was delayed by a month in violation of the by-laws would be a good indication of the count.
If you are to take them at their word, Mike said he only ran because nobody else wanted too and Jim told us he ran in large part because the candidate was un-opposed and it guaranteed business as usual.
The fact that 2 of the elected board were excluded from the decisions related to the appointed board speaks volumes doesn't it.
Conversations with Cook, before Speedweek connected additional dots that helped paint the picture.
Shining the light in the dark spots almost has me convinced of something but I am open to other ideas.
Sometimes"PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE" features a lot of cussing but seems to work.
OBTW: If you are looking towards SD and still stuck in the swamps, don't give up trying to escape.
-
ok still no response from the MC committee on my email.. I guess it may take a week or so to research or formulate an opinion so not yet...
Will look again when I get to Australia... We are about 1 hour away from flight..
Jon
Are you getting your normal e-mail while you are down under?
In that case if you are, that is about as normal as you can expect. :wink:
-
2 bad we cant run a Boss Hoss!
-
25 post ago I, as a newbie asked a simple question about a new rule. To date no one has bothered to say "Hi Welcome to landracing.com" or answer my question. I am not too sure who is who and at this point don't think I care. It just seems like another forum for some to complain and the others to flex their power.
Hi and welcome to the board. Clearly this thread has been hijacked by petty anarchists and crazed nihilists out to use what has been learned in the past to avoid mistakes in the present.
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.
H-D OEM cases have been made superflous by turbos, blowers, nitrous and various forms of modern fuel and ignition systems. Using terms like "safety" and "stress on cases" may get you lumped in with the wrong crowd.
It just seems like another forum for some to complain and the others to flex their power.
Actually, we make advantage of this open format to bring issues to the attention of anyone willing to read the forum. Food for thought served on the halfshell. True, some folks here are shy and subtle, like JackD, but the issues are out in the open and history is relayed by those who were there.
The next step is to lobby for a reversal. . . ....how can we, the racers, begin to imput rational change in OUR rules?...
Go to the scta-bni website, look at the 2006 rules changes listed on the front page and follow the directions.
-
3 of the 4 MC committee members are no longer listed with SCTA on their web site
REMARKABLE. :wink:
-
Here is a response I received on Feb 3, 2006 while in Australia. On the email I sent Feb 27th, 06.
"Jon,
I've been prepping for the Baja 250 race and I'm heading down tomorrow for a week of pre-running. I will be polling the rule committee and the racer's advisory group on your question when I get back. I'll let you know but, production Harley Davidsons do not come equipped with S & S motors so my opinion (and I mean only my opinion and not the final ruling) is that they will not be allowed -- because it would be unfair for guys with stock Harleys."
My reply Email to Russ Today Feb 17, 06 was this.
"How can it be "fair" to make then stock Harley's in M class go after records in the M class that were set with S&S Cases.."
Hope im representing you harley guys ok since I dont run them..
Jon
-
Decent argument. Seems like they are trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube after S&S engines set records in the few truly competed classes. OEM restrictions guarantee more hats for JackD's mentioned "Under 2 Club."
-
It doesn't take a genius to know that S + S cases come on a number of bikes that are legal production now and therefore eligible for class M now.
"Another solution to a question and problem that nobody had."
" The blind are trying to lead the deaf off the edge of their flat planet."
"Run Forest Run!"
OBTW: The idea I had for "Under Two Club" hats would dishonor the many fine record holders under 200mph that don't deserve the put down that is found in stupid rules and rulers. :roll:
-
The Monty Python movie "The Meaning of Life" comes to mind. :wink:
-
Nothing got bought that HD didn't already own. At Bonneville, production is defined as 500 units. There are a number of HD Clone brands that qualify for Bonneville Production and are equipped with S + S cases as built and shipped.
Bikers are smarter than the rulers give them credit for.
-
I am glad Scott is so smart and Class-C doesn't exist in SCTA.
The existing SCTA rulers can't take credit for either one of those well considered items. :wink:
-
While Buell was recasting the cases stronger they figured they might as well make them fit cylinders with 4.08 bores too, and slip in a 3.125 stoke crank so it could turn 8800. Dont even ask how the dual 62mm thottle bodies or the XR750 appearing heads came to be. The 1338 cc's is a nice advantage over the 600's too except for the third pit stop for fuel that the rest didnt need because it got 18 laps per tank in a 60 lap race. Might be strong on a shorter track but it gives a whole new meaning to stretching the rules. Does this mean its legal at Bonneville?
-
While Buell was recasting the cases stronger they figured they might as well make them fit cylinders with 4.08 bores too, and slip in a 3.125 stoke crank so it could turn 8800. Dont even ask how the dual 62mm thottle bodies or the XR750 appearing heads came to be. The 1338 cc's is a nice advantage over the 600's too except for the third pit stop for fuel that the rest didnt need because it got 18 laps per tank in a 60 lap race. Might be strong on a shorter track but it gives a whole new meaning to stretching the rules. Does this mean its legal at Bonneville?
Buell pulled a Smokey Yunick interpretation of the rules, and more power to them for it. The rest of the competitiors have been doing the same thing for years, they've just been a little more subtle about it. I guess it bugs you about the advantage given to aircooled twins over water cooled Fours and Twins, but I'm not seeing Buell becoming an overdog at this point with the extra displacement. We'll see how Buell actually does as they develop the bike.
WRT to the cylinder heads and the throttle bodies, the AMA wrote the rules: "3.Twin-cylinder air-cooled motorcycles: Engine modifications are unlimited." Buell just took advantage of them.
I'd doubt that it's legal for the M-class at Bonneville, but since the rules are so open (like what defines a racebike? The engine or the frame?) I'm sure that we'll have a few more people pushing the envelope there as well.
-
I hold a record under 200. H/GCC 144.396, and would be damn proud to wear such a hat.
-
and they qualify for production at Bonneville that has always allowed any modification inside the motor.
And with so many HD clones out there that qualify for production already with S + S cases now, I think I see the light.
With only 50 bikes required for Datona, who do you think spent the most money and the least % of their assets? You only get 1 guess. You have a choice between shot in foot and egg on face. The big competition between them will be for the model designation "BS". One will stand for "Buell Sports" and the other would be " Been Snookered". I have another they would not like.
That's racing.
-
Dont even ask how the dual 62mm thottle bodies or the XR750 appearing heads came to be. The 1338 cc's is a nice advantage over the 600's too except for the third pit stop for fuel that the rest didnt need because it got 18 laps per tank in a 60 lap race.
Just a couple minor points. Those heads aren't even remotely similar to XR750 heads. And while I don't have any fuel consumption data, I suspect the early pit stops had more to do with the Buell's fuel-in-frame design which results in significantly lower fuel capacity than the other bikes.
-
Help aswracing with his PM. :wink:
-
You trying to "provoke" me again? :lol:
Damn, that's embarrassing. I didn't even know this board had a PM system until just now. I had messages sent to me MONTHS ago. Sorry guys, didn't intend to snub anybody :oops:
-
You trying to "provoke" me again? :lol:
Damn, that's embarrassing. I didn't even know this board had a PM system until just now. I had messages sent to me MONTHS ago. Sorry guys, didn't intend to snub anybody :oops:
Typical of a short fused biker. LOL :wink:
-
While Buell was recasting the cases stronger they figured they might as well make them fit cylinders with 4.08 bores too, and slip in a 3.125 stoke crank so it could turn 8800.
The largest a stock Buell XB case can go to supports a 3 7/8 bore so a new casting was required to support the 4.080 bore. But all the smaller XB9's use a 3.125 crank and with just minor head mods can spin to 8K+. The new crank is a pork chop design and with the taller cases uses longer stronger rods but still the stock 3.125 OEM stroke. ... Terry
-
Im no Buell expert but I doubt they just stuck a stock crank in it after all that work. The whole deal would make Smoky Yunick smile. I personally like it and aparently so does the AMA and hope it does well. It has to do better then their last attempt anyway, if nothing else the technology will make better Buells. I like Harleys and I own one but not a Buell, a Fatboy. Rode one at Daytona and would like to have one.
-
The purpose and method to the madness seems to be like Bonneville has deteriorated to and that is the "Dumbing down of the rules to suit the rulers." :roll:
-
The Buell is closer to real then the Vance & Hines NHRA bike for sure. All Harley melted down for that was silver dollars. Bottom line is if the organization wants you then its OK, if they dont youre screwed. You know that Buell didnt build it hoping it would be approved, they had the green light up front. I dont believe the SCTA would do that, they dont need fan support like the AMA.
-
So the SCTA was that stupid for free or are they trying to get rid of the bikes and make it look like the bikers are that dumb ?
"Was it the design that failed or did it fail by design." :wink:
-
I didn't see that one but the one I saw was the NASCAR spec spoiler that was allowed on the back of a Thunderturd in production.
For reasons that were too dumb to imagine outside a very small group that must have all ridden the "Short Bus " together. :wink:
-
Since there are not enough M/C classes as it is, why not compromise with the addition of "original equipment pushrod" and "aftermarket pushrod"? The OEM crowd will be mostly limited to speeds under 200 whilst the aftermarket players will actually have a chance to hit the minimums.
Snivel.
-
Do you realize how many OEM HD Clone bikes qualify for production now with S+S cases ? Three have produced more than 10,000 units each.
-
So, the question may be: Will the wheels fall off the miscarriage or do all the outlawed aftermarket modified motors show up in special construction to set new records?
Still snivelling.
-
With seating positions below the rear wheel, how can they be denied ?
The rulers never figured that bikers figure out the rulers and win the game because they are smart enough to figure. The bikers should be given more credit for smarts.
The best way to lead them is with some leadership qualities and allowing their participation will win their respect. :wink:
-
Hey guys, Look on the bright side. All of you who hold records in the modified class your records are pretty safe. Now that you've been dumped into special construction you now have a chance to go after more records without the outlay of new machinery.
-
It is a safe bet the bikers are smarter than they have been given credit for and the workarounds are fall down funny.
The heat is going up in the rubber room and the rulers won't feel so safe inside.
"Failed as designed or designed to fail ?" that is the question we will see unfold. :wink:
-
Who cares about records, how about just going fast, without putting more restrictions on us and telling us where our butt needs to be, or where our feet need to be.. Just want to design within my parameters of going fast.. When they tell us or limit our designs to their designs then we are restricted....
Jon
-
The laws of nature are very clear and have been demonstrated time and again. The future of the sport depends on not violating those.
The rules beyond production limitations that are understood are the rules of the participants, not the rulers. A leader must have followers otherwise you have failures if only in the limited view of the needs of the participants. When you take it out of the hands of the participants,it is like "Lettuce by Rabbit."
"Failure of the design or designed to fail ?"
-
Scott has more records than any biker so it is easy to say that but he did the records first. Without a class record there will always be somebody faster even if only in their imagination. Your personnel effort will be no more than that and quickly dismissed and forgotten. The structure of a class record with reasonable and stable rules is forever until somebody is really faster with the same rules to go by.
The laws of nature never change but the class rules are at the blessing of a few that don't seem to understand anything but selective rules and worse, selective enforcement.
I heard a good line the other day from a person that thought he was on a rules committee. He said, " I was listed for no more reason that to preserve the appearance of propriety and in fact it was also to shut me up." He was listed with past heroes with some dead and gone. A recent SCTA Board appointment is a demonstration of that.
-
It is true Mr Guthrie about Special Construction. I Emailed Mr. O'Daly a number of rule questions over the last few months pertaining to a new bike I'm constructing. To paraphrase in a nut shell ... If it is not now legal in Modified it is moved to Special Construction.
Last years seat, peg, tank and wheel base restrictions have been removed from '06 forward. This puts the emphasis on safety and less on artificial performance restrictions.
A direct quote from Mr. O'Daly per Email, "If your running in the Special Construction Class, then you've got a race bike and were going to let race bikes run without a bunch of class restrictions."
Modified is still pretty much restricted by basic changes to a Production bike, but there is a class, Special Construction where most anyone can now race once through safety tech.
By the way Mr. Guthrie, I still have vivid memories of Jack Wilson cussing you under his breath about you "going after all his triumph records" back in the day. :D
-
"Just when they thought they had it all together, they forgot where they put it and who is watching."
"If the light is blinding them it is likely they are turned the wrong way." :wink:
-
Actually, you have understated Jack's contribution to motorcycle land speed racing at Bonneville. He was a giant!
The cussin' was always with full admiration for your efforts Scott. Your right about the competition spurring him on. He was just about the most competitive man I've ever met in any endeavor.
The picture on my avatar is a 1951 tribute bike I commissioned Jack to build for me in 1988 and that we raced in '89,90'91 at Bonneville. He patterned it as a replica of the first Triumph that he took to Bonneville in the early 50's. He came out of the war and started at Dallios Cycle shop in Fort Worth as a mechanic and then opened up a couple of years latter as Big D Cycle in Dallas. The bike is true in all respects to early Triumph racing per Jack. He signed the gas tank at my request and I've owned it ever since. Keith Martin, who now owns RPM Triumph in Dallas and the rights to the Big D name helped Jack build the bike. So the direct linage continues to this day.
The bike needs restoration now and the motor rebuilt as the last time it ran the big end and small end of a rod divorced and went their respective separate ways. :( If anyone is interested and doesn't know, Jack along with Sonny Magnum built the original "Texas Cigar" with Johnny Allen riding to set that and many later records. Those early record endeavors by Jack empowered Triumph to ultimately named a bike after Bonneville.
-
I was talking to Tom Evans at tech at the Nov. El Mirage meet and he was showing me a rough draft of the then proposed rule changes. I run a Norton wideline with a Weslake speedway engine in it. Nothing spectacular and I don't hold any records so nobody will be cussin' me, unfortunately. But Tom said that the engine change rule would move me from modified to special construction. No big deal at El Mirage as the two classes are combined but should I go to Bonnevile then it becomes a different kettle of fish. I would still like to know how a bone stock frame becomes special construction?
-
Making a rule,ignoring history, making problems where none existed, irrational application,unfair and unequal enforcement, and all without input from the victims is not a marketable skill.
****Spelled the way I want it.
-
lets see........
YOU CAN HAVE ANY INTERNAL ENGINE MOD DESIRED (keeping displacement legal) in "PRODUCTION" CLASS.......but in "Modified"
class ya got to have production cases......................and if ya use a
STOCK fairing from a 04 model on a 05 model (suttle differences)
then that STOCK framed STOCK engined bike must run in (MODIFIED EDIT-----2006-)------"ALTERED"
class...........even though you are racing agains bike records
that were set with aftermarket cases, dual engines.. and one off fairings........etc
edit-----modified to altered
-
"I see" said the blind man. But he didn't see at all.
It is just another example of the blind leading the deaf.
Was it a design that failed or did it fail by design ? :wink:
-
Joea's post is interesting. Running an 04' fairing on an 05' bike removes it from the production class. Its supposed to look like it came from the manufacturer. Not a pick and mix of parts from one manufacturer. The rule says 'The motorcycle must be identical in all respects to the production model it represents including the air intake box and exhaust system." "Any performance modifications must be out of view." If you want to mix parts from different years then that will put you in modified. Put a Honda motor in a STOCK Kawasaki frame and that puts you in special construction. Thats not too hard to figure as the rules are now written. Do I agree with it? He** no!! This is the SCTA. Formed by hot rodders. Whats the first thing a hot rodder does? Change engines. How many Ford roadsters are running Ford engines? One, two maybe. No, its a dumb rule. To use a Honda engine in a Suzuki frame, to me, does not make a bike special construction. To take some tubing, bend it, weld it, now thats special construction. Whether or not the rules can adequately seperate A and M to prevent a bike running in two catagories remains to be seen.
-
Tell me again why I can't take the body off a Roadster and run as a Lakester.
Well if you need a hint, it would probably be slow.
But isn't that my problem ?
If it was fast enough to set a record, that means the rest of them are slow and that is their problem.
The same goes for bikes.
If you have all the class advantages afforded by class A and get beat by someone that doesn't take
all those advantages, once again you are slow.
If you make a rule that bumps a sit up bike into A but leaves the record in M for no other reason
than your sense of what should be right for the World, then you are slow. :roll:
-
nortonist........are you sure you understand my post...:)
OH WAIT I SEE, "I" didnt understand my own, sorry things have
moved so far I didnt go far enough to encompass the frustation...............
if you run an 05 fairing on an 04 bike with stock frame, and stock
engine..........it not only takes you out of production.........IT takes
you out of modified and puts you in ALTERED..............competing
against records set with one off fairings...dual engines...etc.............
Joe
-
JoeA,
That's certainly silly... the car guys can swap body panels, but the bike guys can't??
The mixing of body work does not change a Production class car to a Modifed (Altered or Gas Coupe class) car. An F body Camero or Firebird is still an F body for all inclusive years. You can put different year front clips on the same body generation. The addition of fabricated spoilers, air dams, etc will change classes if the other criteria are met, such as engine swap, quickchange, etc.
DW
-
It kinda makes you wonder what happened before it was discussed in public by the participants.
It was that way even before forums like this.
What happened ? I think I know.
The key is to not be afraid to say it. :wink:
-
I guess I did miss Joea's point. Perhaps you could explain how an 04' fairing on an 05' bike moves it to special construction. I can see how it would move it out of production and into modified.