Landracing Forum
Bonneville Motorcycle Speed Trials => Bville Motorcycle Speed Trials Rules Questions => Topic started by: nrhs sales on September 10, 2013, 10:53:53 AM
-
I know Fireman Jim's team had some issues with what the AMA constitutes as an A bike and I believe there was a V-rod with similar issues. Did anybody else have this problem and wasn't allowed to run in A because their frame was "too stock"?
-
If the frame looks anything like a conventional motorcycle it runs in modified.
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (A) CLASS
This class is for purpose built motorcycles.
If you were going to build a motorcycle from scratch for A class wouldn't you take advantage of the wide open rules and build something that is more aero than a conventional motorcycle? I'm pretty sure that's what the tech inspectors are thinking. Most of the bikes running A class look like motorcycles.
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/78122/78122,1187143794,1/stock-photo-streamline-motorcycle-prepares-to-start-a-speed-run-at-bonneville-salt-flats-in-utah-august-4590679.jpg)(http://thekneeslider.com/images/fast50-7.jpg)
-
If the frame looks anything like a conventional motorcycle it runs in modified.
Pretty sure that is how the AMA is reading the rules this year as well but there were several bikes that were not allowed to run as they had stock frames with just long swingarms and pegs moved back that used to put them in A but this year AMA would not let them run.
The rule did not affect us as we run in Modified but there were a few very angry folks this year at Bubs.
-
Not got the rule book in front of me at the moment but i was one of the affected by the change in interpretation
Rules stated as i read them that the design is open, no limits, lower or upper nothing specific on frames,unlike the m/mps class that is very specific.
my bike is most definitely outside m or mps on many points, but my frame is mostly stock , so all of a sudden there is an area that fits nowhere
there was a lot of bikes affected both those picked up in the initiall tech inspection and even worse for all involved , rider and the tech guys to disallow a qualifying run
Personally i figure i can work with any rule book and run to whatever specs i am presented with, but was initially a little annoyed with such a change in attitude and no warning
lets work to get it better next time
-
I understand that arbitrary rule interpretation happens in every sanction, but wow. Does not make me eager to run at Bubs. Dean
-
BUB is the sponsor.............AMA and FIM interpret the rules. I agree the 'A' class frame interpretation is confusing and misleading. If you don't qualify for the M or MPS class because of wheelbase and footpeg mods, you should be placed into the A-class..........regardless of how stock or original-appearing your basic frame is.
-
If you don't qualify for the M or MPS class because of wheelbase and footpeg mods, you should be placed into the A-class..........regardless of how stock or original-appearing your basic frame is.
I disagree. If it looks like stock then conform to the M class rules. If you want to run A class then start from scratch and build something that doesn't look like stock.
There is nothing in the rule book that says that you can run if you don't meet the class criteria. I feel sorry for the guys that showed up and couldn't run.
CHAPTER 1
COMPETITION PROCEDURES
1. A. CLASSIFICATION
The participant is responsible for the entry of the motorcycle into its correct class.
-
What makes the frame any different than a set of forks,tire,wheel or brake? Case, jug, head, side cover? Clutch, shift, or brake levers? Fuel or oil tank? Where does it end? Will this mean that all visible parts must be scratch built to legally run in the A classes?
Ed
-
The rules have said for some time that the A class is for special construction bikes. This is the first time, to my knowledge, it has been enforced. It sure wasn't in 2012. A look through Scooter's 2012 BUB Speed Trials book is very informative.
-
The rules state Special Constructions class is for purpose built motorcycles., and is unlimited in design. With two exceptions: Rear wheel drive only, and the seat cannot be above/behind a vertical line through the rear axle. I do not see anything about having to use a custom frame.
-
Dean.......and others..........I'm still rather new to this venue and very willing to listen to a good explanation of the rules. To me, when the rules say you are responsible for entering your bike in the correct class, and the tech guys say NO, it means you have to pay the additional fee to run in the CORRECT class for your bike. I can't believe anyone would intend an interpretation of the rules to mean you can't compete just because of your choice of frame design.
BTW.......I have considered purchasing a bolt-on hard-tail or sprung-hub rear frame-section for my Triumph Cub and run in the A-class. My basic 'frame' would remain stock.
-
"Bikes that meet the requirements for the Modified Class by definition cannot also run in the "A" special construction class during the same meet." See page 30.
It looks like a bike with a production frame could run in the A class if it was not run in M class during the same meet. The word "also" is the key.
-
sounds like bad interpretation of the rules by some of the inspection team. I find it hard to believe Drew made the call that a frame is too stock to run in A.
Seems they may be trying to run off some of the competitors.
-
"no limits"...on the frame/chassis ...but the aero has to be chopped off at the rear exposing much of the wheel...like the MPS class...?...
-
it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Would be sad if it caused folks to not participate next year at Bubs.
-
I have not participated in The Bub meet because they have a long history of stuff like this.
-
Unfortunately you are not the first person i have heard say something similar to that Fred. It is sad as the Bubs event is so close to being almost perfect but about every 2 years something like this seems to happen which leaves a really bad tastes in some folks mouth. It happened to us in 2008 when they were saying stock seats, fenders and tail sections were streamlining. Everybody was running without a front fender and sitting on their frames just to be legal.
I hope that Bubs and the AMA can fix this quickly and incidents like this stop happening. If not I think they could be in some serious trouble as participants will stop attending for future events.
-
plenty will go...
record book/keeping many decades newer than the SCTA, with advent of BUB and
new FIM classifications beginning with it....and AMA relatively defunct for decades until
advent of BUB....
so two sanctioing bodies worth of "record" opportunities...:)...
many more open classes...
many more chances for "world" records......
also offers "trike" classes in addition to Side Car classes...etc.....
-
please do not get me started about the "trike" classes!!
-
I have not participated in The Bub meet because they have a long history of stuff like this.
Things like this is why I will never go back.
-
Gee......
Where's bak189 when you need him. :evil:
-
It looks like the inspector makes the call on what is "purpose built." That is pretty wide open and it is not an acceptable practice from this racer's view. This all tells me I need to pay attention to fitness and cardiac health so I can continue to pass the physicals and run in FIM.
-
I wonder if some chassis builder suggested this interpretation? :-D If you have a modified Hayabusa/ZX14/BMW, etc., it would seem like replacing the frame with something with "less" engineering would be kinda foolish. I don't think I have the skill set to out engineer Suzuki, or any other manufacturer. I guess if stock frames are the issue then all you would have to do is swap your Kawasaki motor into a Suzuki chassis! I also agree with an earlier comment about what has to be modified, are they going to require homemade forks and home built shocks next?
-
about what has to be modified
If you are going to modify, then run in the modified class. Makes sense doesn't it? "Purpose built" means not by a factory.
It's amazing to me the amount of custom, one-off cars that are running, yet that rarely happens with motorcycles.
-
Myself, I decided in 2014 to build an AAF bike which to me is special construction. I am building my own frame, lacing my own wheels, welding every joint and bracket. To me that means special construction, unlike slapping a giant swing arm on a modified metric or otherwise frame. I'm a purist at heart and want to do a ground up build, besides I want to slipstream the air as much as possible ,so doing my own thing gives me the ability to do so. Sorry if I offended anyone, just my take on things.
-
Where is the line in the rule book that says it "must" be a scratch built frame.
Can't find it.
jon
-
CHAPTER 7
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (A) CLASS
This class is for purpose built motorcycles.
Special construction class is unlimited in design
purpose
verb:
have as one's intention or objective.
special
adjective: special
better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
-
But one could also take unlimited to mean that you do not HAVE to change the frame could one not?
-
I think we are getting to the point of DEMANDING a clear interpretation from the rules committee. Just some more examples........we have mixed motor to frame builds that compete in M-Class as long as the motor and frame are from the same brand....HUH? But I think I got this right...........when the motor is installed in a frame from another brand......its A-Class.
To keep it simple............I suggest if the bike does not qualify for M..........it is an A. It may not be as competitive as someone else's entry, but at least the rider/owner can have some fun.........AND THE TECH-people would have a much better day.
-
CHAPTER 7
SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION (A) CLASS
This class is for purpose built motorcycles.
Special construction class is unlimited in design
purpose
verb:
have as one's intention or objective.
special
adjective: special
better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
If that is in response to my question you may want to keep looking.
There is nothing there that says you need a scratch built frame.
jon
-
This was my only argument on the day
"Special construction class is unlimited in design", and no one could tell me it was not a valid argument
but the word had obviously come from higher up in the AMA, and Ken, Curtis, Drew and the guys helping were only messengers
no point giving them too hard a time, they were caught in the middle
-
I would hope that they re-write the rules so that there is no confusion next year.
-
Don't look for BAK189 to get involved........I am done and retired from LSR after 33 years of salt racing.......
-
We miss your witty banter Bak!!!
-
Don't look for BAK189 to get involved........I am done and retired from LSR after 33 years of salt racing.......
Yep, just as I thought......
One organization get heeped on by you for years while you ignore the others issue 'cause "I am done".
-
I think I will agree that in frame construction, if it doesn't fit in M, it goes to A. I believe its that way in ECTA, LTA but not sure about SCTA. My rub with the rules is regarding motor size. Probably another threads worth of discussion, but, not being able to bump up in motor class to another class is crazy. You can do it other organizations, not BUBs. They ought to reconsider, for the simple fact that a class change is $250., for the participants looking to buy open records, how can they turn their nose up at that money?? My $.02, tanks for allowing me to vent.
Mark
-
I do not think you can bump up in engine size at SCTA bonneville events either if your engine is smaller than the next class down. Can somebody confirm or deny that for me?
Sorry if I worded that poorly
-
Huh?
-
at other venues you can run a 1000cc engine say in 1350cc, 1650cc, 2000cc etc even though your engine size is only 1000cc. At Bubs you are only allowed to run in the engine size class that your engine actually is. I think SCTA has the same rules for boneville events but am not positive, Can somebody confirm or deny?
-
SCTA -- you can only run the size that it is.
Other venues seem to allow you to run the size that you say it is -- and up.
-
In SCTA you must have two things that are not acceptable for M class to run A. At one time it was one.
-
In SCTA you must have two things that are not acceptable for M class to run A. At one time it was one.
Or a tailsection that encloses the rear wheel.
-
Or a tailsection that encloses the rear wheel.
I think you are confusing partially streamlined rules with A class rules. You can be A class but not PS.
-
Good on you Mike - reply #34.
Needed to be said,
DW
-
Or a tailsection that encloses the rear wheel.
I think you are confusing partially streamlined rules with A class rules. You can be A class but not PS.
Yes, but I wanted to mention that an enclosed tail puts your in A regardless of the rest of the bike. But this is an SCTA rule that may not apply to BUBs.
-
enclosed tails are not allowed at Bubs even in a class.
-
Hey, any and all orgs. get my call.......if they mess up I have called them on it....
Yes, SCTA/BNI got most of my "questions" for the past 30 plus years......mainly because when a new group of "officials" move in the rules change and classes are dropped and/or added..........My "questions" have always been limited to the M/C and mainly sidecar classes.......................................................
I have also had my problems with the BUB org. but they were ALWAYS willing to talk it over and get it resolved (unlike SCTA/BNI)..................................
When I was racing in Europe (in the last century) the FIM. got all my "questions"...And they handled it just like SCTA/BNI....No resolve............
but hey, I don't give up........We are now roadracing sidecars with ARHMA,
and I do have some "questions" for them also!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember............ALWAYS Question Authority......................................
-
A person can buy a really fast bike like one of the new BMWs, race it in production class, do some small thing to disqualify it after setting a record, then run it in the modified class, set another record, then make streamlining from duck tape to qualify it for modified partial streamliner, set a record there, then do something to disqualify it from modified partial, like lengthen the tail an inch past the rear wheel with duck tape, then set a record in special construction partial streamliner.
I know this from experience. A few of the records I lost were to folks hopping around in different classes with very nominal changes. It is bad for the sport and it especially hurts the special construction builders. It is very hard for them to home build bikes to beat the latest factory equipment.
The AMA might be doing the right thing for the long term health of LSR. How they are doing it is questionable at best.
-
It is very hard for them to home build bikes to beat the latest factory equipment.
And here's the crux of the issue - why require racers to replace a well-engineered chassis, if they can't make a faster version?
Will AMA Altered records be SLOWER than Modified? Is that a good thing?
-
Not saying it is complied with, but the SCTA has a rule which states in part - if a vehicle is not legal for a class that does not mean it is legal for another class.
DW
-
I emailed Matt Schuss yesterday, and there is no SCTA rule against OEM frames in Altered.
-
Will AMA Altered records be SLOWER than Modified?
In many classes they already are. Just like fuel and boosted classes are often times slower than just gas.
-
Dean,
I was referring to class changes done with duct tape.
DW
-
Don't take away my secret weapon! :-D
(http://twocansandstring.com/uploads/files/rgreen.jpg)
-
Will AMA Altered records be SLOWER than Modified?
Only as long as production bikes are run.
The lack of innovation in altered continues to amaze me. The aero on a conventional motorcycle is pretty terrible.
Why not take advantage of the rules and build a lay down design?
-
excuse me...while I petition to run my...blown -fuel-altered-pushrod-partially streamlined- -trike....I really hope I don't have to compete with the local OEM factory commuter effort...cuz I really spent a lot of money..and sweated and bled a lot making this ....
edit: sidecar removed...there is already a record there..I need to run on an open record..I want to be a pioneer..
-
Will AMA Altered records be SLOWER than Modified?
Only as long as production bikes are run.
The lack of innovation in altered continues to amaze me. The aero on a conventional motorcycle is pretty terrible.
Why not take advantage of the rules and build a lay down design?
This is a great example of the difference between theory and practice. In theory, the single-purpose, laydown frame bike "should" be faster, right? But the fastest (sit-on) salt bikes over the last 10 years have been built solely with OEM frames.
Joe Amo
Al Lamb
Greg Watters
Richard Assen
Mark Deluca
John Noonan
Jason McVicar
And of course Bill Warner's extreme, spare-no-expense effort was built with an OEM frame.
So clearly, we should outlaw that! :roll:
-
badpuns.com (http://badpuns.com) is taken, but
stupidpuns.com (http://stupidpuns.com) is apparently available. :mrgreen:
Mike
-
Sometimes the production class bikes are fastest of all. It makes a a fellow wonder...
-
Sometimes the production class bikes are fastest of all. It makes a a fellow wonder...
Maybe the frame has the least to do with the speed achieved. Hmmmmm
-
The 1000cc class was all I ever kept track of when I was running AMA. For awhile the fastest was L. Porterfield on a production Honda, She was faster than Burt Munro's streamliner record. Both altered records, fuel and gas, were slower, too.
The folks running production do not have much they can change so they concentrate real hard on what they can. The factory stuff is pretty good to begin with so they are building on the efforts of a professional design team. Same with the modified bikes.
The special construction folks are trying to do everything on their own and they are spread pretty thin. They have so many things they are monkeying with they cannot focus on going fast. They are busy learning all sorts of things the professionals know at the factory when they design the production bikes.
The custom built frame rule will keep factory involvement and those with modified bikes out of the special construction class. Those folks only need to worry about racing with each other. Actually, it keeps me out too. The triumph has a standard frame and longer swingarm as per modified rules.
-
Can an M bike run a standard frame?
Wouldn't it have to be "modified" by raking it or stretching it?
Maybe all factory EFI systems should be banned too.
Dumb rule interpretation, people should be able to run the safest and best peice of equipment available in the higher classes, if that happens to be factory then so be it.
It's like telling someone running factory heads in a class that can run aftermarket heads that they can't compete in that class.
Factory sports bike frames are incredibly strong and stable these days.
I plan on running factory internals in my motor as long as they stay reliable, see no difference.
Rant over.
jon
-
The special construction folks are trying to do everything on their own and they are spread pretty thin. They have so many things they are monkeying with they cannot focus on going fast.
There may be some of us that would disagree with that "focus" statement.
At most all events, with the exception of AMA, we have to run in A because of the extensive frame alterations that were necessary to fit our 100 cu. in. S&S Superstock Sportster engine in the stock Sportster frame. The bike still looks very stock, that was the intention, and that's what makes it legal at AMA to run Modified, but not at the rest of the venues. Yes, we had to stay very "focused" to get our geometry and alignment right on the button. Thus, answers the focus statement. 176.4 Naked, with more on tap.
A very simple way to resolve this type of rule interpretation/misinterpretation, would be to get the different LSR venues to maybe get together and unify their rules & regulations a bit. :-D
Yah - I know - fat chance of that happening. :?
So that brings us to something I learned 10 years ago - When you go to play (race) in somebody else's neighborhood - you just need to play by their rules. Probably why we have three different rules/regulations books in the desk. Gotta "focus" on the rules of whatever event your at, and remember to keep it fun. :cheers:
When it stops being fun - then its time to stop
Jimbo
-
A very simple way to resolve this type of rule interpretation/misinterpretation, would be to get the different LSR venues to maybe get together and unify their rules & regulations a bit. grin
Next you will be expecting world peace!!!
-
Odd thing about the different rules from different associations is untill this yr the AMA and SCTA have more in common than the AMA and Fim
Generally though trying to be prepared to run 3 meets and 3 associations in the US and another in Australia has not been too difficult
But looking to the future , we can't always afford to run FIM (insurance and entry are a lot more expensive as an international competitor entering via our motorcycling Australia) and as i am realy happy with the current "APS" build, it handles great at any speed so far and i know it has more in it & i do not plan on changing it when it has taken me 9 yrs to get to this point
Andy Sills asked me this year what it was like with the weight i am carrying when the bike wobbles, it was very satisfying to reply it has not wobbled yet.
After some of the rides i had with my modified frame from 2005-10 that had more in common with a Salmon :evil: i have come to the conclusion the factory has spent more money than i could ever think to spend on frame design and progressed from poor handling frames of the 80's to the great pieces we have today , why would i want to take a step backwards on one of the most critical safety items on the bike
So Bubs may not be an option to us every year like it has been since 08 , Sad for us as we like the event and the people immensely
-
That is my feeling, too. The Triumph frame is very strong and better than anything I could build, so I change the triple clamp offset to get more trail and lengthen the swing arm a little bit, and leave the frame alone.
-
I built my bike using the parts from a street bike frame. I used the steering head and swing arm pivot. The motormounts are just little tabs. No reason to make new ones. I don't want to say what is good or bad. I just need to know the rules so I can build accordingly. At this stage I can go modified. But feel the bike is an altered. It is definitely not a street bike .
-
I got the answer. Since I am using more than 50% of the streetbike frame. Or the original streetbike frame starts behind the transmission.Than its a modified.
Having a wheelbase that is over 10% from the original wheelbase. Makes it a modified that will not pass tech. It is not automatically an altered. Class machine.
-
Welcome to FIM or time only :-(
I looked at the list of parts to change mine to MPS
New fairings , changes to shorten it to mps and do it right are too involved to just cut it short, the package needs to start about the middle of the bike
new swingarm, including weight boxes and ballast mount points
New subframe , including ice box
less room to package stuff in
start again finding the right balance for good handling
i get a little annoyed every time i think about it , esp when you think about many of the existing records and the now illegal bikes they were set with
-
yes, I wish the rules could be written in stone for that reason. I am at the beginning of the build and only stepped out of modified with the swing arm,
I can trim that and run in the modified class.
-
Running 10" diameter wheels makes it illegal for all conventional classes.
Just because you have done something to make it illegal for modified doesn't automatically put you in altered. You can be illegal for both.
-
10 inch wheels?????............sidecars are not a conventional class??????
-
Here is my A class frame built from ground up. 94 inch wheelbase long and low. No questions about stock frame and slapped on swing arm. Purpose built ONLY. This is what I call Special Construction
-
An interesting thread, here. I was looking at the SCTA-BNI records, comparing the "common" partial streamline class records. These would be the APS and MPS in gas or fuel, or pushrod gas or pushrod fuel. I did not include the various blown classes because of wide range of development levels at this point in time....meaning not a wide enough historical sampling to draw conclusions.
From 500cc thru 1350cc, there are only two MPS records faster than the equivalent APS record. The slow APS-PG-500 record is "my bad" made with a nearly stock engine. That will be an easy one to bump.
We (who run in BNI) get quite a few builds and some good development in these two frame classes, for these engine types. Last year, for example, we had three entrants in the APS-PG-650 class. Considering we typically see only one or two entrants in many classes, this is pretty good participation.
I think it shows the APS bikes are developing as expected, and showing their speed potential. (I am speaking with some bias, however, as my builds account for eight of the current records in this APS and MPS group. You can take my opinion with a "grain-of-salt", as they say.)
The differences wont ever look like comparing a 4-wheel Streamliner to a Street Roadster, but partial streamlined motorcycles will always carry the driver on the outside of the race vehicle, regardless of frame class. That keeps the relative speeds closer, but not the same, as these "popular class" records show.
JimL
PS: I cant make an opinion on the "percentage" of production material in an A frame, because I built to SCTA rules and the money is spent. There is certainly a worldwide history of this type of rule making by professional/business organizations, and it can be firmly resolved when exact dimensions, material type, and component minimum weights are established within those "builder class rules.".
Many of us remember when AMA had to get better control of professional motocrosser development in order to keep the Championships and major events relavent. Your developing A class rules could provide an entry point for aftermarket industry participation, if the rules can be more carefully defined and home-builder innovation kept in check. It might make some really interesting and "popular press newsworthy" records, in years to come, while serving as a "premiere class"!
At any rate, maybe its OK if the rule books diverge...it's just the way of the world, for things to evolve. :|
-
Here's a comparison if naked mod and alt recs from scta, just ohc classes. Dean
http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=983.0;attach=44244
-
That graph makes perfect sense. Unstreamlined bikes are so poor aero, that it doesnt make much difference. Its more about the horsepower, which you can mke in an M or an A frame.
As some folks know, I tried an experiment this year with my 650cc APS pushrod bike. After a 163+ return run, we pulled the streamlining and put my son on the bike. He tucks better than the old man, you see.
The bike went 135 with the same gearing. We then geared correctly for the better part of the power band...and went the same speed. I tried it unstreamlined in another class and wound up 5 mph slower than my son. The only fly in the ointment was a leaking head gasket, but that was already obvious on that 163 run a few days earlier.
I think what we see for comparative speeds is logical. The biggest advantage for some M bikes is the availability of already developed power mods which have become available thru drag racing. Devlopment in that arena is ongoing, instead of once a year (so to speak).
For those of us on tighter budgets, and a proclivity for doing things our own way, A bikes are too much fun!
JimL
-
Anyone like to guess how many of these are with custom built frames and how many with factory built frames
roughly 163 records and i would guess less than 1/3 are custom frame and all built to the rules and accepted in class
APS-W 196.42 Yates, W Swigz ProRacing 2011
APS-W 187.142 Yates, W Swigz ProRacing 2011
APS-W 68.848 Ingber, K Electrobike 2007
APS-DB 130.55 Sturtz, M BMW 2007
A-D 83.506 Nichols, C Suzuki 2012
APS-D 86.751 Nichols, C Suzuki 2012
A-D 90.251 Hayes, F HDTUSA 2009
A-DB 114.152 Hayes, F Hayes 2012
APS-DB 121.212 Hayes, F Hayes 2012
A-PP** 139.62 Cook, B Kawasaki 2005
A-PF 172.21 Hoegh, J Confederate 2012
A-PG 176.936 Bozzie, D Bozzie Custom 2010
A-PBG 155.877 Eller, W Wink/S&S 2012
A-AG 188.692 Elrod, T. Kawasaki 1976
A-AF 188.006 Elrod, T. Kawasaki 1977
APS-PG 201.707 Rivas, C Harley-Davidson 2012
APS-PBG 167.069 Traber, Sven Sven Cycles 2008
APS-AG 208.45 Campos, D. Harley-Davidson 1974
APS-AF 231.597 Campos, D. Harley-Davidson 1974
A-PG 173.042 Everhart, B Harley-Davidson 2007
A-PF 166.459 Reddick, J Confederate 2008
A-PBF 213.644 Minonno, J S & S 2008
A-AG 159.414 Riley, W. Harley-Davidson 1975
A-AF 201.432 Angerer, J. Triumph 1973
APS-PG 162.84 Gullett, D Yamaha 2009
APS-PF 171.504 Gullett, D Yamaha 2009
APS-PBF 218.838 Minonno, J Harley-Davidson 2008
APS-AG 169.828 Angerer, J. Triumph 1973
APS-AF 206.544 Riley, W. Harley-Davidson 1972
A-PG 169.759 Bennett, R Harley-Davidson 2009
A-PF 191.631 Wilson, A Harley-Davidson 2010
A-VBG 136.848 Pilgrim, D Harley-Davidson 2009
A-VBF 131.014 Pilgrim, D Harley-Davidson 2009
A-AG 169.521 Fish, D Harley-Davidson 2009
A-AF 193.202 Knecum, S Suzuki 2006
A-BG 189.555 Richmond, M Suzuki 2011
A-BF 192.54 Horner, S Suzuki 2010
APS-PG 186.777 Bennett, E Harley-Davidson 2005
APS-PBG 189.655 Perewitz, J Perewitz 2012
APS-AG 215.136 Cauby, C Suzuki 2012
APS-AF 219.347 Williams, J Suzuki 2012
APS-BG 204.427 Pearsall, D Suzuki 2011
APS-BF 187.461 Richmond, M Suzuki 2010
A-PG 169.477 Wilson, A Harley-Davidson 2008
A-PF 185.491 Wilson, A Harley-Davidson 2009
A-VG 124.988 Patterson, E Brough Superior 2011
A-VF 117.972 Morgan, S Indian 2006
A-AG 173.748 Stites, S Suzuki 2009
A-AF 177.422 Stites, S Suzuki 2009
A- BG 204.005 Dobbs. J Suzuki 2009
A- BF 196.73 Dobbs, J Suzuki 2010
APS-P** 201.772 Mills, D Suzuki 2008
APS-PG 176.29 Taylor, J Buell 2009
APS-PF 172.731 Huff, S Buell 2012
APS-PBG 83.611 Sanders, S Harley-Davidson 2012
APS-VG 132.19 Leeman, R Harley-Davidson 2011
APS-AG 211.711 Garcia, M Suzuki 2009
APS-AF 211.671 Garcia, M Suzuki 2009
APS-BG 107.214 Pedroli, D Kawasaki 2011
A-PG 148.947 Omer, J Buell 2010
A-PF 147.779 Omer, J Buell 2010
A-PBG 137.653 Zetterquist, K Harley-Davidson 2012
A-VG 112.237 Kott, F Harley-Davidson 2004
A-VF 122.258 Kott, F Harley-Davidson 2006
A-VBF 120.707 Kott, F Harley-Davidson 2004
A-CBG 141.292 Zetterquist, K Harley-Davidson 2012
A-AG 165.328 Bjorklund, M Ducati 2012
A-AF 165.48 Strickland, R. BSA 1971
A-BG 202.207 Scholz, E Suzuki 2012
A- BF 183.037 Keep, R Suzuki 2010
APS-PG 156.853 Omer, J Buell 2012
APS-PF 158.478 Omer, J Buell 2011
APS-PBG 151.439 Dutrel, L Harley-Davidson 2009
APS-PBF 150.732 Goldammer, R Harley-Davidson 2008
APS-VG 116.935 Hector, F Harley-Davidson 2010
APS-VF 120.137 Kott, F Harley-Davidson 2008
APS-VBG 116.601 Hector, F Harley-Davidson 2011
APS-CBG 151.641 Zetterquist, K Harely-Davidson 2012
APS-AG 168.139 Bartlett, J. Triumph 1975
APS-AF 175.437 Wilson, J. Triumph 1975
APS-BG 169.062 Retsch, G Ducati 2012
APS-BF 176.802 Bartholomew, D Kawasaki 2011
A-AG 148.471 Rispoli, J Kawasaki 2010
A-AF 160.173 Durkee, T. Triumph 1974
A-PG 130.903 Blackwell, J Harley-Davidson 2012
A-PBG 127.795 Daly, J Buell 2011
A-BF 189.097 Higgins, J Suzuki 2010
APS-PBG 133.952 Daly, C Buell 2011
APS-VG 108.931 Hector, T Harley-Davidson 2006
APS-VF 113.289 Hector, T Harley-Davidson 2006
APS-AG 153.772 Rispoli, J Kawasaki 2010
APS-AF 169.331 Gough, J. Triumph 1969
APS-BG 209.81 Krebs, K Suzuki 2009
APS-BF 215.586 Watters, G Suzuki 2010
A-PG 109.479 Parsley, C Buell 2012
A-VBF 97.987 Nielsen, L Indian 2011
A-AG 149.117 Rispoli, J Kawasaki 2009
A-AF 159.542 Richards, G. Triumph 1961
A-BG 102.042 Woods, W Yamaha 2007
APS-PG 114.986 Petrie, S Moto Guzzi 2010
APS-PF 93.574 Parsley, C Buell 2012
APS-AG 152.474 Goveia, E. Kawasaki 1977
APS-AF 161.793 Richards, G. Triumph 1965
APS-BG 162.47 Cole, T Triumph 2008
APS-BF 143.037 Cole, T Triumph 2009
A-PG 117.701 Borcherdt, T BSA 2011
A-PF 111.378 Scroggins, R Westlake 2008
A-VG 108.931 Baublitz, J BMW 2009
A-AG 137.532 Isley, R. Kawasaki 1971
A-AF 142.602 Gansberger, T Honda 1978
APS-PG 134.018 Borcherdt, T BSA 2012
APS-VG 106.83 Kerkoff, L BMW 2009
APS-AG 157.236 Eriksen, B.H. Yamaha 1978
APS-AF 157.154 Woods, W Honda 2011
APS-PBF 128.181 Richmond, M Honda 2009
A-VG 60.277 Brophy, R Wizzer 2005
A-AG 141.928 Eckhardt, D. Yamaha 1974
A-AF 139.593 Eriksen, B. Yamaha 1975
A-BG 107.533 Omer, J Honda 2009
A-BF 96.32 Omer, J Honda 2007
APS-PG 96.225 Riggs, D Harley-Davidson 2009
APS-AG 159.893 Eriksen, Brian Yamaha 1977
APS-AF 151.901 Eriksen, B. Yamaha 1975
A-AG 133.022 Fair, HB Yamaha 1978
A-AF 141.698 Wagner, B Honda 2008
APS-PG 93.825 Riggs, D Harley-Davidson 2009
APS-PF 79.144 Bennett. M Triumph 2010
APS-AG 152.175 Wagner, B Honda 2006
APS-AF 139.436 Wagner, B Honda 2008
A-AG 106.944 Brigham IV, H. Can-Am 1976
A-AF 106.315 Brigham IV, H. Can-Am 1976
APS-AG 120.098 Wagner, B Honda 2005
APS-AF 126.515 Wagner, B Honda 2004
APS-BF 58.6665 Manning, C Honda 2012
A-AG 125.75 Kolb, S Honda 2008
A-AF 124.828 Kolb, S Honda 2008
APS-AG 133.168 Grufstedt, PC Morbidelli 1978
APS-AF 146.72 Kolb, S Kolb 2010
A-AG 92.422 Conway, T. Kawasaki 1975
A-AF 91.666 Eckhardt, D. Suzuki 1973
APS-AG 101.907 Schneider, M Honda 2010
APS-AF 104.395 Bowns, Bryan Honda 1977
S-AG 142.864 Hunter, E Swedetech/Costella 2008
S-AF 155.11 Buddenbaum, J Buddenbaum 2009
A-AG 72.558 Packard, D. Suzuki 1969
A-AF 80.949 Packard, D. Suzuki 1973
APS-AG 102.703 Schneider, M Honda 2011
APS-AF 82.264 Packard, D. Suzuki 1970
S-AG 121.439 Noyes, E Buddenbaum 2006
S-AF 144.921 Buddenbaum, J Buddenbaum 2008
SCS-AF 80.427 McLeish, D Van Butler 2005
-
Let me guess - that these are AMA records, right? I don't know, really.
-
Yep straight from the 2013 AMA regulations and records download
-
Unfortunately what I think this new rule interpretation is going to hurt attendance at Bubs. Folks who have a stock frame but with "A" type mods that run in SCTA are not going to want to completely re-design their bike just so they can run in "M" at bubs. I really hope that the AMA rules committee can figure this out sooner rather than later and publishes a clear summary of what it takes to run in A this year.
-
I seem to notice several older records from early 70's in that list that were done at SCTA Bnvle. events, not at BUB - AMA/BUB is only ten years old.
I have seen plenty of what used to be a stock frame, cut up, sliced & diced and are completely legal for the A class since there is no way they could fit the Modified rule agenda. Most all of this hand wringing, consternation, & second guessing every other persons interpretation of a rule, could easily be remedied by simply addressing whatever question you have to either Ken Saillant at AMA or his Chief Technical Steward Mr. Drew Gatewood. Known as AHG here - PM a mail to him. Get the skinny from the horses mouth, and forget what some other persons interpretation is, unless they are a certified Technical Steward. Your just askin for headaches, and additional confusion.
I had some classification questions before going to LTA - We simply asked the questions months before hand to Joe D. at LTA and bingo - no confusion - got it straight from someone in charge of the event. No last minute problems, we were all on the same page.
Bottom line - If you want a correct answer to a classification question at BUB - call or e mail Mr. Drew. :cheers:
Just my humble opinion, since our team has been confronted with the same dilemma between different venues for a couple years. Some we have to run M - some we have to run A. It gets back to the old story of - If you go play ball in somebody elses neighborhood, you gotta play by their rules. :cheers:
And Dan - If somebody cops an attitude and doesn't want to go to BUB - That's their poor choice, and their loss. :-D
Jimbo
-
Jimbo... only problem is that the rule was interpreted at the event... not well before... and no one knows what the interpretation will be at the next one....
maybe the AMA will have a special construction rule written prior to the next event so folks can be prepared before the event.
I believe that is going to happen based on the folks that are involved with the event. :cheers:
-
Jimbo... only problem is that the rule was interpreted at the event... not well before... and no one knows what the interpretation will be at the next one....
maybe the AMA will have a special construction rule written prior to the next event so folks can be prepared before the event.
I believe that is going to happen based on the folks that are involved with the event. :cheers:
I also think they may/will be a little more specific Stainless. I also still think, when there is a gray area that is not totally understood, best answer would come from an event official like Ken or AHG - its only a phone call away - and you avoid a situation the day of Tech. :cheers:
Single digit temps here last night with 3+ in. snow - gotta shovel the way to the garage.
Wishing everyone a Merry Christmas - and Happy Hollidays
Jimbo
-
unfortunately the written rule had not changed at all but yet they changed the interpretation of the rule at the event with no notice given. Folks had no idea this was coming so how could they know to contact an official beforehand? A very poor way to do things IMO.
-
That was our main issue
been racing something or other since i was 16 , and always figured i can work to whatever rules are in place or if i realy don't like it go find something else to do ,its not all that complicated
but when the goal posts are moved at the actual meeting & when builds have been going for several yrs on based on the rules and there interpretation
and many records set by bikes that now would seem to be put in a time only category , i do feel the need to question
I am not questioning Ken, Drew, Curtis or any of the guys helping out , they do a great job and this yr would have been very difficult for them
my understanding is the directive came from higher up in the AMA
If we can get a clear and timely directive for the 2014 season i would be happy to put this yr behind us and move on
-
Somehow word got to me before the 2013 meet and that was a big factor in my spending the extra money and going to the trouble to run FIM rather than AMA with my production framed bike. These are other reasons why I like the FIM, but knowing about the pending rule interpretation was the clincher. I recall mentioning this on my build diary. I sure do not remember any details about how I learned about it, unfortunately.
-
I may be one of the few who agree that "A" special construction should be just that and any production or production modified frames be banned from that class :-o. this includes production body work as well or modified production body work and I applaud the AMA for taking this stand.... though not there new interpretations on the day which is unforgivable :x
I have given it some thought and believe the problem is in the wayyyy to limited scope for the modified class...this is where the effort to change the rules should be ......modified should be based on a production frame ,where any modifications be allowed provided they are to a production frame and that in partial streamlined class any modifications to the production body work....but it must be based on the production body work ....you could set an 80" limit on wheelbase ( or no limit ) which could be made up from any combination of rake and /or lengthened swing arm ....this would see most if not all of those bikes that now don't fit into special construction or modified able to run modified class
Leave the special construction class to the purpose built ( as in for landspeed racing only) radical / experimental/ outside the box bikes.....with there up to 4 engines and unlimited nature.
cheers Gary
-
I have yet to hear an argument for excluding a Modified bike from an Altered class. Can anyone explain? -Dean
-
The AMA modified and altered tails are not much different and neither are especially aerodynamic. The skirting behind the rear axle on both cannot go below the top of the rear wheel rim. In addition, it is very difficult to get the attached air flow behind the rider that takes advantage of the tail length. Most bikes would run about the same speeds either way.
-
I have yet to hear an argument for excluding a Modified bike from an Altered class. Can anyone explain? -Dean
Well Dean it all depends where your bias lies......your conception of what is fair and reasonable is almost certainly very different to mine.
Ill leave the finer details to those who race at bubs....to ponder.
:cheers:
-
I have yet to hear an argument for excluding a Modified bike from an Altered class. Can anyone explain? -Dean
Well Dean it all depends where your bias lies......your conception of what is fair and reasonable is almost certainly very different to mine.
Ill leave the finer details to those who race at bubs....to ponder.
:cheers:
OK, for argument's sake, what is your opinion? Why should Modified bikes be disallowed from competing in Altered classes?
-
I have yet to hear an argument for excluding a Modified bike from an Altered class. Can anyone explain? -Dean
Well Dean it all depends where your bias lies......your conception of what is fair and reasonable is almost certainly very different to mine.
Ill leave the finer details to those who race at bubs....to ponder.
:cheers:
OK, for argument's sake, what is your opinion? Why should Modified bikes be disallowed from competing in Altered classes?
Dean
Ok for arguments sake why bother to have classes?...... let any class run in any class anarchy rules :x this is where it would lead...but the question is why would you want to run out of class? and more importantly what is your motivation to do so?....its the "motivation" that I perceive most seek to do this that irks me, not so much the technicality of the class.
I wont go into a tirade of why I think this way as its not my intention to inflame passions or cast dispersions on your good self :-D
:cheers:
-
Please, feel free to express yourself HW. That's why I asked, this is a discussion forum, this thread is about the distinctions between Modified & Altered rules, so have at it. I'd rather you not "cast dispersions" on my personal character, but if you feel you need to, go for it.
The way I see it, if a Modified bike runs faster than the Altered record ( same displacement, turbo or not) then no one has yet taken full advantage of the Altered rules. So why not let the fastest available bike hold the record until that happens?
Gas and fuel records work this way - no one forces you to run non-event fuel or nitrous, just peel off the tank seal, and bingo, you're in the fuel class. Same thing with a naked bike in a faired class, I don't think you're required to streamline.
Dsiplacement records I sort of understand. Some engine configurations run better than others, because we depend on the OEMs as a base. But if Suzuki starting selling a 2900cc Hayabusa, then I'd think that running up in class should be allowed.
So what's the problem with an OEM-frame bike running faster than a custom frame bike, and taking the Altered record? Wouldn't this just motivate the Altered bike competitor to build a better bike, taking better advantage of the rules? I'm new at LSR, and I feel like I must be missing something, can one of the LSR veterans or historians try to explain it to me?
OK, enough ranting for me today, thanks for getting through all that :)
Dean
-
I agree with you Sabat. It seems like a select few individuals who race at Bubs with custom made frames got upset that factory frames in many classes were going faster than what they made.
If the only difference between M and A was a custom frame that would be one thing, but in M we are only allowed to go 10% longer than stock wheelbase. So how does the guy with the 600 hp turbo Hyabusa keep his bike stable if he has to run such a short wheelbase in M class as he is not allowed to run in A with a longer swingaram due to having a near stock frame??
It seems like this new rule interpretation is intentionally trying to keep some of the very fast bike from being able to compete in AMA classes to me. That just does not makes sense in my book as i would think the AMA would want more competitors not less at the event???
Understand right now I am not running in A but I would like to have that option. This new rule precludes me from doing so with my current stable of bikes. If I set all the records I hope in M class and am then not allowed to compete in A due to having a too stock frame what then? Keep in mind I am also a sponsor of the Bubs event. Not huge dollars but I am sure every little bit helps to keep the event going.
-
Excellent points nhrs.
-
Maybe a new class for custom made frames should be developed? call it unlimited or something like that? That way at least folks who still have a factory frame but require a longer than 10% wheelbase, pegs farther back etc can still run for record instead of being shut out of the event.
As I said my concern is not for me, it is for how this will affect the event. If you make a rule that disqualifies a certain percentage of bikes from running for a record at your event but they are still able to run at the other events what do you think the folks who own those bikes will do? Is that what the AMA wants? For only bikes built to a very small window within the rules to be able to run at their events? Maybe they do and I am way off base?
I personally saw the impact this had this year at the event. There was a team pitted next to us with a Harley V-rod. They have ran this exact same bike for several years at the event with no issues. On Monday I believe it was they were told their bike was disqualified from running in A class. They were so upset that they packed up everything and left vowing never to return to Bubs. It was not nice to be around those guys as they were packing up to say the least
Please do not take this as me trying to bash the event, I am not!! I love this event, so much so that I am a sponsor and I try to be one of its' most ardent defenders. But when I see an issue with the way things are being done that can have a significant impact on the future of Bubs i also believe it needs to be addressed.
I have not seen anything from AMA or any of its' officials regarding this. It would be nice if they would address it so at least folks know where this issue stands for next year.
I will say no more.
-
In some respects the class could be broken in 2, Altered and Special construction, the words have been freely interchanged in this instance but can have quite different interpretations , but seriously who wants to add more classes ,
FIM is much more simple in its classing structure ,
-
As you all well know by now "you can always tell a Dutchman...but not much" being Dutch born...here is my input..
Altered class should be for custom/one-off chassis/frames.....Modified class for stock (factory) chassis/frames that have been modified.....simple.......................................
SCTA/BNI went though this in the early 1990's with the sidecar class........SO what did they do put them all together....Just called it SIDECAR CLASS..............did not retire previous records.......they have sidecars and streamliner sidecar.....and even then they don't follow their own rules, we have lost streamliner records to sidecar that were not streamliners.................At the present time the BUB also has only two classes for sidecars ,in addition to a Vintage class....I would like to see classes for "bold-on" outfits.....custom/on-off chassis outfits......streamliner outfits. With as many as 11 sidecars at some of the previous BUB events it certainly shows that there is interest in the class.......will there changes made....I fear not...............................................................
-
As you all well know by now "you can always tell a Dutchman...but not much" being Dutch born...here is my input..
Altered class should be for custom/one-off chassis/frames.....Modified class for stock (factory) chassis/frames that have been modified.....simple.......................................
SCTA/BNI went though this in the early 1990's with the sidecar class........SO what did they do put them all together....Just called it SIDECAR CLASS..............did not retire previous records.......they have sidecars and streamliner sidecar.....and even then they don't follow their own rules, we have lost streamliner records to sidecar that were not streamliners.................At the present time the BUB also has only two classes for sidecars ,in addition to a Vintage class....I would like to see classes for "bold-on" outfits.....custom/on-off chassis outfits......streamliner outfits. With as many as 11 sidecars at some of the previous BUB events it certainly shows that there is interest in the class.......will there changes made....I fear not...............................................................
But why shouldn't a Modifed bike be allowed to compete with an Altered bike? -Dean
-
I have nothing in this fight, but....from my days of drag racing, if I move up a class (modified to altered) and I'm faster then you are with your altered - I would suggest that you don't complain about me, but work harder!
I may be wrong (often am) but no matter what class I am running in I would want the best handling frame I could get, if it happens to be a stock factory frame..so be it.
Bill
-
My dog in this fight is the 10% WB rule for modifieds... Bub followed the SCTA lead on that one....
I was running a modified class bike until the SCTA put in the 10% rule... based on OEM WB of 55 inches, with a 4 inch extension the bike was out of spec? What? :-o ... when I measured the OEM WB minimum it was nearly 57 inches... Talked to the local bike shop... Oh yea, they spec them short because it makes them seem more nimble. Talked to the Tom... he said measured from factory claimed spec... so I changed it to A at the salt.... the next year I stretched it 9, moved the gas tank under the seat, big battery in front of the seat... added even more weight front and back... ran faster... it is definitely not a modified street bike, it was purpose built for LSR, but it still used the stock perimeter frame because Suzuki did that part right. Maybe HW is right... maybe there are too many restrictions on M, and A should be purpose built frames... not purpose built bikes...
Hopefully someone from the AMA is reading all this, and the Bub event survives, the concept is good :cheers:
-
I have nothing in this fight, but....from my days of drag racing, if I move up a class (modified to altered) and I'm faster then you are with your altered - I would suggest that you don't complain about me, but work harder!
I like that view!!
-
I'm not following this as close as some of you guys -- after all it's about those 2-wheeled things. But in cars, they started having some altereds run faster than the modifieds. So they said that in order to have a modified, you had to have A, B or C. So the altered guys just added a temporary A, B or C. Work for you?
-
I have nothing in this fight, but....from my days of drag racing, if I move up a class (modified to altered) and I'm faster then you are with your altered - I would suggest that you don't complain about me, but work harder!
I may be wrong (often am) but no matter what class I am running in I would want the best handling frame I could get, if it happens to be a stock factory frame..so be it.
Bill
What Bill said,,,
I have a dog in this fight and to date have been closely watching with interest,, my ZX12 runs in modified, within the 10% rule, apart from the swingarm extensions and being slammed, the bike "looks " almost stock,, my 10% is based on the futherest back oem wheelbase dimension, the BUB official told me that it is to be based on the futherest forward(no allowance for chain adjustment) oem dimension, go figer :roll:,, when i said ok ill nominate up to A, he said no way, cant run M, cant run A, (were talking 10mm difference here),, luckilly i had entered FIM,,, the AMA has to take into consideration that thay attract a "large" contingent of international competitors to the BUB event, rule directives/changes have to be made/put out there at the very least 6months in advance,,
There is no way that i cast disperstion on Drew, Curtis or Ken,, thay do a brillent job,,,
-
stay`tee,
What the "BUB" official told you was 100% wrong. The rule says "Measurement will be taken at the most rearward axle setting." I agree that the AMA tech stewards such as Drew and Curtis are great and they have an extremely hard job, but they should all be on the same page. And speaking of pages, the rule book needs to be re-written to solve this M vs. A conflict. The stewards should interpret the rules as they are written, but every year I attend BUB I see new rules being made up on the spot with no basis or prior notice to racers.
Don
-
yes Don, you and i and most folks on here know that,, i presented the official with oem (page in laptop from Official Kawasaki Service Manual) showing wheelbase,, i asked for a second openion, only to have the second official confirm what the first said,, at that point, given the hell-a-baloo that was going on, i thought roll with the punches and get outta here, obversley the officials had been given a directive, and there interputation was what thay were stiching with,,
will i be bringing my bike half way around the world to run at BUB again,, you betcha, seeya in 2015,,,
-
One thought comes to mind with these made on the spot rules...SHOW IT TO ME IN PRINT!
If they can't, won't or don't want to...what the hell is a rule book for?
Bill
-
This is one argument where all three or four sides have valid points.
-
I would like to note that everybody on this Landracing.com keeps saying that Drew, Curtis, AMA Ken do a great job and to a certain degree I agree, doing Tech is a thankless job ......But if I understand this whole process is that BUB (Denis) and Drew, Curtis, AMA Ken (with the help of some other like myself on sidecars) write and edit the AMA Landspeed rules.........I don't believe the AMA "home-office" has any input or interest in Landspeed racing rules.........................I may well be wrong, if so Drew, Curtis and AMA Ken can post here and prove me wrong.......If I am right then the above named people are the ones to contact to correct a problem..............................................
-
it would be really nice if we could hear from the powers that be. I do know that at least one of them is following this thread for sure. Evenn if it is just to say they have read this and understand some of the concerns, etc..
-
Regarding my last post.......I do have some knowledge as to the inner workings of the AMA having worked as a AMA official back in the 1970's on their road race program with the late great Bill Boyce (a outstanding person with great racing event knowledge, one of the best the AMA ever had).....I know there have been many changes made in all these past years but I think I am right in regard to AMA LSR rule making..........................................
-
Bak, you are correct on the development of the rules reference the AMA. Most of our MC rules have come through the SCTA historical development format; they have the operating history to build upon. My belief (and I could be wrong) is that 2 wheeled classification developed from the car rules model: production vehicle, a little modified, more modified, a whole lot more modified and we're building from scratch. The motorcycle iteration has been primarily frame based to place bikes into an appropriate modification category. The advent of modern frames, modifications required to control prodigious power outputs and aerodynamics has clouded the traditional rule structure and contributed to the issues we are discussing. My opinion is that we ALL are transitory stewards of our sport and as such should take the rules seriously and classification changes should be well researched and thought out- which unfortunately takes time. There is a working group that is addressing the A / M issue; one- define the problem and two- create a solution. Constructive discussion is of course welcome and a couple of us do monitor this thread and take well thought out postings seriously. Please PM me on this subject if you desire a less public format. We do understand the need to get any changes / information out early so we can plan for the 2014 season which will be sunny days and hard salt.
thank you
Rex
-
I agree that it's crappy to discover a bike that was legal last year isn't this year.
I don't agree that a modified frame ever belongs in altered. You can have a frame that is not legal for either.
For those of you complaining that they should follow the printed rules, the rules are so full of holes that interpretation is necessary everywhere. Can you run oxygen to go faster? No, even though i it's not disallowed by the rule book.
Dean, why can't you run a modified frame in altered? Because you can't.
What really bothers me about this argument is the almost complete lack of innovation by the people running this class.
If it remotely looks like a motorcycle, then you don't understand aerodynamics. Why are the modified records faster?
-
Bak, you are correct on the development of the rules reference the AMA. Most of our MC rules have come through the SCTA historical development format; they have the operating history to build upon. My belief (and I could be wrong) is that 2 wheeled classification developed from the car rules model: production vehicle, a little modified, more modified, a whole lot more modified and we're building from scratch. The motorcycle iteration has been primarily frame based to place bikes into an appropriate modification category. The advent of modern frames, modifications required to control prodigious power outputs and aerodynamics has clouded the traditional rule structure and contributed to the issues we are discussing. My opinion is that we ALL are transitory stewards of our sport and as such should take the rules seriously and classification changes should be well researched and thought out- which unfortunately takes time. There is a working group that is addressing the A / M issue; one- define the problem and two- create a solution. Constructive discussion is of course welcome and a couple of us do monitor this thread and take well thought out postings seriously. Please PM me on this subject if you desire a less public format. We do understand the need to get any changes / information out early so we can plan for the 2014 season which will be sunny days and hard salt.
thank you
Rex
Thanks for the insight Rex, good luck with the process. -Dean
-
Dean, why can't you run a modified frame in altered? Because you can't.
Wow, I hadn't thought about it that way, this is really helpful.
-
Its a great discussion............
So if the rules committee will NOT allow a highly modified frame to run in A......which one of you is going to take the records away from Tom Mellor?
And if you think that's not a problem.........before the 10% wheelbase rule was put in, I believe Tom ran the same chassis in the M-class.
My own 250cc M-PG record was set in 2011 with a total wheelbase about 2-inches beyond the current allowance. I saw the rule change and spent a LOT of $$$ and shortened my swingarm to comply. I used the often published 1+-inch longer wheelbase for Triumph T20s built at the factory with the heavier-duty front forks and larger diameter wheels. Triumph published the wheelbase at 49-inches for standard models and added a footnote at the bottom of the page that reads "other models may vary". I brought evidence of the wheelbase sizes and a copy of the Triumph manual printed from a computer screen. The techs would only accept the 49-inches....................so we agreed to have the techs measure and place a mark on the swingarm with the warning that if I ran at record speed, the center of the axle had better not be beyond the mark. We ran in MPS-PG and set a new record after we hunted down a half-link to get the chain to fit the 3/8-inch adjustment window.
I have a hard time understanding the 10% rule and would not begin to argue with the techs........they did not right the rule. A factory production bike has an adjuster at the rear that allows the wheelbase to be change. The typical new bike has the axle slightly behind the most forward position. Is this where the factory gets the measurement? If I measure my completely stock T20 at the rear-most setting of the axle, I get a rounded 51-inches. Does it not follow that if the modified wheelbase is measured at the rear-most axle position, that the comparisons should be made on the SAME basis?
-
I offer the following as a solution to the 10% rule....................Identify the longest factory-production wheelbase for the class and allow all competitors no more than a set measurement of allowed modification for the M-class.
I also believe the following would solve the M vs. A dispute for frame type: If the seating position is lower than the top of the rear rim, the bike is only permitted to run in the A class for all sit-on motorcycles. An exception would have to be made should a production bike be introduced that sits lower than the rear rim. With that as the basic rule...........build away. Completely stock cradle with a lowered seat and extended wheelbase to an entirely 'purpose-built' frame.
BTW...........who came up with the idea that a frame from a modern bike is allowed to be married to an older motor and compete in the M-class as long as its all the same brand? To me, that says A all over it.
-
Rex thanks for the information,
-
Dean LA...why have modified frames been allowed to be altered and run
in altered A class for over 50 yrs...?....because they could and it was LEGAL...
'my frame is built by hand by me...that's special construction...yeah that's the way it
should be"...well did ya do that to go faster than the modified records or did ya
do that so ya didn't have to run against modified records....?....im assuming folks
do that so as to take advantage of more liberal rules and go faster than those
using altered prod frames....BUT that simply has not panned out to be the case...99% of the time...
the fastest sit on bikes in the world are altered prod. frames....the idea that they should not have a class
to run in is simply asinine.....
having 50 yrs or so of a precedent, ruled on differently at the event...is unconscionable....
-
There seems to be a problem with definitions ......at what point does a production frame become a modified frame? ..then a modified frame an altered frame ? ( and what is the distinction between modified and altered ) I was always of the understanding that "A" was for "special construction " again what does special construction mean? made from scratch ( my understanding) or an altered / modified production frame?
I do have 2 dogs in this fight ( if ever I decide to play in your playground)
My first dog is a modified / altered production frame ...a raked 10* busa with a very modified stock sub frame and a one off swing arm ...because the wheel base is greater than modified rules allow it is forced into 'A' where as far as i'm concerned its a modified frame and should be in the modified class
Dog # 2 is what I would call a special construction .....a one off hand built frame .....contrary to what some think this bike makes use of every thing possible ( that I can think of) to achieve the best outcome for a naked bike i.e.. the smallest frontal area etc.. will this make it any faster than a modified bike ???? there is a lot more to a bike than a frame.
IMHO the rules for modified need to be opened right up ....allow any modifications to a production frame ....so long as the bike has a production frame or part thereof its a modified class bike .......this will stop special construction becoming a dumping ground for what are essentially modified bikes.
-
times have changed,, go to any dragstrip these days and you would be hard pressed to find a homebuilt laydown jigger anywhere, thay are all souped up modified sportsbikes running times only dreamed off back in the day, :-),,,
-
There seems to be a problem with definitions ......at what point does a production frame become a modified frame? ..then a modified frame an altered frame ? ( and what is the distinction between modified and altered ) I was always of the understanding that "A" was for "special construction " again what does special construction mean? made from scratch ( my understanding) or an altered / modified production frame?
I do have 2 dogs in this fight ( if ever I decide to play in your playground)
My first dog is a modified / altered production frame ...a raked 10* busa with a very modified stock sub frame and a one off swing arm ...because the wheel base is greater than modified rules allow it is forced into 'A' where as far as i'm concerned its a modified frame and should be in the modified class
Dog # 2 is what I would call a special construction .....a one off hand built frame .....contrary to what some think this bike makes use of every thing possible ( that I can think of) to achieve the best outcome for a naked bike i.e.. the smallest frontal area etc.. will this make it any faster than a modified bike ???? there is a lot more to a bike than a frame.
IMHO the rules for modified need to be opened right up ....allow any modifications to a production frame ....so long as the bike has a production frame or part thereof its a modified class bike .......this will stop special construction becoming a dumping ground for what are essentially modified bikes.
Here's one way to simplify class distinctions.
1. Altered bikes have no limitations other than safety. This includes whatever chassis desired, OEM or custom.
2. Modified bikes must have OEM frame, restrcited wheelbase, seating position, etc etc, the current standard.
3. No class that is designed to be faster (i.e., Altered) is "protected" from competition from a more restricted class.
In this way, design restrictions are truly unlimited - if a builder believes that the OEM chassis is sufficient - but wants to make other changes that are not allowed in Modified, they are not forced to recreate the wheel.
By allowing more restricted classes to compete with less restricted classes, we create motivation for bike builders to take full advantage of the flexibility of the rules. An unrestricted class should not be a safe haven from competition. Thus a Production bike could compete with Modifed or Altered, Modified could compete with Altered.
Dean
-
to sabat...
Dean...Thank you, that is the most "common sense" idea I've seen yet.
Bill
-
Here's one way to simplify class distinctions.
1. Altered bikes have no limitations other than safety. This includes whatever chassis desired, OEM or custom.
2. Modified bikes must have OEM frame, restrcited wheelbase, seating position, etc etc, the current standard.
3. No class that is designed to be faster (i.e., Altered) is "protected" from competition from a more restricted class.
In this way, design restrictions are truly unlimited - if a builder believes that the OEM chassis is sufficient - but wants to make other changes that are not allowed in Modified, they are not forced to recreate the wheel.
By allowing more restricted classes to compete with less restricted classes, we create motivation for bike builders to take full advantage of the flexibility of the rules. An unrestricted class should not be a safe haven from competition. Thus a Production bike could compete with Modifed or Altered, Modified could compete with Altered.
Dean
I would agree with you on this one. Actually, that is almost exactly what the rule book says:
"Special construction class is unlimited in design, with the following exceptions:
1.) The seat area (farthest to rear) shall not be above and/or
behind a line drawn vertically upwards through the rear
axel.
2.) It must be rear wheel drive only.."
They wouldn't even have to change the rules; just follow the ones they have. Somehow, I don't think that's what we'll get. We don't really know who's in the driver's seat at BUBs.
As an alternative, more definitive rules could be added. Adding a few statements about what is required, such as assigning percentages for each change from stock and then requiring that "A" class bikes must be at least 50% modified or whatever they would like to see. Maybe 25% for an altered steering angle, and 25% for a wheelbase change over 10%, and 10% for other minor changes such as a 1 gallon fuel tank or altered seating position or rigid rear suspension or foot peg within 6" of the real axle. Just throwing out some ideas here.
Tom
-
Koncretekid...I don't feel we need more rules, we just need a little "common sense" in way the ones we have are applied!
The only problem in what I just said is there in very little common sense in the world today so why should I expect to find any in motorsports??
Bill
-
"Who is in the drivers seat at BUB?" I posted that in previous postings ....add Rex...............The people most concerned and effected should contact "them" direct.....................Simple..........................................................
(that what I have done in the past regarding sidecar rule problems)
-
I am really glad to see that we have a very thoughtful discussion going on without any hateful arguing or name calling. Nice to see for a change on the internet!!! Just proves LSR racers are the greatest folks in the world!!
-
Bak...folks making decisions wanted this aired out some "here"...to have the discourse from lsr folks to facilitate the decision making process...
-
Well - as long as the rules for the "A" Class are going to be revisited, why not get rid of the ridiculous rules that restrict rear streamlining i.e. "A minimum of 180 degrees shall be showing, with no blockage by streamlining..." Isn't the point to design a fast bike? This absurd rule makes it difficult to design and create a streamlined fairing. Why?
SCTA has seen the light, why not AMA? Dump those rules.
Don
-
This is part of something I have previously written about. I think the lessons my party learned, this year, are worth sharing. This has been eye opening to me, as we ran both APS and MPS bikes with identical engines, built by me on the same day. These are bikes number 1581/1580 and 797 in this Speedweek 2013 results. Hope you enjoy....It begins telling about my big, orange APS bike:
"This year I ran the bike in APS-PF-650 class, with my return run at 163.8 mph. Following that run, we removed all streamlining, put my son on the bike with no jetting or gearing changes, which resulted in 135 mph. Regearing for better point in the power band made no noticeable difference.
From this experience, we understand how effective the long bike, long tail streamlining seems to be.
Now, the rest of the story. Over the last two years I also built an MPS-PF-650 bike for my friend, Dan Wagner. This engine/drivetrain is identical to my A bike, but the bike only uses a Charlie Toy fairing on a stock CBR600f3 chassis with 1.75" swing arm stretch. The seat/tank/tail are stock CBR600f3. http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php/topic,10559.0.html
This bike ran only 136 mph, partially due to Dans physical size, but mostly due to short length and no rear streamlining.
The real potential for speed difference, between A bikes and M bikes, is length (which allows a lower,longer riding position) and full APS streamlining. How the frame is made is not necessarily a factor, considering the compact size of many modern frames."
I just LOVE these APS bikes; they are too much fun! Thanks for letting me join your conversation.
Regards, JimL
-
Maybe some "UPS' classes for unlimited partial streamliners. They could allow bike with production or special frames and skirts on the tail, like DLRA, SCTA, FIM, and Run-watcha-brung. The ol' walrus might come back to the AMA for that.
-
Wobbly an unlimited type class as u describe has been discussed / considered abit for a few years
-
If the classing and application of them stays similar to SCTA there is a better chance of more time and effort going into a bike than if the classing were to be so different that it could only run at the one AMA meet a year
Jim, i think good bodywork with a standard type tail is worth 20-30 mph over a naked bike when your in the 200mph range and a good tail design that much again
New bodywork commercially available and seen on the Hunter/Sills BMW and a Guthrie 1000 should help bump some of the APS records in the SCTA but less so in the AMA if it has to be cut too much to comply even FIM with its 135 deg view of the rear tire is only a small cut in comparison
-
I had typed up a hope for more parity between the organizations...but deleted it...
I think it is a positive to have more parity..
There is so much innovation that can be fostered in altered that goes beyond modified allowances...
I hate seeing rules making , follow the path of our societies whining about this and that unfair to the point that someone starts specing what a racer should do, to separate them from others who worked hard under existing rules for decades and went faster...
More rake and long arms isnt necessarily a feature of best practices...
Its the whole system...altered class allows for alot more of the system to be custom...
Its worked well in scta, and other sanctioning bodies following close to that model...until someone felt it wasnt fair that their custom veh couldnt compete
If a production veh , with a few mods can enter altered and go faster than you in same class...they shouldnt be the ones the rules made to exclude...there is something fundamentally flawed with that logic...
Kinda like alot of the way society moving , "its not fair he is doing better than me"...
-
If a production veh , with a few mods can enter altered and go faster than you in same class...they shouldnt be the ones the rules made to exclude...there is something fundamentally flawed with that logic...
Kinda like alot of the way society moving , "its not fair he is doing better than me"...
It's like you are reading my mind Joe!!! :lol:
-
Regarding tail section issues, I had an idea to try this year (2013) which never happened. I had made 5 runs on my APS-PG bike at speeds of 141 to 145 mph, very consistent. I then removed the fairings to run in the open bike A-PG class (paid an extra $250, went thru tech again, and got a new number mounted), and made four more runs from 123 to 126 mph, again very consistent. Having another day left, I went to the tech crew to ask if I could put my removable tail piece on and run Time Only. This would show us a couple of things.
1.) Would the fully enclosed tail out perform the cut-out one?
2.) Would the fully enclosed tail cause any handling problems?
Two questions that everybody in Land Speed Racing (bikes) would like to know. And with the consistency of which my bike was running, a higher speed or handling problems would probably have been significant.
Well the tech crew had no objection, but I would have to go see Lynnea. She thought it sounded interesting, but she had to bring in another gentlemen to make the decision. This person, whose last name definitely wasn't Manning, never actually spoke to me directly (always get your next in command to convey bad news). But Lynnea relayed his decision. Yes I could run T.O. But I would have to get a new number issued, go thru Tech inspection for a 3rd time, and of course pay another $250. Wishing not to make a scene, I refrained from advising him where he could put that extra $250, and I started packing up.
This is why I suggested that we don't really know who is in the driver's seat at the BUB Speed Trials.
"For want of a nail, the Kingdom was lost"
Tom
-
Beautiful bike Tom. :cheers:
Your story reminds me of my former cable company. They believe that they have no competition, so they feel free to price gouge and provide horrible service.
Hopefully someone at AMA/BUB will recognize the need to respect their customers if they hope to survive in the long term.
Dean
-
My policy is don't ask, don't tell. This year, at Speedweek, after major traction problems on the first run I felt like the track was not going to get better. I pulled the fairing off and made a bunch of runs naked and had a lot of fun. I love running naked. 8-)
-
The BUB org. should and has to get some of their sh@@#$t together, It appear the longer they run the event, more the rules change.........I have always found fault with their entry fees.....when you change riders...more money to be paid......the bike should be entered...not each rider......at one time they tried to charge a extra fee for the sidecar passenger.....I had a career counseling with the person involved....no fee...........(I am certain that me pumping thousands of dollars into the sidecar class sponsorship helped resolve this problem)........it appears when more "officials" get involved....more rules and changes on the spot are taking place......................................
ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY
PS. See.... I don't just find fault with SCTA/BNI...they ALL get my input....................
-
My policy is don't ask, don't tell. This year, at Speedweek, after major traction problems on the first run I felt like the track was not going to get better. I pulled the fairing off and made a bunch of runs naked and had a lot of fun. I love running naked. 8-)
Fred, you are starting to sound like FeRd...
but you are exactly right, and Tom, don't ask don't tell may apply here, it happens all the time, the bike met the safety requirements, if you run over the record and you know you are illegal you just skip the impound part.
-
...the caveat I would like to mention here....is that running a non-inspected configuration MAY have
some seriously dangerous issues...unbeknownst...to all involved..
ie a guy inspected in open class.....wants to try a fairing he made up....instead of getting a once over
over by tech....he runs it....its not very well mounted and has some other dangerous aspects...to close to the ground
with rider on it...etc....he has an issue on the course....now its a serious matter for the sanctioning body who's insurance is covering
it....
ie...the nitrous bottle that he affixed in a very unsafe manner came off and he ran it over etc....
having at least the reqt to get a look over by tech and their experience may really save someone skin...
a note in log book...trying nitrous...new fairing etc for TO...OK to run...
say someone wants to run TO....get a tech approval and once over....if some concerns it allows for potentially putting
into place a "TIERED RUN" situation....an unapproved body work...allow for incremental runs.....by speed like a license, or
to the 1, to the 2 etc, with a call to stewards or tech, that he has the "xxx" sticker say a "green circle with a 1 scribed in it"
and stewards or tech alerted we have a check pass to the one...heads up........
or in some cases a simple "TO" indicated on bike....and a call to stewards or tech..and timing ...."heads up TO vehicle"
I think the "TIERD RUN" situation could/should be employed more now regardless for certain concerning situations/configurations
a certain colored sticker with a number on it as mentioned above, alerts timing and stewards, then a trip back to tech, allows for them to
gain valuable data, perhaps for their own log books, the veh log book, a call from line to tech, hey veh #253 is coming up with a second green sticker and a 2 on it..?....a report back from tech...yep our log shows...we cleared them to the 2.....
there has been more and more mishaps.....i know we have tiered licensing takes care of most...but there are ocassions with respect
to tires not rated for speeds running...etc...and perhaps in TO configurations or just unfamiliar/concerning configurations that may well
be best managed with more controlled scrutiny.....a win win for sanctioning body and team....
-
Joe,
No log books, tiers or tire rules at Bubs
-
is that a "good" thing..or...is that "best practices"...for all involved..?..
im thinking of how this best facilitates safety-and legality
with or without log books for entrants....tech may have or want to have there own as a means
of tracking.....
and i think we all have seen situations that would be best served with tiers....
im not saying there should be a new fee....just a means of ensuring highest safety...
running whatever ya want to try whenever ya want to try it.....may not be best when considering
how preventable mishaps tie up courses....result in injuries....and many not provide best ground
for sanctioning body to stand on....
plus we have class designation mandatory displayed on veh's for good reason...it doesnt help legitamacy of sanctioning
body to have folks trying things illegal for displayed class, being seen and photoged clearly illegal....and line through and
a TO designation would alleviate that......and have added imperative benefit of a tech look over and consideration of safety...
it adds also to the data base of knowledge for the tech folks who can use that data for future decision making...
-
The new bike number I'm OK with. The re-inspection; if they feel that's really necessary. The extra $250 was the straw that broke the camel's back, this time. I probably should have tried to get one of the tech guys, Drew or Rex, to more or less sponsor me that allowing me to run with the tailpiece would provide some valuable info. Not being a high horsepower bike (45hp), it was not likely that the tailpiece could create a major problem which might happen with a few hundred hp . So really, I'm just ranting here and I have to agree with Joe that the organization has to protect itself. But if you read the RWB rules, they are already exposing themselves to liability for people bringing about any contraption they want to. Next year, I think I'll try to get tech to vow for me so I won't have to pay extra for the free information they, as well as I, will gain.
-
koncrete...i hear ya...:)....rants are important imo to help understand levels of passion and frustration
frankly Stainless and or Fred....and likely koncrete....function on as high a lsr tech savvy level as there is in this world...and
would be the "go to" icons for opinion and expertise....and their ability to put a trackworthy bike
on course is as good as it gets...there are far more...that simply "need" the tech's "eye" and stamp
of approval to be "course worthy".......
this is just a tangent to the original discussion...as it came up, opinion flowed,:)..as the topic has some attention
and it likely wont hurt anyone, and may help...
scta has stickered folks, and put out a watch coordinated with course officials in certain circumstances, i just spoke here about
a potential modified scenario that came to mind, an extra radio call or two, a once over by tech all take abit of time, a course down for many minutes to hours is extremely painful for all, none as awful as injuries....
i mean when running zr tires for instance at scta well over the manuf. speed rating, a trip through tech is req to
keep an eye on situation after any 200 plus runs, adds to tech data base and knowledge base in moving forward...
-
I asked BUB on Jan 3rd if they anticipated any rules changes for 2014. This is the response.
BUB Motorcycle Speed Trials.
"We'll be having our final rule meeting when I'm back in Ohio for the AMA Champions banquet. We are clarifying the M and A definitions but no other major changes planned. anticipate the rules to be out around the end of Jan."
So stay tuned if you run A or M classes.
-
Thanks for the information KLR, great news. -Dean
-
i mean when running zr tires for instance at scta well over the manuf. speed rating, a trip through tech is req to
keep an eye on situation after any 200 plus runs, adds to tech data base and knowledge base in moving forward...
I didn't think they did that anymore.
It came in after they new "racing" tyre rules and they ran with it for one year. It was an interesting experiment and determined that it was mainly one guy and the soft and medium compound tyres that were available at the lake that were a problem.
G
-
You're right in that they don't require bikes to check in at Tech after each and every 200+ run now. That was a one (or two?) year mission to make sure the tires were doing okay at the speeds they were being run. However - last year as I went through inspection on the ZX12 I was invited to stop in for a tire check after most any run, as they were (supposedly) doing for other racers, too. Still expanding their knowledge base.
Then there was two years ago when I chunked a tire - they sure were interested in seeing that one. How many of youse guys have ever chunked - a FRONT tire? We still don't know how that happened, especially after a few dozen runs on the tire. The tire was from Nate Jones -- and now he's seen it and has it back.
-
Slim you Howard and I that i know of
just a matter of interest, what brand ? mine was a race takeoff GPA
Pretty sure Howards was a wet weather slick
-
Greg
That Vid of your tyre disintegrating was quite something
And possibly also a lesson in when not to panic
G
-
The Front? It was a Michelin hard slick, shaved. No special=looking cuts or gouges near the chunk. It looks just like a heat blister that then was torn off.
-
this thread has been dormant for a cuppla weeks, and i would like to ask on behalf of the International racers, "Can we have "direction" on the differences between "A and M" bikes please", as the tech officials will judge them at the 2014 BUB's,,
"All" overseas competitors are geting their bikes ready from now until June/July at the very latest,, we bring our machines half way around the world (wont mention at what costs) set up to run our nominated class, we have just enough infurstructure to get by on, that is "our" commintment",, out of respect for the racers, ""We Need To Know Now"",,
-
I asked BUB on Jan 3rd if they anticipated any rules changes for 2014. This is the response.
BUB Motorcycle Speed Trials.
"We'll be having our final rule meeting when I'm back in Ohio for the AMA Champions banquet. We are clarifying the M and A definitions but no other major changes planned. anticipate the rules to be out around the end of Jan."
So stay tuned if you run A or M classes.
Stay`tee, sounds like AMA won't announce anything until the end of January, which probably means mid Feb if you're lucky. -Dean
-
"...I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender!" :-D
I couldn't resist, considering the title of this thread.
Regards, Neil Tucson, AZ
-
I asked BUB on Jan 3rd if they anticipated any rules changes for 2014. This is the response.
BUB Motorcycle Speed Trials.
"We'll be having our final rule meeting when I'm back in Ohio for the AMA Champions banquet. We are clarifying the M and A definitions but no other major changes planned. anticipate the rules to be out around the end of Jan."
So stay tuned if you run A or M classes.
Stay`tee, sounds like AMA won't announce anything until the end of January, which probably means mid Feb if you're lucky. -Dean
Thanks Dean, i had missed that, or forgotten that i had read it, lol,,,
i have recieved word that certin indivuals are pushing to get the updated rules out so we will have the time to get things right,, :cheers:
-
End of the month is almost upon us.
Anyone getting responses from tech on the bub site lately?
Still waiting for a response on one thats been in for a while.....