Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: bak189 on December 17, 2006, 03:12:23 PM
-
Rule 7.I.11 to read: (SCTA/BNI)
Passenger accommodations:
The sidecar platform must be large enough to allow a passenger to safely ride in a sitting, kneeling or prone position in the sidecar. In addition there should be designated handholds mounted for the passenger. The sidecar mounting hardware and/or ridged bars can not be used as passenger handholds. In lieu of a passenger
a minimum ballast/weight of 132lbs. must be securly carried in the sidecar. The ballast/weight to be checked at Tech. inspection.
Any comments??????????????????????????????
-
REMARKABLE
Without even the 07 rules in hand, the 08 rules are a bit premature.
Without prior notice or input from the MC community we are falling into the same trap that has plagued us in the recent past.
If the rule is enacted I would expect all side car records set to a lesser standard would be retired and off the shelf.
That has not been the case with other rule changes has it ?
Credibility and responsibility go hand in hand and I think I see a problem. :x
-
How interesting. It appears to be output with no input. Could I get my Suburban to use gas that way I'd be a rich man. Having not seen or even had a hint of the possible rule changes I can't comment. You say "in lieu of a passenger". Is that to be interpreted s we can carry a passenger? If such a ballast rule is enacted will the current records be retired? Or do those in power care? Or is it a subtle effort to rid the SCTA of those meddlesome bikes?
-
Why are rule change suggestions being presented here instead per procedures? How do you know that this rule has not been modified for 2007 anyway?
DW
-
I can't speak for bak189 or where he obtained the information but on the SCTA website it says the bike rule changes will be announced Dec.7. At the last club (Tues. 12th.) meeting it was announced that the bike changes had not yet been released. Add to the fact that rule books don't get out until well into the new year and the above proposed rule change is a major change. Hence the concern.
-
Why are rule change suggestions being presented here instead per procedures? How do you know that this rule has not been modified for 2007 anyway?
DW
The rules are being cussed and discussed here because with respect to the MC entries the procedure has broken down and even the SCTA Club members have not been advised of the potential changes unlike the car methods..
Various participants that are SCTA members and not , submit the requests as per the rules and never hear about them again.
The lack of a budget to accomodate a MC meeting at Bonneville was a fall down laffer, and the reasoning given for the maximum tank size in A was and is incorrect (lie) and a number of other unsupervised changes designed to profit 1 person.
The S+S case case has done more harm to the field than has been imagined and it is getting worse.
When they say they are getting back to their roots they must mean no bikes.
"Failed as designed or designed to fail?"
-
HEY,HEY,HEY people don't get so excited......
this is MY rule proposal for 2008, not the SCTA/BNI M/C committee, they have not seen it.......I just put it out there for DISCUSSION......you all feel better now!!!!
-
WOW, I do hope you people are feeling better NOW..........this is just for INPUT and
DISCUSSION.....something that as not been done regarding the SCTA/BNI M/C rule changes in the past. WOW ,WOW
-
My apologies. The way the initial post was written I took it as it was a proposed rule change. If the SCTA does not allow passegers why have hand holds fitted? If ballast would be required will you word your proposal in such a way that previous sidecar records are removed and we start with a clean slate?
-
Rule changes by just the Rulers = HOT BUTTON
Bob's suggestion for a rule change deserves publication and discussion.
Like it or not, you are entitled to comment and this is a good place to start.
Surprises are worse.
-
Geeezz , :-D and I thought the sidecar bike guys--were about to be as much fun as they are at Pike's Peak---where they race with their "MONKEYS" as part of the "Race to the Clouds" ---what a team effort !!!!!!!
-
We are still searching for a peak on the lakebed. Fortunately we haven't found any. Some have reported a peak right at the lights.
-
To explain my proposed rule change for 2008 (7.I.11) To allow passengers back in the sidecar.....However, one must run ballast/weight if no passenger is used.
(the same rule that is used for International
Speed Trials = 60kg = 132lbs.)
Leave the records for sidecars now in the book alone. This has been done in the past.......example: my sidecar record set in 1991 in SCA-BG for 1300c.c. was changed
(without consultation) to SC-BG 1350c.c. and it is still in the book as a record.
If the team plans to use a passenger, the proper handholds for safety reasons (as noted) must be installed. This rule change allow the sidecars
now running or in the process of being build
to race as is. I see no problems.........it only allows us to fall in line with the International
rules regarding sidecars.
-
Regarding the Pikes Peak International
Hill Climb......been there.....done that......1998,
1999,2000,2001,2002, After 02 I was to old!!!!
Oh, we used passengers.....................................
-
Rule 7.I.11 to read: (SCTA/BNI)
Passenger accommodations:
The sidecar platform must be large enough to allow a passenger to safely ride in a sitting, kneeling or prone position in the sidecar. ........................Any comments??????????????????????????????
From someone who likes things spelled out the above seems open to interpretation to me. What is large enough for one might be too small or too large for an other and what I might feel is safe might not be someone else's idea of what is safe.
I know it is hard to pin this down, but I would think you need a min. dimension or something in the rule so this isn't open to the participants or inspectors interpretation.
I think it is safe for me to sat that this rule will never effect me though :wink:.
c ya,
Sum
-
I don't know how the SCTA would feel about allowing passengers in the chair but I have a pretty good idea how the insurance company would feel. One question. If passengers were allowed and someone was to dig up a 90 lb passenger would ballast be required to bring the passenger up to 132lbs.? There are min. platform dimensions in place in the rulebook. The dimensions would just about accomodate a passenger. Were I to be a passenger I think I would like a bit more space. My feelings about the sidecar rules are that they are ok. The only change I would like to see is the wheel diameter minimums be done away with.
-
Just checked the SCTA website again. At the top of the home page it still indicates the Jan 7 is the rule release date(the date for the next Board meeting.
DW
-
Some very good points have been brought up.........regarding, platform size.....the key word here is "safely ride" this could and should be determined by the Tech. inspector.
Regarding, passengers and the event insurance.......would someone, please, show me a paper indicating that passengers in sidecars are not allowed.
And finally, Nortonist explain what you would like to see in the rules changed on Wheel Dia. Remember, we are trying to get
input........so speak up............................................
-
So sorry I forgot................on the 90lbs passenger......yes,
the team would have to carry 42lbs extra!
-
I do believe the insurance company that covers the SCTA would have "an event" in their pants at the thoughts of sidecar passengers. Bolted on ballast is one thing but ballast that hangs on to a couple of handgrips I'm sure would give the insurance company nightmares. As to wheel diameters. If you can picture Nebulous IV with a chair and a lot less streamlining. I have this dislike of being tied to whatever I'm racing. Get into streamlined bikes and you're into the realm of roll bars, 5 point harnesses, etc. The 10" minimum diameter wheel size prevents that. Unless you get into streamliner sidecars. There there are no restrictions on wheelbase and wheel size. Its just wishful thinking on my part. As I said earlier I don't have a problem with the sidecar rules.
-
Insurance is based on the published rules with the loss history and there is none,
How do you imagine they get insurance coverage for the Pikes event or multiple sidecars duking it out on a road race track ?
Motocross is another example.
They have the same basis for insurability.
Insurance costs and coverage are not a good argument against them.
-
I have no present intent of getting into a chair project at this time. About the only rider I would trust as a driver has passed on and I have enough unfinished pojects/ideas to keep me busy for 5 or 9 days with out starting to learn about piloting a third wheel.
Input was requested so my mine goes for putting the monkey back on the cage. Insurance dosen't seem to be an issue and to me the passenger and teamwork is as much of making the class as open wheels are to lakesters, body sizes/shapes to roadsters,etc.
Just my 2 cents :-D
-
Rule 7.I.11 to read: (SCTA/BNI)
Passenger accommodations:
The sidecar platform must be large enough to allow a passenger to safely ride in a sitting, kneeling or prone position in the sidecar. ........................Any comments??????????????????????????????
From someone who likes things spelled out the above seems open to interpretation to me. What is large enough for one might be too small or too large for an other and what I might feel is safe might not be someone else's idea of what is safe.
I know it is hard to pin this down, but I would think you need a min. dimension or something in the rule so this isn't open to the participants or inspectors interpretation.
I think it is safe for me to sat that this rule will never effect me though :wink:.
c ya,
Sum
I would think a demonstration at tech would suffice? dimensions would have to be based on the sie of the bike. a 74" wheelbase altered based bike would be vastly different than a OEM framed 54" current liter bike. and from a moneky position... why would a hack be different than sitting on the motorcycle? they both eject the same in the event a get off.
-
I really want to see the pictures of the passenger hanging onto the "sidecar" on the McLeish rig. Said person would have to lay out like Rollie Free/Freud. I might make this one a screen saver.
DW
-
First of all, much thanks for all the feedback.
Regarding Nortonist, question on minimum
wheel size......this should be updated. When I was asked by SCTA to write sidecar landspeed rules back in 1979, I knew that most if not all the outfits would be roadracing sidecars, which had a minimum of 10" wheels.....I agree that rule 7.I.8. should be done away with now that we are racing
special landspeed sidecars. As to platform size for the passenger.....it is difficult to set a size due to the fact that on some outfits the passenger may ride in a kneeling or sitting position or a prone position....Tech. would decide if it was safe. On Mc.Leish's streamliner.....being a "streamliner" most
run a "wheel on a stick" and no platform is required....but on the proposed rules they would have to carry 132lbs in lieu of a passenger. Again many thanks for all the input and support. I am not new at putting sidecar rules together....first started with AFM in 1959, Sidehack Association mid-1960, AMA Pro-Sidecar roadracing 1970's,
SCTA late 1970's, Pikes Peak International Hill Climb mid-1990, Update AMA/FIM rules for BUB 2006, And have now submitted update for AMA/FIM (BUB) for 2007..........I have always asked for input from the people that would be effected by the rules. Again thanks B.B.
,
-
I'm confused. :? Don't ALL sidecar rigs have to conform to the platform dimensions regardless of where the platform is located?
Thanks,
DW
-
Oh Boy, DW.... if you are confused we are all in deep trouble................................................................
As per Internatonal Landspeed Sidecar Rules
a "streamliner" would not have to have a "platform" only a 3rd wheel and 60kg weight.....by the way... the weight may be located
any place on the outfit.....it does not have to be in the sidecar ( I would place it by the 3rd
wheel, but this is not required)
-
As a sidecar racer, I don't feel we need to change the rule about adding required ballast. My old POS sidecar, which was built in a day, has quite a bit of weight in it already. Will that weight be added to the ballast to make 132 pounds? Can I make the sidecar with integrated ballast? Can the ballast be added in such a way as to add to the rigidity of the sc?
And to go a step farther, do we require all motorcycles with a 2 seat, not solo seats, arrangment to carry a passenger? How about roadsters.... do they need a passenger just because they were originally built with 2 seats? Or how about the class of cars, I don't have my rule book with me, that requires the car to have had a rear seat capable of carrying passengers? Do they need 3 passengers also?
It is the vehicle that is racing, not the passengers. When I raced off-road, we had a driver and a co-driver. The driver drove and the co-driver navigated. Now, I've only LSR raced for 2 years, but I have yet to need a navigator at El Mirage or Bonneville.
Just my 2 cents.
Matt
-
Very good input, Matt.
What we are tying to do is make a level playing field for Landspeed sidecar racing, both here in the U.S. and internationally.
Yes, you would still be required to have 132lbs.
of removable ballast added to your outfit even if it weight in at 3 ton. As too using a passenger, the proposed rule does not say you HAVE to use a passenger, it is up to the team to make that decision......passenger or 132lbs. Thanks for your feedback.
-
I feel this thread is heading along a dangerous road. I am opposed to a fixed ballast weight or carrying a passenger. Despite the excitment it might provide for the passenger. One crash that might result in the death of a passenger and sidecars would be gone forever. Playing fields are rarely level except if levelled by a bulldozer. If an attempt is made to bring sidecars into line with international (FIM) standards will the SCTA lower their safety standards to match? I refer to the NZ outfit that couldn't run here becauseit isn't up to SCTA safety standards but is to FIM standards. Not that my vote will count but I don't think the SCTA sidecar rules need to be messed with.
-
What we are tying to do is make a level playing field for Landspeed sidecar racing, both here in the U.S. and internationally.
Then the question I have to ask is why?
I know the FIA/FIM rules are different, as are the AMA rules. As I am to understand them, the other orgs call anything over 25 years old as "vintage", where SCTA has a 1955 limit. I don't know all the sidecar rules for the "international" orgs, but I didn't know we were going to try to conform our rules to other orgs. Is this going to just be for sidecars or for all motorcycle & car classes?
I guess I have more questions than answers.
Matt
-
Movable ballast if required is a joke.
Has anybody on the salt ever weighed one ?
If you are going to get started down that road, the weight should be taken at bottom of the chair wheel when presented as ready to run.
-
Matt, I am not speaking for SCTA/BNI, I am
only a long time landspeed sidecar racer, trying to bring the landspeed sidecar rules into the 21 Century. As to the solo motorcycle
SCTA/BNI rules......I leave that to others to cuss
and discuss.
-
Matt, I am not speaking for SCTA/BNI, I am
only a long time landspeed sidecar racer, trying to bring the landspeed sidecar rules into the 21 Century. As to the solo motorcycle
SCTA/BNI rules......I leave that to others to cuss
and discuss.
I run vintage, so I'm still stuck in the first half of the 20th century..... :-D
If they were to make a change like that, I'd adapt like everyone else. Heck, I could probably even get one of my friends to be the monkey. I just don't feel the rule change is needed.
Almost all sidecars, including my rig, do not take advantage of the sidecar rules. That is why I am working on a new one.
Matt
-
Very valid point, Jack........my proposed 2007 sidecar rules to BUB state in the last sentence:
"The ballast/weight to be determind at the Tech. Inspection by placing a approved scale under the sidecar wheel "
However, in my conversations with the various
International Landspeed Org. in other parts of the world..........they weigh the complete sidecar without the ballast.....then weigh the complete sidecar outfit again with the ballast.........and look for the difference. This is due to the fact THEIR rules allow you to put the 60kg any place you so chose. I cannot see
SCTA/BNI getting a large scale to weight the few sidecars running.......I am taking small steps at a time, however, checking the weight
at the sidecar wheel can be done, but we would have to state that the 132lbs has to be mounted n the sidecar!!!!! thanks Jack
-
The weight is meant to replace the missing monkey.
Because there is no specification for the placement or materials the simple thing is to remove the required weight by removong the body and other hardware that is not required to pass tech.
I can see the lack of logic in the weight requirement when you might have a 250 lb. rider or a 90lb. rider in the same class.
Do that and I will provide the hack and the 90lb rider right away just for the record.
"Cheating yourself with bad rules is kin to beating yourself and fun to watch."
FIM has become Floundering In Mud.
-
As much as I appreciate the input and feedback.....there is one person who's
input would be very helpfull in what we are trying to do..........Landspeed Record Holder, our newest member of the SCTA/BNI M/C Comittee, and as far as I know, the driver of the fastest
sidecar in the world todate (193mph)
Bob Moreland, his insight and input would be very helpfull to this forum.
Hopefully, he has been following what is going on here.....and will take time to reply. B.B.
-
The question of existing records is stiil hanging around. MattS, I believe, is running on a record that has been set with no ballast. At El Mirage Matt would have an extra 132 lbs. to accelerate over the same distance. Maybe those with the megga HP motors may not notice the extra weight but to stick an extra 132 lbs. on a smaller capacity chair would be a killer. If the extra weight is passed as a rule I feel that all the current records should be erased and a fresh start made.
-
Any performance related benefit that is solely the product of a rules change certainly is not the same standard as the previous entries ran against and can't be a valid comparison.
Was the original rule ill considered or is it the change ?
-
:-D WANTED
Very nimble person (monkey). Good strength in hands and arms. Weight between 125 lbs and 150 lbs (with riding gear) Must be willing to help balance a motorcycle with sidecar to maintain a straight line trajectory. Must not be afraid of high speed with your butt two inches off the salt. Must be willing to put your faith in God and trust the Driver with your life. No Pay, just Fun.
Any takers?? :wink:
Terry A. Hume
-
When I show pictures around the office a co-worker has asked "...isn't there anyone racing there without a beer gut and white hair?"
Reviewing his question would lead me to the realization that 132 lbs. is way too light. I suggest a passenger weight of 200 lbs. minimum.
DW
-
Yes, Terry,I have several passengers (with roadracing and sidecar background) under
150lbs ..................she only
weights in at 135lbs complete with helmet and SCTA/BNI approved leathers. She has been at 187mph as a passenger in my sidecar, when we ran a Speed Trial in France
(on a close public road, with a 1/2km
shutdown run) By the way do you speak French???????????????
P.S. She is also good looking!!!!!!!!!
-
Even tho I don't run a M/C I cannot see the SCTA going along the the "rest of the world" over the vintage classification. The cars have never changed off of pre 1949 and just doesn't seem right to yearly change the bottom date.
That being said I won't be long until a Busa will be vintage...Of course you could just suggest another designation of let's say another 17-1800 new classes...no problem :evil:
-
:-( French was a language I wanted to take in high school, unfortunately it didn?t work out, and now I only speak enough French to get me in trouble. Besides, my wife probably wouldn?t appreciate me running with a ?good looking? French girl in the sidehack. :wink:
:-D In the interest of getting back to the proposed rule, I think that an empty sidecar weight established for each engine displacement class would probably be the only realistic way to approach this issue. It wouldn't be appropriate to set a "universal" weight for all classes. Set a weight of 100 lbs on the tag wheel and you burden the small displacement classes and give the advantage to larger displacement bikes with the engine torque and stability mass. If there is to be a minimum tag wheel weight, then it should be on a graduated scale. Start at 25 lbs and go up from there with a maximum of the 150 or 200 lbs mentioned before. :-)
How would this effect the sidecar streamliner class?? :?
-
The problem I have with the weight "suggestion" is that sidecar racers with the SCTA are not running for international records. So why do we need an international rule? If we are to have one international rule why not drop the SCTA rules and adopt the FIM rules? That would be neat. No roll cages for streamliners. Fire walls aren't needed etc. Thats an attempt at sarcasm by the way. In the rule book there are 50cc sidecar classes with records. What would happen to those records if 132 lbs were added? As I said in an earlier post would a 1650cc SC/F notice an extra 132 lbs.? I think the rules as they are are fine for El Mirage and Bonneville. They don't need to be brought into the 21st century. As someone in England wrote, in the eighties, about sidecars. "Sidecars are ridden and raced for fun. Were they to be considered seriously they would have died out before the first world war."
-
Terry, your idea of different ballast/weight for
various engine displacements is a very good point. The only problem with it is that it would
make for a lot of additional paper work and manual work for the Tech. inspectors. And I just do not see SCTA/BNI M/C Committee and the SCTA Board willin to take on this extra work load
just for the sidecars. From the feedback that I am getting away from this internet is" you are trying to make our job more difficult"
I am beginning to think that maybe just allowing
passengers for the teams that wish to do so, and
sidecar racers that want to run a "tag wheel" go for it!!!!!! So everything would stay the same as it is now in the rule book......except passengers would be allowed. What do you people think about that????????? This would be like using the KISS system (Keep it simple, stupid)
-
The same logic that would have a formula for minimum weight based on any measurement should be just as valid if applied to any other class.
For a place to start, lets just say a AA/FMR would have to weigh 20,000 lbs with the operator and ready to run.
How else are you going to make it fair for the big guys, the tiny girls will whip up on you.
Angelle Seeling and Steve Johnson are waiting to hear.
Wendy is available as is Marcia.
Where is LeSage when you need him.
This is looking good.
-
If you want to hear another opinion on the weighting for jockey size issue listen to Robbie Gordon express his views on Danica.
DW
-
If you look at the sidecar rules the one thing you will notice is the lack of them. Most of the rules apply to safety and your imagination can do whatever it wants. Unlike some car classes where there are some pretty rigid rules, to the point where some classes are almost "spec" classes. Please leave the sidecars alone. Some describe the bike relationship with the SCTA as that of a red headed stepchild. Suits me fine.
-
O.K.,O.K. I get it.............you like the SCTA/BNI
sidecar rules as they are...........well, you can't say I did not try............I would like to see passengers back in the "chair", but we have run without a passenger since 1987, and we have set (and still hold) 4 BNI records.....that's not all bad!!!!!!
If we want to race our sidecars with passengers we will just race the BUB (AMA/FIM) International Speed Trials for motorcycles and sidecars in Sept. of 2007.
I hope to see all you sidecar racers at this event......and don't forget your 60kg ballast.
Best of luck to all Landspeed racers for 2007
-
I didn't mean to upset you bak. Thats just my opinion. I have enough trouble trying to get someone to come up to El Mirage in July let alone find someone skinny enough to get in the chair. I like the lack of rules. As you said earlier K.I.S.S.
-
No, I am not upset at all.........my main concern was and is, that without the sidecar racers in-put
we may not like the rules that are being made for us in 2007 or 2008........without our in-put.
I have a feeling that the "lack" of sidecar rules will be something in the past .......in the future.
We will just hope for the best!!!!!!
-
"Experience has shown that hoping for the best has resulted in the reality of the worst."
-
How about this, we take all of the riders and draw straws to see who drives and who rides, the next day trade places, simple enough and every one has a chance to see why the monkeys are hard to find. :roll:
-
Damn
Just when it was made to look like such fun, I was planning to take Glen and Glen for a ride.
Now it seems I will not only have to climb a tree but I am going to need a lot more rope.
I know DW is first in line but I really want to take JD first.
It is kind of a SDRC thing you know.
-
The F1 rules guys come up with outrageous ideas. They then cull the absurd
from the list and make the entrants think they won one.
A proposed rule from the last couple of years was that in order to level the field Michael Schmacher would drive his Ferrari in one race then drive a Red Bull in the next. This car jumping would continue thru the season.
DW
-
Jack failed to tell you that all of the SDRC members are kept in cages and fed banana's. The bikes they run have a banana on a stick four feet in front of the rider attached to the handle bars. :evil:
-
I am honor bound to not tell what the Grear Grinders have out front on all their entries.
And I am not just talking about SDRC either. LOL
-
Just how many side car entries are there for SpeedWeek?
How many for BUB?
FREUD
-
Speed Week....I do not know, I was not there.
BUB.....5 sidecars.....what's your point?????????
-
Glen- I'll be your monkey in the side car-on the down run. Then you get to ride in the chair on the way back. If we set a record, will it be accepted because of different drivers or is that a violation of the rules.
-
:evil: You could probably get away with different drivers if you originally entered one of you as the co-driver or backup driver. There was a place on the entry form to put the co-driver's name, but I don't know if it is still allowed. :|
:-D In any event, it would really be interesting to run that way. I once had a dog that rode in the sidecar and we would go all over. His favorite stop was "Burger King" for fries. I wonder if you could have a dog (or maybe a couple dogs) as the monkey(s) :roll:
-
I have been away from the site for the holidays and missed a lot. I wanted to chip in on the rules discussion. Please bear in mind I'm a Landspeed rookie, but an eager participant. I ran the Flying Kiwi streamlined sidecar at BUB this past Sept.
We as participants need to discuss and cuss all proposed rules of our sport or others outside of our motorcycle/sidecar experience may impose some whacky "good idea" we don't need/want. It is to bad all the rule books aren't the same, it just muddies the record books. However, I'm going to start modifications to my outfit to conform with SCTA/BNI rules. I want that level of saftey for the most part. But as a for instance, I'm not crazy about the streamlined sidecar parachute rule. I've not heard of anyone using the device on a streamlined sidecar, I'm sure not many people have tried it. What about "exemptions" to what might be untried rules? Thoughts?
-
The fastening and location of the chute anchor will depend on the nature of the vehicle and will work equally well on any body in motion if installed correctly.
Because it makes you uncomfortable, use a really small one and that will reduce the impact until you get accustomed to it and later might want to go larger.
A 16 foot ring slot on a short lanyard might not be a good place to start.
16 inch diameter and 100 foot stretch type lanyard might be more to your liking.
-
Talking to Russ Daly he said that the only proposed rule change for 2007 is to change the minimum wheel size from 10" to 15". The sidecar wheel size would be unchanged and the streamliner sidecar rule would remain unchanged. So if you are building a sidecar with wheels smaller than 15" find an alternate plan. Mine is virtually dead in the water unless i want to do some major rework.
-
As I (slowly) progress on my coupe project I have been accumulating parts for a small bore streamliner as my next project. (Hence the moniker ?littleliner?). I also have the components for a side car streamliner that I have been storing. Therefore this thread is of interest to me and the talk of wheel size caught my attention. In the ?pile? of parts are a pair of mounted 5 inch frontrunners (think front wheels on Neb II in El Mirage trim) to either be the front wheels on the streamliner or the front and chair wheel on the sidecar streamliner. Please tell me these little wheels are not being outlawed in SCS.
-
"7.B.10 Wheels: Wheels must have a minimum nominal rim diameter of 15?, except sidecar wheel and wheels on streamliners. It is highly recommended that strict attention be paid to wheel alignment, wheel balance, spoke tension, and tire run-out. Solid front wheels are not allowed. It is REQUIRED that front wheels be cross ventilated by an area equal to at least 25% of nominal rim circle area. Solid rear wheels are allowed. No wheel discs are permitted."
The above is from the proposed M/C changes. The changes are to be voted by the new, 2007, board at the 01/05 meeting. The wording is blue is the change.
DW
-
I GIVE UP.........WHY the wheel-size rule change.........
This new rule, would do away with most if not all
special build LSR sidecars. All of the LSR sidecars I have build since 1979 have used wheels smaller than 15"...........This new rule promotes "Tag Wheel" sidecars.........take a stock M/C and bold on a 3rd wheel. And what is the reason for the rule change.........somebody PLEASE, tell me.
-
HEY,,,,,HEY.........Would this new rule change have anyting to do with Wink Ellers NEW 178mph sidecar outfit.............It is my understanding at this years Speed Week, he barely made it though
Tech.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
O.K.........O.K. people....stand by.....we may get some more info. on the 15" wheel proposed rule!!!!
-
There was a time when a purpose built lsr sidecar could be built and raced in the altered class. That is the type of machine that Bak189 has always built, and I competed on several of them. Now all sidecars have been lumped into one class with no provision for special built machinery. So much for what I consider the heart of lsr racing which is innovation. It looks like a fifteen inch wheel rule would create two clases; production motorcycle sidecars with a tag wheel and streamliners.
-
It would appear that that is the idea. Or maybe its being done to rid the class of innovation.
-
:? Man-Oh-Man, I can't follow the rule changes. I guess I am going to have to take a "Speed Reading" class to keep up with the rule changes. :| Can somebody "draw" me a picture and post it so I (and others) can "see" what tire diameter, rim diameter, "wheel" diameter for front, back, and sidecar for a "regular" motorcycle w/sidecar (not a wheel-on-a-stick) and a sidecar streamliner? :?
I am very confused about all this. :|
Terry
-
The proposed wheel change for sidecars has no basis in fact, practice, or reasoning outside of some personnel objective.
Without any consultation with any real sidecar builders and operators the rule would seem to benefit only the joke tag wheelers that it has deteriorated to.
The rulers have now bottomed out with respect to credibility and are destroying the field with their changes without real reason.
The evidence of that is stacking up in other classes also and would mark the beginning of the end.
Count how many records would have to go out of the book if they did the rest of the homework required to move the Roadracers and such into altered.
The first one that gets to 100 wins the prize.
Are you one of those that would disappear ? :?
Rather than say it is out of hand , I would suggest it is firmly in hand.
SCREAM IF YOU MEAN IT.
-
I was told that the 15" minimum wheel Dia.
may have been a mistake and that the "Rulers" are looking into it!!!!!!!!!!
However, this was 3 days ago.....todate no update has been received......................we can only hope they reconsider their initial thinking!!!!!!
-
I e-mailed Russ O'Daly three days ago to ask what was the reason for the proposed change. So far no answer. Glad I wasn't holding my breath.
-
There could have been no thinking for that rule change and others except for a very narrow objective..
Communication with them is not any more effective than "Winking at a girl in the dark."
-
The proposed 15 inch wheel minimum has the same validity as many other changes without prior consultation or notice that is so contrary to courteous and published practice.
To paraphrase a quote from one of the rulers " I don't read Landracing because it is a stupid conversation". (The actual quote is a bit longer but equally bright)
It makes me wonder, what else he doesn't read and maybe he really does?
Where should I list that one that is so far above you in the Adninisphere ? :roll:
"If you can't think it through, ask somebody."
-
OK - what am I missing here? as I read the rule Dan posted - ( I included it here as a quote) it specifically excludes the side car wheel from the 15 inch rule. as I read it the 15 inches applies to the motorcycle - not the wheel on the sidecar - am I reading this wrong?
"7.B.10 Wheels: Wheels must have a minimum nominal rim diameter of 15?, except sidecar wheel and wheels on streamliners. It is highly recommended that strict attention be paid to wheel alignment, wheel balance, spoke tension, and tire run-out. Solid front wheels are not allowed. It is REQUIRED that front wheels be cross ventilated by an area equal to at least 25% of nominal rim circle area. Solid rear wheels are allowed. No wheel discs are permitted."
The above is from the proposed M/C changes. The changes are to be voted by the new, 2007, board at the 01/05 meeting. The wording is blue is the change.
DW
-
You've read it right. The proposed change applies only to the motorcycle wheel size. Its a change that doesn't need to be made and so far there has been no reason offered for the change. One can only surmise a whim. I would like to add a question to his. If a change as profound as wheel size is to be enacted why do we only get a couple of months to get the change made? How much furor would be raised if the roadster committee announced in January that all roadsters had to have independent rear suspension for the May meet?