Landracing Forum
Tech Information => Technical Discussion => Topic started by: JackD on November 04, 2005, 11:44:57 AM
-
all the Road Race bikes that were running in M class like they always have were bumped into class A.
That would surely require that all the records in the appropriate classes be vacated or restored
to the previous mark that may not have ever existed.
I guess it could be compared to bumping all the dragster style lakesters into streamliner and
vacate all the records they might have and restore the records to the belly tanks like a birthright.
It sounds like a question that nobody asked.
Did anybody ask you ?
-
why?
how?
define "road race"?
-
why?
how?
define "road race"?
Perhaps the answer will be forthcoming.
-
Many years ago a fellow on a TZ set about raising many existing records that were held by old schoolers. If memory serves right, he started out with four cylinders dropped to three then two and one due to the unique build of that particular GP racer's motor ... fairing, non-fairing and also used non boosted turbos for additional classes ... I think you get my point.
Bottom line, he eradicated a number of records by many prominent racers by following the rules of the day. It was pretty brutal if it was your records or friends. He did not win many new-old friends, but he did have their respect. He systematically went after and got those records fair and square and ... probably legally :) .
Why should any older M records be boosted up to A? I think not. Leave them alone and move on. With all the classes there is plenty of room to find a challenge or if your so inclined, non-challenged open records. The past is the past and it's now '06. There is a whole lot of room for anyone within the rulebook.
Personaly, let the old sleeping dogs lay and go get new skins.
-
Why would you have to eradicate any records? The records were set by the rules in effect at the time. Rules change, records remain the same.
I may misunderstand, but can't we just run under the new specs against the old records?
DW
-
In my case, I have stock bike with a turbo hung on it. Thus Modified. In no other aspect is it Altered. According to the rulebook, it is not Altered, and just barely Modified. The opening paragraphs of the section in the rulebook spell out the intent of the class.........
However, if you want to limit MC to Stock and Altered classes, (That is what you're implying?) I'll build one from the ground up and leave Stock for the road-race replicas.
Sam
-
A dirt bike that was never road legal and even a limited production model is presumed to still be legal for M class even after the proposed changes. Does anyone remember the H2-R engine that also ran during the era of the target bike ? It was derived from a street bike and had the same power potential ?
If you feel that a combination should be bumped to another class, that is reasonable if it is valid. But if you are wanting to level the playing field, then how can you justify leaving the old mark in place ?
Wider distribution of ideas can uncover many things.
"Stand alone and soon you will find you are not only alone but on the outside."
"Who would imagine those records could ever be beat until it was tackled by someone with at least equal imagination and maybe a little more work."
-
C'mon Jack. Play fair.
What proposed changes?
Or is this in the "super-secret MIB if-I-told-you-I'd-have-to-kill-you"
meeting minutes......................
-
The SCTA has a motorcycle rules committee meeting tomorrow sat 11/5/05. It was published in the SCTA minutes from last meeting. didn't you read it? They will discuss a lot of potential rule changes for next year (some good some bad). These discussed changes will go back to the SCTA board for final blessings as every year. Jack is probably referring to the M and A chassis mess we have and as before they will not be able to please everyone. Hopefully we should probably see the good or bad changes by January. Last year we were fortunate to get a heads up on changes posted here on little A's web site. so just hang loose and enjoy the ride.
-
I think it might be some of those.
I have to be careful you might be the **enemame.
** spelled the way i want it.
-
Kent, did you vote no on the allowance of rear height
to be greater than 36, and no on extending tail section beyond
rear tire a few inches??
supposedly the racers committee voted overwhelming neg
on that rule change I submitted, BUT without discourse among
the committee and racers I have no idea how many
responded and how.........
we could have discussed this in a private forum on the net,
this was suggested but was not accepted.........Jon could set up
private forums to allow whom ever to access.....shame on me
for not seeking discourse from you guys at least privately........
so I suppose we could start having some discourse now
in this late hour??
Joe :)
-
Joe
I don?t know how it could have been unanimous since your bro is on the committee there should have been at least one vote for it. In direct response to your question, Yes, I voted to disallow your proposed change. Why? Well I had only one good reason to allow and two good reasons to disallow. I like you Joe and you have had great success in our sport. You are dedicated in bettering your bike and accomplishments. I respect that. I make and sell bodywork for motorcycles and stand to benefit more from your rule change than anyone else. But my two negatives out weigh the benefits. First, I have been studying motorcycle aerodynamics for the last 24 years, and in my wind tunnel and research data a long tail exerts added pressure on the roll axis, which reduces the pressure on the front contact point. In other words the tail wags the dog! How much longer? You only proposed a couple of inches, that might be all it takes to make a small bike or a bike with screwed up weight bias to spit the rider off. I can smell by the proposal that you might be thinking that you can reduce drag by installing a large bulbous tail. Joe it won?t work!! Been there done that!! The air is too dirty and there is no way it can stabilize and reattach the turbulent air in such a small area even with a huge tail. My second reason is dealing with a sanctioning body. It brings up a story of a drag race body I did for Kosman and Dave Schultz. The body had a huge bulbous tail on it to attempt to do what you want to do but still looked like a GSXR It was huge. So Schultz shows up at Englishtown with this body and the NHRA flipped out, I mean really flipped out they were so pissed off about it they had my rental car and Dave?s car towed when we went to the line during a qualification session. But it was on the Champions bike and they still needed him to be in the show so they allowed him to race Well he set the MPH record and after the meet the NHRA outlawed the body. The NHRA then came up with this convoluted system that you need to get written approval from them before you design a body. Then they give you parameters that you need to design around. Then after you do the design and plug work you need to get written approval before you can do the molds. After approval and tooling you need to mount the first article on a chassis and take it to Glendora to run it through the measuring chamber, after that written approval you need to make and supply them with body templates for trackside inspection. Believe me it?s a pretty fucked up system that we don?t even want the SCTA to start thinking about trying. I mean, imagine if the SCTA requires approved bodies? We don?t want to push our organization to change rules. Take a look at the motorcycle section in the ?05 rulebook, 2 out of 22 pages have bold changes on them. I don?t like to see rule changes other than safety related items. I hate to see rules changed for competitive advantages. I think it gives more credibility to an organization and racers that honors tried and tested rules. I think we have been screwin? up the rules badly in the last few years just to make a few people (car boys) happy. Yes I am on the racers committee and I did receive a copy of the 06 proposed rules changes last Friday and was asked to respond by yesterday. On Thursday I received another Email stating that most of the racers committee have not responded to the request. I am only to assume the lack of response was the same reason I didn?t respond was lack of time. There was a crap load of changes proposed and I was too busy with the forth episode of this TV show I have been doing to address every one of the changes. Most of the changes clarifications, only two were a safety issue and I believe only two were racers request (yours Joe and another for allowing dust bin fairings). But guys don?t worry; the rules committee is full of really level headed guys and won?t vote for some of the stuff. I know for fact that Bob Moreland, Van Butler, Derek McLiesh, Tom Evans, and Dan Warner will be there. I have faith in them. Hell, give Moreland a beer and he?ll vote for whatever ya want. I have never talked to Dave Isley. Don?t know what kind of guy he is, and I don?t like that Drew guy. The committee chair is still Russ O?daly. He seems like a really levelheaded guy. He is knowledgeable and if you argued a really good point he could see things your way. I think we are lucky to have him head this whole mess up.
Joe Its never to late for discussion. Actually it?s early for next year?s changes. Start the ball rolling now, get responses, get petitions for rule changes in, get on the racers committee, talk to other committee members, get involved in the politics. Unfortunately that?s how it gets done
-
you limit the audience, squeeze down the time, and keep it a secret until you spring it on a selected group too late to change it ?
The result is very predictable.
When you misunderstand your mistake and then lie about it's origin, you are marked forever.
-
thanks for your reply Kent.........
my concern is also about having to hack up
a production bike to meet modified rules.......
many stockers have tail humps over 36 inches.........
most stockers have tail sections and fenders that
extend beyond the rear edge of rear tire..........
a bike is about balance........
aero that worked on bikes like NSU nearly half
a century ago.............is not allowed now.........
if I did everything according to what many industry
experts said I should........I would have the records
I have now...........
I hate to see innovation stiffled............I am grateful folks
are looking out for us...........but also want to be able to
play..............
FIM WAS the last bastion to try things.........then they went
and basically adopted the scta stuff..........
remember the rules were against fairings extending beyond
the front axle........then stock bikes came out with noses
well beyond this, now you have stock bodied bikes over
250mph....safely.........
I appreciate you concern and that of SCTA.........
hope to find some middle ground........and play.......and
have fun........
and learn from you........
I need to make a plug ........wanna help ? :):)
it would be a dream for me to pester you at your
shop and try some things....
I may have to move someday........
Joe :)
-
I think Burt's bike was pretty aero, as was the BMW whale, the NSU's and the Indian arrow were all on the same design thoughts and they all wagged the dog. A stock tailed Busa would fit in PS rules if you removed the taillight and pulled the wheel all the way back in the adjusters (i checked mine). after your suggestion I think someone went out and measured a lot of stock bikes. I think they found most of the stock bikes were pretty darn close to conforming to our PS ruled off the show room floor. Ya know you may get a few inches to your requested rule change but I don't think you'll get all 5" up and all 8" back. We'll have to wait and see if Santa will bring us some favorable changes for Christmas. Joe your welcome to come down and huff as many fumes as you can anytime! You might want to make some changes before you crate your bike for Australia. Come on down! kr
-
hey joe, i think an unlimited class is what we need. no rules or limits. this will keep the old school and and m class record holders from being displaced by INNOVATION andTECHNOLOGY!!!!! i vote for more racing and smaller rule books!
-
silly Canadian! Can't ya read English? I mean the rule book! We already have an unlimited class! Its called "streamliner"
-
silly Canadian! Can't ya read English? I mean the rule book! We already have an unlimited class! Its called "streamliner"
said it in American and the translation to English is taking a little longer Eh?
-
silly socal (kent)..................
"YOU" HAVE A SEMI UNLIMITED (NO TC) STREAMLINER STRAPON (IN) CLASS........
WE DONT HAVE AN UNLIMITED """"""SIT ON"""" PARTIALLY STREAMLINED
CLASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GUYS WHO WANT THE BEST PROTECTION AND AERO CAN
RUN STREAMLINED.....................
GUYS WHO WANT TO ""RIDE"" A BIKE DESERVE SOMETHING ELSE.............
THERE ARE ALOT OF AERO NO-NO'S.........THERE ARENT ANY RULES
PROHIBITING YOU STREAMLINER GUYS FROM TRYING THEM.............
-
You forget that all the bikes that are in excess of the partial streamlined rules have crashed. The safety measures required for them has resulted in the injury rate you have.
The liability associated with a sit on bike is well studied and documented. The conditions at Bonneville are not as forgiving as they might be elsewhere. Just the wind can change speed and direction faster that you can anticipate it or correct.
I hope the burden of that information doesn't make you fall.
-
sorry kent, unlimited "sit on" bike class is what i meant. we need to promote and encourage innovation in aero etc. plus this class would be a place for a bike or bikes with no class!! if we cant run wierd stuff on the salt where else can you go?
-
I like things the way they are, after all the top record at Bonneville for an open bike three years ago was 238 and in a few years the fastest record set is 252 (FIM) and 246 SCTA/BNI (Diff bikes)
The reason I shoot for top speed at Bonneville and El Mirage is the deep rooted history and to be able ride the same salt as Don, Nolan and Jim is an honor. After all I never heard that Vesco "raced" at Maxton..
-
You can not run on the salt without the permits and under the accepted rules that include measures that require a degree safety and insurable. The limitations are well known and demonstrated.
The bikes have a remarkable safety record for reasons that includes limitations and appropriate provisions. The fastest bikes have picked up a large percentage in just the past few years within those rules.
You might want to check with the pedal bike racers to get some of their ideas and see why they crash,
or the gravity powered racers and see how they do.
-
Don't compare your history with theirs unless you know it.
-
Revisiting the '05 modified rules section 7.F there does seem to be a contradiction within the same paragraph concerning the frames of production bikes.
The question is ... What is a production frame and is it available to all competitors and subject to modification for competition?
Perhaps there should be a review to elevate any future M "factory produced road racing and off road motorcycles and models of which less than 500 were produced. Factory limited production or Works models are included in this class." to open class.
Since factory racing bikes, limited production and "works" models are not available to the general public this should move them up to the Open class and Unlimited engines. That would, in my opinion level the competition field to more realistically represent a true production based frame / engine that is modified and yet generally available to all potential competitors.
As stated in an earlier post I'm not for moving records around or subjectively eradicating or restoring past records. Certain individuals that represent vested views or act as gatekeepers might be inclined to skew or subjectively influence the results.
Let all current records stand as recorded. New rules will en effect create new records in the future and all the efforts under the old rules will still be recognized.
-
Joe
I don?t know how it could have been unanimous since your bro is on the committee there should have been at least one vote for it.
Kent,
Im not on the committee.... That I am aware of... And if my name is listed I have not received any information on any rule changes.
Jon
-
the "Secret Society" has prevailed again, but that is not such a secret.
The target bike in M class is Guthrie's TZ Yamama bike that was produced in excess of 500 and generally available to the public. Many off road bikes were produced in excess of 500 also and are not legal for production because of lighting for example. The effect of the rule would be to bump them into class A also. Basically the HP is unlimited in a sit up bike and within the limits of the class you have to figure out how to go faster.
Class A should only have limits with respect to safety and power type. Who cares where you have your feet or how long it is. Keep it within the established bounds of safety and let them fly.
If you got beat by a lessor bike, the result is you got beat.
-
Agreed ... class A should be open and governed only with the bounds of rider and spectator safety.
My point is, Modified should be an extension of a stock, once street legal bike. Any other factory specials, racers, off road or specialty bikes should automatically be classed in Altered in the future.
Here's why. Back up to Production Rules.
Rule 7.E .1 Production '05 Rulebook, first paragraph:
"A standard production street legal motorcycle of which 500 or more have been produced and which are available for sale to the general public through retail motorcycle dealers and is completely equipped with full lighting equipment, frame, forks, wheels, brakes, gas and oil tanks [if oem], fenders and seat."
Now move forward to Modified which is the next step in bike classification. Modified should be a direct extension of a production bike. The bone of contention is the short paragraph allowing factory road racing and off road motorcycles to run M class. It is contradictory and seems to have been placed there many years ago so these bikes could go for M class records when they should have been originally placed in A open class to begin with.
This leads us to today's question, whether to move or not to move records around to suit someones current agenda. Why not change the M class rules for '06 by moving these clearly originally non-street legal bikes to A class for the future and move forward as life does?
-
The sentence that included evolution of a street legal was added in poor judgment and contrary to the rules from the first day of running on the Salt.
If you think that a dirt bike for example should only run in Class-a, then you are confused about a sit up bike from the start.
When the fastest bikes are sit up bikes that are derived from street bikes and can be run on the street, it tells me that someone has figured out how to go fast and others have not.
To change the rules to benefit those who have not figured it out is it's own reward.
-
The poor judgment is your personal frame of reference to reality. Whether the rule was instituted when Dinosaurs walked the earth or last year it is what it is ... the rule, and is concurrent to all applicable records.
As far as dirt bikes, if it has lights, horn, turn signals and can be licensed for the street than the production dirt bike qualifies under the rules and should be allowed to progress to modified. If it did not begin life as a general production bike available to all through a dealership than it should go directly to Altered. Born of dirt or asphalt is not in question, but was it licensed for the street.
By the way, why single out one particular bike and rider?
-
Divide and conquer instead of work to go faster.
It is a fall down funny to legislate slow instead of work to go faster.
Next you will want to lock in records, regulate boost, % of nitro and bump a Vincent from the push rod class.
Oh wait, some of that you have already done.
CARRY ON
-
I think rule continuity in all sports is important. The comparison of old to new records is the best means for measuring advancements. The SCTA roadster classes are a prime example. The performance improvements are directly related to innovation and technology as it is still the same 50 year old "brick" you are trying to push through the air. If you change rules or add classes with no rules you remove the integrity of all past records. HP is the cheapest route to improved speeds but eventually you have to look at aero. The A classes are the best for these improvements as their rules are less restrictive. Yes it is expensive to build a bike from scratch, (How well I know and don't tell my wife) but that is the price if you are reaching for the top.
On the other subject of allowing non-street bikes in M, I personally never agreed but my complaint centered on allowing 2-strokes to compete with the same displacement. Every other sanctioning body that I know of had a handicap (usually 2to1) because of twice as many firing pulses per cycle. That said technology has now allowed four strokes to pass the performance of these old two-strokes so it is a moot point in 2006.
Just an old guy expressing his opinion (Another year older yesterday). I highly respect all who race for top speed regardless of venue or MPH. It takes a special person to do it and I consider us a family. Have a good winter as we all plot and plan for next season. Larry
-
Gee Mr D, you had me fooled there for a minute, until I went to the facts as found in the '05 rulebook.
You stated, "Next you will want to lock in records, regulate boost, % of nitro & bump a Vincent from push rod class."
Really Mr D, it sure doesn't appear so in the rulebook.
No where in the section 7 motorcycle rules,and I looked from stem to stern, do the rules limit boost or percent of nitro. Nowhere. Hopefully you will enlighten us with your knowledge?
As far as Vincents go, there are currently four Bonneville records held by Vincents.
MVG 1000cc set in '96
PPG 1000cc set in '00
MF 2000cc set in '88
MPSF2000cc set in '88
Perhaps you could educate us as to the stories surrounding the three records that aren't push rod. Just the facts please.
I'll ask again, why "target" one bike and one racer to change his records after the fact, especially since they were set under the rules of the day?
"Lock in the records" Well now that you mention it, I'm all for that.
I think any record set should be recognized and not legislated out of existence or until it is superseded on the salt. Perhaps SCTA should consider using an * like Baseball did for Maris's record. You know, record set with more games played than Babe. Now that will open up a can of worms!
-
Methinks Jack was just using a little No Horsepower Raising Allowed humor.
-
You will have to read it again and understand it this time. I said "NEXT" You will want to do the things I mentioned in the interest of slow.
As is proposed a dirt bike that was mass produced without a fairing can never run one in Modified class. I was told by a Vincent expert that it does not meet the convoluted rules for a push rod motor.
I used Guthrie as an example and I would suggest he was the target.
At this point if you take a street bike and make the same hp as a class A, guess what. Shame on the class A bike that is slower than the more restrictive M class.
Protection of the slow is it's own reward.
While the class fixing of things that are not broken seems to be an objective, some of the safety and liability issues that threaten the future of the sport should be of more concern.
Multiple violations of the printed rules will do more to damage the sport than anything you ever got beat with.
-
For what it's worth, niether will an aircooled BMW qualify under the pushrod rules.
-
I have a FOB, stock Honda, with water cooling,V Twin, fuel injection, 4 valves per cylinder, turbo that is push rod.
Why did you assume I was speaking of an upper limit? I and others have set multiple Fuel records on day old gas from the previous gas record. Go figure.
Find out what they are hiding from under that rock. :oops:
-
OK Mr D
Who are "they", you refer to?
-
As far as Vincents go, there are currently four Bonneville records held by Vincents.
MVG 1000cc set in '96
PPG 1000cc set in '00
MF 2000cc set in '88
MPSF2000cc set in '88
Perhaps you could educate us as to the stories surrounding the three records that aren't push rod. Just the facts please.
I think the '00 record is actually P-PV, which is production frame, production vintage engine, I don't think that is technically a push rod class. I think P-PP is a production push rod class.
-
Thank you, you are correct. :D
-
No 2-stroke has a 2-1 advantage due to # of cycles per RPM because they're all horribly inefficient.
Various sanctioning bodies have weighted 2-strokes vs. 4-strokes over the decades, but never successfully even-up. The oldest NHRA actually gives 2-strokes an ADVANTAGE (remember, this was pre-expansion chamber).
The better rules separate them more or less as
1. water cooled, fan cooled vs. air-cooled
2. disc valve, reed valve vs. piston port
3. single vs. multi
So there may be 3 or more classes per displacement, with the fastest given a 3/4 or 2/3 displacement handicap over 4-stroke.
-
About 20 years ago the Orbital Engine company in Australia made some advancements in 2 cycle engines that included unjecting fuel directly into the cylinder like a diesel . The big three American auto manufacturers were facing the upcoming stiff milage requirements (1989 ?) and all agreed all future high permormance high fuel milage cars would need to use the new generation of 2 cycle motors . Ford and GM were licensing Orbital's designs and Chrysler was working on their own design .
Congress decided/was bribed to back off the tough CAFE milage requirements before they took effect and the whole 2 cycle car thing was forgotten . Maybe some day they'll be back .
My Aussie friend who works for Orbital told me about this in the 80's but I don't know more details about the engines . He said with the direct injection a 2 cycle runs cleaner than a 4 cycle not to mention being cheaper and lighter .
-
Well that answers it. If you don't understand them, legislate them out of your way. :roll: