The blind leading the deaf.

[JackD]

"Good illumination helps keep things in sight."

[k.h.]

Skullduggery?

or

Numbskullery?

And I note that minimums for such classes as MPS/PBF 1650 are at 215, a minimum established when aftermarket cases were still allowed.  Will OEM cases in that class even break 200 without breaking?  The minimums appear unreachable after the rule change.

[JackD]

The real "World's fastest NA open bike" went 232   for a record in the 70s with stock HD cases and still holds it.
If you knew why the rulers made the rule it would make the same sense as the failed objective.

[JohnR]

The real "World's fastest NA open bike" went 232 for a record in the 70s with stock HD cases and still holds it.
If you knew why the rulers made the rule it would make the same sense as the failed objective.

I thought you guys said that to go fast you have to ditch the HD cases. Now Jack says the fastest NA Open bike used them. I'm confused??? :-k

[k.h.]

APS/BF 3000, 8/74, 231.597

Okay, two motors.  But OEM motors nonetheless.  And the 1650 pushrod class top speed is probably locked in for eternity since the rulers changed the rule after the aftermarket motor made its mark.

[JackD]

APS/BF 3000, 8/74, 231.597

Okay, two motors.  But OEM motors nonetheless.  And the 1650 pushrod class top speed is probably locked in for eternity since the rulers changed the rule after the aftermarket motor made its mark.

You must also consider the thousands of HD clone bikes that are legal for production with the S+S motor now.
Their objective is about as effective as winking at a girl in the dark.
With the proper light, it might really look stupid.

[aswracing]

Tell us what's going on, Jack. You've got my curiousity up.

[k.h.]

Now if only a manufacturer does a run of 500+ cycles using 4 cam Delkron cases . . . .

Or, better yet of course, the rule gets reversed.

[Bob Jr.]

Will OEM cases in that class even break 200 without breaking?  The minimums appear unreachable after the rule change.[/quote]

You can petition to have the minimum changed if you feel it can't be reached..

[JackD]

The supposed objective is flawed in part because the S+S cases that are already in common use and have been for years without a public complaint are already used in thousands of HD clone bikes that are legal for production now. DUH !
They missed their target with a rule that is wrong to start with and unenforceable.
The workarounds published here really point out the errors and make the objective suspect.
Repeated questions in the requested format go unanswered and that says volumes also.
The net result is not to fix anything , but drive them away to another meet.
Maybe that was the real objective, it certainly is the result.

[Bob Jr.]

[The net result is not to fix anything , but drive them away to another meet.
Maybe that was the real objective, it certainly is the result. [/quote]

That is not true there are over 450 pre entries for speed so nobody is being driven away from the sport.  The has been a lot of growing in the past few years so that adds to the groups wanting changes.  The SCTA may need to try and stream line some of these procedures but that takes time.  So just tossing it out on the net is not going to get it fixed in a hurry..

I hope that most of the people that are growling the loudest are members of the association, if not join up so you can get all of the info from your club and push what you want into the system how ever flawed it may be.

Back to the garage to try and get my ride done.....

[JackD]

Will OEM cases in that class even break 200 without breaking?  The minimums appear unreachable after the rule change.

You can petition to have the minimum changed if you feel it can't be reached..[/quote]

2 Club minimus are not the subject. It is their own system to administer.
The problem is the credibility of SCTA suffers when rules are made in this fashon.
 An example is a record was awarded to a Push Rod bike that is way slow in the face of the much faster record that is already held by another push Rod bike in SCTA that should properly be in the same class.
Another example is a single person making a new class and setting up the minimums without question and even came back to the board to ask for them to be reduced.
 Only then did anybody give it even a short look and it was denied.
That person went on to score #1 bike and a lifetime membership.
That same person, again without supervision screwed the rule changes down to the point that only their bike was legal.
Only after the book was printed and in distribution were the errors caught and the entire system was reverted to the previous rulbook.
The examples go on and on and me too.
Welcome back to the show Bob.

[JackD]

Net growth is is not the answer to flaws in the system.
 Streamlining the participants out of the process doesn't work in an amateur system.
Selective listening and enforcement under the cover of darkness will be the death of it.

[k.h.]

In my never humble (amateur) opinion, the minimum was not a problem under the governing rules at the time it was established.  The problem was changing the engine case rule, and the manner in which it was changed behind a veil of secrecy, due to skullduggery or otherwise inferred but unreported purposes.  

As they say in the DaVinci Code movie trailer, "How dark the con of man."

[Stan Back]

Motorcycle pre-entries are up 35% in spite of this problem.  And there are at least nine rear-engined modiffied roadsters trying to fill up the blanks in the record book.