partial streamlining facts

[JackD]

Three posts do not qualify anything you say more than 3,000.
A wrong answer is still wrong.
The laws of nature generate the rules of the sport.
If the sport is to continue, it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past.
Open bikes are now going 50mph faster with the same aero than just a few years ago with a good safety record. Streamliners are still crashing at the same rate with an excellent safety record also.
That sounds like a good place to be.

[rosemeyer]

Dean Los Angeles.
Recumbant? Interesting concept, but where do you put the fairing for the rider to be "entirely visible from both side and above apart from hands and wrists" to still comply with the rules for 'partial streamlining'? Assuming that no frame tubes around the rider would prevent that. As it is, it looks like a board.

Hawkwind.
The Norton kneeler is outside existing rules, while the last feet-forward would be very difficult to 'partially streamline' too. There wouldn't be much side bodywork to put, to keep the rider 'visible'and, without that, lots of turbulances.

Believe me guys, the rulemakers have made it very hard to improve on what is already existing. They MUST have safety in mind, when drawing technical regulations.

A 'special frame', with lower seating position (a bit like Dan Gurney's Alligator if you see what I mean) would be the only way to reduce frontal area, and keep within the limits of the present regulations for 'partial streamlining'.

Enveloping the bike with more bodywork will send you in the streamliner category where you need the rider to be strapped, firewall, rollbar, etc...

I am a bit puzzled by the wish to return to our 'grand fathers' type of bike for record. Henne, Taruffi, Hertz ran at 200mph and below, now the speeds are in the 260s, and I don't think that dustbin fairings and boatails would be very safe at these speeds. Do we need a crash to find out?

[1212FBGS]

Hawk
In other threads you alluded to the fact that the drla might allow ?bins? in the near future. What happened? Did the new rule proposal get shot down?
or are ya gathering ammo for another go at your rule board

[1212FBGS]

Rosy
Who do ya write for?

[hawkwind]

Jack
Mate on this subject Im afraid we will have to agree to dissagree  
IMHO the rule makers are being way to cautious , to date no one has provided hard / indisputable evidence that it is " to dangerous " to try , I spose we could all wrap ourselves in cottonwool and be nice and safe
No it does not  make me curious that OEM bikes are the way they are , its got very little to do with engineering  and a great deal to do with marketing and the overwelming conseratism of the general punter  

Rosemeyer
Im well aware that my examples do not meet the current rules   , the whole reason I started this thread was to engender dicussion and opinions ( for or against) on changing the partial streamlining rules , not maintaining the status quo.
The point of the "grandfather " records is precisly that , even with primative ,small capacity and relativly small HP ,they achieved those speeds ,because and only because of there aerodynamics

Kent
No not passed yet   things looked rosy untill "those who must be convinced" contacted the SCTA ,who ( suprise suprise) strongly advised against it   .Yes Im trying again ,with hopefully more ammunition , especially from the safety aspect , this was the crueler last time , im after hard facts , not heresay and personal opinions  ,has this type of streamlining  caused  any deaths , injuries or accidents  purely because of the streamlining  at any landspeed event ? Im like a pitbull once latched on I don't let go
Gary

[JackD]

All of the wheel driven bikes that have exceeded those dimensions that exist today have crashed.
 In a perfect world that might exist in doors, the cross winds might be controllable.
 Out doors and over the required distance the laws are the same for everybody and the rules follow.
The pedal bike bunch actually do the best work with aero stuff.
 A lot can be learned from them.

[Utahfab]

Why do some people seem to always push for changes to the rules in a class?  I assume so it?s so they can try to go faster to set a new record for the class.  The problem is when you change the rules it isn?t the same class!  Your record is hollow and stands for nothing!  You have just legalized your cheating!

Racing has always been using your head to go as fast as possible within the given constraints.  Everyone has the same constraints and that?s what makes it interesting.  If you change those constraints you have thrown out every competitor that has come before you.  It would be like me wanting to bump the class limit for a 50cc streamliner to 60cc!

A partial streamliner is just what the rules say it is.  A dustbin does not fit and should never fit.  New class, maybe.  Changing existing, NOT!

Use your head to build speed within the rules.  Then you?ve done something.

[Sumner]

Why do some people seem to always push for changes to the rules in a class?  I assume so it?s so they can try to go faster to set a new record for the class.  The problem is when you change the rules it isn?t the same class!  Your record is hollow and stands for nothing!  You have just legalized your cheating!

Racing has always been using your head to go as fast as possible within the given constraints.  Everyone has the same constraints and that?s what makes it interesting.  If you change those constraints you have thrown out every competitor that has come before you.  It would be like me wanting to bump the class limit for a 50cc streamliner to 60cc!

A partial streamliner is just what the rules say it is.  A dustbin does not fit and should never fit.  New class, maybe.  Changing existing, NOT!

Use your head to build speed within the rules.  Then you?ve done something.

Totally agree     .

c ya, Sum

[Larry Forstall]

Utahfab and Sumner: Add me to your group too. As we speak many changes are being considered for the 2006 motorcycle rules. If they are accepted, 50+ years of records will be tarnished. It would be like allowing the hallowed roadster to be longer and narrower.       Larry  

[JackD]

It's funny you said that about the Roadster. They are just now getting the real dimensions together to address a problem they have yet to resolve.
You would have thought the Roadster and the MC would have been defined by now so the entrant can concentrate on going faster than the same other entry.

[rosemeyer]

I agree with Utahfab, Sumner and Larry Forstall: you have to play with the rules in place.
The rules for partial streamlining are quite good as they are, and probably safe too.

[Salty Blaster]

All performance rules should remain in place from now on and without modification. The only rules that should evolve are those that address safety issues ... not speed. It seems that very few have respect for all the racing efforts in the past and are short sighted on the long view.

It appears to me, rule makers feel a need to make rules to justify their "position" to do so. Take a look at all the new verbiage in the '05 rules book ... a lot of it is directly lifted from car rules and makes no sense from a performance point.

Anyway, we all play by the same rules don't we?

[1212FBGS]

of the 22 pages of motorcycle rules in the 05 book, all but 2 have bold type corrections on them!
Kent

[JackD]

How did the rules get so screwed up ?

[hawkwind]

Thanks ,I haven't had a good laugh for a while , From the conception of landspeed racing , have the rules remained the same ? surly no-one has tried to change them   and the whole reason for this type of racing is not to increase speed or push limits is it ? nah to dangerous  , moving out of our collective comfort zones and inbreed familiarity with tired old rules is just to darn hard to contemplate , best be one of the "sheep " and follow the pack , yer now thats easy .
As in all lifes endevours , there's  visionaries and mediocrity, one chooses ones own path  
Gary