2006 Motorcycle Rule Changes

[landracing]

Here is the 2006 motorcycle rule changes.

[landracing]

Another interesting view is the SCTA is now more innovative then the FIM rules... Will be interesting to see if they follow in the footsteps or keep the rules the way they are... So BUB Meet may require different bike setup because the AMA rules mimic the FIM rules, which close to mimic the SCTA rules as of 2005... 2006 brings new views to the plate for other organizations..

Jon

[JackD]

So you take a Yamaha street bike, put a TZ motor in it from Yammama and the fairing you wish because the production bike it was derived from did not have one and press on.
 Water barrels on an H-2 should also do a fine job.
If a back injury is aggravated with the allowed strap on fairing and no back protector as is required as in other racing organizations the court will understand.
"If you don't think far enough ahead, you are going to bump it."
GOT  IT

[aswracing]

Damn, I got screwed. Assuming the definition of a motor's manufacturer is a function of the cases, they just made aftermarket cases illegal in "M".

An awful lot of bigger/more powerful HD type bikes use aftermarket cases (S&S. STD, Delkron, etc). We have to, the factory cases break at higher power levels. And the factory cases also limit the size motor you can build.

So now I've got two bikes built for "M" that I have to run in "A". Both sit too high and are too short to be good "A" bikes. I see major dollar signs to do it right. Shit. Thanks a lot, SCTA.

And what of all the existing "M" records set with aftermarket cases? This change gives all those records a big advantage.

What a load of crap. This is just like the leathers rules. I've never seen any sanctioning body so open loop and out of control in my life. They don't even think about the impact of their decisions on racers or records.

[JohnR]

Assuming the definition of a motor's manufacturer is a function of the cases, they just made aftermarket cases illegal in "M".

You know what they say about ASSuming right? before you unload on the SCTA, why don't you ask for a clarification.

[aswracing]

How the hell else would you define engine manufacturer?

[hawkwind]

congrats on the moddest partial streamlining changes in special construction  =D> still a ways to go ,but from little things ,big things grow

[JackD]

congrats on the modest partial streamlining changes in special construction  =D> still a ways to go ,but from little things ,big things grow

While the rule makes an attempt to adjust to the OEM dimension, it fails to restrict the extension to the shape that offers virtually no side load from a cross wind as the OEM part comes to a point. A slab sided extension that seems to be allowed would have quite a different effect and is ill advised.

[aswracing]

Something else to think about ...

Is the 200 club going to take a new look at their minimums?

I mean, the argument rationalizing the recent raising of minimums was something about a 2000cc Pro-Mod motor and how much power it makes.

Well, I'm here to tell you, there ain't a single Harley part in a 2000cc Pro-Mod motor. It ain't even remotely legal in "M" anymore.

[JackD]

It would seem the new M rules are meant to target specific entries but nothing has been done to remove them.
 So if the rules are now more restrictive, the existing bikes that may or may not be legal remain in place.
If your are starting from zero, that is one thing.
 If the existing rules are from the earliest days of bikes running on the salt, what demands the change ?
Is it 2 guys want and 3 decide for everybody ?
The work arounds are already in circulation and can prevail.

[joea]

edit..........nothing really positive to say..............


trying to rationalize............


I think the rules guys are trying to do their best...........

they need out help.................

Joe

[aswracing]

Well, Joe, I'm none too happy about having TWO bikes obsoleted in one stroke. Two bikes I've poured countless hours and dollars into, trying to make them into really good "M" bikes.

Hell, the black bike (1350 M-PG & M-PF record holder) I just built a new motor for THIS YEAR, with S&S cases, because I've blown out two sets of factory cases in the last two years. The factory pieces just can't handle the power it takes to run those speeds. I spent thousands to reconfigure that motor so I can take it to the next level and have it hold together and raise the bar. And before I even got the chance to run it, they obsoleted it! I built that damn motor and before I even get a chance to run it, they made it illegal!

Sure, I can run it in "A", and truth be told, the records are probably softer in A (I haven't looked). But I'm not interested in soft records, I'm interested in putting up marks that will hold for awhile. The bike is built as an "M" bike, both of my bikes are for that matter. Properly built "A" bikes that take full advantage of the rules will BEAT them.

So I've got two bikes that are misfits. I spent thousands to make them good "M" bikes, they're not legal in "M" anymore, they're underprepared for "A", and it'll take thousands more to get them to the level in "A" that they were at in "M".

Meanwhile, as Jack points out, M records still stand that have a HUGE advantage over anyone wishing to challenge them. They had more lenient rules. Yes, some of those are mine, but it don't make it right.

For example, the record I was working on in 1650cc MPS-PG is held by Brian Perkins. Brian works for S&S. Want to take a wild guess as to what kind of motor was in Brian's bike? Same kind as mine, S&S. His record is a pretty decent mark at 192.2. I've worked my ass off on the motor, on the chassis, on the body, spent a damn fortune and untold hours on the dyno and I was within spitting distance, in fact Jon made a pass a tick OVER the record at the Bub's event. Now the rug has been pulled out. Brian's record is pretty damn safe if nobody who goes after it is allowed to use an aftermarket motor like he did.

I have no idea what the hell the politics behind all this is. I can't help but suspect there's some kind of an agenda. Maybe someone in a posiiton of power holds some records and doesn't want them challenged? I don't know. I just know the whole thing stinks.

'Scuse me for venting, but if you had your money and hard work go up in smoke, you'd be pissed too.

[JackD]

HOT BUTTON HERE  
A couple of things come to mind that need attention.
First of all, how would you have known these rules were being even considered until the rulebook came out except here ?
 They are not safety related but have some other incomplete motive. Why change them ? If Guthrie and his road racer was the intended target, that is a laffer because a work around is so easy. The case made for the HD based bikes is a good one and accurately described.
If anything, the M class was pretty close and the A in many cases was slower. The A bikes should have fewer restrictions except for proven safety measures and they will develop into the faster machine that they should be.
 When the A class tank restriction from 2005 was brought up the SCTA not only didn't understand the impact it presented in error but defended with a wrong basis by suggesting it was a carry over from AMA. That BS was documented here and you would never have seen it otherwise.
The M bike should be a sit up and the A should be a lay down. It is as simple as that. Adjust the rules in small amounts as the mass produced bikes develop and let the A class rip. Isn't that what it is all about ?
Next will be the mandatory freeway pegs and the jockey shift.
Bikes don't normally backup but the people seem to.
Is Lamky's liner legal for push rod ? He doesn't think so.
GET IT ?

[JackD]

Another interesting view is the SCTA is now more innovative then the FIM rules... Will be interesting to see if they follow in the footsteps or keep the rules the way they are... So BUB Meet may require different bike setup because the AMA rules mimic the FIM rules, which close to mimic the SCTA rules as of 2005... 2006 brings new views to the plate for other organizations..

Jon

The SCTA rule changes for bikes reflect the lack of experience on the part of the changers and the net results were many unintended victims.
Do you suppose that S+S kit package motors have been supplied to OEM-HD Clone builders in excess of the number required for Production in SCTA ?
Did anybody ask ?
The car guys did a much better job.

[k.h.]

Great point.

In the meantime, the questionable ability of some of ""The Company's" OEM motors to spin really fast for long periods may result in improving the speeds in the A category with bikes which already set M category record with their now illegal motors, no?  

Plus it may get people using the potentially more potent S&S 60-degree motors in Special Construction.  45-degree motors may be hard pressed to meet the power levels.  Change the rules, change the outcomes.