Running 1970's 750 Triumph sin P3

Printed from: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
Topic URL: https://www.classicmotorcycling.com.au/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2584
Printed on: 27 Nov 2024

Topic:

Topic author: john
Subject: Running 1970's 750 Triumph sin P3
Posted on: 06 May 2012 9:16:20 PM
Message:

The question about running push rod pommy bikes born in the 70's actually racing in P3 has been asked. The Historic Committee in Melbourne is looking at encouraging such a promotion. It involves running machines derived from earlier periods , but built in the later periods being able to race against similar machines. Maybe as Classic 750cc 1 and Classic 750cc 2.
The same can apply with some 500cc machines that had distributors added but are essentially old dodgers and again in the P2 /p3 divide when some rigid framed machines were born too late to compete within MA rules but really are P2 machines.

What are your views, who has machines eligible.
I know of 2 750cc Triumphs and one 500cc Triumph at thsi stage.
Please help us, please dont off topic.
Machine possibly eligible are Triumphs, Nortons, BSA's can you name any others or some which may need to be looked at carefully , thanks

Replies:

Reply author: vinton
Replied on: 06 May 2012 10:56:28 PM
Message:

unit construction triumphs should have been allowed into p3 years ago along with other out classed p4 bikes
just my 10 cents worth

Reply author: john
Replied on: 07 May 2012 1:18:56 PM
Message:

The wise are always 20 years late.

The topic is to encourgae suppoort and find machines etc, thsi came across my desk thsi morning

"Hey John, Can you see if 1972 Harley Sportsters up to 1000cc be included. The Sportster
changed to 1000cc in 1972 and had a single disc option. Some were fitted with the single
rotor and caliper from the 72 Electra Glide as well by owners.
There's three available for a start without looking too hard.
I reckon I could round a couple more up after a while.
What do you think?
I'd love to race mine but it's a P4 Unlimited at the moment, no point even trying
that's why I like this idea. I think it will catch on.

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 07 May 2012 3:07:59 PM
Message:

They made the first twin-cylinder unit construction model in 1957 with the release of the 350 cc Twenty One 3TA (so named because it was approximately twenty-one cubic inches capacity). The 500 cc Triumph 5TA followed, and the 650 cc models were made unit construction in 1963.
So YES unit Triumph can run if 350cc or 500cc. 650/750cc NO!!

Reply author: john
Replied on: 07 May 2012 3:22:09 PM
Message:

Thsi plan involv es having the later unit construction machines, which are basicaly the same technology as the earlier ones to race against reasonable competition.
It does not look at when it was built etc, just what technology is involved. And they would be identified as later model machines.

The plan is not intented to usurp the existing stucture, just to add machines if possible.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 09 May 2012 08:49:52 AM
Message:

This is an idea following up on John's idea to get more classic type
>> unlimited bikes on the track.
>> Unlimited classic to have two classes run together, but having separate
>> points.
>>
>> Classic Unlimited 1. 1945 to 1962
>> Rules as they are now.
>>
>> Classic Unlimited 2. 1963 to 1972 Must be log booked, (if MA accept
>> this sub class)
>> Single or twin cylinder four stroke air cooled engines, non grand prix
>> (such as G50 or Paton), up to 750cc. This would include all British
>> twins: and Japanese twins such as Yamaha XS650, Honda CB450, Kawasaki
>> W650, and European BMW's, Ducati's, Laverda's, Moto Guzzi's;
>> and Harley Sportster could be included (although they are 885cc).
>>
>> Allowed modifications: Engine internals except stroke and number of
>> valves. Carburettors but no flat slides or power jets as per GCR
>> 16.6.4.3. Frame and forks, but must be period. Brake drums. Front
>> single disc of a diameter to be determined, one or two piston caliper and m/c free.
Fork yokes
>>
>> Allowed : cast wheels if originally fitted to log booked model, must be
>> OEM wheels. Multiple disc brakes as fitted to log booked model. Must be
>> OEM. Alcohol fuel. Wheels as per GCR 16.5.3.1.
>>
>> Prohibited: Non motorcycle engines and transmissions, Fairings unless
>> OEM for log booked model (exact replica OK), fuel injection, gearboxes
>> with more than 4 speeds unless OEM for the log booked model, Monoshock
>> rear ends unless OEM for the log booked model.
>>
>> All GCR's from 16.1.0.1 to 16.4.2.12, and 16.5.1.3,16.6.1,1
>>
>> GC

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 10 May 2012 11:07:05 AM
Message:

in that case Norton 850 wll be ok!!

Reply author: john
Replied on: 10 May 2012 12:02:38 PM
Message:

Well it is UNLIMITED Classic!!

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 10 May 2012 3:03:10 PM
Message:

Unfortunately we always seem to fall over this year of manufacture nonsense.
The whole idea as I understand it is to allow bikes made out of period but with period technology to compete where they should be.
Hopefully there are bikes in sheds that may come out to play if they are given the right playground.
Call them post classic classics if you like, just as the Molnar Manxes are.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 10 May 2012 6:14:53 PM
Message:

John F you are spot on with the description.
Away from this site there is much discussion, if anybody wants to present an opinion please do so, or for ever hold your piece.
We are building on an idea to be flexible but realistic.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 10 May 2012 7:07:03 PM
Message:

@Allan 'in that case Norton 850 wll be ok!!'

Thank you, I'm happy to race against any air cooled two valve four stroke single, twin or triple of less than 1000cc up to about 1985, running any fuel, tyres, suspension, frame or brakes. That would include the 851 Pantah, Harley Sportsters, Guzzis and a whole heap of other stuff we never see racing these days. If the grid is to have four cylinder superbikes or two strokes included - I won't be there !

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 10 May 2012 7:16:04 PM
Message:

To John Daley:
I'm glad to see you becoming so progressive. You give me hope that we might actually end up with a class in which it is worth racing my Seeley 850. Keep up the good work!
(Please get me onto the grid with those Ducati 900s which sometimes appear in Period 5)

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 10 May 2012 7:29:35 PM
Message:

Dear John - how many times have I made similar comments on this forum ? :
'The wise are always 20 years late.

The topic is to encourgae suppoort and find machines etc, thsi came across my desk thsi morning

"Hey John, Can you see if 1972 Harley Sportsters up to 1000cc be included. The Sportster
changed to 1000cc in 1972 and had a single disc option. Some were fitted with the single
rotor and caliper from the 72 Electra Glide as well by owners.
There's three available for a start without looking too hard.
I reckon I could round a couple more up after a while.
What do you think?
I'd love to race mine but it's a P4 Unlimited at the moment, no point even trying
that's why I like this idea. I think it will catch on.'

Bring 'em out, I'll 'ave ya !

Reply author: racer7
Replied on: 11 May 2012 06:54:50 AM
Message:

"Away from this site there is much discussion, if anybody wants to present an opinion please do so, or for ever hold your piece.
We are building on an idea to be flexible but realistic."

Thanks for the opportunity ........ I have this really strange idea that the Honda CB350 twin should be P3. MV and Honda produced 350 twins within the P3 cut off. Of course front disc brakes would need to go .....

racer7

Reply author: john
Replied on: 11 May 2012 08:13:44 AM
Message:

We are not looking at machines that just sneak in, or were produced in low numbers.
We are looking at realistic areas where an established model is well entrenched in P3 . but were continued in one for or another into P4, just as the example points out.
Any idea that people can find an anomoly and step back is not going to be considered. In fact I guess we may need to specify which machines are ok, and then investigate any weird ones that are presented.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 12 May 2012 09:14:45 AM
Message:

John, Surely this matter is about technology? In the pre 62 era, the TT machines were usually air cooled four stroke twins and singles. In 1963 the YDS1 Yamahas killed them off. The simple fact is that a 350 Honda twin from the 60s is pretty much the same technology as a 350 manx. The brake issue is bullsh1t. In the late sixties we all raced with the two types of brakes on various bikes - the rule is as always - take care ! Paranoia about who might beat you will kill of this new approach. Any post 62 aircooled four stroke is a continuation of the early technology. Racing two strokes and superbikes against machines with the old pre62 technology is a load of cr@p !

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 12 May 2012 10:55:28 AM
Message:

I commend this idea and feel that it is now time to make a statement of intent.
The sooner the intent is published the more likely it is that bikes will come out of sheds and get logbooked in time for the Southern Classic.

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 12 May 2012 12:19:37 PM
Message:

This is an idea following up on John's idea to get more classic type
>> unlimited bikes on the track.
>> Unlimited classic to have two classes run together, but having separate
>> points.
>>
>> Classic Unlimited 1. 1945 to 1962
>> Rules as they are now.
>>
>> Classic Unlimited 2. 1963 to 1972 Must be log booked, (if MA accept
>> this sub class)

WHY NOT CALL IT POST CLASSIC CLASS 2!! WHEN IN FACT THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 12 May 2012 12:25:49 PM
Message:

This would include all British twins

No 850 nortons but u then say 883 hd's

Reply author: john
Replied on: 12 May 2012 1:46:09 PM
Message:

Listen everybody. Settle down and think. Classic Unlimited is Classic Unlimited. That means machines up tp 1300cc noy 849cc. It could be if we had heaps turn up we would split it 750cc and then 851 and then 899 and d etc so everybody gets a trophy. We are talking about machines described earlier.
WE are not talking 2 stroke, nor bored out models not made prior.
So settle down and build a bike

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 12 May 2012 5:57:53 PM
Message:

Listen everybody. Settle down and think. Classic Unlimited is Classic Unlimited. That means machines up tp 1300cc

if classic then upto 1963 "but" if as u say 1963 upto 1973 "must" be postclassic..

other wise u have a "post classic" class being called "classic"
just don't make sence

Reply author: john
Replied on: 12 May 2012 8:05:03 PM
Message:

You know, I am amazed how quickly some people can wreck a conversation.

We are talking about machines built in 1973 which are very, very similar to machines built pre 1963.
Same technology, same basic design.
We are pretending they were actually made pre 1963.

Thats what the deal is about.

Thats why we are not calling them post classic in this proposal, much the same way we dont call transvestites men or women.

So please understand we are calling machines effected by this proposal as "transvestites " if you like.

So please lets move on from the name so we dont get worse.

The basic underlying issue with thsi idea is to get more bikes on the track that are similar to the older ones, and my personal view is dont get involved if you dont like it. The spectators will not know the difference until they read the program.
Its not designed to cheat, rip off or any other issue some may be thinking.
Regards

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 13 May 2012 08:39:12 AM
Message:

John, I'm not interested in getting trophies. What I want is to race other thunderbikes of under 1000cc of any age whatsoever. I don't even care if they have trick suspension or frames as long as they are two valve, air cooled engined singles, twins and triples - NO two strokes or four cylinder superbikes. Racing for me is about having fun. If anybody wants trophies, they'd just buy a TZ and pay the bills.
Most 250cc two strokes on alcohol will kill any thunderbike, so why would you race an old fourstroke? I've got a good two stroke bike in my shed, it's not what I want to race , and I recently sold an excellent TZ350G to Alan Hay's business partner.
The reason I love my Norton 850, is that when you ride it you can feel the hairs growing on my chest. Racing off a grid full of them would be superb !
'BRING OUT YOUR DEAD! '

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 13 May 2012 09:12:24 AM
Message:

John,
How about at the Southern Classic we run two classes of thunderbikes instead of the under and over 500cc P3 classes?

Note Definition:

Thunderbike: - a machine with a single cylinder, twin cylinder,or three cylinder, two valve per cylinder, air cooled four stroke motor !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzBOJp6i370


The changed races :

1. An under 500cc Thunderbike class which would encompass the P4 BSA B40s, Ducati 450s and P5 SR500s, as well as the usual P3 350 Manxes and BSAs.

2. an over 500cc Thunderbike class (up to 1000cc). Which would include P5 Nortons, Harleys and Ducatis, P4 Nortons and Triumphs, P3 Vincents.

All bikes would be log booked in one of the periods. The allowance of alcohol fuel usage would make the earlier bikes competitive with the post 72 machines.

As far as the brake differences are concerned, riders must be warned to take care when braking within a group of riders. We had the same considerations in the late sixties !

Then we could have a really good go !

Reply author: john
Replied on: 13 May 2012 09:44:29 AM
Message:

Alan, I will pass that idea oln to the Historic management Committee for a start and then over to the HMRAV after we have written something clearly. Thanks

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 14 May 2012 12:05:36 PM
Message:

John, if the thunderbike class only happened for bikes over 500cc up to 1000cc, and included P3, P4, and P5 - that woud be excellent. If the guys with bikes under 500cc wanted to elect to ride in the 1000cc thunderbike class, the grid size would be the only limitting factor.

Personally I wouldn't gripe if the D'Avanti, and Gowandloch Ducati 900s got a ride, something like the Corish Vincent should be up with them.
Thanks for giving this idea some consideration. It could bring a lot of old interesting bikes out of the woodwork. At the Bonanza I saw about three 750cc Rocket three racers, and we haven't seen Doug Gorrie's one for years.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 14 May 2012 12:09:53 PM
Message:

AS far as fourstrokes are concerned, the major performance boost comes from increasing the number of valves in the motor. DOHC makes little difference. There are no 4 valve per cylinder air cooled production Ducatis except for the one Cathcart owns (ex McGee)! And the 900s are heavy. Anything else will not be a problem to earlier bikes.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 14 May 2012 12:55:00 PM
Message:

Can we get back to the satrt. As you know, my knowledge of Solos is limited, what machines could be eleigle that were common in the day please?

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 19 May 2012 08:59:34 AM
Message:

John, I will start from the top:

1. Thunderbikes over 500cc, up to 1000cc :

Period 6
Ducati 851 Pantah
Moto Guzzi 750, 850
Laverda Ghost 600
BMW 1000
Harley 883, 1000

Period 5
Ducati 900
Triumph 750
Norton 750, 850
BMW 750
Moto Guzzi V7 750
BSA Rocket 3 750
Triumph Trident 750
Laverda 750, 900

Period 4
Norton 750
Triumph 650
BSA 650

Period 3
Norton 600,650
Triumph 650
BSA 650
Vincent 1000
JAP 1000
Anzani 1000

2. Thunderbikes up to 500cc

Period 5
Yamaha SR500
Laverda Montjuic 500

Period 4
Seeley G50
BSA 400, 350
Ducati 350, 250
Honda XL 350 etc.
Triumph 500
Honda 250, 350, 500 twin

Period 3
Manx 30M, 40M
AJS 7R
Matchless G50
BSA 350, 500
Norton 500 twin
Matchless 500 twin and single

Hope this helps, best regards, Al

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 19 May 2012 09:26:47 AM
Message:

When I look at the Thunderbike over 500cc, up to 1000cc, I'd love to be in a grid full of that stuff. The 851 Pantah could be quick, if somebody could afford the CR gear box. But they'd all be facing the same technology wall.

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 19 May 2012 11:33:09 AM
Message:

P3 plus
Norton ES2
Royal Enfield
Triumph 5T, T100, GP
Velo KSS, MSS, Thruxan, Viper
hve u forgotten some of the "old" brittist bikes Alan!

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 19 May 2012 12:18:25 PM
Message:

I think this idea has great potential to drag out bikes that are, through no fault of their own, social misfits.
The original concept of cut off dates may have seemed a good idea at the time but it failed to make allowances for the fact that technological change (or lack of) was far more important than the date on the calendar.
I hope this idea gets up, it will be fascinating to see a whole bunch of "similar" bikes sorting themselves out on the track.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 20 May 2012 02:20:59 AM
Message:

The up to 500cc Thunderbike classes would include all of the pre62 smaller British bikes, plus things like the Royal Enfield Constellation (GP ?), BSA Victor B40, B25, Honda singles from sixties and seventies, Ducati 250,350 and 450.
We would see manxes racing against the bigger Ducati singles, Yamaha SR500s, Seeley G50s.

But at least the races would look, sound and smell right. And the old dungers wouldn't be blitzed by thinly disguised RS125s and TZs or superbikes - they should have their own GP and superbike classes.

In the first instance what we are talking about are full grids for two races which would normally be Period 3 races. Personally I'd provide one extra exhibition race for top class Period 3 singles, so Manxes, G50s and Goldies could be show cased, outside of the thunderbike class.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 20 May 2012 08:12:53 AM
Message:

What could be really good, would be if the racing which involves all of the same type of bike could be run as a classic series on the second day of two day historic meetings.
John, If you remember what the BEARs brought with them, the last time they raced at Broadford - their bikes were all Thunderbikes ! And if we could somehow suck the BEARs into running again, and allow special dispensation for their lack of log books, we could end up with something really spectacular in the Thunderbike class. I believe the D'Avanti and Gowandloch Ducatis are not historics, but BEARs, and we should cultivate them.
Historics and BEARs are all classic bikes.
I believe road racing depends on a critical mass - we could end up with meetings which pull a crowd and are commercially viable.
I for onew would love to see the over 500cc up to 1000cc Thunderbike class, it might be really spectacular.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 20 May 2012 9:18:41 PM
Message:

Fellas, the topic has been hijacked again.

My original posted ideas are different from what you are now talking about.

I can tell you softly softly is the best way to work for success, grabbing an idea and hijacking the concept will guarantee a nil result.

I am seeking input from blokes who are racing via the club directly in the newsletter to gauge interest etc.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 21 May 2012 05:29:51 AM
Message:

John, all we are doing at this stage is having the discussion. I'm merely pointing out the direction your idea could take. I'm simply happy that sanity might prevail and my old Seeley Norton 850 might actually have an opportunity to be raced sensibly. This discussion has helped me look at my bike in a different light. I now actually feel like firing it up, instead of having it standing in the shed rotting. I will state one thing clearly right here and now. - I am not interested in racing it against two strokes and superbikes. If there is a Thunderbike type class run sensibly, that is a different story. Then we can actually race ! And it will be PROMOTABLE !
Even if you initially set the cutoff date at 1975, that wouldn't be too bad !

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 21 May 2012 05:45:59 AM
Message:

It is not rocket science to get all the same type of bike which use the same old technology into the one race class. Two valves per cylinder, single, twin or triple cylinder, air cooled four stroke engined bikes, are what we are talking about ! No two strokes or four cylinder superbikes. It is not that difficult !

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 21 May 2012 06:01:23 AM
Message:

I was sitting next to Keith Ashmore at the Veteran Riders Association dinner two weeks ago. He still has his Triumph racers from the sixties. Keith and Les Ayton were extremely competitive in B grade in about 1970 - known as the 'Bonnie Boys'. And Rosenbob, has got his old Norton 750 back, and isn't doing much with it.
John, You can make it happen !

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 21 May 2012 08:59:28 AM
Message:

J.D. I think the main thrust of this idea is to encourage bikes to come out of sheds.
There are many that just sit hidden away because they do not have a sensible class to compete in.
Our sport is an audio visual sport and as long as the bikes look right they should be acceptable.
We need more bikes to attract more spectators.
Surely we could accommodate non log booked bikes with the proviso that they are not eligible for points if they don't have a log book. This, coupled with one event licences would make life much easier and could encourage more to come out to play.
The easier we can make it the more likely we are to get these snoozers out on a track. This can only be good for the sport.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 21 May 2012 10:16:04 AM
Message:

In my experience if we walk one step at a time we will get there.
I am happy to separate the Thumper ideas out as a second effort, but I suggest we stick with step 1 initially and separately work on step 2.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 21 May 2012 10:48:56 AM
Message:

John, walking one step at a time is fine.
It also helps to know the destination.
Isn't step one about opening up the P3 "unlimited" class to bikes that are not strictly eligible?
Step two is what do we do to actually make this happen?
Should we canvass support to see how much interest there is?
Should we set up an eligibility committee to assess potential bikes?
We need to keep this moving along or it will simply fade away.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 21 May 2012 11:35:51 AM
Message:

My belief is that log books are only essential for championships ! If they get in the way of making other meetings economically viable, the requirement should not be imposed.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 21 May 2012 11:40:57 AM
Message:

John Feakes
We probably need a special interest group for Thunderbikes to keep the process honest. A couple of reps at each meeting during scrutineering, or perhaps simply issue a certificate of machine acceptance for the series or each individual meeting ?

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 22 May 2012 07:55:22 AM
Message:

I'd be prepared to bet right now, that we'll never see a sixties unit Triumph Bonneville run with the bikes of Unlimited Period 3 at an HMRAV meeting.

Reply author: vinton
Replied on: 22 May 2012 4:16:48 PM
Message:

well there is one i agree on log books at club level are just a great way of making things a bit to hard .want to run at the aussie titles then you will have to jump trough the hoops to get one. at club level it should be more flexable on what runs and with who.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 22 May 2012 4:44:00 PM
Message:

If the meeting is not a championship, why does a log book matter ? It doesn't guarantee any level of machine authenticity anyway. Most of the historic machine motors are oversize, and still completely within the eligibility requirements. While we are talking aboput Period 3, I've seen featherbed Nortons with 1973 850 Commando engines in them - still have a log book. And why does it matter ? You can tell the difference between that and a Dominator or Atlas from about 30 metres distance. But it's the same old garbage.
It is only when we start getting motors with four valves per cylinder that there is a difference in basic performance.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 22 May 2012 5:48:04 PM
Message:

Al, I will take your money on that bet. $50

It really is out of order to be abusing the attempts to get a good idea going through the HMRAV.
The HMRAV has done a lot to encourage more bikes and models to the track, in particular the sidecars, Class 350 and 500cc solos.
We have improved things at Broadford and drawn crowds there as ell.
It still needs people to help on the ground though, there are many who cooment but few who actually help out.
John Feakes has been really helpfull at come n try days and management meetings helping myself.
I cant speak of any others putting in.


Please leave your money with Mick Ronk as the middle man.

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 22 May 2012 6:57:16 PM
Message:

I will have another $50.00 as well if the bet is a serious one.

Keep up the good work John and try to get back to your original concept. Small but positive steps are what is required then you have a chance of success

Alan Sidecar 21 WA

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 23 May 2012 06:52:47 AM
Message:

John
I'm prepared to accept that this latest effort of yours is a serious one. Good luck with it, it is essential that we change our mindset enough to get some form of classic racing which is promotable. While there are no substantial gate takings, 'profit' from events will always come out of competitors' pockets. I have long been convinced that classic racing could be 'bigger than Ben Hur'. Intrinsically it is excellent, all that appears counterproductive is the format our racing classes take - it doesn't often have as much spectator appeal as it could, and it doesn't really inspire a lot of us to get involved again. I look forward to the day that I don't feel depressed thinking about my useless old sixties Thunderbike, for which there is currently no decent race class. It is EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING !

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 23 May 2012 07:22:55 AM
Message:

John, I'm actually delighted that you are going down this path. I stopped racing regularly in the mid-seventies when Allpowers C grade ended up with Z1000 Kawasakis, H2 Kawasakis, RD350 Yamahas, and a few of us on old dungers. On my best day I led them for a lap with my 500cc Triumph,. It was a waste of effort and didn't mean anything. I love a good two stroke race, and I love to watch historic superbikes. But when they are combined in races with the old dungers, you get something which is like mid-seventies Allpowers C grade on steroids. I can do superbike, and I can do two stroke extremely well - why would I bother? - They are not the racing I want to do.
The Thunderbike class you might end up with would be great, and actually having a win in it would really mean something, because the other competitors have the same technology problems and costs as yourself. The races will look, sound, and smell right, and that also means something to me !

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 23 May 2012 07:32:20 AM
Message:

If you get this up and going, I'll use the $50 to get down to Broadford and back to see the first of your Thunderbike class races. And I'll add another $50 to buy a decent trophy for the over 500cc up to 1000cc final.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 23 May 2012 11:08:43 AM
Message:

Alan - a question - you've signed yourself 'sidecar 21', why are you interested in what might run in an extended Period 3 Solo race ?

Reply author: john
Replied on: 23 May 2012 11:40:09 AM
Message:

Alan, can you step back from the bar and let somebody else get a beer!
I race sidecars and I have an interest also.
Please dont challenge anybody having a comment. The plan also covers sidecar engines anyway.

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 23 May 2012 7:16:57 PM
Message:

Its OK John I am big enough to answe a sensible question. Forstly I see you didnt take either of us up on a bet.
My interest is and has always been Historic Racing but unlike you I dont have a personal agenda. For what its worth I am a purist along the lines of the NZ rule structure and the English VMCC structure. I have in the last 20 years raced many diferent bikes mostly in Period 3 and still have a couple of Log Booked bikes in my shed, its just that I prefer sidecars.
Now I will ask you some questions, why dont you stop your whinging and carrying on and either get out here your self or put someone on your bike who is capable of racing it. The other thing you might do seeing as you sem to have such good connections at Winton is to come up with a format for a race meeting, get a permit and run your own meeting the way you would like it run. In other words put your money where your mouth is and actually do something.

Sorry for going off subject John it wont happen again at least not on this particular score.

Alan Sidecar 21 and several solos #143

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 24 May 2012 05:02:54 AM
Message:

.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 24 May 2012 05:05:50 AM
Message:

It is very difficult to interest the management of Winton Motor Raceway in running an event for historic motorcycles these days.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 24 May 2012 08:02:57 AM
Message:

Well, it seems that we have established, in principle, that this could be a good way forward.
I would suggest that as the next step we try to identify as many as possible who might be interested in bringing out an otherwise unused bike for such an event.
I am quite happy to ring around the Melbourne area to canvass support and test the reactions.
Your thoughts?

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 24 May 2012 09:32:45 AM
Message:

I'm about to start compiling a register of competitor's who own Thunderbikes up to 1992 year of manufacture. I'll be collecting machine details, phone numbers and email addresses. And I'll see if I can establish a 'no reply email service' so that event information, and supp. regs. etc. can be circulated.
Perhaps we can coordinate our efforts ?

Reply author: john
Replied on: 24 May 2012 10:19:58 AM
Message:

I have been on Facebook and used a place there to encourage discussion. The idea of doing something with Yammy 650,s has arisen. I have pointed out the we can actually race almost anything from the period, in the case of yammy 650 maybe we will need to offer a trophy as we did with 836 cc sidecars it worked. People often jest about racing for blocks of wood, but history hs shown that to be the case.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 25 May 2012 05:30:23 AM
Message:

'I have pointed out the we can actually race almost anything from the period'

What period are you talking about ? Surely there are bikes using the same old technology in every period ? Why would you exclude a 1973 unit Triumph 750 or Norton Commando from an extended over 500cc Period 3 race? They are not going to go any faster than a pre-unit Triumph or Norton, and they make the same noises and look right. The idea to include Yamaha 650 twins sounds good to me, Trevor McKie has a very nice one with an American flat track frame - it's the same old garbage as any Brit twin. The only difference with the Yamaha is that you can make the motor much bigger and stagger the crankshaft, but even then they are still rubbish.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 25 May 2012 05:44:14 AM
Message:

The only way anyone could easily dominate the suggested extended race class, would be to use a four valve motor. Anything with a big Nourish/Weslake engine or similar should be excluded. But there is really nothing in aircooled singles twins and triples with two valves per cylinder, which could do what Rex does to Period 4 with the overbored CB750s

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 25 May 2012 06:25:13 AM
Message:

Which bike do you think would be the quicker ? :

This:

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac89/acotrel/pijano4010.jpg

Or this ? :

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac89/acotrel/P1010053.jpg

I suggest there is no difference ! One is as good as the other.

This is the same thing:

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac89/acotrel/mcycles014.jpg

And so is this:

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac89/acotrel/phoca_thumb_l_DSC_78922.jpg]

They all Thunderbikes, and fairly evenly matched. And none of them, except for the Period 3 bikes, get a decent ride.Any two stroke or superbike will absolutely cream them. Why would anyone bring out a Thunderbike of any period later than Period 3 ? That's why they stay at home in the garage, rotting.

The following is a video showing a range of Thunderbikes which could race in an extended class, if we were more flexible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzBOJp6i370

Reply author: john
Replied on: 25 May 2012 09:30:13 AM
Message:

Alan, you seem to be going around in circles. The suggestion will draw in later model Nortons and unit construction Triumphs.
That is the WHOLE proposal.
I believe you are confusing the issue.
Can I ask you shift Thunder bikes to another topic and leave some clear air for the original proposal.

There are too many unrelated comments in thsi section.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 25 May 2012 4:09:38 PM
Message:

I, too, am starting to get a bit confused as to where this is going and even more, where it is not going.
Surely it does not mean that only Nortons and Triumphs will be allowed in?
Or does it?
I think it should be open to ANY bike that is generally of the right type but just made a bit too late for P3 classification.
You see, someone forgot to tell all the manufacturers that they had to start using new technology after December 31st 1962 and many just carried on with what they were already doing.
If only they'd known what trouble they were going to cause.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 25 May 2012 6:10:24 PM
Message:

The proposal as defined right from the start is to allow machines which were in production before the arbitrary
cut off date, but cross over that date and essentially were similar, IE Unit / Pre Unit Construction and other machines which has minor changes in reality.

The confusion has been created by others wanting to spruke their own cause on top of an idea which may be seen as a simple improvement to the rules.

As I have said, we need to move careffully to get a result, but at the same time clubs like the HMRAV can choose to create variations that suit the club and potential entrants / racers.


So keep the thumper bike with 3 stroke, 5 cylinder donks as a separate issue.

The best way to get anywhere is to keep each idea separate, otherwise nothing will happen.
I can say I notice from discussion elsewhere, the HMRAV are going to look at some variations.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 26 May 2012 05:48:14 AM
Message:

'The proposal as defined right from the start is to allow machines which were in production before the arbitrary
cut off date, but cross over that date and essentially were similar, IE Unit / Pre Unit Construction and other machines which has minor changes in reality.'

Triumph 650s were not unit construction until 1963 !

http://www.classic-british-motorcycles.com/1962-triumph-bonneville.html

How is this a different motorcycle and why wouldn't you race it in the same class ?:

http://www.hemmings.com/hmn/stories/2007/01/01/hmn_feature19.html

What is the proposal ?

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 26 May 2012 05:57:37 AM
Message:

Note this comment from the link I've just posted:

LAST OF THE PRE-UNITS
The 1962 Triumph Bonneville marked the end of an age. It was the last non-unit construction motorcycle built by Triumph. Unit construction ushered in the modern age, or so it must have seemed at the time. Little did they know that just a few short years from then, the Japanese would flood the market with technologically advanced machinery the likes of which the world had never seen!

This whole discussion should be about technology ! ! ! When are we going to get really decent racing, instead of the current sham ?

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 26 May 2012 06:03:57 AM
Message:

What is this about ? :

'So keep the thumper bike with 3 stroke, 5 cylinder donks as a separate issue.'

Muddying the water ?
It looks like it is 'ground hog day' again ! Why should I waste my time with this rubbish, when Wakefield Park is four hours up the Hume Highway, and Terry O'Neill runs a Pro-Thunder class there.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 26 May 2012 5:55:46 PM
Message:

Settle down son, we're still in the discussion stage.
I reckon it should be open to any 4 stroke machine that uses the same technology as the period bikes did.
Basically air cooled single or twin cylinder 2 valve 4 strokes with tube frames and twin shock swing arms.
There are many that could benefit from being backdated so that they don't have to compete out of their depth.
It could be a combined class for period 3 and period 4 bikes that separates them from the 2 strokes and the superbikes.
Let's keep talking about it, if we do we might actually achieve something.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 27 May 2012 07:09:16 AM
Message:

I'm on a bit of an emotional roller coaster with this stuff. It has actually inspired me to start work on my bike again, but the next minute I get discouraged again by the thought that this might all be a false hope. I built the Norton in 1978, and never raced it, as I thought it would never be competitive in Allpowers C Grade. Historic racing was never an option for me , and when I actually did it in 2003, I pretty much regretted it. There is currently really no class in historics in which I can get a decent competitive ride on it without riding it like there is no tomorrow. I'm too old do do that idiocy these days.
I had a look at Winton yesterday, there were three bikes that would qualify as over 500cc Thunderbikes - two Period 3 Triumphs and a Vincent. There was not one Period 4 Thunderbike there - Norton or Triumph. However it was a rainy day, and they might have all been at home hiding in the garage. It sort of surprises me because the one time you are likely to win on one is when it is raining.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 28 May 2012 2:51:59 PM
Message:

John, at the Austin 7 meeting yesterday there were three old period 3 thunderbikes - a BSA, a Triumph and a Vincent, none from period 4. When I rode there in 2003/3 there were two of the same types of bike in the period 4 races, as my owm - Alan Lander's Hyde Harrier Triumph, and Trevor McKie's XS2 Yamaha. Before my race I pushed the Norton down the hill in the pits to start it, and ended up sitting in a chair for a half hour recovering from an angina attack. Since then I've had a double bypass op, three strokes and an op to clear my carotid artery. Do you think you'll have this extension to period 3 up and running before I die ? Surely it can't be too difficult to get the old four stroke twins and triples together on the one grid ? While you are stuffing around, time is running out !

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 28 May 2012 2:58:18 PM
Message:

You're a cheerful sod aren't you.
Put together a list of likely starters and I'll do a ring around to see if there is any interest.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 28 May 2012 3:21:14 PM
Message:

With respect Alan, I am not stuffing around.
We have just run a meeting and the next meeting is in Oactober.
TWe are carefully planing to mensure as many views are taken into account, even views that dont want this idea to go ahead.
At the same time the HMRAV are looking at options it can undertake.

Reply author: conker
Replied on: 28 May 2012 9:15:39 PM
Message:

I'd be really interested to know why anyone wouldn't want this idea to go ahead? Yesterday at Winton I saw 125cc two strokes gridded up with P3 500cc four strokes. And a TZ750 gridded up with a beautiful field of superbikes. If that is supposed to represent history, I'd like to know when it happened like that. There would have been at least 15 two strokes of various capacities and periods in the sheds, it would have been better to have them all in the same race, even if it required a staggered start for two groups.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 28 May 2012 9:46:44 PM
Message:

Look Al, it is surprising that people may have a different view to your own, but it is the case.

Some dont want to get beaten by them, others are happy with the cut offs and others think it is just too hard to organise.

Going back to winton, the HMRAV is not rying to replicate History at this meeting, its not possible because of the time constraints. This years we aimed at having machines of similar lap times on the track to ensure all grids were full. Its part of an experiment to get more people doing more laps and not getting lapped at 100kph in 3 laps

Reply author: Russ
Replied on: 29 May 2012 01:17:25 AM
Message:

To Conker,
TZ500 & 750's, Superbikes and Formula 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxzOmI2zat0

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 29 May 2012 08:43:39 AM
Message:

Russ, with all due respect that was 1980.
We are discussing the 1960s.

Reply author: Bummers
Replied on: 29 May 2012 09:21:57 AM
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by conker

I can get a decent competitive ride on it without riding it like there is no tomorrow. I'm too old do do that idiocy these days.

---

Reply author: john
Replied on: 29 May 2012 11:19:49 AM
Message:

Bummers, the bet is on for $50, so you can say more if you like.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 29 May 2012 3:12:22 PM
Message:

Just out of interest, the Classic Racing Motorcycle Club in the U.K., which seems to be the premier historic club up there, has their Classic period up to 1972 for 4 strokes and up to 1967 for 2 strokes.
Their Post Classic period is 1973 to 1986 for 4 strokes and 1968 to 1986 for 2 strokes.
This gives a far better spread of "similar" bikes than our periods do.
If we could adopt something similar we could possibly have many more 4 stroke bikes than we currently have.
Any thoughts on this idea?

Go to the CRMC web site and read Alan Cathcart's words under "About CRMC".
This will give you a good clue as to where I would like to see us go.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 30 May 2012 09:08:12 AM
Message:

Unfortunately one of our contributors to this subject has been banned from taking any further part in it.
Personally I find this very sad as there are precious few who will actually bother to express their opinions on this or any other site.
To my way of thinking active contributors are the backbone of any forum.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 30 May 2012 09:22:19 AM
Message:

Now I have questions to ask.
Who drew up the original concepts for historic racing?
What was the thinking that led to the period 3 cut off date that failed to recognise that the same type of bikes were still made after the cut off date?
At what point did the A.C.C.A./ M.A. get involved and produce rules that seem set in stone?
Can someone please enlighten me?

Reply author: john
Replied on: 30 May 2012 12:25:55 PM
Message:

Its my guess ask garth Rhodes or Dave Large from my club, the HMRAV.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 31 May 2012 4:21:13 PM
Message:

Thanks John, Garth is among the missing but I have left a message for him so hopefully I will hear from him soon.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 05 Jun 2012 1:58:09 PM
Message:

Well, after asking around and trying to resurrect memories it would seem that the original plans for historic racing were drawn up in the 70s with no input from the A.C.C.A.
It also seems that once the idea got going it was kidnapped by the A.C.C.A. (later to become M.A.) and thereafter claimed as their property with changes only permitted with their approval.
If this is true I suggest that after some 40 years it would not hurt to revise what we have and look at ways to improve things.
I was advised that the period 3 cut off date was set as 1962 as that was the last production year of the Manx Norton.
That probably seemed like a good idea at the time but it also seems like a very blinkered view. Norton was not the only company and England not the only country producing race bikes.
The world did not come to an end on December 31st 1962 just as it didn't on January 1st 2000 (though many thought it would).
I think it is time we reassessed the situation and I invite opinions of how we can open up our sport to encourage more to participate.
I particularly invite opinions from those who do not currently compete because..................?

Reply author: JasonL
Replied on: 05 Jun 2012 4:25:20 PM
Message:

The overriding question I have is, if we indeed went and changed all this to the proposed alternative view, would it really result in so many more bikes coming out??

Perhaps more pertinent is that topic already raised at our committee meetings by GC about comps for non-logbooked bikes. In my limited exposure, no-one ever tells me they don't want to race their bike becuase of the way the periods and classes are cut, but I get much more ambivalence about the need for log books and moreover, the restrictions, prohibitions and exclusions per period. It all boils down to the old argument about what historic racing is or should/could be - do you make it as authentic as possible - meaning more restrictions - or lessen eligibility criteria? There is no small irony that the big drawcards have been the P5 unlimiteds which are pretty far removed in some cases from those machines as they ran in the period. In practice, keeping old bikes running, even P6 stuff, needs some latitude, and doing so doesn't need to compromise authenticity to the point of irrelevance in a lot of cases.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 05 Jun 2012 5:25:30 PM
Message:

Jason, I see a big can of worms here.
Unfortunately what we race here is, by and large, a hotch potch of old bikes that generally have very little to do with the racing I knew in the 50s and 60s. Capacity classes were 125, 250, 350 and 500cc. Sometimes there were races for bigger bikes but these were not "proper" race bikes and were not taken seriously.
I really wonder about the value of log books and am inclined to think that they are of little value considering that they do not seem to relate to authenticity in any way.
I fear that they are just another layer of control imposed on us and it concerns me that those making decisions may not have the necessary knowledge to know what they are doing.
I believe that each club should deal with matters of eligibility depending on which area of the sport they wish to champion.
P.C.R.A. developed P6 racing and have now had it taken away from them.
I also believe that club racing should be as simple and unfettered as possible and that log books should only be required at national championship level, if at all.

Reply author: JasonL
Replied on: 05 Jun 2012 7:21:53 PM
Message:

"P.C.R.A. developed P6 racing and have now had it taken away from them."

Eh???

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 12:04:09 AM
Message:

John, I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest and would love to be in a position to challenge some of yours and the now banned ACs statements but I am not. What I would advise is for you to take off your blinkers and do some real research into the whys and wherefores of the decisions made over the years by well intentioned volunteers and then and only then put some submissions in to where it could get considered, being the Historic Road Race Commission. Rules do not get changed on websites.

Alan Sidecar 21 WA

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 08:13:00 AM
Message:

Alan, I am more than aware of where rules get changed and I am also aware of how hard it is to actually get anything changed.
It took years to get the drum brake rule relaxed to make such brakes more affordable.
The main problem is that because bikes are conveniently slotted into periods more often than not we get races where similar bikes are not in the same race
and are often in races in which they are not competitive.
This conversation started around unit and non unit construction Triumphs.
The fact that they are essentially the same bike is completely overlooked because under our rules year of manufacture separates them into different periods.
The racing would be better if the type of bike rather than the period determined which bikes raced together.
This is something the organising club could take on.
Cross period racing for similar bikes.

Alan, why are you not in a position to challenge anything I say?
This is a forum, a place where opinions can be aired.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 08:38:09 AM
Message:

Jason, did not P.C.R.A. formulate rules for, and champion New Era long before M.A. showed any interest?
Was I dreaming when M.A. took over and there were calls for submissions to make sure that M.A. came up with the right rules?
Now that it is called period 6 who has control?
I could be wrong, I am old and senility could be setting in.

Reply author: Historic
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 10:29:53 AM
Message:

I've avoided posting on this topic because it won't go anywhere, but it's getting a bit silly. Sorry this is going to be a bit long.

So here are some points you may wish to consider;
Log books are the best thing that has happened to historic racing. Before them with 'local' approval there was no consistency with what did and did not meet the rules. Now at least every bike competing in the country has been through the same system. Not perfect but much much better than each state, each club, each person deciding whats right.
For those not around before log books. There were ugly arguments in the pits, there were clubs, states openly referred to as cheats. Now it's all MA's fault much better.

The gents tasked with approving log books over the years have changed. But they have all been very experienced and dedicated. When left alone to do the job it's been 99.9% correct.

Log books at club level is a must. To have all historic meetings in the country at all levels playing by the same rules is so much better than a guy being allowed to run anything at a club meeting and spending money to do so being told he can't run at an open meeting or his state or Australian title because his bike isn't legal. Get it right at club level from the first meeting and nobody is hurt, everyone is on the same page.

The classes Mr Feakes referred to are still the classes in historic racing. To say the unlimited class was not taken seriously cannot be taken seriously - Bathurst ran an unlimited class that was run and won by some of the best and most respected racers of the day.

In respect to 'period' racing. Two, that's 2 people on this site constantly whine that it's not right. More than 2000 people have taken out logbooks and most(at some stage) compete quite happily in period racing. Historic racing is the most popular form of road racing in the country. The largest meetings, the biggest entries the most spectators of any motorcycle road racing. Can it really be that wrong.

Please stop trying to fix what is not broken. If you don't like it go do club 'run what you brung' meetings. Go round and round at track days, just stop trying to rewrite the winning formula.

Reply author: JasonL
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 1:39:05 PM
Message:

Well said and I agree 99.9% !!

John, MA did not "take over" P6 - it does not belong to PCRA or any other organisation. The happy coincidence that 2 active PCRA members are on the MA Historic committee simply meant that the inclusion of P6 - which would have happened anyway - was relatively straightforward. And yes there was a proper consultative process beforehand.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 1:50:45 PM
Message:

Listen you blokes, you are as bad as Cotheral. The topic is about machines close to the period dates but born too late. PS Can one of you email me, I have commission minutes to send around for Wednesdays meeting.
Thanks

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 06 Jun 2012 6:42:43 PM
Message:

Thanks John Daley,
I was just going to point out that the Commission Minutes are available on the MA website and some might find some interesting points amongst them.

Alan Sidecar 21 WA

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 09 Jun 2012 09:48:46 AM
Message:

Alan, I notice that your proposal to allow unit construction Triumphs into P3 wasn't rejected out of hand so there is hope.
Well done.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 11 Jun 2012 4:02:18 PM
Message:

Mr Historic I see that your parochial view has not changed.
We are not trying to fix something that is not broken, we are trying to improve what we have.
Open and constructive discussion might just lead to an improvement.
This discussion is primarily about allowing unit construction Triumph 650s to run as P3 bikes. Do you have an opinion on this?
Regards, John

Reply author: john
Replied on: 11 Jun 2012 4:42:00 PM
Message:

Trying to keep on topic, but also taking the opportunity to discuss log books, I must say, I agree with Mr Historic about their application and the benefits that have grown from their implementation.
Thats a no brainer.
But thsi topic is trying to stick nwith the matter of very similar machines built past the cut off date, but essentailly an "older bike".
I have had people ask "Can I have later model hot up gear fitted" ?
Obviously the answer is no, but maybe the bike can be.
A specific model is the triumph 500cc thyat is hopelessly outclassed in P4 that Max Hooper ran in P3 for a while. It looks the same except for the small differences and was no faster tahn anything on the track.but was built in about 1964 or 5.
I dont know anything about pommy bikes other than they leak oil, do big ends, cost heaps and need to be pushed home ruegulary. Also, they dont have electric starts, lights that work and carbies that last more than a few thousand miles, the pistons could be cast from milk bottle tops to keep them going when they damaged the pistons, and they sold chain kits to clamp the engine together when you got over 2300rpm. Apart from that I hear they are ok.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 12 Jun 2012 11:27:59 AM
Message:

I thank my learned friend for his discourse on the joys of owning British race bikes.
It does make me wonder.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 01 Jul 2012 1:30:31 PM
Message:

Sadly this subject seems to have died in the proverbial.
It reminds me of that chap in The Vicar of Dibley.
No no no no no no no.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 01 Jul 2012 8:52:56 PM
Message:

John F, it has not entirely died. My club the HMRAV, is going to implement a form of the proposal by incorporating "thunder " bikes in P4. It will provide for the sort of bikes currently not raced. I will present more details as soon as we sort it out.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 02 Jul 2012 07:45:00 AM
Message:

Good news apart from the P4 bit.
This is exactly where they could have been running for years but there aren't any.
Why is it so?

Reply author: john
Replied on: 02 Jul 2012 08:45:36 AM
Message:

The HMRAV did run a 750 Push rod class for some years about 6 years ago. The job of keeping tabs with it was on one person and they retired.
The HMRAV has decided to offer more trophies for the new bikes in an effort to entice them. I think the prevailing attitude was that blokes will race, you dont need to make a trophy available.
In hindsight I think, personally, the offer of trophies for 836 sidecars worked and now it may work for solos.
MInd you the solo racers now need to self promote

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 02 Jul 2012 10:26:29 PM
Message:

At the risk of upsetting your plan why wouldnt you support the proposal in the Historic Commission Minutes with any other suggestions you might have in expanding these thoughts and allow the other push rod engines into Period 3 which is where they would be better suited anyway. Without support none of these ideas will ever eventuate and find their way into the rule book. Its not just about engines, there are other proposal that include aftermarket frames etc but without support as I said nothing will happen.

Alan Sidecar 21 WA

Reply author: john
Replied on: 03 Jul 2012 08:53:58 AM
Message:

WE ARE SUPPORTING THE proposal, where does it say we are not?

In the mean time we are trying something different out to see if it draws more bikes.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 03 Jul 2012 09:38:19 AM
Message:

Alan, I am confused.
Which proposal is it that we are not supporting?

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 04 Jul 2012 7:18:45 PM
Message:

What I was alluding to is that you are drifting from including later bikes that are technically similar to existing Period 3 bikes into Period 3 and talking Period 4. Go back a half a dozen postings and you will see where I am coming from. My understanding was that you wanted to increase numbers in Period 3 without being outlandish with your thinking which is what my original suggestion was about. There was also some ideas from David White that havent even been discussed on here. So from where I sit as you are now talking about Period 4 and in other postings talking Thunderbikes you are losing your focus on the original intent of this particular thread.
Incidentally I admire your ongoing enthusiasm and recognise the huge amount of work you do in Victoria and only wish more would make a similar if not smaller contribution so the sport can progress to the level it should be at.

Alan Sidecar 21 WA

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 05 Jul 2012 09:18:54 AM
Message:

Alan, we actually have several ideas flying at the same time so apologies if it seemed we had lost the plot.
I have always had great difficulty accepting that dates meant more than technological development, perhaps because I lived through these dates and did not experience any ground shaking changes.
We recently had the lunatic fringe trying to convince us that the world would grind to a halt at midnight on Dec 31 1999.
To me there is no doubt that the change to unit construction was not a world shattering event and, of course, these bikes belong in the same era as the ones they replaced.
If we can concentrate more on the type of bike and less on the calendar we might be able to encourage more into our sport.
Sadly there seem to be some who's primary goal is to exclude.
Alan, we don't really know what David White's ideas were.
We get the results of the question but are left to guess what the question actually was.
Perhaps this can be improved so that we are in a better position to comment.
Regards, John

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 28 Jul 2012 11:08:43 AM
Message:

So has it been decided to let unit construction 650cc and 750cc Triumphs run in Historic Period 3 Unlimited yet ? Sounds like it would be at the discretion of the meeting organisers ?

Reply author: john
Replied on: 28 Jul 2012 3:42:38 PM
Message:

Al, it has not been decied as yet by MA.
The HMRAV has , since about 2001 been experimenting with different things anyway so thats not new. IE
Pushrod twins
836 sidecars
etc

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 30 Jul 2012 07:02:35 AM
Message:

I would have thought that MA would only need to provide a decision if the change was to apply to championships ? Does HMRAV run every race at every historic meeting they hold, to the championship rules? Perhaps we might be using the rules as a self-imposed straight jacket ? I believe meeting promoters have some choice in what classes they run, and what bikes are included in each class, except at championships where all the categories must be catered for and controlled.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 30 Jul 2012 10:02:28 AM
Message:

HMRAV does not run their meetings to the Chanp rules as I have stated many times. The club has a mixture of additional classes and runs FE 600 not 500 to suit the racers.
Can we stop thsi discussion now its been done I belive?

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 30 Jul 2012 1:15:31 PM
Message:

I see no problems with unit triumph's as long as "no" disc brakes~~
realy they only have shorter conrods and 10 stud heads..different oil pump!! 5 speed gear box..

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 31 Jul 2012 08:21:51 AM
Message:

It would be interesting to know how many Period 3 bikes are running 5 speed Triumph boxes. Also how many are running 6 speed TTI boxes. Plenty of pre-unit Triumphs are using Morgo oil pumps, and if you fit the neoprene seal to the end of the crank, the pre-unit pump is good enough anyway. A unit 650 or 750 Triumph is pretty much the same old garbage as the pre-unit 650, except that they can be made to handle almost as good as a Triton.
Brakes are a different issue. I would have thought that by this time, a single front disc would be permitted on Period 3 bikes. It would greatly reduce one of the major cost disincentives to running a bike in Period 3. If we really want new blood in historic racing, the $4000 front brake needed for Period 3 to be competitive, is a big turn-off.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 10 Aug 2012 5:24:03 PM
Message:

113 posts on this topic.
'as it was, so it ever shall be' ??
I was there and it wasn't like that.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 11 Aug 2012 07:53:16 AM
Message:

Alan, I think you should go back to your fantasy of Seeley Jawas. Produce 30 of them and organise 29 riders to your liking. I am sure that organisers will give you a spot for your Production race. Your fantasy will then become a reality and you will find happiness and joy. I know it will take a lot of time and money to achieve your goal but as the saying goes "The sooner you start, the sooner you finish". You will be busy to generate the funds for your fantasy and you will be busy working on the parts to make the bikes a reality and you will be busy to find jockeys to yor liking. I generally have little time to spend on Forums because it takes me a great deal of time to work towards my reality. Enjoy the journey. It can be very tedious I assure you. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 11 Aug 2012 09:00:26 AM
Message:

Dear Historic, I concur with yor Post at the top of page 4 (this page) It appears that various people want to run their existing bikes outside the respective Periods. They can move to later classes by changing a major component and or technology. I am currently building a P3 spec bike with a P5 engine to run in P5. It is NOT a problem with MA log book applications. For P3 a pre unit Triumph would have to be a better option than a unit Triumph with gearbox and clutch selection. A featherbed frame would have to be better than a unit construction frame. They did not call Ken Blake "Snake" for nothing when he rode the Jesser Triumph. I believe the Rules are quite reasonable as is. The Drum brake rule was changed for P3 to ANY drum brake up to 230mm so that competitors could use what they already had and yes that can create another can of worms. It does not matter what the rules are there are going to be people not being happy. Myself included. We just put our best foot forward and enter some Race meetings and enjoy our creations within the MA Rule Book. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 11 Aug 2012 10:01:57 AM
Message:

Alan, Just checked the Moto Veloci site and a 210mm Fontana replica double sided brake is 1380 Euro. At todays rates that converts to AU$1603 + Postage. I think it may be of similar size to the Jesser Triumph brake. It is somewhat shy of the $4000 you imagine to be paying. All the best Jerry

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 11 Aug 2012 1:09:27 PM
Message:

Jerry, we are not talking about running any bike in a later period.
What we are talking about is running bikes in an EARLIER period.
Bikes that, although built out of a period, offer little or no technical advantage over those built in a period but which are not competitive in the period that they are placed in.
This comes about because "periods" are precisely periods.
A 1946 Manx Norton is a very different bike to a 1962 Manx.
Only a masochist would try to compete on the 1946 model.
I know because I had one.
A DEATH TRAP IF EVER THERE WAS ONE, PRONE TO TANK SLAPPERS AT ANY MOMENT, USUALLY IN THE MOST INCONVENIENT PLACES.
There were major changes in technology which our "periods" fail to take into account.
The single greatest change was when the 2 strokes (aided by the F.I.M.) ousted the 4 strokes.
We completely refuse to acknowledge this fact.
The thrust of the argument is to have bikes of similar technology competing together regardless of year of manufacture.
Nobody told me in 1963 that I was not allowed to ride my Manx anymore, or that I had to buy a new bike because......................................1962 had ended.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 12 Aug 2012 08:15:34 AM
Message:

Dear John, I do understand about a later P4 bike going into P3. I do understand that there is NO technical advantage. I just ask the question WHY? If Kenny Blake could win the Australian TT at Surfers in 1969 and again at PI in 1970 on what we now call a P4 bike. Yes I understand that Ken was an exceptional rider but that is a BIG ingredient in a succesful package. The Kernich brothers Lee and Dave very succesfully campaigned a Triumph pre unit in the eighties. To be succesful they had put in some very clever and innovative engineering at what you can imagine was quite a bit of expense to help achieve their goals. I still would like to think that we pick the machinery we race because we have some sort of affinity to them and then put the work into them to make them shine. I understand that a 700 class was tried to bring out the 650 bikes with little success. I personally feel the same applies with this proposal. Anyone for a Moto Guzzi Le Mans with drum brakes 1000cc pushrod twin. Maybe a later model BMW pushrod twin aircooled with drum brakes. Same technology. I do think that it will just end up opening a can of worms. All the best Jerry

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 12 Aug 2012 08:20:09 AM
Message:

Dear John, I should have said "Another can of worms", The existing can is more than enough to try and cope with. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 12 Aug 2012 08:56:36 AM
Message:

Dear Jerry, it is all about trying to encourage more bikes to come out to play.
It may not work but we will never know if we don't give it a try.
We do know that there are bikes hidden away that never come out.
Not everyone has the time, skill, dedication and money to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but there may be some who would just like to enjoy a ride.
Only time will tell.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 12 Aug 2012 09:13:44 AM
Message:

Dear John, As said before I do understand. there is not an easy answer. Economic times are tough and racing is not cheap. There are a lot of us enthusiasts who are either close to retirement or retired and funds will only go so far. As you well know even economically speaking we are not living in a level playing field. I do NOT have the answers but as said to you before in conversations past Keith Duckworth passed the statement that Rule changes were the greatest expense in racing if one wanted to stay competitive. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 13 Aug 2012 07:30:35 AM
Message:

Jerry,
Why does a simple thing like motorcycle road racing have to be so complex and political ? We tie ourselves up in eligibilty rules for no good reason, and it is a great big turn-off.
'The best rules is no rules'. A while back there was a class called 'supermono' for single cylinder four strokes. There were no rules except about the motor being that type. It was extremely popular, except that the winners were all running big motors up to 700cc. So to do any good and justify your entry fees, you had to have the big motor. Up until the mid sixties, manx Nortons and G50s were highly developed and reliable - maximum capacity was 500cc. Supermono collapsed when the big motors blew up regularly, so now those old bikes are rotting in sheds. It is not rocket science to apply one rule to such a class - the motors must be aircooled two valve aircooled four stroke 500cc max capacity - and leave the rest alone - no more rules than that. Such a class could replace Period 3 500s, and we'd get the bikes of that type from all periods being eligible to race each other. The situation would still be that very few bikes would beat a Molnar Manx.
As far as machine authenticity of historically valuable bikes is concerned, there should be different incentives to preserve that.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 13 Aug 2012 11:42:15 AM
Message:

Dear all concerned, Had a look at PI lap records. Classic Unlimited a bit behind 2 of the 3 later unlimited classes but over a second quicker than 500 Classic and Post Classic. Between Unlimited Post Classic (1300cc) and Period 6 unlimited (1000cc) they are not far apart (.9sec) Come to your own conclusions. I do understand that there can be a huge difference between the fastest and slowest bike and rider combination in any fild. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: link
Replied on: 17 Aug 2012 11:41:10 PM
Message:

Hi I dont add to this site regularly and have read all the unit triumph no advantage stuff. Does it look like a 1962 triumph NO. was it available in 62 No. Why would someone want to run a unit unless they were better than a pre unit?(which they are) why not allow 10 stud heads also that look nothing like an 8 stud. Why would rule makers consider allowing a 1970 odd triumph compete in pre 62 races when a z900 which is eligible for p4 is banned? why does a factory rg500 have to race unlimited in p5 instead of 500? The rules were set up and have been in place a long time. It seems now to get things approved that are not leagle all you have to do is say OH IT WILL GET MORE BIKES ON THE GRID and its approved. The bikes that ran in the day should look and be of the day. I have a manx 62 triton pre unit and it would have been really competitive 10 years ago, now it will sit in my shed forever as it is a proper classic meaning under the new RULES so nicely modified to add more bikes to the grid(by people with more money than me), the std manx 8" tls brake will not be as good as the any drum rule now allowed, so someone with plenty of cash will rock up with some massive non period front wheel and alls fine. The 5 speed cluster which fits in the pre unit box is not competitive against a 6 speed. There seems to be more about lets start this new class and that new class instead of questioning why there are so many classic race bikes sitting in sheds unused. At the moment I know of at least 10 bikes near me owned by friends and xracers all wont be out again unless things change.I also feel the one trophy for a weekend of racing is a total joke, it used to be fun to race and maybe get a third, now unless you can get 3rd in four legs you get stuff all and most old bikes wont do 4 legs unless they are massive dollar builds with trick rods, cranks, g/boxes etc. I returned to racing after 10 years off for the vic titles this year.I won 2 races and a third on one bike and a 3rd on my second bike, after that meeting I felt totally ripped off no trophies no nothing not even a 50c school ribbon. I have been around the hmrav and classic racing since 7 years old and my father also raced 20+ years, he has all his race bikes at home also but after seeing the meeting he was not inspired to come out racing as I had hoped but thought whats the point unless he spends $10,000 to get a third. I am now thinking maybe I should return to racing as planned but join hartwell and do club days at least they reward a hard earned third place for each race and I can buy a cbr900 for $2000 off ebay and race all day, 5 times a year.I dont want to piss on about trophies or ribbons but they are a small cost and add a lot to a normally 4th place riders day if someone stops in one race and he suddenly gets a 3rd ribbon. I am probably way off the triumph thread but anyone can build a pre unit and race a 62 triumph in p3 we are already allowed 9 stud heads and they look correct for the period as pre unit, all parts are available why consider allowing a unit? I was also wondering whats the point of log books when only a few bikes at the whole meeting represented their period LOOK I would not pass 70% of what I saw, but I guess a unit triumph looks as p3 as some of the other joke period bikes, so they will be allowed soon enough. Hope people dont get annoyed and it is MY opinion based on a return to racing and recent discussions on eligibility after 10 years away from the scene. Link

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 18 Aug 2012 08:58:08 AM
Message:

Link, you seem like a very unhappy man.
This is supposed to be enjoyable.
You have gone to great length telling us about your unhappy state, so I have to ask what would make you happy?
So far nothing has changed, we are only talking about possibilities.
It is not the end of the world.
Please be constructive.
Apart from wanting a trophy, what else would you like to see happen?

Reply author: link
Replied on: 18 Aug 2012 11:50:25 PM
Message:

Hi I wasnt unhappy and its great to race again.The effort that the organisers go to is amazing to put a meeting together. I hate to see classic racing die and when I first saw them there were hand change belt drive bikes racing around, it was fantastic, those classes are now basically dead. The come back after 10 years really made me sad as there was very little in the way of p3 ad p4 bikes. I feel they will die out if nothing is worked out to cut costs that was the point I was trying to make not that I was unhappy about trophies.However I would rather find an extra $5.00 for a ribbon in each race for each class in my entry fee. Maybe I am alone in this view but I think a lot of guys especially interstate riders would like to remember the meeting they raced in. Also the grids were progressive in the sup regs meaning you would be moved forward over the course of the weekend based on finish results, at riders briefing this was changed to qualify straight up sat morning and wear it all weekend, this also didnt sit well with my interstate friend as he had never seen the track and said he should have done friday practice to learn the track. Thats fine but it adds another $150.00 to and already expensive trip from nsw.I dont have time to help planning meeting or be on commitee which is why I havent posted before(guilty feeling). I really didnt want to piss any one off or winge about anything but wanted to highlight the possible reason bikes are in sheds instead of on the track. I hope it all comes across ok but text seems to be interpreted different by readers.I think a change to unit triumphs will mean the few very fast proper pre units will again be back to the drawing board with lots of money to be spent to keep up with a unit which is totally not what a 62 triumph looked like. Link

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 19 Aug 2012 04:25:49 AM
Message:

Link, I don't really believe you are hard done by - you've had your wins. To claim that a unit Triumph is better than pre-unit, might not stand up. I was racing a 500cc Triton in the late sixties, mainly against Russell King who has still got his 650cc Triton - could never convincingly beat him. There were two guys - Les Ayton and Keith Ashmore who had unit Bonnevilles. They always finished in front of us, but they always had their backsides hanging out to do it. Most Period 3 Triumphs these days use featherbed frames, NOT standard Triumph ones. The advantage the unit Triumphs had was more modern steering geometry with about 26 degree head angle and short offset forks. Most replica featherbed frames use this geometry these days. Their crankcases might also last a bit longer when raced. But seriously, there is nothing in it. Your Triton can accomodate a 6 speed TTI box, you cannot do that easily with a unit construction Triumph.
Anyway if we are really being historic, the Jesser Triumph ran nitro when Blake was on it - that fixes all the differences.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 19 Aug 2012 04:33:09 AM
Message:

Incidentally Keith Ashmore still has his Bonnevilles, and hasn't raced for years, but still rides on the road. He used to be a bl00dy good rider - With the change of rules - who knows?
Les Ayton rode Barry Oliver's 350 manx in historic races for a while in the 80s using a dash of nitro, but I believe he had a bad crash and is not likely to try again.
When Pickard and Lord started this garbage in 1973, they didn't really know who was who, - it was all over the fence stuff. People like the Bonney Boys were excluded under their stupid historic rules and left behind.
Unit Triumphs should have neen included in Period 3, right from the start. What we lost because of the idiot rules was valuable.
Have a talk to Derek Pickard sometime - he will tell you all about it - he's an expert.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 19 Aug 2012 04:55:32 AM
Message:

October 1973:
The first ever historic race in Victoria was organised by Derek Pickard and Peter Lord of the Velocette owners' Club. I am the bloke with his bum on the seat accelerating away while the rest are still all pushing !



The guy nearest the camera is Steve Oszko with the most developed Manx in Victoria. He was Ron Toombs's main rival. The bike was sold to Wayne Rainey's father. Steve had bought it from Noel Mercer who'd bought it from Jack Ahearn. It had the trick bits in it.
Others are Strawb Thompson, Richard Bendell, and Russell King (obscured).
Of all the guys on that grid Steve Oszko was the only real racer. He got into A grade by winning the 350 B grade at Bathurst in about 1961. - You had to be serious to achieve that. His lap time around the short circuit at Winton was about 61.3 seconds - try that with a 500cc single some time.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 19 Aug 2012 08:08:38 AM
Message:

Link, I am surprised that the meeting you refer to imposed qualifying time throughout the meeting.
That is something that should be taken up with the organising club.
I will offer my support, progressive grids should apply.
Which meeting was it?

Something has gone wrong with this message panel.
It has turned into a (too) wide screen version.

Reply author: link
Replied on: 21 Aug 2012 10:05:41 PM
Message:

Hi Guys I dont have a big problem with unit triumphs if it is in the spirit of the class but everyone seems to use every loophole they can find and I think someone will come out with a massive dollar unit and kick ****. The problem I have after coming back after so long is the bikes dont represent their periods very well, hence what is a log book even for. P5 was pretty bad and p4 not a lot better. I do love the quality of the bikes but photos of 72 race bikes and 82 race bike dont match the bikes racing at all. I dont think a unit triumph looks 62 either. I think maybe we need to think outside the moving p4 triumphs into p3 and maybe change to a rule of petrol and 120 rear tyre ROAD LEGAL or controlled and cheap or something like that and then 1300cc and massive hp is a bit knocked on the head, and it may bring racing costs down and could be run as a class within a class. At the moment i am trying to find second hand race avons just to get to the southern classic when we used to get a year or two out of tyres for a lot less. In all honesty it is cheaper for me to pull out my superbike and buy new slicks a few times a year rather than a set of avons. Classic racing was never cheap but now it is far more than modern classes so no new people will come out. P5 is huge dollars now and lots are jumping to p6, how can we keep the costs in check, thats all I see saving the great classes (p3 and p4 especially). Link

Reply author: link
Replied on: 21 Aug 2012 11:13:36 PM
Message:

I love the photo it is a true 60's photo, someone had money for a double sider though and would have been the envy of many a rider I am sure. I would love for the grids to look like that again but money and museums may win out. Do you think a unit triumph will look like these bikes? Do you think unit triumphs will save p3? I am interested as I have only seen a few in p4 even in the hey day and they had rear disc and seeley frames. Perhaps there are more around I have never seen but I think a lot of people would have to build one rather than have it laying in the shed. Are we allowing 900 Nortons also as I do like them. But then again a 650 yam is not that much different exept ohc so if we rev limit them they should be allowed also. I cant see where this will stop unless its triumphs only we are considering which seems a bit unfair on a lot of other guys who dont want to race against a kw honda and have built good p4 bikes now wasting in sheds. Link

Reply author: john
Replied on: 22 Aug 2012 9:53:35 PM
Message:

Link, firstly,this proposal is not about changing the rules or making rules for people with money.
It simply means a trophy will be offered for bikes to race against each other which would not normally turn up, and may straddle the cut off dates for the period.

The second part of the idea is that the HMRAV has decided to see if there is support for an "Historic Thunderbike race", and it simply means again, no tricks, log booked bikes that normally dont race coming back and racing against similar bikes, all of whom would be swamped by Honda Fours etc..

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 23 Aug 2012 07:23:12 AM
Message:

Link, the double sider you noticed was on Steve Oszko's 500 Manx. I watched him drill the spoke holes in the casting, when he and Noel Mercer were living in Snowden Avenue, South Caulfield in 1961. If you wanted the brake, in those days you made it. If you remember, a piston for a manx cost about 25 pounds, and a sodium filled exhaust valve was fifteen pounds - we were earning about fifteen pounds a week, in those days. ( Sorry, you probably weren't even a lustful thought back then ! )
Let's be frank about unit triumphs - they are garbage. The only one ever worth bothering with was the late 70s 650cc thunderbird which had the short stroke crank. You could spend $5000 on the motor and still only gain a couple of horsepower. A pre-unit triumph has the advantage of a separate gearbox - you can easily fit a CR six speeder - a much better way to go. What you are talking about is a 'thunderbike', it uses the old two valve technology - there is just so much you can do, then you hit the wall.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 23 Aug 2012 07:29:19 AM
Message:

John, I believe we are making progress when we run unit and pre-unit triumphs together. They are the same old rubbish, just look a bit different. I cannot think of even one good reason that they shouldn't race together. In fact, if I had the choice, I'd probably stick with a pre-unit featherbed bike. If you chuck a primary chain on a unit motor, you can shag the crankcases. In the mid sixties, the two types raced together anyway, and the two strokes made them look stupid.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 23 Aug 2012 07:34:55 AM
Message:

Alan, What wall is that? I might learn some things here about "Thunderbikes" from you. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 23 Aug 2012 07:58:21 AM
Message:

Link, I believe the 'Seeley' framed unit Triumph you refer to, is Alan Landers's bike. The frame is actually a 70s Hyde Harrier copy which was one of 12 made by Ray Bann for Sharp at Dandenong. MA refused to logbook it, so he stopped racing it. (I raced against it in 2003 ) It had a four valve Rickman head and barrel. There is no advantage in that. Most four valve heads give about a 10% increase in power over two valve heads on the same motor. The Rickman head didn't ever seem to deliver - Rod Tingate used one in the early sixties, the bike didn't go any faster.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 23 Aug 2012 08:16:29 AM
Message:

Jerry, There is just so much you can do to a single or twin cylinder two valve aircooled four stroke motor. If you really want one to go fast, you just buy a Paton, because that is where you will end up. My Norton motor is really crude, but it is still fast. Even if I spent $5000 on the motor, all I would probably get for my money would be a slight increase in usable revs, and less likelihood of blow-ups. The simple fact is that with a good close box, the bike is fast enough to win, if it has someone on it who doesn't mind getting hurt now and then.
These days you can buy light pistons and longer rods for about $1500, there is probably a bit of acceleration to be had. The biggest bore size achievable without Steve Maney barrels and crankcases gives 920cc. If you use hotter cams you end up moving the power band up too high, so looking for more torque is the way to go. As it is I am using the combat cam which used to blow up the 750cc motors. I've advanced it 15 degrees and used a two into one exhaust - the error fixes the error, and the motor is quick enough. With close box, it spins up very quickly - I always try to change lower than 7,000 revs - it always reaches 7,500 rpm. The overall gearing was too high for the four speed box I was using - I couldn't get it off the line. I've changed the gearbox, and I'll be trying it at Winton day after tomorrow.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 23 Aug 2012 08:34:02 AM
Message:

Alan, There is also just so much one can do to a 4 valve. I still would like to learn about this wall that appears to inhibit performance of a 2 valve. All the best Jerry

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 24 Aug 2012 02:06:57 AM
Message:

Jerry, 'the wall' is often known as 'the law of diminishing returns'. After you've made everything in the motor from titanium, and ceramic and teflon coated the relevant bits, played with the cams and ports. Made the stronger crankcases, and upped the max revs. You can keep spending money - but what do you spend it on ? There is only so far that you can go developing the old designs. With my Norton, the answer is the Weslake motor, which is what it should have been from the beginning.
With the thunderbike thing, someone playing with a 900cc Ducati might have some perceived advantage, but the cost of getting it to go fast and keep going would be horrific once you got past the basics.
There has only been one aircooled ducati which was four valve. It was the one that Bob Brown put Magee on, in the early eighties. Any thunderbike class should be limited to two valve and aircooled engines. That is the old technology which was used until about 1980 when four valve and water cooled engines were used on four strokes. If you think you can use that old technology and beat the two strokes and modern four cylinder superbikes, you are kidding yourself and it would be an expensive exercise finding that out. All this stuff about 'periods' is unnecessary bullsh1t, if we run the same types of bike together based on the technology used. Tue only reason fot the 'period' idea, is about authenticity, and that has never been achieved in our version of historic racing.
As it is, every race these days - historic or modern- has a grid of bikes of mixed technologies, and the racing is crap. Look back even only 12 years and remember that moderns racing was nearly all two strokes, and it was beautiful. I believe we will never see that again. It will only be four cylinder, watercooled four strokes from now on.- BORING !
My feeling is that classic racing should move towards a constructors' class using 500cc Jawa four valve speedway engines, and the SEAR engine. We now have the TTI gearboxes and replica Seeley frames. The bikes would be super light, nimble, and powerful.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 24 Aug 2012 02:15:06 AM
Message:

The SEAR engine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=F6XmA_UybQg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQv_u_OkLX8&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy-Slk82EXk&feature=relmfu

enjoy !

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 24 Aug 2012 07:56:28 AM
Message:

Alan, Pertaining to US competing in OUR class of racing using the Australian MOMS I believe that you as I are involved with P3 and P4 class of racing. You, I and Rex and so many of us are stuck with this "The wall" 2 valve technology. It was used in the ERA. There is NOTHING stopping you putting a 4 valve Jawa or any other engine in your bike. You just run with thr RULE book and Log book it for the appropriate class. Your problems are then solved with YOU riding the bike of your choice. From my understanding if I had your bike as is I would have to run in P4 unlimited against other " The Wall" 2 valve technology motorcycles. I believe a 2 valve pushrod old technology 4 stroke twin holds the P4 unlimited lap record at PI. What is the problem? All the best Jerry

Reply author: 76degree-triumph
Replied on: 24 Aug 2012 11:17:16 PM
Message:

Hi Link, your attitude towards classic racing is a breath of fresh air. A couple of points are left of centre, but overall it is great to have someone fresh on this site that actually has come back to racing after a lapse. And folks here should re-read his posts.
Dont take a few blokes on this site too seriously. They dont/wont race anymore and have not for years. The older they are the faster they went. Just ask them, some even post pics.
Desk racers have stuffed this website with their "constructive" posts but none of them actually participate in classic racing or contribute their time to run a meeting. Typing from a distance is sadly their only claim to what they did 35 years ago.
I hope you enjoy your return to classic racing, it is for fun, family, sound, smell, and company!
Cheers, Chris Large.

Reply author: 76degree-triumph
Replied on: 24 Aug 2012 11:27:47 PM
Message:

Let's be frank about unit triumphs - they are garbage. The only one ever worth bothering with was the late 70s 650cc thunderbird which had the short stroke crank. You could spend $5000 on the motor and still only gain a couple of horsepower. A pre-unit triumph has the advantage of a separate gearbox - you can easily fit a CR six speeder - a much better way to go. What you are talking about is a 'thunderbike', it uses the old two valve technology - there is just so much you can do, then you hit the wall.

<Edited by Admin>: Part of post removed due to not in the spirt of the website

Chris Large.

Reply author: link
Replied on: 25 Aug 2012 12:26:06 AM
Message:

Hi all I was going to delete my post as I was seeing a lot of negative replies but I will leave them up and hopefully some unit triumph guys will give some commitments to bring out their old bikes. I think a class within a class which has now come to light is a great idea and could run in a race with very few entries( saving that class) Maybe unit guys could pass the hat and sponsor a thunderbikes class. I raced against Alan Landers and think last i saw his bike it had a triumph head and was one of the real p4 looking bikes therefore I would happily fight for him to be approved for p4. I remember a class for bears which catered for a lot of these bikes but it also has died. I would be rapped to see another class within a class but the forum started as p4 unit triumph in p3. Has that now changed to thunderbike class run within an existing race. Jerry if you get bored would you have a look at my pre unit for me, I have raced against some of your other creations and had my **** kicked(probably more the rider also). Chris thanks for some support and thanks to your family over the years for helping with meetings and all the after hours stuff. It does get noticed of not recognised very often. I remember Dave Large lending triumph parts to my dad,though he probably wouldnt remember(for the motor I now have)to see the weekend out in the early 90's that is what the classic race scene was and could be again. Thanks Link

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 25 Aug 2012 07:35:56 AM
Message:

Dear Link, You make a good point regarding the jockeys. I have been VERY lucky to have some VERY good jockeys on my bikes. It is interesting to see that at the Manx this year that Ollie Linsdell is currently fastest in practice for the Classic Senior on a 500 pushrod Royal Enfield engined bike. fastest lap yesterday 106.47. Not bad for the OLD technology. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 26 Aug 2012 03:58:35 AM
Message:

Link, Alan Landers had a shot at me, as he thought I was responsible for introducing log books which stuffed up his racing. I loved racing against him. His bike was substantially the same old garbage as my own. I don't care that his Triumph is really Period 5 - the 'period' crap is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with racing.
Jerry, back 'in the era' the biggest CB750s used CB450 pistons and were 836cc. There was even one genuine CR750 raced by Bill Patterson Motors - it was pretty useless. The biggest Commando is limited to 920cc, unless you spend heaps, and stress the design to the max - they won't cop it ! How many commandos and unit triumphs and BSAs now race in Period 4 , except in dumb sidecar handicap races ? Is there class domination ? The rules on capacity oversizes are f*cked.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 26 Aug 2012 04:02:55 AM
Message:

Chris Large, both you and Dave were around in 1973 - you are not in the photo ?

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 26 Aug 2012 06:33:40 AM
Message:

Gee Alan, And here I thought that racing was about being the first across the line running within the rule book. I now learn that that is a secondary matter and that capacity is the piece of magic required to achieve mine is best on the day. Are you saying that when I have seen a smaller than 1300cc capacity bike take out an Unlimited race that it has been an illusion. I still remember Bill Horsman telling me that his 500 Manx had to be sealed after taking out an Unlimited race just in case it was over 1300cc. If you look through Natsoft Timing results 2010 "Barry Sheene" at Eastern Creek look for Event 27 and look at what Paul Dobbs was riding and his fastest lap time (1:43.8). Not too shabby for a Norton twin or any other bike and rider. Also ahead of the Honda fours. Look at HISTORY of race meetings,bikes,riders and lap times and you may get an idea of what your Combination of bike and rider could be capable of. If you are NOT getting the results you want then look at what is required to be done to both the bike and jockey. All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 27 Aug 2012 05:57:49 AM
Message:

Jerry, I've only seen one really decent commando based bike in recent times. It was at the Bonanza this year. I've never seen it race, nor have I seen the three Rob North triple BSAs (also there), racing. After my efforts at Winton on saturday, I'm now convinced I will have to ride at the next Austin 7 meeting. After I've sorted the new gearbox, I should be able to get decent starts. Last time I rode in a period 4 race, I couldn't get the bike off the line. The box was 4 speed CR, and first was way too high, but it had to be because the bike was perfect everywhere else. In one race I got the poor start, and still turned under the leaders at turn two, popped a fuel line, and stopped. It is worth having another go. When I was a kid 'back in the era' we had push starts, and I could always blitz them off the line. These days I'm too old for that pushing bullsh1t and I'm grateful for the clutch start, but if you only have the old style CR box, it presents a problem. I believe I have fixed that.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 27 Aug 2012 06:24:41 AM
Message:

Alan, Firstly a big CONGRATULATIONS from all of us for being on the track. Go and concentrate on what you are doing and get the best out of what you have. You will get a hell of a lot more satisfaction out of DOING that than worrying about others. At least you are DOING what others should be. GOOD on you and enjoy the ride and go and have many more. Life is too short as it is. All the best Jerry

Reply author: tasman
Replied on: 27 Aug 2012 7:48:12 PM
Message:

Well done Alan

Reply author: link
Replied on: 27 Aug 2012 9:55:17 PM
Message:

Hi Alan cool for doing the austin meeting. I remember watching my dads helmet come off after a car dumped heaps of oil and cracked his skull in a few places. He is as normal or not normal as he ever was now but I cant bring myself to do that meeting after seeing that and now have my own kids. The period 4 this year was won by a 650 yam if I read results properly and I have seen some bikes come out I never thought would win unlimited p4 eg. Bmw, a Ducati (which everyone says handles great bit I am waiting for someone to give me one to race) and now the Yam. I think built right a norton could kill the p4'S I have seen as it would have such a weight advantage. I have reread some of the unit triumph no better stuff and have these reasons I would rather run one(except I have a preunit and no money). I cant RH shift being born 73 maybe or jumping from class to class and bike to bike I really struggle to adapt quickly.I have tried lots of rods linkages etc but they are never very good. A unit can easy run LH shift. A unit has better everything really and doesnt rip the box out of the plates which my pre unit has done before. Units were a lot better than pre units although not enough changed to save triumph, they lasted a lot of years and had a lot of things fixed that were really **** on a pre unit, they sort of were the last remaining british bike. I have alloy nikasil barrel and lots of other bits that people used in the later years of the unit to make a good twin and a lot was good stuff, all siting under my bench, which is probably a waste but anyway. I still feel units can run against other p4 bikes competitively if the class was made a bit friendlier to lower budget bikes but within p4. I think a lot of the bikes people build or already have would look more like a 72 race bike than the current wining bikes. I would like to see your bike and have a chat if you get to the southern classic and would like you to have a look at my bike, it is unchanged from 10 or more years ago and I think looks pretty p4(except the dash) but it is a 2 stroke so dont crusify me too much for that .I wont have the triumph there and still wonder if there is any point getting a log book for it. I would like to see alan back but 10 stud head is all I could allow really to fit in the class and it would still go good.All the best Link .

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 28 Aug 2012 2:01:53 PM
Message:

Link, with the wonders of modern technology, I can at least show you a photo:



Jerry please find me some Ducati 900s to race against ! I've got zero interest in two strokes and superbikes. It actually matters to me what is on the grid beside me. When I was a kid I had 12 years of Allpowers C Grade - enough is enough !

I'm off now to fight with the chains and sprockets again.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 28 Aug 2012 2:23:12 PM
Message:

Link, this bit of video was taken in 1984. It was the only occasion that Russell King ran his Triumph in an historic race. He let Curley ride it. He still has it, a featherbed 650, motor based on developing torque - has never been revved over 6,300 rpm. It would take a really good unit Triumph to beat it. I rode it at Calder years ago and blew off a good H2 fitted with chambers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbnGGl3m4KY

He is an ugly beggar:

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 28 Aug 2012 3:09:31 PM
Message:

Link, We have all raced with little money. The easy way to compete with the good triumphs is to use an A10 BSA frame with unit Triumph fork yokes. Make your own engine plates and get the motor as far forward as possible. You still have to find a brake and a five speed box, but the frame shouldn't be very expensive. I saw one in Wangaratta about 5 years ago for $300. If you can find a Jawa two valve engine, that would be a better way to go. Old British bikes are designed to drive us insane. At least you would be starting with a racing motor.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 28 Aug 2012 4:08:51 PM
Message:

alan, Nice bike. Personally I dont give a damn if we are racing 2 strokes. I just run 4 strokes. All the best Jerry

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 29 Aug 2012 07:02:07 AM
Message:

Jerry, let's be realistic. If we were to race for sheep stations, a good two stroke on alcohol is always the way to go. I built a fast one years ago, but it wasn't what I wanted to ride. I've just sold of a really good TZ350g to buy the gearbox for the Seeley. I would have had to run it in period 5 with the superbikes - silly stuff ! I would have loved to have ridden it in a two stroke race against all the others we now have racing. A period 4 two stroke on methanol would be as quick as it, and most of the period 6 two strokes were 250s. My Norton could not live with a well prepared period 6 250 two stroke with someone good on it. - Why would you run the race ? - Hope the opposition have seizures ?
I made the decision to race the bike I love to ride, but the mixed grid sh1ts me.
Jason and his mates want to run period 6 superbikes - why not run them off a superbike grid with Superbikes of all periods together? It couldn't be any sillier than it is right now. There would be minor disadvantages due to tyre sizes, but at least our races would look and sound right, and they'd probably pull a crowd to meetings.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 29 Aug 2012 07:14:51 AM
Message:

Jerry, One really good thing - at least I'm a bit enthused again. If the Thunderbike class happens, I will love it. As you get older the hardest thing is to keep the urge going. I've only ever raced in historic races a few times, and like some others I could mention, I have never been inspired by it. In about 1973, blokes like myself with old four strokes used to race in Allpowers C grade against Z900s RD350s and H1 and H2 kawasakis - the racing was bearable but still silly. What I really want to do before I die is race against the air cooled ducatis and any other old two valve four strokes - no two strokes or superbikes involved. We would have a ball.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 29 Aug 2012 07:34:51 AM
Message:

Alan, You and I are both old enough to realise that we live in a far from perfect world. Some of the stuff that goes on absolutely beggers belief. Believe me that I am not happy with quite a few aspects of our time on the tracks. For me personally I enjoy a ride day or test day a hell of a lot more than a major meeting regardless of results. Stay enthused, enjoy the moment and when your the time comes dont have regrets about "if only" All the best Jerry Kooistra

Reply author: keith campbell
Replied on: 29 Aug 2012 5:23:57 PM
Message:

why do i have to scroll sideways to read the text nowadays???
i dunno.....
Get out there Alan, seeya at Broadford with a big smile onya dial.
Cheers, Keith.

Reply author: Patrick
Replied on: 29 Aug 2012 7:03:16 PM
Message:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry

I just run 4 strokes. All the best Jerry

---

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 30 Aug 2012 02:52:36 AM
Message:

I will see you at Winton, Keith - not Broadford. I'd be happier back at Mount Gambier on the non-skid that used to be there. I think the Seeley still has a few handling tricks waiting to grab me, and there is a lot of variety at Broadford. The bike self-steers through corners a lot, in the right direction under power, and it doesn't hang about.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 30 Aug 2012 03:15:25 AM
Message:

Patrick, a lot of the two stroke noise is due to the way the guys have ported the barrel. If the top edge of the exhaust is really flat with no angle upward towards the plug, the motor will always give a sharp crack on every stroke. The bike doesn't go any faster for it, and it is very irritating. It is possible for two strokes to be fairly quiet. I really like two strokes, they can be cheap and fast, and handle will. But I know they are not what I want to ride, even though they can give excellent racing. My other bike is a two stroke, but I've lost enthusiasm for it for the present. I will complete it one day.
600cc, TZ750 porting, Egli frame :

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 30 Aug 2012 08:29:05 AM
Message:

[quote]Originally posted by keith campbell

why do i have to scroll sideways to read the text nowadays???
i dunno.....

Keith, I'm with you.
I think it may have a hangover.
See you at Broadford.

Reply author: link
Replied on: 01 Sep 2012 12:19:55 AM
Message:

Hi Alan I like the norton but it doesnt look at all like the p3 photo you had earlier. I see there is thunderbike listed with over 500 p3 for the southern clasic. I will reserve my judgement until after the meeting and see how its run but your bike should run well against p4 unlimiteds and be really competetive. If other thunder bikes are similar I cant see why any of you guys would want to run in p3 with these bikes. I guess if thunderbikes are in p3 there are twice as many races and twice the practices of all other competitors as you could run p4 unlimited then p3 also in thunderbike. I hope there is a staggered start or something as I would hate to see the p3 class guys not able to race each other due to thunderbikes getting between them, see how it all goes. Link

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 01 Sep 2012 08:43:04 AM
Message:

Link, I have just checked the HMRAV site.
Thunderbikes are actually listed with P4, not P3.
A clear statement of what Thunderbikes actually are would be helpful.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 01 Sep 2012 08:44:57 AM
Message:

Link, I don't want to run in period anything. The best option for me would be to run the Thunderbike Class as period 6 with fast and slow heats, - and permit thunderbikes of the suggested specification from the other periods to run if they choose. In fact I'm not even fussed if the guys run non-logbooked bikes, - tyre sizes, suspension and even fuel used would be largely irrelevant.
What this topic is about is running unit Triumphs along with the pre-unit stuff in Period 3. And my feeling is that it should have been happening right from the beginning back in October 1973

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 01 Sep 2012 10:42:03 AM
Message:

re scaning sidewards fer reading text..
it seams that when large photo's r down loaded this causes the page to go side wards..
2 fixes r possible
Al either down loads pic in the correct way or
David inserts software to correct photo's to correct size es mode!!
which will be done soon..

Reply author: David
Replied on: 02 Sep 2012 09:13:13 AM
Message:

Inserted the software to correct the images so it reduces them in the topics, but you can click on the images to see the full size in a new window. It was there before, but must of over-written the code earlier..

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 03 Sep 2012 06:38:22 AM
Message:

What is the 'correct way' to put pics up on this forum ? All I ever do is upload the pic to Photobucket, get the picture up full size then copy the image link, and paste that to the forum. I can't think what I could do differently. - How would you like me to do it ?
I don't think that is the problem, it probably has something to do with the format you selected for the text when you set the forum up. Are you running HTML enabled ?

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 03 Sep 2012 06:42:10 AM
Message:

I seem to remember that a while back I was getting the same problem as Keith, with the text not being limited to the page. The problem seems to have disappeared and the text is always OK on my computer these days. I don't think anything that I did corrected that problem, and I suspect I didn't cause it for others by uploading pics.

Reply author: David
Replied on: 03 Sep 2012 07:07:46 AM
Message:

It is not you Alan C, it is the images were causing the text to scroll right across which is in the forum code, this has now been fixed as I said earlier..

Now all can get back on topic.

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 03 Sep 2012 07:41:48 AM
Message:

The message panel, which I am typing this in, is wider than my screen.
I think we need to shorten our sentences rather than just keep
typing away until we run out of space on the right.

Reply author: keith campbell
Replied on: 03 Sep 2012 2:57:04 PM
Message:

Thanks for correcting the page. :)

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 03 Sep 2012 11:06:57 PM
Message:

I think it would be easy to build a really good fast bike out of a unit Triumph. Find a Rickman/Weslake head. Make a 75mm stroke billet crank, and use the 750 bore with decent cams and exhaust. It would rev to 10,000 and never drop a valve. And the head would deliver to its full potential. It would be a move away from featherbed frames, but it would limit us to five speed gear boxes.

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 04 Sep 2012 07:05:32 AM
Message:

And run it in P3? All the best Jerry

Reply author: john feakes
Replied on: 04 Sep 2012 07:07:19 AM
Message:

I've still got a hangover!
Have you?

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 04 Sep 2012 07:35:12 AM
Message:

Hi John, I think a new way of going racing could be that you build a bike and then re organize the Rule Book to suit. It has possibilities. We could end up with a 4 valve Rickman unit Triumph engine running on Nitro in a Harris Moto GP rolling chassis. Never mind it is only a fantasy. All the best Jerry

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 04 Sep 2012 4:14:58 PM
Message:

Fuel is covered by the GCRs, not the historics rules. In any case nitro was used 'in the era' in bikes like the Jesser Triumph, and your mate's 250 Suzuki when he rode for Cornell.

Reply author: melbbiker
Replied on: 16 Nov 2012 05:06:24 AM
Message:

hi new member here

just spent the last hour or so reading from start to finish, i think i counted 6 laps... haha
just wondering how this proposal has developed if at all? im looking to get into period 3 racing. and seen a lovely little '71 CB350 for sale and know it would be a ball against the other 4 stroke twins in period 3 but rather pointless in P4. removing the disk is an understandable requirement i am a younger rider and not experienced so all the trophy boys would not have any worries. would be good fun to be on the same grid as dad on his 7R and watch him disappear into the distance haha

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 20 Nov 2012 07:13:57 AM
Message:

Your dad with his 7R would face a much larger bill if it sticks a rod out of the motor, other than that there is no reason the competition should not happen. My feeling is that the only problem with air cooled two valve fourstroke classes for singles twins and triples, is that care must be taken when disc braked bikes run in the same races as drum braked. It frequently happened in the late sixties/early seventies, with very few accidents. But if someone gets silly and intends to crash another rider, it can be a problem. It is simply a matter of being aware, and avoiding situations during racing.

Reply author: john
Replied on: 25 Nov 2012 9:12:57 PM
Message:

Get the Honda, there are a few now running and they have a good time.

Reply author: melbbiker
Replied on: 26 Nov 2012 6:08:42 PM
Message:

So they would let me ride the '71 Honda in P3 without a disk brake? Or would I just be trying to get away with them thinking its a cb72? Thanks for the replies

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 27 Nov 2012 05:39:14 AM
Message:

I don't think you will get an answer to your question. There is always a lot of talk, but little recognition of the consequences of not making the changes to get more bikes onto the grids. It has always been a problem with historic racing, that the guys think about what should be stopped from running in various classes rather than how more guys can be encouraged to race. I probably take the wrong approach myself - my bike stays at home until HMRAV get their race classes right , and it is worth the expense of competing. (Running unit Triumphs and commandos in the same races as pre-unit - you would think the bl00dy world was going to end !)

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 27 Nov 2012 11:35:34 AM
Message:

Dear Melbbiker, Please look at the results for P4 350 Australian National Championships on Natsoft and you will find that the winner is Keith Campbell on a CB350 based bike. Go out and enjoy yourself and dont listen to negativity. All the best Jerry

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 27 Nov 2012 12:09:29 PM
Message:

Dear Melbbiker, Please look at the results for P4 350 Australian National Championships on Natsoft and you will find that the winner is Keith Campbell on a CB350 based bike. Go out and enjoy yourself and dont listen to negativity. All the best Jerry

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 27 Nov 2012 12:37:32 PM
Message:

Dear Melbbiker, Just got off the Ph from Keith. he ran 3rd in the Natioal Chamionship on his CB350 based bike. He won the 1st non championship race at the meeting. The results show CB72 but the bike is CB350. All the best Jerry

Reply author: john
Replied on: 27 Nov 2012 10:39:48 PM
Message:

Thanks Jerry.
Alan, I really think you keep your bike at home because you dont want to race any longer. The comment about getting classes right is a furphy, but ask the HMRAV if you can come to a committee meeting and put your case to them directly, I am sure they would listen.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 02 Dec 2012 07:01:59 AM
Message:

John, it costs money to race. If I cannot get onto a grid with the same TYPE of bikes as my own, I won't be there. The last time I raced in Period 4 at an HMRAV meeting, besides my own Seeley Commando, there was Alan Landers's 750 Harrier framed Triumph,and Robert McKie's 750cc XS2 Yamaha. The rest were either two strokes or 1300cc CB750 Hondas. Alan Landers was refused a log book in Period 4 for his Triumph because of the 70s frame, so no longer races it. Robert McKie has been doing a rebuild. If I come to your next meeting, who am I going to race who has a thunderbike ? Mixed grids are killing our sport, and that not only applies to historics. O'Neill has created the same problem with his FX classes.- We see 'Pro-thunder' with VFR400 Hondas running alongside thunderbikes. If you are going to run a superbike race, call it that and exclude thunderbikes and two strokes. If you start running two stroke races, I have one of those - why would I run it against superbikes and thunderbikes ?
I suggest MA and HMRAV should get their heads straight and look at the big picture. The classes that are currently run, discourage a lot of people. It is extremely frustrating to see the odd classic ducati in Period 5 and BEARS and know that I will never get to race against them, or even against Lucas's 1000cc Vincent or the 750s in Period 3.
Your historic racing is bullsh1t,-always was and always will be. If you'd ever raced a solo in Allpowers C Grade you'd know that!

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 02 Dec 2012 09:53:45 AM
Message:

Gee Mr. Cotterel if you had a Log Book you could maybe have run at the Nationals a few weeks ago.The organisers combined Classic 500 with Post Classic Unlimited and F750. I imagine you could have enjuyed yourself. Some of the kind of bikes you speak of were competing such as 1x Laverda SFC 917, 1x Moto Guzzi 1000, 1x BMW 1000, 2x Ducati 907 and 1040?, 2x Norton 750, 1x Triton 750, 1x Yamaha 880, 4x Manx Norton, 6x G50 Matchless, 6x assorted and then 7x Honda CB750 based bikes of assorted capacities and NO a CB 750 based bike didnt lead the the field home.It is ashame you dont follow your passion. All the best Jerry

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 02 Dec 2012 11:21:05 AM
Message:

Wot gets me is why do people build bikes that do not fit into our ausralia rules?
ok the pom's run up to 1972 "I THINK"
so maybe these special frames comply!!
gee if i had a norton twin 750 motor i would de stroke it to 500cc use 2:1 conrod length,rev it over 10000rpm, use 6 speed TTL gear box, a manx frame with twin sided drum brake 230mm.. a modern "domi racer"..
how easy to do and run in P3
if only i could win power ball!

Reply author: Jerry
Replied on: 02 Dec 2012 11:43:10 AM
Message:

Good on you Allan, I agree wholeheartedly with you. All the best Jerry

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 03 Dec 2012 04:25:28 AM
Message:

Jerry, Are you talking about the recent meeting run by the PCRA at Eastern Creek ? I believe they run the machines you've mentioned together in their classes at Wakefield Park, which is only four hours up the Hume Highway from here. (Closer and cheaper than Phillip Island ). It is quite an attractive proposition, and the accomodation and atmosphere there is great. I think it is as far south that the guys from OZLaverda come with their 900cc triple, and it is worth going there to race for that alone. I've yet to find out how to get copies of PCRA programmes from recent meetings, I won't go there unless suitable classes are actually being continued. I still intend to race at the Austin 7 meeting at Winton next year, and that might be all I can afford without going into debt or finding a job.

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 03 Dec 2012 05:01:01 AM
Message:

Allan, My Seeley Commando actually has some authenticity about it. F750 was never run here in Australia, but Grant McRitchie imported the MK3 Seeley frame in the 70s. It was designed for the Gus Kuhn commandos which beat the Norton works 750s. He then decided to get smarter, and bought an H2R and got support from Kawasaki Australia. You will also note that nobody ever raced a Seeley G50 here in the 60s, even though they were the best ever British single cylinder bike. What you are effectively saying is that nobody should be allowed to race a replica Paton 500 or an MV500-3 in Period 3 'because they don't fit our Australian rules'.
The trick frames used to be what road racing was all about, however if you use one these days you are effectively excluded from equitable competition due to simple paranoia. The Poms have no problem running Seeley G50s against manxes, ordinary G50s,and BSA Gold Stars . Why do we have this problem in Victoria?
We've had years of argument over the sizes of drum front brakes in Period 3. The Poms permit the use of a single disc brake on the front of their manx Nortons - is that so stupid ? If you want to turn people away from historic racing, what better way than to require the use of a $4000 piece of dangerous garbage , when an effective $500 disc brake will do the job quite nicely thank you ? The time and argument would have been much better spent on working out ways to control the development of vastly oversize motors. One thing that was rarely done in the old days was to cheat on capacity ! Historic racing is bullsh1t - alway was and always will be, and it will disappear because of it.
PCRA seem to be more sensible than HMRAV, but the whole thing really gives me the sh1ts big time ! And where are the BEARs - another bunch of dills ?

Perhaps it is time to combine Period 3 with Period 4? And combine Period 5 with Period 6 ? We would only have to run half he number of races with much bigger grids, and coud run more capacity classes.

Reply author: Historic
Replied on: 03 Dec 2012 09:07:16 AM
Message:

I thought I'd get involved before the double century on this thread was posted. Close to eight pages!

The same old stuff from acotrel, repeated and repeated. For years and years.
At a recent historic meeting I saw logbooks with numbers well over 2,000, well over. But according to acotrel they all deluded and wrong.

The biggest road race meetings in Australia are historic meetings. But according to acotrel the promoters have the mix wrong.

The public turn up in greater numbers and more often to historic road race meetings, but according to acotrel they don't like what they see.

In fact the only person who has all the answers is according to acotrel....acotrel.

I think the only answer is for all the guys with logbooked race bikes to stop racing.
For the most successful promoters in the country to stop putting on race meetings.
For the public to stop going to those race meetings.

Then we will all meet in central Victoria and sit at the feet of the only guy in the land with the plan to make it all perfect. Replace everything that is growing and successful and change it to ensure a used Seeley ridden by an ex C grade mid fielder is finally recognised as the best in the land.
All Hail the great Acotrel.

Historic

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 03 Dec 2012 09:12:31 AM
Message:

MV Race models (1946–1976)
MV Agusta 98/125 Two Stroke 1946–1949
125 Twin-Cam 1950–1960
500 cc Shaft Drive Four
MV Agusta 125 Sohc 1953–1956
175 Twin-Cam 1955–1958
250 Single 1955–1959
350 Twin 1957
250 Twin 1959–1966
500 cc Four 500 cc Six Cylinder 1957–1958
125 Disc Valve 1965
350 cc Three Cylinder 1965–1973
MV Agusta 500 Three 1966–1974
350 cc Six Cylinder 1969
350 cc Four Cylinder 1971–1976
500 cc Four Cylinder 1973–1976
Quote "What you are effectively saying is that nobody should be allowed to race a replica Paton 500 or an MV500-3 in Period 3 'because they don't fit our Australian" rules'.
MV3's are P4 not P3
Only MV 4 shaft are P3 also MV 6 P3
Wot I am saying is frames that were not built in/ by 1962 are not P3..
MV 3,4's chain drive are P4..

Team Paton was the most enduring privateer effort in Grand Prix racing, with a presence in the world’s top championship, which began in 1967 with the four-stroke twin-effort ..

NORTON 750cc 1961 =P3
NORTON 850cc 1973 =P5

Colin Seeley bought Associated Motor Cycles' racing department when the company went into receivership in 1966. The previous year he had constructed the first Seeley racing frame to house a Matchless G50 engine, and the AMC purchase enabled him to produce complete Seeley G50 and 7R machines. With their improved frames, the ageing four-stroke singles enjoyed renewed competitiveness, Dave Croxford winning the British 500 Championship on a Seeley G50 in 1968 and '69. The Seeley frame progressed from the duplex cradle Mk1 to the similar but lighter Mk2, before the down-tubes were abandoned with the Mk3, the headstock and swinging arm pivot of which were linked solely by tubes running diagonally above the engine. The Mk4 introduced towards the end of 1970 featured a revised tubing layout and continued in production until 1973. Production of Seeley frames was later licensed to Roger Titchmarsh and there have been countless unauthorised copies made over the years.
Ok Seeley frames =P4

Perhaps it is time to combine Period 3 with Period 4? And combine Period 5 with Period 6 ? We would only have to run half he number of races with much bigger grids, and coud run more capacity classes.

No,leave P3 as is
and combine P5 and P6

Drum brakes up to 1962 were
210mm FONTANA
230mm CEREANI

FONTANA 250mm were later designed for 2 stroke's..P4

Reply author: Alan
Replied on: 03 Dec 2012 8:46:23 PM
Message:

I would also note that various people Alan Especially are very selective when quoting rules especially the pommy ones. Single disc brakes? what rule structure, it certainly isnt the Vintage Club and if it is the CRMC then their cut off is 1968 so they would be on the cuff of using a disc brake anyway, and what about the Lansdowne series, different again, then have a look at NZ or America different again. Maybe it is time for an International set of rules to be developed so all this garbage that gets spouted can be got rid of. Before people quote a countries rules they should state what competition they are alluding to so we can compare apples with apples.
I did offer to pay Alans entry fee for next years Nationals but have had no response so I dont really believe he is serious about coming out to play but just in case I have him wrong I will also pay for his bike transport and will deliver it to the track and back to the transport company after the meeting is over.

Alan Sidecar 21 WA

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 04 Dec 2012 07:00:04 AM
Message:

Alan
Even if we cannot achieve international rules, perhaps we should rationalise the aims of the groups involved in historic/classic racing in Australia. MA could show some leadership and convene a meeting of promoters of historic racing - HMRAV, PCRA, BEARs, Formula Extreme, the circuit owners, and the principals of MA affiliated clubs who run classes for historics/classics at club level. I know we had that meeting at Tullamarine a few years ago, but did not achieve much - perhaps we can improve on that? We might actually find a better way forward.

Reply author: melbbiker
Replied on: 05 Dec 2012 04:01:33 AM
Message:

The cb350 is long gone on eBay, but currently chasing a lead on a 650 triumph all iron motor etc but could be a great starter bike. For a few grand I can't really loose. Hopefully work timing lines up with a couple of race meets next year and I can come get involved.

Reply author: Allan
Replied on: 05 Dec 2012 10:42:15 AM
Message:

650 triumph all iron motor
make sure the crank cases are later type with large bearing on timing side.. if altenator type ok.
1956 on generator type motor has extra bit on front side of timming case and needs to have a bit more metal around the bearing on the timmung side

Reply author: melbbiker
Replied on: 05 Dec 2012 3:33:04 PM
Message:

Cheers my old man is having a look at it. I think the internals have been breathed on by decent rider/builder I can't remember his name. It's currently at Russel craddock's (rissole) place so doubt ill get dudded we will give it a good look over too. Just waiting to see if the bloke still wants to sell

Reply author: acotrel
Replied on: 06 Dec 2012 08:38:13 AM
Message:

Alan
'I did offer to pay Alans entry fee for next years Nationals but have had no response so I dont really believe he is serious about coming out to play '

Thanks for you kind offer. If I wanted to race in a foreign country, I'd transport my bike to New Zealand before I'd go west. At least I'd get decent rides there. The last time I raced was 11km from home and I still managed to spend $700. I will be racing at Winton in April next year at the Austin 7 meeting run by HMRAV, that will probably be the last time unless I get a job or go deeper into debt. I'm looking at C*ntlink in a minute.

Reply author: melbbiker
Replied on: 07 Dec 2012 06:06:19 AM
Message:

Cheers my old man is having a look at it. I think the internals have been breathed on by decent rider/builder I can't remember his name. It's currently at Russel craddock's (rissole) place so doubt ill get dudded we will give it a good look over too. Just waiting to see if the bloke still wants to sell

Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums : https://www.classicmotorcycling.com.au/forums/