|
Advertise with Classic Motorcycling Australia
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
 Posted - 29 May 2007 : 1:19:08 PM
|
At Winton, the topic of front or rear exit on P4 and P5 sidecars was discussed. Keith Roberts, Commisioner, asked the sidecars teams to look at the following rules;
" Sidecar and cyclecar requirements".
16.7.3.5 P4
Front exit sidecar chassis configuration
16.7.4.5 P5
Front and Rear sidecar exit configuration
Keith mentioned the rules will be interpreted as follows.
P4 Must be front exit only.
If rear exit is possible with no handholds it will be considered a P4 outfit, but if hand holds are in place to enable rear exit it will be considered a P5 outfit.
P5 Rule may be interpreted that each outfit must have rear and Front exit configuration. Keith pointed out that this rule should be amended to read Front or rear exit. He is concerned that if anybody turned up to the National titles with a front and rear exit, under the current rules they could protest and would most likely win with the current interpretation.
He has asked for feedback on what the teams want to have. I have volunteered to collate the response and publish an outcome, here prior to final submission to MA.
Please put you thoughts down clearly and concisely. I guess if you agree with the proposal say YES and if you dont, say NO and give your alternative view.
I will give it say 2 months for feedback so encourage others to look in and comment. I will publish a summary.
|
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
Edited by - john on 29 May 2007 3:56:58 PM |
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2007 : 2:31:14 PM
|
My personel opinion is that even though rear exit on P4 was not common in the period, I would not start an argument about whether or not it should be banned.
I see the point of view that should we dictate to the passenger how to swing, and I see the argument that it was not common. At this stage I have not formed a final view.
Mind you many P4 outfits would handle very badly if you tried a rear exit and my own machine handles well with front exit.
As for the P5 interpretation, if the replacement of 'and' with 'or' removes any confusion I would be happy to support the change. |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
 |
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2007 : 3:01:09 PM
|
Hi John, just looking at the rule book and it seems to me that what is stated is that P4 must be front exit and P5 can be either front or rear exit. The rules in question are 16.7.3.5 and 16.7.4.5 My interpretation of 16.7.4.5 is that "front AND rear exit" means that either is acceptable, not that all sidecars must have both front and rear exit. Is someone making a mountain out of a molehill or am I misunderstanding it? Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2007 : 3:55:37 PM
|
You may be correct about the mole hill.
The rule does not say "must", but the rule heading does read, " Sidecar and cyclecar requirements".
the rule then reads, "Front exit sidecar chassis configuration"
But does the rule dictate how the passenger must exit? |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2007 : 6:05:33 PM
|
| John, I think this is definitely an inflated molehill. With regard to P4 it is clear cut. Front exit only. With regard to P5 I think it is equally clear cut in stating that either is acceptable or to phrase it a different way "front and rear exit" are acceptable. I have already asked MA to change this so it reads front OR rear, time will tell if it gets changed. Surely the only thing to do is to carry on as before until challenged. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2007 : 6:35:38 PM
|
FROM Keith Roberts;
John,
It has been suggested to me that the wording of your website message re sidecar configurations is based on comments made by me as an "official" commissioner, whereas I thought I had made it clear that I was speaking informally to ask that riders had a look at the Rules, and to be aware that there might be the possibility of them being interpreted in accordance with the "extremes" mentioned i.e. P4 must be "front exit use only", and P5 must have "BOTH front and rear exits".
The specific comment re P4 using rear exit " if there were no handholds" , is not correct, and is dangerously mis-leading. What I said was, that since there is no current Rule to force the passenger to use only front exit in P4 , rear exit would be allowable if he (or she) could do so by using the front exit handholds,i.e no ADDITIONAL SET OF HANDHOLDS FOR REAR EXIT OPERATION, since the installation and use of a separate set of rear exits holds would make the machine conform to the specific P5 Rule, and the machine would then have to move into P5 to race.
Because the requirement for both front and rear exits first appears in P5, it cannot be " forwarded" to include earlier Periods. I was interested in raising the points so that the riders were made aware of the possible interpretations of the current Rules.
It is the riders who should ask MA to clarify the intent, so that all riders are aware of what they may, or may not do. It is also, I believe,important that the officials, particularly at a Title Meeting, are aware of the anomolies, and that riders and officials alike are in agreement as to the interpretation of these Rules.
This can only be ensured if MA issues a statement clarifying the interpretations, and, if possible, this clarification be published as part of all meeting Supp Regs until it can be incorporated into the 2008 Manual. Bear in mind that if something not specifically "authorised and prescribed for use under these Rules is strictly forbidden" - Rule 16.3.0.16.
My personal opinion is that that the intent of the rule is to insist on front exit use in P4, but others may not think that way, and I suggested that there was the possibility that the Rule for P4 "could" be interpreted as "P4 must be front exit only", not that it "will be" interpreted that way.
The P5 Rule cannot be interpreted as EITHER front or rear as it is currently written, it clearly states "FRONT AND REAR", in the same way that the bike must have "front and rear brakes", and does not allow the rider to interpret it as "front or rear".
As agreed at the last Forum, Rule changes cannot be made until 2008, but it should be possible for a clarification of a rule to be provided by MA if sufficient riders believe, and formally state to MA, that there is a misprint in the 2007 Manual, or there is the possibility of mis-interpretation that could lead to eligibility-based disqualifications.
Rule 16.7.4.5 could / should be changed to read "Front and / or rear sidecar exit configuration" as a correction to the Manual rather than as a new Rule, and this would incorporate all interpretations and avoid any alterations to existing machines.
Rule 16.7.3.5 should remain as is. If the majority of riders wish to allow rear exit in P4, it will be necessary for there to be a new Rule in the 2008 Manual to clearly state this.
If the majority wish that P4 be restricted to front exit use, i.e. rear exit style to be specifically banned, this is what your questionnaire should ask, and this is the decision that should be forwarded to MA.
Such a decision should not involve a Rule change, since it accords with the technical description of the machine layout. If riders do adopt a "wait until someone protests" attitude, as suggested by one respondent, it may be their bike that is protested, and it may then be that the Official's interpretation does not accord with theirs.
Better to resolve potential problems than become the guinea pig in a test case?
Would you please post a modification to your website message so that everyone is made aware of the fact that the Winton discussion was in no way "Official Commission" business, rather it was an attempt by me, as an "interested party", to point out that I was worried that the sidecar riders may not have been aware of possible interpretations by officials and other riders alike.
If it is easier for you to copy this and post it on the Site as a personal message from me to you, it would not carry with it any inference that it is a "Commission reply" to the original posting, and I would not have to forward it via MA.
Thanks,
regards,
Keith Roberts
|
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
Edited by - john on 30 May 2007 11:31:02 PM |
|
|
|
leslan
Level 1 Member
Tasmaina
1 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2007 : 9:18:11 PM
|
We read with interest the comments on the P4 and P5 sidecar ruling. It would be great to have this front and rear exit ruling clarified as soon as possible, great work Keith for bringing this matter to our attention. Regards  Scotty, Bruce and Lesley |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums |
© 2000 - 2025 |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
