| Author |
 Topic  |
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
mboddy
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
![]()
26 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jun 2007 : 07:38:04 AM
|
What do you think that the proposed methanol for Period 5 Rule is going to do to Period 5?
I think that it will push more riders from Period 5 into New Era.
Please see this thread and let MA know what you think about this issue:
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jun 2007 : 8:13:24 PM
|
Some of those guys are barking up the wrong tree.
Methanol wasn't banned until '78 (I thinke). Up till then most of the competitive air cooled bikes were running on Methanol, for durability & a slight power increase. The main benefit was that engines ran cooler & the power didn't go off after the engines got hot.
Most P5 bikes are air cooled so any use of Methanol will only make them more competitive with the few liquid-cooled bikes of the era, mainly early TZs. (And a watercooled RS125 Honda or 2, whose owners reckon they were available before end '80).
I don't know why it would drive P5 riders to New Era, when most P5 bikes would be more durable & more competitive.
Bummers
|
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
 |
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2007 : 07:35:13 AM
|
On the PCRA site there is a huge blue about methanol causing the end of the world as we know it.
I do need feedback from Vic. roders about their views on the matter.
Ultimately each state needs to submit its members viewpoint and if we dont get feedback the Historic Management Committee [Vic,] will make a decision based on the current information they have which is to support methanol in P5. |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jun 2007 : 6:05:43 PM
|
Perhaps you should encourage the Vic HMC to base their decision around the approved use of Methanol in P5 for sidecars only - this approach would appear to resolve the issues in both camps. Its abundantly clear from the responses received on the PCRA site that the members racing solo's in NSW have *No* interest in Methanol for P5 solo's. Surely this issue cannot be that difficult to resolve, if its only the sidecar competitors pushing for inclusion of methanol in P5 ??
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2007 : 12:19:50 AM
|
The simple thing is that each state that is interested enough in the rule structure will or should consult with its competitors and then make a submission based on that. I know several riders in WA would support methanol and of course there are some that wont. I personally can only see advantages as the engines will put out a little more power, 7 to 10% I believe, but will run cooler and that can only help. P4 and P3 arent complaining about using it so I cant see why P5 would, and it was in use during the period.
Please yourself I run P4 so I have a choice, lucky ol me.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jun 2007 : 12:37:07 PM
|
| It is unbundently clear that a few people at the PCRA dont want Methanol, that may not be represntative of the P5 riders in NSW opinion. |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2007 : 5:56:01 PM
|
There is a poll on the PCRA site to try and establish exactly how much support there actually is, for the inclusion of methanol in P5 in NSW. The PCRA is far and away the 'representative' club for P5 racing in NSW, so I think if the poll results are not in favour of methanol in P5 solo's, there is your answer. Its the best estimate of riders opinions, short of sending out a questionnaire to every P5 solo competitor registered in NSW ......
What I think should be determined pretty quickly, is exactly how much support there is for this proposal in Victoria by the solo's? Are there hordes of P5 racers all calling for methanol to be included ? Or is it only 1 or 2, plus the sidecar crew ? Either way, it needs to be clear what the numbers are in both states, plus those other states that regularly provide competitors.....
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2007 : 10:40:01 PM
|
This might sound negative but polls dont work. To get a true indication you would need to contact each and every current and would be racer in Period 5 and get their answer. I do know that all 4 stroke competitors in WA solo and sidecar would prefer the choice of fuels and its only the 2 strokes that are fence sitting or against methanols use.
If you are all going to get serious about this then a Nationwide survey is required, there are more States and Territories than NSW and Vic in this country.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA (premium unleaded) |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jun 2007 : 11:09:15 PM
|
I do not agree you need a quick result.
People need to know the facts before they make a decision. I know the numbers game, but I also know that there may be people who do not know the facts and it si important for those details to be around prior to them making a decision.
I conveted to methanol some years ago when I met people with the knowledge to give me factual information. |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2007 : 8:27:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alan
This might sound negative but polls dont work. To get a true indication you would need to contact each and every current and would be racer in Period 5 and get their answer. I do know that all 4 stroke competitors in WA solo and sidecar would prefer the choice of fuels and its only the 2 strokes that are fence sitting or against methanols use.
If you are all going to get serious about this then a Nationwide survey is required, there are more States and Territories than NSW and Vic in this country.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA (premium unleaded)
Agree 100% about getting the views of other States, I have asked on this forum and the PCRA for an idea of numbers from other states , but so far there has been *zero* indication of *exactly* how much support this has from P5 solo competitors in other states, apart from simple generalisations about numbers......there has been nothing definite provided in any way.
At least the PCRA, who are the largest post-classic club in the country, have tried to present an idea of numbers.......there have been 25 replies, and at the last PCRA meeting at Oran Park, there were 25 entries in the P5 classes....its a 100% representative poll of those members who ride in this class. 19 of the 25 members voted against the use of methanol.
As John has said a few times, its all a numbers game. So far, the only real numbers presented are those from NSW, and the prevailing view from competitors in that state is that they *do not* want methanol for P5 solos.
How about some actual numbers are provided from the other states, if there is so much support out there for getting methanol included for P5, then this should be dead easy......
cheers
Dave
|
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jun 2007 : 8:47:48 PM
|
quote:
...and its only the 2 strokes that are fence sitting or against methanols use.
I would suggest that most of the 2-stroke riders "fence sitting" are those riders of water-cooled bikes who won't benefit as much from the use of methanol as the air-cooled brigade. They would probably prefer to keep that advantage.  |
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 3:56:30 PM
|
Methanol might be good for Period 5 four strokes. It's unnecessary for TZs, but if Period 4 two strokes are running in races together with Period 5 two strokes, a TR3 on methanol is competitive with a TZ350 on petrol. So I suggest that methanol be allowed for Period 5 four strokes, however Period 5 two strokes should not be allowed to use it.
Incidentally, I recently saw a few races at Broadford where P4, and P5 two strokes ran together. It was better than sliced bread, and really looked the way races were in the early seventies.
Not many guys ran methanol in TZs in the old days. Ray Bann was one that did it successfully. The results were spectacular, but the wear rates aren't too good!
Best Regards |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 7:09:46 PM
|
My KX125 based 2-stroke, when ridden by Dave Burgess in 1976, was equal 1st with Geoff Simm on a TA125 in the 125 race at Bathurst. (The only motorcycle dead heat at Bathurst, I've been told). Burgess was also 2nd to Simm in the 1976 Aust C'ships. Both bikes were on methanol.
Now days, I can manage to get 2nd in the P5 125 class at both Mt Gambier Aust Champs last year and at BS Memorial at Eastern Creek this year. Both times I was beaten by a watercooled RS125 that was about 6 secs a lap faster than my bike at Eastern Creek. I'm sure I've got 1 or 2 secs to pick up in track knowledge at EC and maybe I'm not as quick as the RS rider but I would like to be "competitive" in a straight line. If a watercooled (1981 model) RS125 is eligible for P5 because its parts book was printed in 1980, surely I should be able to run my bike as it ran in the era, on methanol.
Or can someone lend me a Morbidelli? |
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 10:55:36 PM
|
Has this RS125 had any protests lodged against it ? Surely its the *bike* that has to manufactured in the era, not the parts book ??? Or was this what got him through a protest ????
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 7:56:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gosling1
Has this RS125 had any protests lodged against it ?
<snip>
cheers
Dave
Not that I know of. |
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 9:11:58 PM
|
The rule book used to be quite specific that parts books and manuals are not proof of eligibilty and still maybe I havent checked. Its good to see that the Commission has moved to try to clarify this, lets hope it gains some support.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2007 : 11:17:09 AM
|
Boys, We are getting a little off track but it is easier to answer a few of your questions here.
Alan is quite correct MA Rule 16.3.0.1 states ' The onus of proof of eligibility shall rest wholly upon the rider or entrant of the machine.Service & Parts Manual publication dates are not proof of eligibility.'
There was a watercooled Honda RS125W available in 1979/80. The way to pick it, at least for the 1979 & I am pretty sure for the 1980 as well is the drive chain is on the right hand side.
You must remember that the Commissioners who do the assessment on the logbook applications cannot know evrything about every brand & model produced & sometimes the information & photos given are 'cloudy'.
Given this there have been cases where MA have found evidence to the contrary later, withdrawn logbooks & logbook holders have been asked by MA to provide further information.
Cheers, Pete
|
|
|
|
fastsuzuki
Level 2 Member
Victoria
20 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2007 : 10:00:10 PM
|
| John, I read with interest the debate on methanol. I have 3 P5 unlimited bikes of varying capacities that I am hoping to share with other riders to get more bodies on the grids. I for one do not want the hassle or expense setting up bikes for alcohol when these machines are already going faster than they were in the period at most circuits.The question is will the spectators know the difference? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2007 : 04:34:25 AM
|
| The spectators will know the difference when international riders turn up and go a lot slower than our guys. It'll probably keep the Yanks and Poms away eventually. We should try to keep the sport competitive even for them. Methanol is not needed in P5 bikes, especially two strokes. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2007 : 07:00:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by acotrel
especially two strokes.
huh? - Why pick on 2-strokes?
I would have thought they need it more. |
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 09:10:17 AM
|
The lap record at Winton is held by Shaun Geronomi on a TZ250 at 1minute 19 seconds on the large circuit. When you put alcohol into a four stroke bike on normal compression, you get about a 5 per cent increase in power, in a two stroke, it's about 30 per cent!
(Craig McMartin does about 1 minute 23 seconds around Winton on the 999 Ducati) |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 1:56:51 PM
|
It seems to me this whole discussion is predicated on two fundamental misunderstandings. One about the interpretation of the proposed rule and the second about the effect alcohol has on engines, apart from potential corrosion.
Firstly the proposal does not make it compulsory for alcohol to be utilised but it is claimed that "additonal power" derived from alcohol burning motors will make all other uncompetitive thus the compulsion.
Secondly the notion that merely pouring alcohol into a motor and doubling the jet size will magically deliver, what was it - er- 30% more power is plainly absurd. This sillyiness is the same as that pertaining to different octane ratings in petrol, in fact it is all about different octane ratings.
There are plenty of sites on the net that explain this in great detail. Simply put if you determine the energy coming from a fixed amount of 98 octane petrol and the same from 91 octane petrol and again from roughly double the amount of methanol you will find it is the same, so the type of fuel, or more properly its octane rating, does not determine the power derived from an internal combustion engine using those fuels. What does determine the power is the increased efficiency derived from burning those fuels in engines possessing very different characteristics.
Again simply put the higher the compression, the higher the octane rating needed for an efficient burn. Too lower octane rating in a high compression engine leads to pinging, preignition and hence overheating. Thus the call for alcohol which has a high octane rating. Why higher compression in the first place, it raises Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP)and hence power. Thus the fuel allows the use of more theoretically efficient engines but on its own put in a lower combustion engine, it will simply foul the plugs.
Thus these extravant claims of massive power increases simply due to the use of alcohol are bull and there is no doubt in my mind that plenty of bikes of lower compression, properly tuned,using the correct fuel, will cruise past alcohol burning machines, as they do now. |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 8:51:54 PM
|
The major benefit of using alcohol has nothing to do with octane rating, and the calorific value is actually much less than that of petrol. Alcohol works because of its high latent heat of vaporisation. The incoming charge is much cooler, and much more dense. More alcohol is then meeded to get the mixture right for combustion, and more cooling occurs. The net effect is that more lower calorific value fuel ends up in the combustion chamber at each stroke, but the effect is a net increase in energy output (regardless of compression ratio). It works better in two strokes because the crankcases are cooled and much more fuel is in the actual charge on each cycle. The old bull about doubling the jet size is an absolute bit of garbage. Both four strokes and two strokes on alcohol go best with the mixture so lean that engine destruction is about to occur!
If you know your basic chemistry, you'll know that two strokes would be absolutely great on a blend of benzene, methanol and acetone (the old BP JA and JB racing fuels). I suggest you don't give anyone the opportunity to pull that stunt! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2007 : 10:45:12 PM
|
A thing to remember with using Methanol, at least on 2 strokes, as opposed to petrol is you can run overrich by a reasonable margin without any concern or drop in power - from recollection up to around 15+%.
Two of my P4 bikes (125 & 350 - one watercooled, one aircooled) have both won Australian Championships. The 125 on petrol & also on Methanol & the 350 on Methanol.
The 125 (on Methanol) has run in Darwin, Perth, Winton & Phillip Island all at lap record pace with no adjustment or change to the carburation,
The 350 has run in Darwin, Perth, Mallala, Winton & Eastern Creek again with no adjustment or change to the carburation & has set lap records at all of these places (I think). Weather conditions varied from sunny 35+ degrees to miserable wet 12 degrees
What I am trying to point out is you need a complete package, bike & rider to get results - the guys who want to put in the effort will usually be the ones at the front. Not everyone can win & some never will even if they had the best bike in the field.
My experience, to date, with Methanol is it is far less critical to correct jetting than petrol is & this alone is a plus for those who run more than one bike - especially when you go to a new circuit without any knowledge of it's layout, cornering, gearing required etc. & have to get this sorted in 2 x 15 minute sessions.
I personally did not have any problems with my 125 on petrol ( I did not run it borderline lean either to get results) but changed it for convenience so I wouldn't have to cart around both Methanol & petrol. Also when converted to Methanol I went up in carb size - no changes to ignition, compression ratios or anything else.
As for the cost of running Methanol as oppopsed to petrol - there is not that much in it. Blokes spend far more on other things on their bikes & fuel is very much a minor part in comparison.
I do not run a P5 bike (may do in the future) & the above was just to illustrate my experience with both fuels.
Cheers, Pete |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2007 : 11:13:09 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by OldKwak
It seems to me this whole discussion is predicated on two fundamental misunderstandings. One about the interpretation of the proposed rule.....Firstly the proposal does not make it compulsory for alcohol to be utilised but it is claimed that "additonal power" derived from alcohol burning motors will make all other uncompetitive ......these extravant claims of massive power increases simply due to the use of alcohol are bull and there is no doubt in my mind that plenty of bikes of lower compression, properly tuned,using the correct fuel, will cruise past alcohol burning machines, as they do now.
Sure its bull, I can think of *heaps* of P4 machines on petrol thats simply *cruise* past the alky-burning T-Rex honda 4's.........
The simple reality is if methanol is approved for use in P5, those riders who do wish to remain competitive (god forbid), will have no option other than to convert their bikes to alky-burners. Of course they can just cruise around on pump-fuel, whistling dixie as well........
|
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
Edited by - Gosling1 on 07 Jul 2007 11:19:18 AM |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 08 Jul 2007 : 11:35:18 PM
|
Pete, You are right about the ease of tuning for methanol. The reason a lot of guys get good results with it is that it hides the tuning errors, and even when the jetting is wrong the bike will still perform O.K (better than on petrol). However if you want the best from it, you need to run it super lean, and it's just as difficult to get right as petrol. I've never raced a bike on petrol. I found that my aircooled suzuki lost power after the motor got really hot on alcohol. It's a bit dangerous in two strokes because of the change in mixture after a couple of laps. I wondered at the mention of corrosion. The only 'corrosion' I experienced was when I once forgot to drain and flush the carburettors. The white stuff blocked the jets, causing a disaster. I've never seen corrosion in crankcases of four strokes - they should always be hot enough to stop that occurring.
If you talk to the guys who raced against InCA, they'll tell you that the Poms get their Manxes going faster on petrol than we do on methanol - that says something about our ability to tune four strokes. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2007 : 11:56:20 PM
|
Alan, You mean all this time my bikes were going OK I was just deluding myself & it was probably only the rider! Imagine if I had them running properly all this time. Reinforces what I have said previously you need a complete package.
Most of the corrosion problems I found, in a 2 stroke, were from the castor oil rather than the methanol. The castor not being sufficiently cleaned out after use. Not had this problem since switching to a castor/synthetic oil.
As to the INCA boys going so well on petrol -they use VP (expensive)petrol plus some very dubious addittives (read oxygenators) - from memory 2% by volume = 10% increase in performance. How do I know - my rider was given a can after the meeting by one of the riders who didn't want to take it back with him. My rider still has it.
Also those INCA bikes have had no expense spared in preparation & components eg. rear units which Joe Average couldn't buy even if he had the required A$2-3000 each (figures quoted by the INCA rider). A certain 'BSA' had it's fork crowns (quite lightweight) welded to the fork staunchions - bend a fork leg replace the whole set. Thee gearbox case was welded to the engine mounts - no bolts to save weight. These blokes were taking it seriously & damn the expense. This is a far cry from our week end racers doing it for enjoyment on a very limited budget.
Cheers, Pete
P.S. Sorry we are a bit off the methanol track here. |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2007 : 8:08:27 PM
|
| Pete, any bike which is tuned to the leanest on methanol will go faster than the same bike tuned to the leanest on petrol, and that's particularly so with two strokes. It's not common practice when putting two strokes on alcohol, to increase the compression ratio. In a four stroke the compression can be increaed dramatically, and there's benefit from that as well as latent heat of vaprisation. The best trick is to use a blend of hydrocarbon, methanol and acetone which suits the compression ratio of a two stroke. The hydrocarbon provides more energy than methanol, while there is sufficient methanol there to cool the charge, and get the supercharging effect. As I've said before BP JA, JB, and Shell 811 were available for lower compression engines years ago. It was used in Maserati racing cars to really good effect. If you find an antique copy of Tuning for Speed, you'll probably see it mentioned! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2007 : 4:28:41 PM
|
| the advise building to the Victorian Committee is to vote for Methanol in P5. I rang around the commiittee people and some people at random I know with P5 solos, but we need more feedback in Victoria to have a representative viewpoint. Please give an opinion. |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2007 : 9:20:12 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by john
the advise building to the Victorian Committee is to vote for Methanol in P5. I rang around the commiittee people and some people at random I know with P5 solos, but we need more feedback in Victoria to have a representative viewpoint. Please give an opinion.
Who exactly has determined that the 'advice building to the Victorian committee is to vote for Methanol in Period 5'???
Is this the same advice that has been given from 1 person in Victoria John ? The same 1 person that you indicated on the Methanol thread on the PCRA forums ? The same methanol thread that has generated almost 7000 views, over 150 individual replies, and has run to 11 pages now ????
The latest poll on PCRA has voted against methanol in P5 to the tune of about 85% against......I hope the opinions from NSW P5 competitors are given equal weight in MA when the time comes to make an 'informed' decision about this.......
I will be conducting an audit of all competitors at the next PCRA meeting, just to determined who in P3 and P4 currently uses methanol in NSW, and who in P5 is in favour of this proposal. This information will be fed back via our local Commissioner to MA. It will be intersting to see the outcome.
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jul 2007 : 06:54:37 AM
|
| I am currently building a two stroke for use in P5. For myself it would be better to run both my P4 Norton and P5 bike on a methanol blend. However I believe in the interests of fair competition, methanol should not be allowed in P5. In any case using it in a P5 two stroke simply increases the wear rate dramatically. It bumps up the cost in a couple of ways, and makes it easier for the rich guy to win. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
