|
Advertise with Classic Motorcycling Australia
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Jun 2007 : 8:14:10 PM
|
Just a quick question regarding the Z1000J -I have seen a couple of references to this model in some other discussions, and questions about eligibility ??.....
Is there any sort of eligibility question over this model ? I have a keen interest in Zeds of all description, and would like to see what the issues (if any) are .
cheers
Dave
|
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 01:52:47 AM
|
Dave,
At this point in time the Z1000J is OK for P5 as evidence has been produced that while it may not have been largely available it was as per the rules stipulate manufactured in the period. Believe there is at least one & possibly up to five currently logbooked.
Cheers, Pete |
 |
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 2:42:06 PM
|
thanks Pete - I remember seeing Steve Reimann racing a J-model Z1000 back in 2002, it was listed as a 1980 model.
Can anyone else provide any comments about the HRR Commission meeting back in May 2007, where this issue was also discussed ?
*edit* - well, after checking out the HRR Commission minutes from May 2007 on the HMRAV site, it would appear that this is still a grey subject ?? There was no definitive actions suggested, but it certainly isn't black and white.....I am *almost* 100% sure that there was a compliance plate photo on the PCRA site some time ago, that showed a Z1000J with a build date of 10/80 or 11/80, something like that, and this would be enough proof that the model was manufactured within the period.......
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
Edited by - Gosling1 on 27 Jun 2007 6:56:54 PM |
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 8:51:54 PM
|
I think a quick call to your local MA historic comissioner will reveal that the J model has been accepted only in the last few weeks after some pretty searching debate. The thing that tripped it over the line was the revelation of an ADR compliance certificate was found that was dated late December 1980. After that further evidence was presented that supported the J model in fact was a creation of 1980, not 1981 as previously thought. The fact you couldn't own one in 1980 doesn't mean it does not comply
The rules are
"16.3.0.4 For all historic competition, the year of the manufacture of a motorcycle is defined as the year of manufacture of its latest major component."
Note the reference to "manufacture", this does not mean available generally to the public or some other notion of common availability.
So we are now having to deal with a bike in P5 that was, I think, recognised as an indicator of generational technological change by the designers of the rules and would have logically fitted into P6, the next category. The current objection to the Suzuki Katana in the rules is now manifestly a nonsense as a result.
Don't blame the Commissioners though, they were faced with an impossible task if not legal action.
So all you owners of Z's you might have to bolt on the J model head,to remain competitive.
By the way a version of the J was manufactured up until 2003 in the States as the Police Model, so it also can be raced as a modern. |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 10:39:39 PM
|
OK, if the HRR Commission have recently agreed that this model is acceptable because the *current* ruling under 16.3.0.4 is defined as "the year of manufacture.....", that will all fall to pieces if their suggested proposal is voted in - IE that a road-based model eligibility is based upon "year available to the public " If you check the HRR Commission minutes on the HMRAV site, this proposal is also listed, along with methanol for P5.....
So one the one hand, the HRR Comission is saying "no worries, race your J", and on the other hand, putting submissions in place that would see it banned, as it was not available to the general public in the era ......
It all seems a bit strange to me. I am currently building a P5 track-bike, using a J motor in a 1980 Z750 frame. If the J's get banned, I am out of the picture. You can't fit an earlier Z motor into a z650/750 frame......I wish I knew which way to go with this.....there have been J's racing in NSW on and off since 2002, and there are a number of bikes with J-based motors currently racing as well.
Perhaps we should all just make our own P5 Vincents with programmable digital ignitions and be done with it eh ?? Of course, you could just walk straight into Maurie Quincey's in 1978 and buy a programmable digital ignition for your 1978 Series B Rapide straight off the shelf !!!
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
Edited by - Gosling1 on 27 Jun 2007 10:46:25 PM |
|
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jun 2007 : 11:34:08 PM
|
Dave,
There will always be a problem when you have a specific cut off date & start date to a period. Bikes thay are on the 'cusp' will always be there i.e. if P5 went to 1982 bikes generally only available in 1983 will be trotted out as being manufactured in 1982. Whatever dates & periods this always applies. If you take the smaller P4 classes i.e.250 & 350 riders nearly always run the latest bike of the period - TD3 & TR3 Yamahas as opposed to say the 1962/3 Yamaha TD1A. Why - because it has the benefit of more development & hence usually is more robust in construction & the earlier tuning problems have been resolved hence it is more reliable & parts are perhaps more available.
Having said this I believe these models seem, at least to me, to be going much harder now than they did back in their heyday. Part of this could be the better tyres that are around now - part is because there is more technology/ understanding/ development.
Not all people are ever going to be entirely happy but you must have at least some basic parameters in place to start with.
Cheers, Pete
|
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 07:38:19 AM
|
Pete,
While I agree with your basic tenet, that competitors will always use the latest model they can but its a bit of a problem when for a number of years, and hence a lot of dollars being spent by those competitors, there is a change in the understanding of the rules that will benefit a few and disadvantage the majority. This is why there is a move to change the rules to reflect the year of common availability.
But in answer to Gosling's original question, he is able to race the machine as the rules are right now. If the proposed change proceeds, then probably not. |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 10:46:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by OldKwak
Pete,
But in answer to Gosling's original question, he is able to race the machine as the rules are right now. If the proposed change proceeds, then probably not.
thanks - this is how I have read the proposed amendments as well. The question would have to be - is this proposal good for the sport ? For all those other racers using a J-based engine currently in P5, the harsh reality of the new proposals is that they will all have to go back to Mk2 engines, set up for alcohol !!! Its a hell of a change, costly, and for what real benefit ??? None that I can see.....
Pete - agree 100%, in fact the Kiwis use a cut-off of December 1982 for a very good reason - this date more accurately reflects the change that was taking place in Japanese manufacturers at the time. Up until the end of 1982, most of the big 'UJM's' as they were called, were across the frame 4 cylinders, air-cooled with conventional forks and twin-shock rear suspension.
From 1983, the big changes really started. Mono-shock rears started to appear, water-cooling, 16" wheels etc etc.
It would be pretty easy to simply ban certain models from competition, as the americans do, than continue with this 'onus of proof is on the competitor' idea. At least then its black and white, and competitors can build race-bikes in the knowledge that their model is accepted and legal, not subject to ongoing scrutiny and rumblings 'behind the scenes' as it were....
This is probably as good a time as ever to advise my history in the sport - was a competitor in PCRA back in 2001, after many years attending and flag-marshaling for them. I raced a Z1000H (fuel-injected) model in the 2001 season, and it was the use of this bike (stock except for a wider rear spoked rim), that led to fuel-injection being banned from P5. I have been attending bike meetings across the eastern states since 1978, including many Bathurst meetings, and I have a library of aussie and US magazines that start with Two Wheels in 1968, REVS from 1973, AMCN from the mid-70's and countless other smaller print runs. I am currently assisting Mark Boddy with magazine articles for New Era bikes in NSW, to try and clear up eligibility questions there.
thats more than enough from me, time to get back on topic....
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 11:21:06 AM
|
Gosling,
I personally think you are correct. We should use 1982 as the cutoff date for P5 simply because any action now is simply shutting the gate after the horse has bolted,There are too many J model P5 bikes that have got in now. But it still does not make me feel comfortable because most people have spent their money already complying with the current rules. |
|
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 3:32:39 PM
|
Basically, if you the riders are unhappy with proposed changes eg. wording from manufactured to generally available, let your State Controlling Bodies know so they can inform MA that the majority are not keen. This applies to all proposals.
The commissioners suggested a questionaire be sent out with various proposals/ideas for all to review. This would be to everyones present & future benefit but you will not please everyone.
Cheers, Pete |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2007 : 6:08:02 PM
|
I would love the opportunity to complete a questionnaire about proposed changes to submit to MA. I was never given the opportunity to provide any advice to MA or seek any assistance from MA, when fuel-injection was banned from the 2002 season onwards. At that time, I was the only competitor using a 'stock' fuel-injected bike in P5 in the country. It was totally factory-legal, had a build-date of April 1980, and not all that fast anyway ...*chortle*... but apparently it put the wind up a few people, who thought that the injection could be modified to produce more power......
Unfortunately for the so-called 'experts' of the day, this is not possible in a closed-loop analogue system, where the entire fuel-injection 'map' is based upon a swinging air-flap, ie an analogue input....but of course the opposing views won the day, basically out of a fear of the unknow. It would have been 'so' easy to ban EFI, *unless* it had been factory-fitted at the time of manufacture ie. the only eligible machine would have been the Z1000H. If its OK to do this for major components (ie RG MkV brakes, forks etc), why not a whole bike ???Anyway, thats my *rant* over. ........its not going to change anything now....
The good news today is that an exhaustive search through my REVS collection has unearthed a great article in the October 1980 issue, where a story on the US release of the Z1000J1, and a couple of other models, has been written. There are some great pictures as well. The J was clearly available to the general public in the US, well before the current P5 cut-off date of 31 December 1980. I hope this means that any further speculation or concerns about the eligibility of this model may now laid to rest.
cheers
Dave
ps - Bummers - I found some pretty awful photographs of you modelling a Belray t-shirt !! You cut a dashing figure mate !!! :-)) |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
rogerjo
Level 1 Member
New South Wales
2 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2007 : 6:20:54 PM
|
Good on you Gosling!
I have been bashing this into the heads of the idiots for 10 years and every couple of years they come up again with short memories and huge egos trying to derail the importance of our class. As I told you at Wakefield, Z1000J are legal and proven time and again.
Thanks again Big Boy!
Roger Quinlan |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2007 : 9:40:27 PM
|
cheers Roger - its just like Groundhog Day !! I will be interested to see if there are any issues when MA get my logbook application shortly......
;-) |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums |
© 2000 - 2024 |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
