| Author |
 Topic  |
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 3:37:48 PM
|
I thought I would throw this into the arena to see what reaction it gets. Is it time that we reassessed the way we classify historic bikes? Seems to me that there is far too much importance attached to the date aspect and not enough to the type of machine. When I was a young fella we didn't have historic racing, we only had racing and life was simple. You raced what you could afford and if it was a pre-war old dunga you just did the best you could with it and so what if it was outdated. The difference was of design rather than of year and this is where it seems to me that we could simplify life by taking a look at the past. Roughly I would see Veteran as being motorised pushbike style, pedal start, fixed gear etc. Vintage as rigid frame, girder forks 4 speed gearbox, Classic as telescopic forks and some rear suspension, be it plunger, sprung hub or twin shock swing arm etc.etc. Date of manufacture not important, era and intent being the important issues.What are your thoughts on this?
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
Allan
Site Moderator
National
599 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 4:22:42 PM
|
| pre war velo Ktt had girder front forks es swing arm rear..Triumph had spring hub. Guzzie had swing arm pre ww11 and others had rear suspension of kind's |
Allan Greening |
 |
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2007 : 7:29:13 PM
|
I totally agree John! It's a matter of what TYPE of bike races with what, nothing to do with dates exclusively. We all love Period 3, its the premier class! However it would be muvch better if we raced all the old G50s and manxes etc against BSA B40s, B50s, Triumph 500s, Enfield Constellations (I think that was the name of their sharp little racer). Effectively we've lost every unit Triumph from historic racing simply because they're not worth racing in unlimited P4! We don't have any Mk2/3 Seeley G50s running around, and they were the ultimate British single cylinder racer! I'd like to say this absolutely clearly - Running a Andy Molnar Manx in a field of Seeley G50s isn't as bloody stupid as running my 850 Seeley Norton in a race with 1100cc Honda fours full of HRC bits!
I believe the answer might lie in having a group of 'experts' which decides which class a particular bike can race in, and then licensing the bike through its log book!
I suggest we have to get classes where the racing is more down to the riders ability if the sport is to progress.
Racing in 'periods' didn't happen in the old days! The classes were based on capacities, and rider's grading! And the sport is actually called 'historic racing'!! It doesn't look 'historic' to me! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2007 : 08:44:27 AM
|
| Thankyou for your support Alan. Now there are two of us. Come on people, let's hear from you. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2007 : 10:36:29 AM
|
Alan, one of the problems I see is that those of us who rode in, and have first hand memories of what is currently called P2 and P3 are a dying breed. If we don't start rethinking the situation soon we will be completely dependent on "printed matter" and too many aspects will again be in dispute.But let's see if anyone else rises to the bait. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2007 : 09:47:45 AM
|
What if we ran a period 3 up to 650 class? Would this bring out any Triumphs or Domis? Are there any around in race trim? Do we need to call it period 3? Would these be old fashioned buckets? I don't like the term buckets, we have somehow got stuck with it. In the past I knew such things as clubman bikes as opposed to pukka race bikes. They were very much a part of the history of our sport and having just attended the Victorian Championship round at Broadford I am sorry to say that apart from the juniors and the 125/250GP ALL the bikes were road based models. Who makes an over the counter race bike these days? Come on boys, give me some input. We have more variety in historic racing than the moderns have. Its up to us how we enjoy it. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 03 Sep 2007 09:51:11 AM |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 03 Sep 2007 : 7:34:51 PM
|
John, there already is a sub class available for up to 700cc in Period 3 and up to 750cc in Period 4 both were designed to bring back some normality and originality to the sport but organisers havent as yet taken it up. The 700cc limit in P3 was to cater for the Royal Enfields but did unfortunately exclude the Vincents. Anyway the option is already there as I said, its up to the clubs that run Historic Racing to take it up.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2007 : 8:33:42 PM
|
Racing in 'periods' didn't happen in the *old days*, primarily because those *old days* WERE the period !!!!
If you start changing classes now, based on what type of bike a bunch of *experts* feel is correct, you will just be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Like it or hate it, without some form of enforced compliance of appropriate 'Periods', Historic racing would simply dissapear up its own ****. There has to be line drawn somewhere that determines eligibility, and dated periods is it.
The sport may not look 'Historic' to you Alan, but this is 2007, not 1967. You simply cannot turn back the wheels of time and get people racing as they did back then. The recent Barry Sheene Memorial was an absolute cracker of an event, and the machines racing in the early classes (P1-P3) all looked entirely 'Historic' and representative of the period to 99% of the punters in attendance.
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 10:10:36 AM
|
| Dave, the reason I introduced this subject was to see what others thought of looking at history from a different angle. My main point being that date of manufacture should not be the sole factor to determine which era a bike represents. Is not the type of bike just as important as the year of manufacture? We currently have bikes competing that have been built quite recently but are deemed to be eligible because they replicate the original models built in a period. This in itself goes someway to negating the notion that bikes be classified by year of manufacture. My whole point is that the type of bike i.e. its appearance, has far more to do with which period of the past it represents than does its year of manufacture. History has been as much about the march of technical development as it has been about the march of time. Surely the important thing about historic racing is to show the kind of bikes that were used in years gone by and to categorise them by their design features rather than by the year they were made. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel or turn the clock back, merely trying to ensure that historic racing has a future. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 14 Sep 2007 : 7:06:25 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by john feakes
Surely the important thing about historic racing is to show the kind of bikes that were used in years gone by and to categorise them by their design features rather than by the year they were made.
That's done in museums.
I reckon the aim of Historic bike racing should be to see how faster historic looking bikes & riders would go if developed with the technologies of today, by stretching the rules to the limit.
To me it's a engineering development pursuit not a prize money pursuit.
Bummers  |
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 15 Sep 2007 : 08:38:08 AM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Bummers
I reckon the aim of Historic bike racing should be to see how faster historic looking bikes & riders would go if developed with the technologies of today, by stretching the rules to the limit.
To me it's a engineering development pursuit not a prize money pursuit.
Bernie, we don't disagree here. My question is not about how much development goes into a race bike but about how we categorise the bikes. Year of manufacture does not mean much when all the internals can be changed. External appearance is what dates a bike, not the year of manufacture. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 4:20:14 PM
|
The nicest bike I've ever seen at an historic meeting was a MK2 Seeley G50 which Craig McDonald bought in tassie in the mid 70s. It blew up straight away, and I don't believe it was ever rebuilt! The bike was similar to the one which Paul Smart won the Czech GP in 1972 against the TZ Yamahas etc. The Seeley G50 was the best ever single cylinder racing machine, yet out system of historic cassifications in Australia renders it useless in period 4, and ineligible in period 3.
I suggest we'd be better off racing bikes in classes depending on TYPES rather than year of manufacture!!!! A good Senior class for single and twin cylinder machines (NO TWO STROKES) would be a good start!! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
dig
Level 1 Member
New Zealand
7 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 7:53:56 PM
|
Racing class by type or by age, as a prewar class racer here in New Zealand our class was by type and all was very fine until a 1948 MKV111 velo arrived with its s/arm rear.the prewar class here started off as pre 1939 so it was class by date,then to let the Indian side valvers have a place where they could run the prewar class then moved to a type class but of the prewar type of racer.well as most of us know MKV111 was made prewar but few if any prewar MKV111s are racing now and when 96% of the riders here in NZ could see that there was no way that any of the real prewar racers could race on even terms the prewar class started to decline and racing was just a joke.
The clubmans class to came to a head because of bikes being built and raced that looked the part but used jap fork parts and had modified frames and some bikes were moved on to a modified class where they should have been all the time.
Is a MKV111 in the same class and type as a 7R, a factory racer? I believe it is,more so if it was made in 1948 and therefor it should be in a factory racing class unless it was made before 1939 then it is a genuine prewar racer.
I do believe class by date has its place just as by type has its place, but to mix the two in one class is a mistake, as it will only make that class weak as i saw in NZ.
After the MKV111 was moved to the factory racing class the prewar racing class has grown faster with more competitors and more bikes in one year than in any time that classic racing has been going in New Zealand. Just my thoughts and what i have noticed of the type v date classes |
|
|
|
Rosko
Level 1 Member
New South Wales
13 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 9:25:05 PM
|
| Just arrived in your forum, so keep up the good work, if you need any info on the pst i may help because i was there |
|
|
|
GD66
Senior Member
Western Australia
390 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 10:51:07 PM
|
| Paul Smart won the 1972 Czech GP on a Seeley G50 ? I'd like to see that- don't tell Ago ! |
|
|
|
Rosko
Level 1 Member
New South Wales
13 Posts |
Posted - 22 Sep 2007 : 11:13:40 PM
|
| I saw Godfery Nash win the 1970 Yugoslavian GP on a Manx Norton, and that was a fact. |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 05:15:15 AM
|
I'd expect that when Paul Smart won the Czech GP on a Seeley, it might have been a wet circuit. The point I'm making is that I cannot see a problem with running Manxes and G50s from P3 along with P4 Seeleys and BSA B40s, with P5 Yamaha SR500s. They're all 500cc four strokes. I suggest we need to go back to the original concept of the 20s and 30s - a Senior Class for 500cc Four stroke singles and twins, and a 350cc Junior Class for singles and twins. (Just leave the two strokes out of it. They can have their own classes and even race in the unlimited classes.)
For 12 years I raced a 500cc Triumph Triton (short stroke)in C & B grade unlimited races. I believe I only ever got to ride it in a 'Senior' race once in all those years. In every other race it was up against unlimited bikes. I don't believe that's what racing was ever about in the olden days!!! We still have the Triumph 500. Do you think I should get on it again and repeat the stupidity of running it against mobs of 650, 750, 1000cc bikes?? This stuff about 'just bring it out and have fun' is a load of BULL!! If the bike is outclassed, it's outclassed! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 08:16:45 AM
|
| There seems to be an attitude that if I can't win I'm not going to play. Surely the sport is all about enjoying riding and the social intercourse with like minded people. Only one can win and can only win if someone finishes second! We all know that some bikes were built solely to win races and others were built to serve as everyday transport. To expect a 500cc Triumph to beat a Manx Norton is to be very optimistic. The reason I introduced this subject had nothing to do with trying to make every bike a winner but rather to question how we view history. If a person wants to race they have a fairly wide choice of which bike to buy and which class to compete in. It is an historical fact that the more money spent the more likely one is to get to the front. I don't have a problem with that. If someone is silly enough to spend $50,000 to win a $10 trophy then good luck to him. Silly sod. But I would commend him for keeping the sport alive. Many years ago,in about 1955, one of my neighbours had a 125cc MV twincam racer. To me it was the most beautiful piece of machinery I had ever seen and I fell in love. Alas, my father was not prepared to mortgage the family home to buy me one. I had to get by with an outdated Manx. Wish I still had it! Anyway,I have always kept that MV in my heart and this was largely what prompted me to raise the subject of how we view history. I am currently building a cb125 Honda as a period 4 bike,the nearest I will ever get to that beautiful MV. But in all seriousness what is the difference between the two bikes? Think about it. The MV was a better bike in 1954 than the Honda in 1974 but in all the engineering principles they are the same. The Honda has nothing that makes it different in design so which era of development does it belong in? That is my question. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 11:56:56 AM
|
Firstly I have to agree with Johns phylosophy in his last posting. I have run a GT750 powered outfit for quite a few years now and it is not possible for it to beat a big bore Honda on methanol so have I parked it or have I had fun with other backmarkers who run on a smaller budget. Obviously I have kept the fun factor going and carried on spending a whole lot less than many others.
In answer to Alan Cotterells last posting re his 500 Triumph, who would you need to race it in unlimited classes when there is a 500/senior class to run in? lets not get to carried away with what is or is not competitive, there always has been and always will be the haves and the have nots and that applies to machinery, skill and finance. Life is about enjoyment and you can enjoy without being at the front.
On the main subject of this posting there is no simple solution but there is the possibility of change by going through the proper channels and no matter what individuals think of MA that is what they and the Historic Commission are there for. There is the opportunity to have later components allowed into the various periods providing it doesnt give a major technical advantage so just maybe there is the chance a later machine complete could be allowed given proper lobbying across the country. One thing is for sure talking on here without testing the water officially will not achieve it, why not get together a proposal and shop around the states and then put it to MA and see what happens.
Now there is a challenge.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 4:12:22 PM
|
(To John Feakes -' To expect a 500cc Triumph to beat a Manx Norton is to be very optimistic.' - Not True!)
What you guys see m to miss is that in the olden days, the guys with the quick manxes were all A graders. In the 70s the guys with the fast TZs were all A graders. The races were open for riders in their own grade and the one below. It meant fewer rides per day, but if someone had the big supercheater, they suddenly went up a grade and rode against Ron Toombs and Len Atlee. I don't believe historic racing will ever be a really impressive spectator sport while it runs all grades of riders together, all capacities, and we have races where after one lap the leaders lap the tail enders. As I've said about historic superbikes, the success of any new class depends on a 'critical mass aspect'. It's Catch 22 - If there aren't enough riders to run graded races with sensible capacity limits, then we'll always get these unattractive races. The sport won't grow unless we change. If we haven't got the riders we can't change. You cannot televise the type of races we have in P2, P3, and P4 - you simply cannot cover the cost of the exercise. With 'historic superbikes' we have a chance to get something we can 'sell'! The rest might tag along. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Sep 2007 : 7:48:02 PM
|
| John, Now I'm really in a huff! Can't beat a manx with my 500 Triumph, indeed!! The attached photo shows the famous first ever historic demo/race at winton in October 1973. There are actually five bikes in the picture, you can only see four. The near one is Steve Osko. THe second is Strawb Thompson, Then Richard Bendell on a 500 manx, the one you can't see is Russell King with a 650cc Triumph. I'm the one with his bum on the seat accelerating away while the rest are all dragging their club feet. I led the field away then realised that the rest were all nowhere, so I slowed and waited a bit. Osko blasted past me doing his A Grader's 61 second lap. I ended up chasing him and having a go against russell. I finished second or third. Richard crashed and broke his collar bone while trying too hard. We took him home after hospital and snuck him in the door before his wife woke up and massacred us. I think Strawb got the wooden spoon. I believe though that Peter Lord and Derek Picard achieved what they wanted. Historic racing had started in Vic. I never took part in it until about 5 years ago when I dragged the Seeley out. It had never been raced as it would never have been competitive in Allpowers C Grade in the 80s. The Triumph 500 was sold back to Allan Greening in the mid 80s, he used it a bit. Recently it was sold to Renea Duursma of Glenrowan. I don't know if it'll get raced again. It actually can compete fairly with a Pre63 500cc manx norton. I was glad to see the last of it. Why would you bash your head against a brick wall? |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
|
|
Rosko
Level 1 Member
New South Wales
13 Posts |
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 10:26:18 PM
|
quote:
....... Year of manufacture does not mean much when all the internals can be changed. External appearance is what dates a bike, not the year of manufacture. Cheers, John
I don't understand the logic behind this statement. External appearance also means 'nothing' when the internals can still be changed ??? How is it any different from the year of manufacture ? And isn't the external appearance of a bike basically determined by year of manufacture anyway ???
I must have missed something in the translation...... |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
Black Pete
Level 1 Member
Northern Territory
14 Posts |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 11:48:10 PM
|
I have heard of 125 BSA Bantams while looking externally right being TZ Yamaha inside. There are some Harleys & JAP's running around with unheard of in the day bore & stroke dimensions, using I believe things like Kawasaki KL600/650 cranks. Why? - because they will be faster while still retaining the 'right' external appearance, parts are not unobtainium or too expensive & they are not trying to extract HP from a crankshaft(2 strokes) thats been apart so many times it would be better off at the tip for all the good it is. Using more modern materials/parts circumvents using clapped out metal fatigued parts which might be OK if you wanted a bike for display only.
Cheers, Pete  |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 10:07:01 AM
|
| I believe that the opportunity to do unlimited development on old concept bikes is a major attraction of historic racing, and I'm into that myself. I also recognise that when you do that exercise you make the racing into a money based exercise for winnig and even trying to compete fairly. John's Historic Superbike rules are a step in the right direction. Changing internals of an engine, I can't see as a problem except when it leads to massive increases in capacity. John Feaks doubted that my old Triumphg 500 could beat a Manx - he was actually thinkung of the standard production 500cc 82mm stroke machines, my bike was 63mm stroke and 71mm bore. When I raced it, it would blow the doors off any standard CB750 Honda. When the Hondas became 830cc by using CB450 pistons, they were more of a problem. Rex's bikes are excellent developments, but I think we've lost the plot in Period 4. If you want to win, you pay Rex's price! There's a lot to be said for limitting development of historic racers, not the least being that there's a lot of bikes now racing that should really have been restored to originality. I suggest that capacity changes in engines, and the competition classes should be strictly controlled. Then the developments centre around close ratio gear boxes, camshafts and frames - all areas of minor advantage. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 2:49:27 PM
|
| I'll keep it simple. How can a 2008 Manx or G50 be classified as a period 3 bike but a 1972 Honda CB 125 with a drum front brake can't? Only because Norton built a Manx in 1963 and Honda didn't build a CB 125 in 1963. They are all aircooled single cylinder engines in tubular steel frames with twin shock swing arms. What is the difference in engineering principles? Could anyone mistake them for modern bikes? Do they not all represent the same era of development of the motorcycle? This is why I raised the subject. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Gosling1
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
52 Posts |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 8:55:22 PM
|
thats a pretty dangerous path to take I reckon......if you take your concept to its logical conclusion, what do you end up with ?
A motorcycle, consisting of a frame, with a wheel at each end controlled by suspension units, a fuel tanks and seat, and some controls.....??? They are all the same for the purpose of your argument - when clearly they are *not* all the same.
A 1973 Honda is, and always will be, a 1973 Honda. The fact that it has 2 wheels, a 4-stroke single motor, twin shocks etc, means very little at all - otherwise, you may as well just lump every twin-shock air-cooled 4-stroke single into the same class.......I don't think this would improve the racing or the spectacle.....
If you consider air-cooled 4 cylinder bikes with twin shocks, how competitive would an Ariel Square 4 be against a Z1000 ?? Or a Henderson 4 ??? That is the ultimate extension of the concept you are putting forward ( if its not, please clear it up for me...)
Year of manufacture is the lesser of many evils, in creating appropriate classes....
cheers
Dave |
".....we're gonna get it this time......he had his indicator on....." |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 11:24:03 AM
|
| Oh dear! Gosling you are making quantum leaps when only small steps are required. Henderson, as far as I know, died in 1931 and never produced a bike with either telescopic forks or rear suspension. They would clearly be in a different era of development to anything with tele forks and rear suspension. Ariel square four??? How many racing today? Why would you? Possibly with a sidecar. The whole point of this discussion is to see if it would make more sense to look at bikes in terms of eras of technical change rather than just year of manufacture. Please don't complicate it with olympic leaps of imagination. Give it some thought please. Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 5:31:33 PM
|
| There are two separate things - the authenticity of the bike, and what it is allowed to race against. If we develop classes with specificationsa on the types of development permitted,based on capacities and types of machine, we mught actually get some sense into racing. The date has nothing to do with anything as far as the two aspects are concerned. It's pretty clear from what's ra cing that the 'rules' don't stop extensive mods to old bikes that should be kept unmodified. The original Derek Picard/Peter Lord concept was about preserving racing machines of historic value - what a lot of BULL?? Perhaps we need an 'eligibility committee' to independently assesses what class any machine will be allowed to race in? I could be on the committee, if you've got enough money for me in a brown paper bag, you're sure to win!! We could then allow whatever mods the guys want! |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 24 Oct 2007 : 07:13:43 AM
|
I found a '52 125cc MV engine for sale in France.
32,000 euros! And it is the "mass produced" mono albero (single cam) version.I wonder what would be asked for the complete bike. Makes my Honda look very cheap.
Cheers, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
