| Author |
 Topic  |
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
 Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 09:17:41 AM
|
Bernie, are you talking about your 2 stroke?
If so, your engine end cases do not contain oil so therefore do not need protection.
There are different ways of interpreting this rule and, I suppose, the scrutineer will be forced to make decisions on the interpretation.
"Which could be in contact...." How much damage would need to happen before contact occurred? What would be reasonable to expect to happen in a crash?
"or be fitted with heavy duty........" What constitutes heavy duty?
I would suggest that any cast aluminium end case would be "heavy duty".
This rule is one that we have inherited from the modern bikes and is primarily aimed at transverse 4 cylinder 4 stroke bikes which have protruding end cases with flimsy covers.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
 |
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 10:05:46 AM
|
John, I was thinking of my 2 stroke's clutch cover. But if "lateral covers/engine cases" means only lateral covers on engine cases I guess I don't have to worry. I can't remember ever having the clutch cover leak after a crash (and there have been a few!). The fairing, footpeg/footpeg brackets & muffler on that bike, take most of the impact in the contact zone.
Do any eligibility scrutineers contribute to this forum, for your opinion? |
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 26 Dec 2009 : 10:56:40 AM
|
Bernie, there are bound to be disagreements over the interpretation of any new rules. If your clutch cover is an aluminium casting I would argue that it is heavy duty and is not likely to come in contact with the ground in a crash.
I am not aware of any scrutineers contributing, but I did have one tell me that in his opinion my CB125 would not need extra protection.
Hopefully common sense will prevail and any bikes deemed to need protectors will be accepted without them on the proviso that they are installed before the next meeting.
Time will tell.
I am sure that I read somewhere in the build up to this rule change that it did not apply to 2 strokes.
I think this may have been in the M.A. commission minutes. I will check.
Cheers, John
Have checked the commission minutes and the wording is "To minimise the incidence of oil spills caused by the grinding of end cases particularly on across the frame 4 cylinder machines, this is not intended to apply to 2 stroke machines as they do not normally have oil in susceptible end cases". |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 26 Dec 2009 11:13:36 AM |
|
|
|
Alan Cotterell
In a time out state
Victoria
421 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 08:29:05 AM
|
| An easy way to create a problem, is to ask for permission! |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 10:43:55 AM
|
We don't want problems, only solutions.
Let common sense prevail.
Have you noticed how rare common sense is? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
GD66
Senior Member
Western Australia
390 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2009 : 5:49:23 PM
|
| Bernie, you'll be ok with a two-stroke. The rule was invoked because a couple of years ago at a wet Eastern Creek meeting, Ben Henry crashed, picked up his bike and kept going to the end of the race, leaving oil right round the track, and causing other crashes. As a kneejerk reaction, MA instituted their end case rule, ansd now it has followed on, or should I say followed through, to historics P4 and P5, which is of course crap. For a start, the end cases on our old dungers are much thicker and more crash-resistant than today's flimsy equivalent. Nevertheless, ignoring how it was implemented, the rule is in. Although, knowing the practical attitude of Dennis and the rest of the Phillip Island scrutineering team, you can be pretty sure that if you've made a bona fide attempt to fulfil the intent of the rule, they'll let you ride. But to turn up there hoping for the best, and pleading ignorance, would be extremely ill-advised.... |
Edited by - GD66 on 27 Dec 2009 5:50:30 PM |
|
|
|
revhd
Level 2 Member
Victoria
108 Posts |
Posted - 31 Dec 2009 : 9:43:39 PM
|
| Are you sure this will apply to historics 2 strokes etc, it going to make some bikes look pretty ugly,i just see alloy bars drapped around motors yuck!!!! |
125 alliance |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jan 2010 : 08:13:12 AM
|
The wording of the proposal (see above) clearly stated that it was NOT meant to apply to 2 strokes.
I haven't read the 2010 manual yet so can't comment on the actual wording as to whether it specifically excludes 2 strokes.............can someone help?
The "09 wording for moderns was suitably ambiguous enough to cause problems in understanding just what it meant so it is probable that it has been transposed verbatim to the historic section to cause more confusion.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
revhd
Level 2 Member
Victoria
108 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2010 : 6:28:28 PM
|
| And the way i read it p3 can now use mikuni round slide up too 40mm,should be good for few more horses. |
125 alliance |
|
|
|
Alan Cotterell
In a time out state
Victoria
421 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jan 2010 : 11:14:01 PM
|
| Some people might not have yet found out that big ports don't necessarily mean more power! A good way to make a motor slower is to stuff the gas flow velocities by neglecting to taper the port. |
|
|
|
mboddy
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
![]()
26 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 08:14:05 AM
|
2010 GCRs are available for download from MA web site:
You must be logged in to see this link.
Here is the rule we are discussing from the 2010 GCRs:
 |
Edited by - mboddy on 04 Jan 2010 08:19:34 AM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 08:54:35 AM
|
Thanks for that Mark.
Fortunately most historic bikes have end cases made from solid metal so should not be affected by this rule.
Mark, would you agree? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
mboddy
Level 2 Member
Australian Capital Territory
![]()
26 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 09:56:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by john feakes
Fortunately most historic bikes have end cases made from solid metal so should not be affected by this rule.
Mark, would you agree?
It is what the Scrutineer at your race meeting thinks that will matter.
So I don't risk it.
My 'Period 6' two stroke has a very thick inner reinforced clutch case as original equipment.
But I still fitted an extra guard to avoid arguments at scrutineering.
My Period 5 RDLCs have rather thick clutch cases but I have been welding 6mm alloy plate to them since the mid nineties.
Never have to worry about them again.
Crash many times on them and only have to run a file over them and spray them again.
I do the same for the RDLC ignition cases even though they have no oil behind.
Just so they never break. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 11:15:55 AM
|
Therein lies the problem.
The rule is ambiguous enough to leave it open to personal interpretation.
I would argue that solid metal is all that is required, but I have always had a thing about people who want to tell me what I can and can't do.
Interesting times ahead methinks.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
GD66
Senior Member
Western Australia
390 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jan 2010 : 10:14:10 PM
|
If it's a rule they care to enforce, ambiguous as it is, it could mean you'll miss a ride, regardless of your personal issues with authority. Not worth the risk.
The trick will be, will it be enforced on all the Pommy Period 5 bikes arriving for the Challenge ? |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 8:03:57 PM
|
Time will tell. I rather think that bikes from overseas will not be affected
by this rule, they probably don't even know that it exists.
I am optimistic that common sense will prevail. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
GD66
Senior Member
Western Australia
390 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jan 2010 : 8:36:33 PM
|
| Well, if it is left to the commonsense approach of Dennis and his sidekicks at the Island, I'm sure there will be no problem. But somewhere, sometime, it will be enforced, so I've fabbed one up for my bike, and I'll be getting on with the racing. See you at The Island ! |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 07:23:03 AM
|
My clutch cover has a battle scar on it. I was thinking of polishing it out but I now think I will leave it as evidence of it being a crash resistant cover.
Looking forward to The Island, see you there. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
jvdairlie
Level 2 Member
Queensland
48 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 08:15:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by john feakes
My clutch cover has a battle scar on it. I was thinking of polishing it out but I now think I will leave it as evidence of it being a crash resistant cover.
Looking forward to The Island, see you there.
While your existing cover is clearly 'crash resistant' it's clear enough from the rule (and the way it has been interpreted in all other classes of racing) that you must have a second cover!
Roll on 22 January! |
|
|
|
Alan Cotterell
In a time out state
Victoria
421 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 09:31:50 AM
|
My clutch cover has a battle scar on it. I was thinking of polishing it out but I now think I will leave it as evidence of it being a crash resistant cover.
Looking forward to The Island, see you there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While your existing cover is clearly 'crash resistant' it's clear enough from the rule (and the way it has been interpreted in all other classes of racing) that you must have a second cover!
I wonder how the controlling body would feel if that approach is applied to crash helmets? Perhaps a damaged end cover has already fulfilled its purpose and should be scrapped? |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 12:45:25 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by jvdairlie
While your existing cover is clearly 'crash resistant' it's clear enough from the rule (and the way it has been interpreted in all other classes of racing) that you must have a second cover!
It is far from clear that every bike has to have a second cover.
It states very clearly "or be fitted with heavy duty crash resistant end cases made from solid metal".
It does not state that all bikes must be fitted with a second cover regardless of what existing covers are fitted.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Historic
Level 2 Member
New South Wales
46 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 2:21:18 PM
|
Didn't really want to get involved in this one as I think it is a silly rule. But now that it is in, I suppose it's better not to confuse people with people "interpreting" this rule. It has been in "moderns" for some time. A second cover is required unless a special heavy duty crash resitant cases are fitted. I'm unaware of anybody making these for historic bikes. So if the cover (containing oil) can come into contact with the track in a crash fit some covers or protective bars. Don't waste the time available trying to think your way around this new rule, make the effort. From experience I can tell you that a bit of strap across the cases will get you through scrutineering faster than trying to argue that your 20 plus year old cases are heavy duty enough to comply.
Boring I know but just make the effort and get on with racing.
Historic |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 3:45:42 PM
|
Yet another interpretation that invents words that are not in the rule.
Nowhere does it say "special" heavy duty crash resistant end cases.
The "special" end cases were necessary for modern bikes that have flimsy protruding end cases from the factory, the very bikes that started all this bull****.
Also, it only applies to periods 4 and 5.
How would they cope with a P3 MV or Gilera 4? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 06 Jan 2010 3:58:06 PM |
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 5:00:15 PM
|
Oh dear we have been taken off by trivia whilst the big issues are ignored. Talk about fiddling whilst Rome burns. Fix the cases and look at the real threat of entire bikes being taken out (made uncompetitive) due to period dates being changed without consultation with the majority.
Are people interested in forming a two valve class or a class based on the old rules?
|
|
|
|
GD66
Senior Member
Western Australia
390 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 8:14:25 PM
|
Are you talking about the 1980 cutoff being changed surreptitiously to 1982, Oldkwak ? Doesn't this just mean Katanas are in, and RG500 front ends are in ? Surely the GSX1100s that have ruled since the class began have four valve motors, and not much else has changed ?
If anything, I would think a two-valve class running within existing fields would be well received amongst relevant participants, why not canvass those interested at the Island Classic ? |
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 9:54:03 PM
|
I don't agree that GSX1100's have dominated, a number of two valve Kwaks have been in the race (Korpe and Guest) but that will change dramatically if the RSC Hondas and some Suzuki mutants appear.
At or about the same time (1981 and 82) there were also dramatic changes in frame design and materials and in brakes. Period five will become period 5.5 and the original concept will be completely subverted and the blokes who have supported the class for years will simply vanish because they will have no hope against those beasts.
I will follow up at the island re the 2 valve class because to try to change the rules back will be like Canute holding back the tide and in this world of climate change, that ain't healthy. |
|
|
|
GD66
Senior Member
Western Australia
390 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jan 2010 : 10:03:44 PM
|
Got it, point taken with the Z1R pilots (both Guesty and Corpe are fantastic) and I can see where your unease is coming from now. It'll be interesting to follow, I imagine it's been updated so that the English and NZ teams for the Island Classic, who both have 1982 cutoff at home, don't have an advantage over the locals...but after last year's utter caning by the home side, is it really that crucial ?
Will follow developments with interest. Meantime, best wishes for the Island. |
|
|
|
Alan Cotterell
In a time out state
Victoria
421 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2010 : 05:40:00 AM
|
| What are these 'suzuki mutants'? I would have thought it would be difficult to engineer an advantage out of a Katana compared with a GSX1100? The difference in the engine is a minor casting change to the cylinder head which does nothing. And the Kat head is already being used on some GSX1100s which are already racing! If allowing Katanas to run gets more guys out racing, surely that can only be good? The RG500 front end would be a real advantage, I don't think. The Ross Barelli incident occurred because of moves to dispense with the chrome plated aluminium discs on the RG500 and replace them with cast iron! |
|
|
|
OldKwak
Level 2 Member
Victoria
156 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2010 : 12:47:29 PM
|
Oh Alan, you have such a knack for getting off the track, I am not wanting to discuss the relative virtues of Katanas viz a viz the gsx1100 or even the virtues or lack of them as you assert of XR series Suzuki front end. The fact is that by 1982 there were a number of special variants of Honda, Suzuki, Yamaha etc, prototype or factory special, that were to revolutionize motorcycling for the next decade and the old (2009) period 5 cutoff date recognized that (either by design or accident)and precluded these preserving them for the next period.
It is arguably the case now, because most of the machines racing under the old (2009) rules would not have existed at the time, that there are a number of mutants already in existence. The application of the XR series floating disc pattern to a Kawasaki would probably have been considered as bizarre at the time, although people like POPY didn't mind sticking Kwak parts in a Suzy. So mutants exist now but does this justify extending the arms race for another two years in this particular case?
In terms of the impact of the decision, I believe that a lot of people may leave racing because they are not able to meet the technical challenges of upgrading because the machines they own will not allow retro fitting of the 81 to 82 improvements. Even if they can, for example a j model head on the old z900, the impact is only marginal as compared to fully jumped up j model kwak.
Further, the changes over 81-82 in technology of motorcycles, even if only at factory level are enough to warrant a new period, not the extension of the existing period.
I don't think that's good for the sport no matter how many Katanas arrive at the track as a consequence of this decision.
GD, understand your point but the fact is that last year we had better riders (not that I am biased at all), what happens when they bring people out who can use the advantages (such as 4 pot calipers) |
|
|
|
Alan Cotterell
In a time out state
Victoria
421 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jan 2010 : 8:44:05 PM
|
| So what's changed? There will always be cheaters, and the biggest cheat is always about capacity! Are we now going to check engine size at every meeting? I don't own an 80s superbike, but I suggest if it's not watercooled and six speed there's little problem. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
