| Author |
 Topic  |
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
 Posted - 25 May 2012 : 09:30:13 AM
|
Alan, you seem to be going around in circles. The suggestion will draw in later model Nortons and unit construction Triumphs.
That is the WHOLE proposal.
I believe you are confusing the issue.
Can I ask you shift Thunder bikes to another topic and leave some clear air for the original proposal.
There are too many unrelated comments in thsi section. |
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 - 25 May 2012 : 4:09:38 PM
|
I, too, am starting to get a bit confused as to where this is going and even more, where it is not going.
Surely it does not mean that only Nortons and Triumphs will be allowed in?
Or does it?
I think it should be open to ANY bike that is generally of the right type but just made a bit too late for P3 classification.
You see, someone forgot to tell all the manufacturers that they had to start using new technology after December 31st 1962 and many just carried on with what they were already doing.
If only they'd known what trouble they were going to cause.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 25 May 2012 : 6:10:24 PM
|
The proposal as defined right from the start is to allow machines which were in production before the arbitrary
cut off date, but cross over that date and essentially were similar, IE Unit / Pre Unit Construction and other machines which has minor changes in reality.
The confusion has been created by others wanting to spruke their own cause on top of an idea which may be seen as a simple improvement to the rules.
As I have said, we need to move careffully to get a result, but at the same time clubs like the HMRAV can choose to create variations that suit the club and potential entrants / racers.
So keep the thumper bike with 3 stroke, 5 cylinder donks as a separate issue.
The best way to get anywhere is to keep each idea separate, otherwise nothing will happen.
I can say I notice from discussion elsewhere, the HMRAV are going to look at some variations.
|
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 05:48:14 AM
|
'The proposal as defined right from the start is to allow machines which were in production before the arbitrary
cut off date, but cross over that date and essentially were similar, IE Unit / Pre Unit Construction and other machines which has minor changes in reality.'
Triumph 650s were not unit construction until 1963 !
You must be logged in to see this link.
How is this a different motorcycle and why wouldn't you race it in the same class ?:
You must be logged in to see this link.
What is the proposal ? |
Edited by - conker on 26 May 2012 07:56:17 AM |
|
|
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 05:57:37 AM
|
Note this comment from the link I've just posted:
LAST OF THE PRE-UNITS
The 1962 Triumph Bonneville marked the end of an age. It was the last non-unit construction motorcycle built by Triumph. Unit construction ushered in the modern age, or so it must have seemed at the time. Little did they know that just a few short years from then, the Japanese would flood the market with technologically advanced machinery the likes of which the world had never seen!
This whole discussion should be about technology ! ! ! When are we going to get really decent racing, instead of the current sham ? |
|
|
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 06:03:57 AM
|
What is this about ? :
'So keep the thumper bike with 3 stroke, 5 cylinder donks as a separate issue.'
Muddying the water ?
It looks like it is 'ground hog day' again ! Why should I waste my time with this rubbish, when Wakefield Park is four hours up the Hume Highway, and Terry O'Neill runs a Pro-Thunder class there.
|
Edited by - conker on 26 May 2012 06:09:56 AM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 26 May 2012 : 5:55:46 PM
|
Settle down son, we're still in the discussion stage.
I reckon it should be open to any 4 stroke machine that uses the same technology as the period bikes did.
Basically air cooled single or twin cylinder 2 valve 4 strokes with tube frames and twin shock swing arms.
There are many that could benefit from being backdated so that they don't have to compete out of their depth.
It could be a combined class for period 3 and period 4 bikes that separates them from the 2 strokes and the superbikes.
Let's keep talking about it, if we do we might actually achieve something. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
Posted - 27 May 2012 : 07:09:16 AM
|
I'm on a bit of an emotional roller coaster with this stuff. It has actually inspired me to start work on my bike again, but the next minute I get discouraged again by the thought that this might all be a false hope. I built the Norton in 1978, and never raced it, as I thought it would never be competitive in Allpowers C Grade. Historic racing was never an option for me , and when I actually did it in 2003, I pretty much regretted it. There is currently really no class in historics in which I can get a decent competitive ride on it without riding it like there is no tomorrow. I'm too old do do that idiocy these days.
I had a look at Winton yesterday, there were three bikes that would qualify as over 500cc Thunderbikes - two Period 3 Triumphs and a Vincent. There was not one Period 4 Thunderbike there - Norton or Triumph. However it was a rainy day, and they might have all been at home hiding in the garage. It sort of surprises me because the one time you are likely to win on one is when it is raining. |
Edited by - conker on 27 May 2012 07:17:51 AM |
|
|
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 2:51:59 PM
|
| John, at the Austin 7 meeting yesterday there were three old period 3 thunderbikes - a BSA, a Triumph and a Vincent, none from period 4. When I rode there in 2003/3 there were two of the same types of bike in the period 4 races, as my owm - Alan Lander's Hyde Harrier Triumph, and Trevor McKie's XS2 Yamaha. Before my race I pushed the Norton down the hill in the pits to start it, and ended up sitting in a chair for a half hour recovering from an angina attack. Since then I've had a double bypass op, three strokes and an op to clear my carotid artery. Do you think you'll have this extension to period 3 up and running before I die ? Surely it can't be too difficult to get the old four stroke twins and triples together on the one grid ? While you are stuffing around, time is running out ! |
Edited by - conker on 28 May 2012 2:54:28 PM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 2:58:18 PM
|
You're a cheerful sod aren't you.
Put together a list of likely starters and I'll do a ring around to see if there is any interest. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 3:21:14 PM
|
With respect Alan, I am not stuffing around.
We have just run a meeting and the next meeting is in Oactober.
TWe are carefully planing to mensure as many views are taken into account, even views that dont want this idea to go ahead.
At the same time the HMRAV are looking at options it can undertake. |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
conker
Really - acotrel - Now banned
Victoria
361 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 9:15:39 PM
|
| I'd be really interested to know why anyone wouldn't want this idea to go ahead? Yesterday at Winton I saw 125cc two strokes gridded up with P3 500cc four strokes. And a TZ750 gridded up with a beautiful field of superbikes. If that is supposed to represent history, I'd like to know when it happened like that. There would have been at least 15 two strokes of various capacities and periods in the sheds, it would have been better to have them all in the same race, even if it required a staggered start for two groups. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 28 May 2012 : 9:46:44 PM
|
Look Al, it is surprising that people may have a different view to your own, but it is the case.
Some dont want to get beaten by them, others are happy with the cut offs and others think it is just too hard to organise.
Going back to winton, the HMRAV is not rying to replicate History at this meeting, its not possible because of the time constraints. This years we aimed at having machines of similar lap times on the track to ensure all grids were full. Its part of an experiment to get more people doing more laps and not getting lapped at 100kph in 3 laps |
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 28 May 2012 9:50:10 PM |
|
|
|
Russ
Level 1 Member
South Australia
3 Posts |
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 08:43:39 AM
|
Russ, with all due respect that was 1980.
We are discussing the 1960s. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Bummers
Level 3 Member
Queensland
244 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 09:21:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by conker
I can get a decent competitive ride on it without riding it like there is no tomorrow. I'm too old do do that idiocy these days.
Alan, isn't that's how you have to ride to be competitive?
If you don't want to ride your bike or let someone else ride it "like there is no tomorrow" why not go in Regularity events? Particularly if you haven't ridden competitively for a while and need to get up to pace.
Personally, I like the Period racing we currently have. My 125 wasn't competitive when I first started historic racing and I have thoroughly enjoyed making it so, within the rules. (But I'm not an old pommie bike enthusiast. )
I admire your efforts to get bikes that are of similar technology, sound & looks together for the appeal to the older British and early Jap 4 stroke enthusiasts - it would be great to see. But if you feel you are not able to "ride like there is no tomorrow", I reckon you need to ride in less competitive events like "bracket racing" or Regularity.
Am I up to 2 cents worth?
|
“Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting.” Steve McQueen |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 29 May 2012 : 11:19:49 AM
|
Bummers, the bet is on for $50, so you can say more if you like.
|
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 2012 : 3:12:22 PM
|
Just out of interest, the Classic Racing Motorcycle Club in the U.K., which seems to be the premier historic club up there, has their Classic period up to 1972 for 4 strokes and up to 1967 for 2 strokes.
Their Post Classic period is 1973 to 1986 for 4 strokes and 1968 to 1986 for 2 strokes.
This gives a far better spread of "similar" bikes than our periods do.
If we could adopt something similar we could possibly have many more 4 stroke bikes than we currently have.
Any thoughts on this idea?
Go to the CRMC web site and read Alan Cathcart's words under "About CRMC".
This will give you a good clue as to where I would like to see us go. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 29 May 2012 5:00:25 PM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2012 : 09:08:12 AM
|
Unfortunately one of our contributors to this subject has been banned from taking any further part in it.
Personally I find this very sad as there are precious few who will actually bother to express their opinions on this or any other site.
To my way of thinking active contributors are the backbone of any forum.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2012 : 09:22:19 AM
|
Now I have questions to ask.
Who drew up the original concepts for historic racing?
What was the thinking that led to the period 3 cut off date that failed to recognise that the same type of bikes were still made after the cut off date?
At what point did the A.C.C.A./ M.A. get involved and produce rules that seem set in stone?
Can someone please enlighten me? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 30 May 2012 09:24:54 AM |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 30 May 2012 : 12:25:55 PM
|
| Its my guess ask garth Rhodes or Dave Large from my club, the HMRAV. |
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 - 31 May 2012 : 4:21:13 PM
|
| Thanks John, Garth is among the missing but I have left a message for him so hopefully I will hear from him soon. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 1:58:09 PM
|
Well, after asking around and trying to resurrect memories it would seem that the original plans for historic racing were drawn up in the 70s with no input from the A.C.C.A.
It also seems that once the idea got going it was kidnapped by the A.C.C.A. (later to become M.A.) and thereafter claimed as their property with changes only permitted with their approval.
If this is true I suggest that after some 40 years it would not hurt to revise what we have and look at ways to improve things.
I was advised that the period 3 cut off date was set as 1962 as that was the last production year of the Manx Norton.
That probably seemed like a good idea at the time but it also seems like a very blinkered view. Norton was not the only company and England not the only country producing race bikes.
The world did not come to an end on December 31st 1962 just as it didn't on January 1st 2000 (though many thought it would).
I think it is time we reassessed the situation and I invite opinions of how we can open up our sport to encourage more to participate.
I particularly invite opinions from those who do not currently compete because..................? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
JasonL
Level 3 Member
Victoria
240 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 4:25:20 PM
|
The overriding question I have is, if we indeed went and changed all this to the proposed alternative view, would it really result in so many more bikes coming out??
Perhaps more pertinent is that topic already raised at our committee meetings by GC about comps for non-logbooked bikes. In my limited exposure, no-one ever tells me they don't want to race their bike becuase of the way the periods and classes are cut, but I get much more ambivalence about the need for log books and moreover, the restrictions, prohibitions and exclusions per period. It all boils down to the old argument about what historic racing is or should/could be - do you make it as authentic as possible - meaning more restrictions - or lessen eligibility criteria? There is no small irony that the big drawcards have been the P5 unlimiteds which are pretty far removed in some cases from those machines as they ran in the period. In practice, keeping old bikes running, even P6 stuff, needs some latitude, and doing so doesn't need to compromise authenticity to the point of irrelevance in a lot of cases. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 5:25:30 PM
|
Jason, I see a big can of worms here.
Unfortunately what we race here is, by and large, a hotch potch of old bikes that generally have very little to do with the racing I knew in the 50s and 60s. Capacity classes were 125, 250, 350 and 500cc. Sometimes there were races for bigger bikes but these were not "proper" race bikes and were not taken seriously.
I really wonder about the value of log books and am inclined to think that they are of little value considering that they do not seem to relate to authenticity in any way.
I fear that they are just another layer of control imposed on us and it concerns me that those making decisions may not have the necessary knowledge to know what they are doing.
I believe that each club should deal with matters of eligibility depending on which area of the sport they wish to champion.
P.C.R.A. developed P6 racing and have now had it taken away from them.
I also believe that club racing should be as simple and unfettered as possible and that log books should only be required at national championship level, if at all.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
JasonL
Level 3 Member
Victoria
240 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jun 2012 : 7:21:53 PM
|
"P.C.R.A. developed P6 racing and have now had it taken away from them."
Eh??? |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 12:04:09 AM
|
John, I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest and would love to be in a position to challenge some of yours and the now banned ACs statements but I am not. What I would advise is for you to take off your blinkers and do some real research into the whys and wherefores of the decisions made over the years by well intentioned volunteers and then and only then put some submissions in to where it could get considered, being the Historic Road Race Commission. Rules do not get changed on websites.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 08:13:00 AM
|
Alan, I am more than aware of where rules get changed and I am also aware of how hard it is to actually get anything changed.
It took years to get the drum brake rule relaxed to make such brakes more affordable.
The main problem is that because bikes are conveniently slotted into periods more often than not we get races where similar bikes are not in the same race
and are often in races in which they are not competitive.
This conversation started around unit and non unit construction Triumphs.
The fact that they are essentially the same bike is completely overlooked because under our rules year of manufacture separates them into different periods.
The racing would be better if the type of bike rather than the period determined which bikes raced together.
This is something the organising club could take on.
Cross period racing for similar bikes.
Alan, why are you not in a position to challenge anything I say?
This is a forum, a place where opinions can be aired.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 06 Jun 2012 09:18:14 AM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 08:38:09 AM
|
Jason, did not P.C.R.A. formulate rules for, and champion New Era long before M.A. showed any interest?
Was I dreaming when M.A. took over and there were calls for submissions to make sure that M.A. came up with the right rules?
Now that it is called period 6 who has control?
I could be wrong, I am old and senility could be setting in. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Running 1970's 750 Triumph sin P3
