| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Historic
Level 2 Member
New South Wales
46 Posts |
 Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 10:29:53 AM
|
I've avoided posting on this topic because it won't go anywhere, but it's getting a bit silly. Sorry this is going to be a bit long.
So here are some points you may wish to consider;
Log books are the best thing that has happened to historic racing. Before them with 'local' approval there was no consistency with what did and did not meet the rules. Now at least every bike competing in the country has been through the same system. Not perfect but much much better than each state, each club, each person deciding whats right.
For those not around before log books. There were ugly arguments in the pits, there were clubs, states openly referred to as cheats. Now it's all MA's fault much better.
The gents tasked with approving log books over the years have changed. But they have all been very experienced and dedicated. When left alone to do the job it's been 99.9% correct.
Log books at club level is a must. To have all historic meetings in the country at all levels playing by the same rules is so much better than a guy being allowed to run anything at a club meeting and spending money to do so being told he can't run at an open meeting or his state or Australian title because his bike isn't legal. Get it right at club level from the first meeting and nobody is hurt, everyone is on the same page.
The classes Mr Feakes referred to are still the classes in historic racing. To say the unlimited class was not taken seriously cannot be taken seriously - Bathurst ran an unlimited class that was run and won by some of the best and most respected racers of the day.
In respect to 'period' racing. Two, that's 2 people on this site constantly whine that it's not right. More than 2000 people have taken out logbooks and most(at some stage) compete quite happily in period racing. Historic racing is the most popular form of road racing in the country. The largest meetings, the biggest entries the most spectators of any motorcycle road racing. Can it really be that wrong.
Please stop trying to fix what is not broken. If you don't like it go do club 'run what you brung' meetings. Go round and round at track days, just stop trying to rewrite the winning formula. |
 |
|
|
JasonL
Level 3 Member
Victoria
240 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 1:39:05 PM
|
Well said and I agree 99.9% !!
John, MA did not "take over" P6 - it does not belong to PCRA or any other organisation. The happy coincidence that 2 active PCRA members are on the MA Historic committee simply meant that the inclusion of P6 - which would have happened anyway - was relatively straightforward. And yes there was a proper consultative process beforehand. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 1:50:45 PM
|
Listen you blokes, you are as bad as Cotheral. The topic is about machines close to the period dates but born too late. PS Can one of you email me, I have commission minutes to send around for Wednesdays meeting.
Thanks |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jun 2012 : 6:42:43 PM
|
Thanks John Daley,
I was just going to point out that the Commission Minutes are available on the MA website and some might find some interesting points amongst them.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 09 Jun 2012 : 09:48:46 AM
|
Alan, I notice that your proposal to allow unit construction Triumphs into P3 wasn't rejected out of hand so there is hope.
Well done. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 09 Jun 2012 09:50:02 AM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2012 : 4:02:18 PM
|
Mr Historic I see that your parochial view has not changed.
We are not trying to fix something that is not broken, we are trying to improve what we have.
Open and constructive discussion might just lead to an improvement.
This discussion is primarily about allowing unit construction Triumph 650s to run as P3 bikes. Do you have an opinion on this?
Regards, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 12 Jun 2012 11:21:12 AM |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jun 2012 : 4:42:00 PM
|
Trying to keep on topic, but also taking the opportunity to discuss log books, I must say, I agree with Mr Historic about their application and the benefits that have grown from their implementation.
Thats a no brainer.
But thsi topic is trying to stick nwith the matter of very similar machines built past the cut off date, but essentailly an "older bike".
I have had people ask "Can I have later model hot up gear fitted" ?
Obviously the answer is no, but maybe the bike can be.
A specific model is the triumph 500cc thyat is hopelessly outclassed in P4 that Max Hooper ran in P3 for a while. It looks the same except for the small differences and was no faster tahn anything on the track.but was built in about 1964 or 5.
I dont know anything about pommy bikes other than they leak oil, do big ends, cost heaps and need to be pushed home ruegulary. Also, they dont have electric starts, lights that work and carbies that last more than a few thousand miles, the pistons could be cast from milk bottle tops to keep them going when they damaged the pistons, and they sold chain kits to clamp the engine together when you got over 2300rpm. Apart from that I hear they are ok. |
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 11 Jun 2012 4:43:34 PM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jun 2012 : 11:27:59 AM
|
I thank my learned friend for his discourse on the joys of owning British race bikes.
It does make me wonder. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2012 : 1:30:31 PM
|
Sadly this subject seems to have died in the proverbial.
It reminds me of that chap in The Vicar of Dibley.
No no no no no no no. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2012 : 8:52:56 PM
|
| John F, it has not entirely died. My club the HMRAV, is going to implement a form of the proposal by incorporating "thunder " bikes in P4. It will provide for the sort of bikes currently not raced. I will present more details as soon as we sort it out. |
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 - 02 Jul 2012 : 07:45:00 AM
|
Good news apart from the P4 bit.
This is exactly where they could have been running for years but there aren't any.
Why is it so? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 08:45:36 AM
|
The HMRAV did run a 750 Push rod class for some years about 6 years ago. The job of keeping tabs with it was on one person and they retired.
The HMRAV has decided to offer more trophies for the new bikes in an effort to entice them. I think the prevailing attitude was that blokes will race, you dont need to make a trophy available.
In hindsight I think, personally, the offer of trophies for 836 sidecars worked and now it may work for solos.
MInd you the solo racers now need to self promote |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2012 : 10:26:29 PM
|
At the risk of upsetting your plan why wouldnt you support the proposal in the Historic Commission Minutes with any other suggestions you might have in expanding these thoughts and allow the other push rod engines into Period 3 which is where they would be better suited anyway. Without support none of these ideas will ever eventuate and find their way into the rule book. Its not just about engines, there are other proposal that include aftermarket frames etc but without support as I said nothing will happen.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 08:53:58 AM
|
WE ARE SUPPORTING THE proposal, where does it say we are not?
In the mean time we are trying something different out to see if it draws more bikes.
|
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 03 Jul 2012 3:03:15 PM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2012 : 09:38:19 AM
|
Alan, I am confused.
Which proposal is it that we are not supporting? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
Alan
Forum Moderator
Western Australia
353 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2012 : 7:18:45 PM
|
What I was alluding to is that you are drifting from including later bikes that are technically similar to existing Period 3 bikes into Period 3 and talking Period 4. Go back a half a dozen postings and you will see where I am coming from. My understanding was that you wanted to increase numbers in Period 3 without being outlandish with your thinking which is what my original suggestion was about. There was also some ideas from David White that havent even been discussed on here. So from where I sit as you are now talking about Period 4 and in other postings talking Thunderbikes you are losing your focus on the original intent of this particular thread.
Incidentally I admire your ongoing enthusiasm and recognise the huge amount of work you do in Victoria and only wish more would make a similar if not smaller contribution so the sport can progress to the level it should be at.
Alan Sidecar 21 WA |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2012 : 09:18:54 AM
|
Alan, we actually have several ideas flying at the same time so apologies if it seemed we had lost the plot.
I have always had great difficulty accepting that dates meant more than technological development, perhaps because I lived through these dates and did not experience any ground shaking changes.
We recently had the lunatic fringe trying to convince us that the world would grind to a halt at midnight on Dec 31 1999.
To me there is no doubt that the change to unit construction was not a world shattering event and, of course, these bikes belong in the same era as the ones they replaced.
If we can concentrate more on the type of bike and less on the calendar we might be able to encourage more into our sport.
Sadly there seem to be some who's primary goal is to exclude.
Alan, we don't really know what David White's ideas were.
We get the results of the question but are left to guess what the question actually was.
Perhaps this can be improved so that we are in a better position to comment.
Regards, John |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 05 Jul 2012 09:24:43 AM |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 11:08:43 AM
|
| So has it been decided to let unit construction 650cc and 750cc Triumphs run in Historic Period 3 Unlimited yet ? Sounds like it would be at the discretion of the meeting organisers ? |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jul 2012 : 3:42:38 PM
|
Al, it has not been decied as yet by MA.
The HMRAV has , since about 2001 been experimenting with different things anyway so thats not new. IE
Pushrod twins
836 sidecars
etc |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 07:02:35 AM
|
| I would have thought that MA would only need to provide a decision if the change was to apply to championships ? Does HMRAV run every race at every historic meeting they hold, to the championship rules? Perhaps we might be using the rules as a self-imposed straight jacket ? I believe meeting promoters have some choice in what classes they run, and what bikes are included in each class, except at championships where all the categories must be catered for and controlled. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
Edited by - acotrel on 30 Jul 2012 07:06:05 AM |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 10:02:28 AM
|
HMRAV does not run their meetings to the Chanp rules as I have stated many times. The club has a mixture of additional classes and runs FE 600 not 500 to suit the racers.
Can we stop thsi discussion now its been done I belive? |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Allan
Site Moderator
National
599 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jul 2012 : 1:15:31 PM
|
I see no problems with unit triumph's as long as "no" disc brakes~~
realy they only have shorter conrods and 10 stud heads..different oil pump!! 5 speed gear box.. |
Allan Greening |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jul 2012 : 08:21:51 AM
|
It would be interesting to know how many Period 3 bikes are running 5 speed Triumph boxes. Also how many are running 6 speed TTI boxes. Plenty of pre-unit Triumphs are using Morgo oil pumps, and if you fit the neoprene seal to the end of the crank, the pre-unit pump is good enough anyway. A unit 650 or 750 Triumph is pretty much the same old garbage as the pre-unit 650, except that they can be made to handle almost as good as a Triton.
Brakes are a different issue. I would have thought that by this time, a single front disc would be permitted on Period 3 bikes. It would greatly reduce one of the major cost disincentives to running a bike in Period 3. If we really want new blood in historic racing, the $4000 front brake needed for Period 3 to be competitive, is a big turn-off. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2012 : 5:24:03 PM
|
113 posts on this topic.
'as it was, so it ever shall be' ??
I was there and it wasn't like that. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 07:53:16 AM
|
| Alan, I think you should go back to your fantasy of Seeley Jawas. Produce 30 of them and organise 29 riders to your liking. I am sure that organisers will give you a spot for your Production race. Your fantasy will then become a reality and you will find happiness and joy. I know it will take a lot of time and money to achieve your goal but as the saying goes "The sooner you start, the sooner you finish". You will be busy to generate the funds for your fantasy and you will be busy working on the parts to make the bikes a reality and you will be busy to find jockeys to yor liking. I generally have little time to spend on Forums because it takes me a great deal of time to work towards my reality. Enjoy the journey. It can be very tedious I assure you. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 09:00:26 AM
|
| Dear Historic, I concur with yor Post at the top of page 4 (this page) It appears that various people want to run their existing bikes outside the respective Periods. They can move to later classes by changing a major component and or technology. I am currently building a P3 spec bike with a P5 engine to run in P5. It is NOT a problem with MA log book applications. For P3 a pre unit Triumph would have to be a better option than a unit Triumph with gearbox and clutch selection. A featherbed frame would have to be better than a unit construction frame. They did not call Ken Blake "Snake" for nothing when he rode the Jesser Triumph. I believe the Rules are quite reasonable as is. The Drum brake rule was changed for P3 to ANY drum brake up to 230mm so that competitors could use what they already had and yes that can create another can of worms. It does not matter what the rules are there are going to be people not being happy. Myself included. We just put our best foot forward and enter some Race meetings and enjoy our creations within the MA Rule Book. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 10:01:57 AM
|
| Alan, Just checked the Moto Veloci site and a 210mm Fontana replica double sided brake is 1380 Euro. At todays rates that converts to AU$1603 + Postage. I think it may be of similar size to the Jesser Triumph brake. It is somewhat shy of the $4000 you imagine to be paying. All the best Jerry |
Jerry |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 11 Aug 2012 : 1:09:27 PM
|
Jerry, we are not talking about running any bike in a later period.
What we are talking about is running bikes in an EARLIER period.
Bikes that, although built out of a period, offer little or no technical advantage over those built in a period but which are not competitive in the period that they are placed in.
This comes about because "periods" are precisely periods.
A 1946 Manx Norton is a very different bike to a 1962 Manx.
Only a masochist would try to compete on the 1946 model.
I know because I had one.
A DEATH TRAP IF EVER THERE WAS ONE, PRONE TO TANK SLAPPERS AT ANY MOMENT, USUALLY IN THE MOST INCONVENIENT PLACES.
There were major changes in technology which our "periods" fail to take into account.
The single greatest change was when the 2 strokes (aided by the F.I.M.) ousted the 4 strokes.
We completely refuse to acknowledge this fact.
The thrust of the argument is to have bikes of similar technology competing together regardless of year of manufacture.
Nobody told me in 1963 that I was not allowed to ride my Manx anymore, or that I had to buy a new bike because......................................1962 had ended.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
Edited by - john feakes on 11 Aug 2012 3:21:02 PM |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2012 : 08:15:34 AM
|
| Dear John, I do understand about a later P4 bike going into P3. I do understand that there is NO technical advantage. I just ask the question WHY? If Kenny Blake could win the Australian TT at Surfers in 1969 and again at PI in 1970 on what we now call a P4 bike. Yes I understand that Ken was an exceptional rider but that is a BIG ingredient in a succesful package. The Kernich brothers Lee and Dave very succesfully campaigned a Triumph pre unit in the eighties. To be succesful they had put in some very clever and innovative engineering at what you can imagine was quite a bit of expense to help achieve their goals. I still would like to think that we pick the machinery we race because we have some sort of affinity to them and then put the work into them to make them shine. I understand that a 700 class was tried to bring out the 650 bikes with little success. I personally feel the same applies with this proposal. Anyone for a Moto Guzzi Le Mans with drum brakes 1000cc pushrod twin. Maybe a later model BMW pushrod twin aircooled with drum brakes. Same technology. I do think that it will just end up opening a can of worms. All the best Jerry |
Jerry |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2012 : 08:20:09 AM
|
| Dear John, I should have said "Another can of worms", The existing can is more than enough to try and cope with. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Running 1970's 750 Triumph sin P3
