| Author |
 Topic  |
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Aug 2012 : 08:56:36 AM
|
Dear Jerry, it is all about trying to encourage more bikes to come out to play.
It may not work but we will never know if we don't give it a try.
We do know that there are bikes hidden away that never come out.
Not everyone has the time, skill, dedication and money to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but there may be some who would just like to enjoy a ride.
Only time will tell.
|
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
 |
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 12 Aug 2012 : 09:13:44 AM
|
| Dear John, As said before I do understand. there is not an easy answer. Economic times are tough and racing is not cheap. There are a lot of us enthusiasts who are either close to retirement or retired and funds will only go so far. As you well know even economically speaking we are not living in a level playing field. I do NOT have the answers but as said to you before in conversations past Keith Duckworth passed the statement that Rule changes were the greatest expense in racing if one wanted to stay competitive. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 07:30:35 AM
|
Jerry,
Why does a simple thing like motorcycle road racing have to be so complex and political ? We tie ourselves up in eligibilty rules for no good reason, and it is a great big turn-off.
'The best rules is no rules'. A while back there was a class called 'supermono' for single cylinder four strokes. There were no rules except about the motor being that type. It was extremely popular, except that the winners were all running big motors up to 700cc. So to do any good and justify your entry fees, you had to have the big motor. Up until the mid sixties, manx Nortons and G50s were highly developed and reliable - maximum capacity was 500cc. Supermono collapsed when the big motors blew up regularly, so now those old bikes are rotting in sheds. It is not rocket science to apply one rule to such a class - the motors must be aircooled two valve aircooled four stroke 500cc max capacity - and leave the rest alone - no more rules than that. Such a class could replace Period 3 500s, and we'd get the bikes of that type from all periods being eligible to race each other. The situation would still be that very few bikes would beat a Molnar Manx.
As far as machine authenticity of historically valuable bikes is concerned, there should be different incentives to preserve that. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 13 Aug 2012 : 11:42:15 AM
|
| Dear all concerned, Had a look at PI lap records. Classic Unlimited a bit behind 2 of the 3 later unlimited classes but over a second quicker than 500 Classic and Post Classic. Between Unlimited Post Classic (1300cc) and Period 6 unlimited (1000cc) they are not far apart (.9sec) Come to your own conclusions. I do understand that there can be a huge difference between the fastest and slowest bike and rider combination in any fild. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
link
Level 1 Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2012 : 11:41:10 PM
|
| Hi I dont add to this site regularly and have read all the unit triumph no advantage stuff. Does it look like a 1962 triumph NO. was it available in 62 No. Why would someone want to run a unit unless they were better than a pre unit?(which they are) why not allow 10 stud heads also that look nothing like an 8 stud. Why would rule makers consider allowing a 1970 odd triumph compete in pre 62 races when a z900 which is eligible for p4 is banned? why does a factory rg500 have to race unlimited in p5 instead of 500? The rules were set up and have been in place a long time. It seems now to get things approved that are not leagle all you have to do is say OH IT WILL GET MORE BIKES ON THE GRID and its approved. The bikes that ran in the day should look and be of the day. I have a manx 62 triton pre unit and it would have been really competitive 10 years ago, now it will sit in my shed forever as it is a proper classic meaning under the new RULES so nicely modified to add more bikes to the grid(by people with more money than me), the std manx 8" tls brake will not be as good as the any drum rule now allowed, so someone with plenty of cash will rock up with some massive non period front wheel and alls fine. The 5 speed cluster which fits in the pre unit box is not competitive against a 6 speed. There seems to be more about lets start this new class and that new class instead of questioning why there are so many classic race bikes sitting in sheds unused. At the moment I know of at least 10 bikes near me owned by friends and xracers all wont be out again unless things change.I also feel the one trophy for a weekend of racing is a total joke, it used to be fun to race and maybe get a third, now unless you can get 3rd in four legs you get stuff all and most old bikes wont do 4 legs unless they are massive dollar builds with trick rods, cranks, g/boxes etc. I returned to racing after 10 years off for the vic titles this year.I won 2 races and a third on one bike and a 3rd on my second bike, after that meeting I felt totally ripped off no trophies no nothing not even a 50c school ribbon. I have been around the hmrav and classic racing since 7 years old and my father also raced 20+ years, he has all his race bikes at home also but after seeing the meeting he was not inspired to come out racing as I had hoped but thought whats the point unless he spends $10,000 to get a third. I am now thinking maybe I should return to racing as planned but join hartwell and do club days at least they reward a hard earned third place for each race and I can buy a cbr900 for $2000 off ebay and race all day, 5 times a year.I dont want to piss on about trophies or ribbons but they are a small cost and add a lot to a normally 4th place riders day if someone stops in one race and he suddenly gets a 3rd ribbon. I am probably way off the triumph thread but anyone can build a pre unit and race a 62 triumph in p3 we are already allowed 9 stud heads and they look correct for the period as pre unit, all parts are available why consider allowing a unit? I was also wondering whats the point of log books when only a few bikes at the whole meeting represented their period LOOK I would not pass 70% of what I saw, but I guess a unit triumph looks as p3 as some of the other joke period bikes, so they will be allowed soon enough. Hope people dont get annoyed and it is MY opinion based on a return to racing and recent discussions on eligibility after 10 years away from the scene. Link |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 08:58:08 AM
|
Link, you seem like a very unhappy man.
This is supposed to be enjoyable.
You have gone to great length telling us about your unhappy state, so I have to ask what would make you happy?
So far nothing has changed, we are only talking about possibilities.
It is not the end of the world.
Please be constructive.
Apart from wanting a trophy, what else would you like to see happen? |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
link
Level 1 Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2012 : 11:50:25 PM
|
| Hi I wasnt unhappy and its great to race again.The effort that the organisers go to is amazing to put a meeting together. I hate to see classic racing die and when I first saw them there were hand change belt drive bikes racing around, it was fantastic, those classes are now basically dead. The come back after 10 years really made me sad as there was very little in the way of p3 ad p4 bikes. I feel they will die out if nothing is worked out to cut costs that was the point I was trying to make not that I was unhappy about trophies.However I would rather find an extra $5.00 for a ribbon in each race for each class in my entry fee. Maybe I am alone in this view but I think a lot of guys especially interstate riders would like to remember the meeting they raced in. Also the grids were progressive in the sup regs meaning you would be moved forward over the course of the weekend based on finish results, at riders briefing this was changed to qualify straight up sat morning and wear it all weekend, this also didnt sit well with my interstate friend as he had never seen the track and said he should have done friday practice to learn the track. Thats fine but it adds another $150.00 to and already expensive trip from nsw.I dont have time to help planning meeting or be on commitee which is why I havent posted before(guilty feeling). I really didnt want to piss any one off or winge about anything but wanted to highlight the possible reason bikes are in sheds instead of on the track. I hope it all comes across ok but text seems to be interpreted different by readers.I think a change to unit triumphs will mean the few very fast proper pre units will again be back to the drawing board with lots of money to be spent to keep up with a unit which is totally not what a 62 triumph looked like. Link |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2012 : 04:25:49 AM
|
Link, I don't really believe you are hard done by - you've had your wins. To claim that a unit Triumph is better than pre-unit, might not stand up. I was racing a 500cc Triton in the late sixties, mainly against Russell King who has still got his 650cc Triton - could never convincingly beat him. There were two guys - Les Ayton and Keith Ashmore who had unit Bonnevilles. They always finished in front of us, but they always had their backsides hanging out to do it. Most Period 3 Triumphs these days use featherbed frames, NOT standard Triumph ones. The advantage the unit Triumphs had was more modern steering geometry with about 26 degree head angle and short offset forks. Most replica featherbed frames use this geometry these days. Their crankcases might also last a bit longer when raced. But seriously, there is nothing in it. Your Triton can accomodate a 6 speed TTI box, you cannot do that easily with a unit construction Triumph.
Anyway if we are really being historic, the Jesser Triumph ran nitro when Blake was on it - that fixes all the differences. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2012 : 04:33:09 AM
|
Incidentally Keith Ashmore still has his Bonnevilles, and hasn't raced for years, but still rides on the road. He used to be a bl00dy good rider - With the change of rules - who knows?
Les Ayton rode Barry Oliver's 350 manx in historic races for a while in the 80s using a dash of nitro, but I believe he had a bad crash and is not likely to try again.
When Pickard and Lord started this garbage in 1973, they didn't really know who was who, - it was all over the fence stuff. People like the Bonney Boys were excluded under their stupid historic rules and left behind.
Unit Triumphs should have neen included in Period 3, right from the start. What we lost because of the idiot rules was valuable.
Have a talk to Derek Pickard sometime - he will tell you all about it - he's an expert. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
Edited by - acotrel on 19 Aug 2012 04:49:13 AM |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2012 : 04:55:32 AM
|
October 1973:
The first ever historic race in Victoria was organised by Derek Pickard and Peter Lord of the Velocette owners' Club. I am the bloke with his bum on the seat accelerating away while the rest are still all pushing !
The guy nearest the camera is Steve Oszko with the most developed Manx in Victoria. He was Ron Toombs's main rival. The bike was sold to Wayne Rainey's father. Steve had bought it from Noel Mercer who'd bought it from Jack Ahearn. It had the trick bits in it.
Others are Strawb Thompson, Richard Bendell, and Russell King (obscured).
Of all the guys on that grid Steve Oszko was the only real racer. He got into A grade by winning the 350 B grade at Bathurst in about 1961. - You had to be serious to achieve that. His lap time around the short circuit at Winton was about 61.3 seconds - try that with a 500cc single some time. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
Edited by - acotrel on 19 Aug 2012 05:13:33 AM |
|
|
|
john feakes
Advanced Member
Victoria
791 Posts |
Posted - 19 Aug 2012 : 08:08:38 AM
|
Link, I am surprised that the meeting you refer to imposed qualifying time throughout the meeting.
That is something that should be taken up with the organising club.
I will offer my support, progressive grids should apply.
Which meeting was it?
Something has gone wrong with this message panel.
It has turned into a (too) wide screen version. |
125 RIDERS' ALLIANCE
A wise person simplifies the complicated, a fool complicates the simple. |
|
|
|
link
Level 1 Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 10:05:41 PM
|
| Hi Guys I dont have a big problem with unit triumphs if it is in the spirit of the class but everyone seems to use every loophole they can find and I think someone will come out with a massive dollar unit and kick ****. The problem I have after coming back after so long is the bikes dont represent their periods very well, hence what is a log book even for. P5 was pretty bad and p4 not a lot better. I do love the quality of the bikes but photos of 72 race bikes and 82 race bike dont match the bikes racing at all. I dont think a unit triumph looks 62 either. I think maybe we need to think outside the moving p4 triumphs into p3 and maybe change to a rule of petrol and 120 rear tyre ROAD LEGAL or controlled and cheap or something like that and then 1300cc and massive hp is a bit knocked on the head, and it may bring racing costs down and could be run as a class within a class. At the moment i am trying to find second hand race avons just to get to the southern classic when we used to get a year or two out of tyres for a lot less. In all honesty it is cheaper for me to pull out my superbike and buy new slicks a few times a year rather than a set of avons. Classic racing was never cheap but now it is far more than modern classes so no new people will come out. P5 is huge dollars now and lots are jumping to p6, how can we keep the costs in check, thats all I see saving the great classes (p3 and p4 especially). Link |
|
|
|
link
Level 1 Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 21 Aug 2012 : 11:13:36 PM
|
| I love the photo it is a true 60's photo, someone had money for a double sider though and would have been the envy of many a rider I am sure. I would love for the grids to look like that again but money and museums may win out. Do you think a unit triumph will look like these bikes? Do you think unit triumphs will save p3? I am interested as I have only seen a few in p4 even in the hey day and they had rear disc and seeley frames. Perhaps there are more around I have never seen but I think a lot of people would have to build one rather than have it laying in the shed. Are we allowing 900 Nortons also as I do like them. But then again a 650 yam is not that much different exept ohc so if we rev limit them they should be allowed also. I cant see where this will stop unless its triumphs only we are considering which seems a bit unfair on a lot of other guys who dont want to race against a kw honda and have built good p4 bikes now wasting in sheds. Link |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2012 : 9:53:35 PM
|
Link, firstly,this proposal is not about changing the rules or making rules for people with money.
It simply means a trophy will be offered for bikes to race against each other which would not normally turn up, and may straddle the cut off dates for the period.
The second part of the idea is that the HMRAV has decided to see if there is support for an "Historic Thunderbike race", and it simply means again, no tricks, log booked bikes that normally dont race coming back and racing against similar bikes, all of whom would be swamped by Honda Fours 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 - 23 Aug 2012 : 07:23:12 AM
|
Link, the double sider you noticed was on Steve Oszko's 500 Manx. I watched him drill the spoke holes in the casting, when he and Noel Mercer were living in Snowden Avenue, South Caulfield in 1961. If you wanted the brake, in those days you made it. If you remember, a piston for a manx cost about 25 pounds, and a sodium filled exhaust valve was fifteen pounds - we were earning about fifteen pounds a week, in those days. ( Sorry, you probably weren't even a lustful thought back then ! )
Let's be frank about unit triumphs - they are garbage. The only one ever worth bothering with was the late 70s 650cc thunderbird which had the short stroke crank. You could spend $5000 on the motor and still only gain a couple of horsepower. A pre-unit triumph has the advantage of a separate gearbox - you can easily fit a CR six speeder - a much better way to go. What you are talking about is a 'thunderbike', it uses the old two valve technology - there is just so much you can do, then you hit the wall. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 07:29:19 AM
|
| John, I believe we are making progress when we run unit and pre-unit triumphs together. They are the same old rubbish, just look a bit different. I cannot think of even one good reason that they shouldn't race together. In fact, if I had the choice, I'd probably stick with a pre-unit featherbed bike. If you chuck a primary chain on a unit motor, you can shag the crankcases. In the mid sixties, the two types raced together anyway, and the two strokes made them look stupid. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 07:34:55 AM
|
| Alan, What wall is that? I might learn some things here about "Thunderbikes" from you. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 07:58:21 AM
|
| Link, I believe the 'Seeley' framed unit Triumph you refer to, is Alan Landers's bike. The frame is actually a 70s Hyde Harrier copy which was one of 12 made by Ray Bann for Sharp at Dandenong. MA refused to logbook it, so he stopped racing it. (I raced against it in 2003 ) It had a four valve Rickman head and barrel. There is no advantage in that. Most four valve heads give about a 10% increase in power over two valve heads on the same motor. The Rickman head didn't ever seem to deliver - Rod Tingate used one in the early sixties, the bike didn't go any faster. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 08:16:29 AM
|
Jerry, There is just so much you can do to a single or twin cylinder two valve aircooled four stroke motor. If you really want one to go fast, you just buy a Paton, because that is where you will end up. My Norton motor is really crude, but it is still fast. Even if I spent $5000 on the motor, all I would probably get for my money would be a slight increase in usable revs, and less likelihood of blow-ups. The simple fact is that with a good close box, the bike is fast enough to win, if it has someone on it who doesn't mind getting hurt now and then.
These days you can buy light pistons and longer rods for about $1500, there is probably a bit of acceleration to be had. The biggest bore size achievable without Steve Maney barrels and crankcases gives 920cc. If you use hotter cams you end up moving the power band up too high, so looking for more torque is the way to go. As it is I am using the combat cam which used to blow up the 750cc motors. I've advanced it 15 degrees and used a two into one exhaust - the error fixes the error, and the motor is quick enough. With close box, it spins up very quickly - I always try to change lower than 7,000 revs - it always reaches 7,500 rpm. The overall gearing was too high for the four speed box I was using - I couldn't get it off the line. I've changed the gearbox, and I'll be trying it at Winton day after tomorrow. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2012 : 08:34:02 AM
|
| Alan, There is also just so much one can do to a 4 valve. I still would like to learn about this wall that appears to inhibit performance of a 2 valve. All the best Jerry |
Jerry |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 02:06:57 AM
|
Jerry, 'the wall' is often known as 'the law of diminishing returns'. After you've made everything in the motor from titanium, and ceramic and teflon coated the relevant bits, played with the cams and ports. Made the stronger crankcases, and upped the max revs. You can keep spending money - but what do you spend it on ? There is only so far that you can go developing the old designs. With my Norton, the answer is the Weslake motor, which is what it should have been from the beginning.
With the thunderbike thing, someone playing with a 900cc Ducati might have some perceived advantage, but the cost of getting it to go fast and keep going would be horrific once you got past the basics.
There has only been one aircooled ducati which was four valve. It was the one that Bob Brown put Magee on, in the early eighties. Any thunderbike class should be limited to two valve and aircooled engines. That is the old technology which was used until about 1980 when four valve and water cooled engines were used on four strokes. If you think you can use that old technology and beat the two strokes and modern four cylinder superbikes, you are kidding yourself and it would be an expensive exercise finding that out. All this stuff about 'periods' is unnecessary bullsh1t, if we run the same types of bike together based on the technology used. Tue only reason fot the 'period' idea, is about authenticity, and that has never been achieved in our version of historic racing.
As it is, every race these days - historic or modern- has a grid of bikes of mixed technologies, and the racing is crap. Look back even only 12 years and remember that moderns racing was nearly all two strokes, and it was beautiful. I believe we will never see that again. It will only be four cylinder, watercooled four strokes from now on.- BORING !
My feeling is that classic racing should move towards a constructors' class using 500cc Jawa four valve speedway engines, and the SEAR engine. We now have the TTI gearboxes and replica Seeley frames. The bikes would be super light, nimble, and powerful. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 07:56:28 AM
|
| Alan, Pertaining to US competing in OUR class of racing using the Australian MOMS I believe that you as I are involved with P3 and P4 class of racing. You, I and Rex and so many of us are stuck with this "The wall" 2 valve technology. It was used in the ERA. There is NOTHING stopping you putting a 4 valve Jawa or any other engine in your bike. You just run with thr RULE book and Log book it for the appropriate class. Your problems are then solved with YOU riding the bike of your choice. From my understanding if I had your bike as is I would have to run in P4 unlimited against other " The Wall" 2 valve technology motorcycles. I believe a 2 valve pushrod old technology 4 stroke twin holds the P4 unlimited lap record at PI. What is the problem? All the best Jerry |
Jerry |
|
|
|
76degree-triumph
Level 1 Member
Victoria
3 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 11:17:16 PM
|
Hi Link, your attitude towards classic racing is a breath of fresh air. A couple of points are left of centre, but overall it is great to have someone fresh on this site that actually has come back to racing after a lapse. And folks here should re-read his posts.
Dont take a few blokes on this site too seriously. They dont/wont race anymore and have not for years. The older they are the faster they went. Just ask them, some even post pics.
Desk racers have stuffed this website with their "constructive" posts but none of them actually participate in classic racing or contribute their time to run a meeting. Typing from a distance is sadly their only claim to what they did 35 years ago.
I hope you enjoy your return to classic racing, it is for fun, family, sound, smell, and company!
Cheers, Chris Large. |
|
|
|
76degree-triumph
Level 1 Member
Victoria
3 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2012 : 11:27:47 PM
|
Let's be frank about unit triumphs - they are garbage. The only one ever worth bothering with was the late 70s 650cc thunderbird which had the short stroke crank. You could spend $5000 on the motor and still only gain a couple of horsepower. A pre-unit triumph has the advantage of a separate gearbox - you can easily fit a CR six speeder - a much better way to go. What you are talking about is a 'thunderbike', it uses the old two valve technology - there is just so much you can do, then you hit the wall.
<Edited by Admin>: Part of post removed due to not in the spirt of the website
Chris Large. |
Edited by - 76degree-triumph on 24 Aug 2012 11:39:27 PM |
|
|
|
link
Level 1 Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2012 : 12:26:06 AM
|
| Hi all I was going to delete my post as I was seeing a lot of negative replies but I will leave them up and hopefully some unit triumph guys will give some commitments to bring out their old bikes. I think a class within a class which has now come to light is a great idea and could run in a race with very few entries( saving that class) Maybe unit guys could pass the hat and sponsor a thunderbikes class. I raced against Alan Landers and think last i saw his bike it had a triumph head and was one of the real p4 looking bikes therefore I would happily fight for him to be approved for p4. I remember a class for bears which catered for a lot of these bikes but it also has died. I would be rapped to see another class within a class but the forum started as p4 unit triumph in p3. Has that now changed to thunderbike class run within an existing race. Jerry if you get bored would you have a look at my pre unit for me, I have raced against some of your other creations and had my **** kicked(probably more the rider also). Chris thanks for some support and thanks to your family over the years for helping with meetings and all the after hours stuff. It does get noticed of not recognised very often. I remember Dave Large lending triumph parts to my dad,though he probably wouldnt remember(for the motor I now have)to see the weekend out in the early 90's that is what the classic race scene was and could be again. Thanks Link |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2012 : 07:35:56 AM
|
| Dear Link, You make a good point regarding the jockeys. I have been VERY lucky to have some VERY good jockeys on my bikes. It is interesting to see that at the Manx this year that Ollie Linsdell is currently fastest in practice for the Classic Senior on a 500 pushrod Royal Enfield engined bike. fastest lap yesterday 106.47. Not bad for the OLD technology. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2012 : 03:58:35 AM
|
Link, Alan Landers had a shot at me, as he thought I was responsible for introducing log books which stuffed up his racing. I loved racing against him. His bike was substantially the same old garbage as my own. I don't care that his Triumph is really Period 5 - the 'period' crap is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with racing.
Jerry, back 'in the era' the biggest CB750s used CB450 pistons and were 836cc. There was even one genuine CR750 raced by Bill Patterson Motors - it was pretty useless. The biggest Commando is limited to 920cc, unless you spend heaps, and stress the design to the max - they won't cop it ! How many commandos and unit triumphs and BSAs now race in Period 4 , except in dumb sidecar handicap races ? Is there class domination ? The rules on capacity oversizes are f*cked.
|
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2012 : 04:02:55 AM
|
| Chris Large, both you and Dave were around in 1973 - you are not in the photo ? |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Jerry
Level 2 Member
South Australia
68 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2012 : 06:33:40 AM
|
| Gee Alan, And here I thought that racing was about being the first across the line running within the rule book. I now learn that that is a secondary matter and that capacity is the piece of magic required to achieve mine is best on the day. Are you saying that when I have seen a smaller than 1300cc capacity bike take out an Unlimited race that it has been an illusion. I still remember Bill Horsman telling me that his 500 Manx had to be sealed after taking out an Unlimited race just in case it was over 1300cc. If you look through Natsoft Timing results 2010 "Barry Sheene" at Eastern Creek look for Event 27 and look at what Paul Dobbs was riding and his fastest lap time (1:43.8). Not too shabby for a Norton twin or any other bike and rider. Also ahead of the Honda fours. Look at HISTORY of race meetings,bikes,riders and lap times and you may get an idea of what your Combination of bike and rider could be capable of. If you are NOT getting the results you want then look at what is required to be done to both the bike and jockey. All the best Jerry Kooistra |
Jerry |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Running 1970's 750 Triumph sin P3
