| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| john |
Posted - 03 Aug 2009 : 3:58:09 PM
Over time I will seek information from you experienenced people to explain what is required. Details of what bikes are good to ride and hwo to build them.
Thsi may help new potential riders decide.
Can you help me?
Types of bikes to consider
Period 3
BSA Bantum,
Period 4
Period 5
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| conker |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 9:07:04 PM
I don't know why anyone would hot up a Bantam, when they could fill one of these with TZ parts, get it into period 3, and beat all the classic bikes:
http://motorbike-search-engine.co.uk/classic_bikes/victoria_kr26.jpg |
| conker |
Posted - 03 Oct 2011 : 8:04:58 PM
History will repeat itself if two strokes and four strokes are allowed to run in the same races. TD1A etc. Yamahas killed off the Manxes in 1963, and the two strokes have stuffed up the classes ever since. I don't mind racing a two stroke bike, but if you blitz some poor b@stard on a four stroke bike, you'vre proven nothing, and just wasted your motor, and your entry fee !
It is not rocket science:
GP bikes 5 capacoty classes
TT bikes 7 capacity classes
Superbikes 2 capacity classes
Sidecars 2 capacity classes
16 races and you've catered for all the solos, and sidecars IF YOU RUN "CROSS PERIOD ! |
| frogger_nude |
Posted - 02 Oct 2011 : 4:34:24 PM
period 5
suzuki rm125
yamaha yz125 |
| john feakes |
Posted - 08 Dec 2009 : 09:33:09 AM
I think that as long as we allow 2 strokes to race against 4 strokes we will only have 2 strokes on the grid.
If I had not been motivated by my heart and had listened to my brain I would have opted for a two stroker. Simple, easy to make fast with all the modern technology that can legally be used and capable of winning races.
But to me they are not historic racers, they are old modern racers.
I guess this is an age thing and when I was young it was a 4 stroke world.
Sure, there were 2 strokes around, I had some, but without the benefit of expansion chambers they tended to make a lot of noise but not much speed.
The expansion chamber is the major component of 2 stroke performance that for some reason is considered to be only a minor component and not subject to any restriction.
It is a 2 stroke world and a poorer place for it.
Unfortunately this situation creates a 20 year hole in historic racing, the period from 1949 to 1969 when 4 strokes ruled the roost.
I would like to put some history back into historic racing. |
| glen20 |
Posted - 07 Dec 2009 : 11:01:53 AM
John Feakes, I agree with you that a 125cc fourstroke class could be great as entry level into historic racing. I looked at a Honda CT110 the other day, and it wouldn't be rocket science to fit a conventional tank, seat, rear sets and fairing. There is just so much Chinese performance stuff manufactured for those motors, they'd be a really lovely thing to play with. And who knows we might even have people building complete production racers for the class! That'd be a first in motorcycle racing in Australia! |
| john feakes |
Posted - 07 Dec 2009 : 09:18:34 AM
Thanks for the support Richard.
I will float the idea in bucket land to see if I can get support.
I will also prepare a submission to M.A. to see what reaction it gets.
I'm not done yet.
John |
| CB72 |
Posted - 06 Dec 2009 : 6:04:57 PM
John,
Sounds fair to me. Of course it raises a few questions in terms of teh period represented, but I think you are on the right track (no pun intended).
The build date is not so important, but I think you are right that in principal it belongs in that group of bikes (whatever they are called). Technically it is very similar to say a 1959 CB92 apart from having only half as many cylinders, so technically it is compatible and representative of the era.
I'd guess that the first Honda 125 OHC single was made in the mid or late sixties and would be of the type raced in the period that 62 bikes were raced - through the sixties or so. So it's technically compatible and of like design. Sounds like a good place to start the discussion.
Good luck |
| john feakes |
Posted - 06 Dec 2009 : 3:58:10 PM
Our rule book has an overview to the historic section which reads..........
"The following Rules governing Historic Road Racing motorcycles are written to facilitate the organisation of uniform and fair competition.
The express purpose of these Rules is to ensure the motorcycles are in a condition which is visually compatible with the period of racing being portrayed. These rules are to be interpreted so as to ensure that motorcycles are presented in the spirit of the period."
Noble words indeed. What a pity that it all gets muddied by the year of manufacture nonsense and the fact that it is possible to build modern replicas of some bikes that are only visually compatible with what they claim to be and yet it is not possible to claim eligibility for bikes that clearly meet the required criteria in every sense other than date of manufacture.
I think I will apply to log book my CB125 as P3 on the grounds that it meets the requirements in every sense other than the fact that it was built in 2009 out of 1970s parts. It is a replica of the type of 125cc bikes that raced in the 1950s.
Now, I am not suggesting that this approach, were it successful, would lead to a huge influx of 4 stroke 125s.
However, in seeking to promote historic racing the 125 class is the most affordable entry class and surely, if we want to encourage new participation in our sport, we should make entry as simple as possible?
Under our current rules most of the 125 4 strokes are forced to compete in the bucket class because they are not competitive in any historic racing class.
I dream of the day when there are 20 or more 125cc 4 strokes competing for the Victorian Tourist Trophy (with me being one of them).
Am I asking for too much?
Cheers, John |
| CB72 |
Posted - 06 Dec 2009 : 11:43:21 AM
John,
I managed to muddy the waters somewhat by adding a more outrageous suggestion. It might be useful if you were to restate your ideas as you now see things.
And don't let naysayers turn you off.
Richard |
| john feakes |
Posted - 06 Dec 2009 : 08:12:52 AM
Richard, I like the idea of having some bikes listed as being eligible for an era that they don't currently get into.
We already have a list of bikes that are not allowed in an era that they may just have fitted into so why not extend it in the other direction.
More food for thought.
Comments anyone?
Oh, the edit button is the third from the left, it has a red stripe through the bottom right corner.
Cheers, John |
| john feakes |
Posted - 06 Dec 2009 : 07:52:24 AM
Boys, boys, this conversation is not about cheating and nobody should be accused of cheating merely because they make the best use of what the rules allow.
That's not cheating, it's being intelligent.
What we are discussing here is how to improve the rules that we have so that we can get MORE BIKES ON THE GRID competing against similar bikes.
We are also discussing historic racing rather than racing old bikes.
There may be some of you who brand me as an armchair critic and to some extent you would be right. I am now 72 years old and I think I have earned the right to sit in my armchair. I also have the time to give thought to the sport I love and wish to see grow stronger.
My bike is nearly finished and soon I hope to find out if I can remember how to ride.
Enough about me, let's get back to the subject which is historic 125cc racing and how we can improve the level of participation.
I have suggested a change to the wording of the rule book.
Could some of you please think about what I have suggested and post comments?
Cheers, John
|
| CB72 |
Posted - 05 Dec 2009 : 4:06:20 PM
Time to wake up and smell the coffee. We didn't cheat back in the day! What a load of bollocks.
I used to race against a Bunch of guys who cheated regularly to win little tin trophies.
Just a few examples
A and B31 punched out to 450cc
A 600cc Manx Norton
150+cc Hondas in the 125 class
305 hondas in the 250 class
a 500 manx pretending to be a 350
A 350 TR3 pretending to be a TD3 250 and I have the pictures from Oran park to prove that last one.
And that's just a few I knew about. You know there were more. Cheating happens and always did. All we can hope is that it is discouraged and that most riders don't do it, but to suggest that we were all angels back in the day is just not right.
|
| glen20 |
Posted - 05 Dec 2009 : 09:19:22 AM
There's an easy answer to getting a good ride in historic races - get your own cheater! |
| glen20 |
Posted - 05 Dec 2009 : 09:14:44 AM
The FIM has established that in MotoGP an allowance is to be made for fourstrokes racing against twostrokes. In the main class fourstrokes can be 800cc, while the limit for twostrokes is 500cc. Historic racing isn't MotoGP but cheating on capacity is something we avoided in the old days! |
| glen20 |
Posted - 05 Dec 2009 : 09:06:48 AM
Beezerman I don't believe you're 'cheating' by using thicker crankcases or smart components, 'Cheating' is when your bike is either drastically overcapacity or it's a twostroke on a race against fourstrokes of the same capacity! |
| CB72 |
Posted - 05 Dec 2009 : 08:33:05 AM
Hey, I have a bunch of those I'm not using if someone needs them - including the Hailwood memorial race at Winton back in .. Damn. It's so long ago I don't remember  |
| bezerman |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 10:22:02 PM
Yes thanks for the support GD66 , seems they have been picking on me . Too many armchair critics having opinions on personal agendas and spectolation on subjects they know little about . Beware the noisy minority ! p.s. Glad to send trophys' to Glen 20 cause apparantly thats whats its all about , winning ? or whinging ? |
| GD66 |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 9:56:02 PM
It's only required to be visually compatible, Bezerman. Nobody gives a rat's what's inside (and it's none of their business !), what you're doing is what was done in the day. How many outrageously-quick Aussie specials ran in the 50s and 60s ? A stack ! As for Carillo rods, thicker cases etc,they're just practical safety mods : let's see them complaining about originality as they cartwheel down the road on oil from a blown-up, overstressed stock bottom end.... |
| bezerman |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 9:32:57 PM
Yes John , i will comment . The promotion of 125 s' on the 6th August i foolishly sent a post trying to promote 125 bantam racing and the positive joys and potential of racing a bantam . Being the only one currently out there was happy to share any tuning tips ect. Now i was shot down in flames ( cheating bastard ! } Full of yamaha parts ect. Now you have opened a can of worms ! Yes I have a 5 speed gearbox ! I also raced a triton , yep it also has a 5 speed gearbox T140 { cheating bastard } Hey it may have corrilo rods {cheating bastard } Aftermarket crankcases , thicker than originals ect. {cheating bastard }Regards {cheating bastard} |
| CB72 |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 4:06:17 PM
John,
If you want to have minimal impact on the words in teh manual, would it work better to just add some bikes to the list of things allowed.
It would get a little longer but those are exceptions to a general rule and that might be one way to sneak up on it.
|
| john feakes |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 2:07:00 PM
As I see things it is rule 16.4 that is the big stumbling block that needs to be changed.
With regard to the dating of bikes the year will be....... 16.4.0.5 a) currently reads "For a road based bike the machine or its latest major component was first generally available for sale and delivery to the purchaser."
If we could change this to something like "For a road based bike the year in which the technology of its major components was first generally available for sale and delivery to the purchaser" it would allow more bikes to slot into races that they are currently excluded from.
We currently have the situation where a CB125 based race bike which has P3 technology is classified as P4 if it has the early one piece head and P5 if it has the two piece head.
We can also have a Bantam that uses P5 technology still classified as P3.
Anyone care to comment? |
| CB72 |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 10:51:38 AM
getting MA to change will not be easy and it will not be fast. They have to try to balance what they think are the concerns of all regions and all groups with an interest.
That's not an indictment BTW, just a recognition that it will take some work and persistence to change the rules.
I'm not so sure about those SR500's but that's OK, we all have opinions.
Another thing to keep in mind is that it's easy to be critical and much harder to drive the change process. If you talk to anyone from say Gallup, they will tell you that a significant proportion of any group are those that are actively disengaged.
That means they make a lot of noise about what is wrong and appear to be engaged, but in fact offer no useful input to the process. Those that want to wake up to a better world often feel overwhelmed by the shear enormity of the task and stay the heck away.
So we already know that the majority will not be right behind you urging the change on, but that's life.
HMRAV can run whatever Mixed classes or cocktails or whatever you want to call them and if they work they can talk to other clubs like Hartwell. Toddy and the team at HMRAV want historic racing to be big and fun, and may be willing to give it a go, but someone has to take them a proposal and it sounds like Glen20 is the man to do that.
Maybe talk to some of the board over coffee or beer first and start a dialogue and then take it to the larger group when you have more support.
Try to avoid the perception that it will all be a shambles by breaking the old rules. All we are talking about is suggesting that we focus on the intent of Historic racing which is slowly being lost as technology and time march on.
We cannot hold back the tide, success comes from managing the process of change.
Good luck and if I can help in any way, please let me know.
Cheers
|
| glen20 |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 08:26:17 AM
Sure, we can operate in our own way at club level, but the thinking is still restricted by what it says in the MA rule book.
What we are dealing with is clearly a mindset within HMRAV. The simple answer is to run a series of special classes, designed to group bikes on a performance basis. We could start by changing the premier class Period 3 500 to include the Period 4 Seeley G50 fron Brisbane, and the two SR500 Yamahas which currently race in Period 5. It's NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! Even setting up invitation races would not be stupid! |
| john feakes |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 08:13:21 AM
Richard, I am, and have been for some time, very much in contact with HMRAV which is the club that I belong to.
I have drawn up a proposal for change and will be pushing it over the next few months.
The problem we have is that MA have got control of the rules and trying to get anything changed is extremely difficult.
Sure, we can operate in our own way at club level, but the thinking is still restricted by what it says in the MA rule book.
The things that need to change are firstly thinking that year of manufacture is more important than the era of the technology employed, secondly that racing by period is more important than racing by capacity and thirdly that having lots of bikes on the grid is more important than having similar bikes on the grid.
Oh, I should have included apathy. That needs to change before anything else will change.
I am working at it and I will not go away, not before the he**** gets me anyway.
One thing I have learned is that the majority are very happy to let the few do all the work and then moan when they find something they don't like.
Ask for their input and 95% can't be bothered to contribute anything.
Cheers, John
Bloody hell, the automatic censor wont let me use the word for the vehicle that we have our final ride in because it sees it as a male bum. What is this world coming to? |
| CB72 |
Posted - 04 Dec 2009 : 02:46:58 AM
You are both right, that without some rules that make sense it's anarchy and no one suggested that.
Period rules were totally appropriate but the combination of age and capacity is too tight and strangles things. What is needed is a set of rules that are well defined but loosen the Age+Size strangle hold.
The idea is to make things more equal - not less. And as long as we believe that nothing will change, then nothing will change. It's a self fulfilling prophesy.
The way things change is that someone has a vision and others share that vision and sign on to it and they create enough discussion and buzz that they convince a club to try it.
I'm not racing in Oz at the moment, you guys are and if we want to see something change, it's us and a few thousand of our closest friends that will make that happen.
This isn't rocket science. How did we get P4 or P5? They were not automatically included by MA. Check the history books. We ran a class in the HMRAV and guys like Doug Gorrie brought out his Rocket 3 and Michale Pettifer dragged out his T350 and TR500 and soon there were enough people that the Post classic guys had a voice and the class was created.
So we cannot say that there is no room for change and that clubs will not embrace change. Sure, they will need to be convinced, but if we want to change something we have to work at it and not be discouraged when others don't share the vision.
Who would like to draw up a proposal for discussion with HMRAV -not formally at this stage - just open a dialogue and get the ball rolling.
BTW, I'm not saying that my suggestion is the right one or the only one. I'm trying to spark a discussion.
The way I see it is that either we see something we want to change and we try to change it or we sit and whinge about it. I'm a Pom and I don't whinge. |
| john feakes |
Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 7:36:19 PM
If we remove the concept of periods we will end up with a meaningless jumble.
It would essentially become modern racing on bikes of varying ages.
I don't have a problem with putting bikes into historical periods that they represent. I don't have a problem with separating bikes by capacity.
I do have a major problem with a system that separates bikes into periods and insists that they run in periods rather than in capacity classes.
I have a major problem with a system that stops bikes of similar design and performance from racing together because they were built in different periods.
I have a major problem with a system that categorises bikes purely by date of manufacture and refuses to acknowledge that the technology may in fact be older than the date of manufacture.
What we have at the moment is a system that puts a mishmash of bikes on the grid based more on numbers than on compatibility, often creating a potentially dangerous situation.
A system that sought to put P4 125s on the same grid as P5 600s and almost led to a boycott by the 125 riders.
It is time for a change in the way we think.
|
| glen20 |
Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 5:38:30 PM
'Historic racing was never about recreating the periods, it is about having fun racing old bikes on a reasonably level playing field. The only reason to have capacity classes and Periods is to try to keep things equal.'
There are so many examples of unequal racing because of this obsession with 'periods', can you really claim the system is working? There are also a lot of examples where similar TYPES of bike never get to race one another! There is no point pursuing this, I don't believe the promoting clubs will ever change the format of race meetings and try something new! It's gunna be the same procession forever! |
| CB72 |
Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 3:24:10 PM
Why does your head hurt? Simple. because you are tied to the "representing the era" concept.
That I will argue is a flawed concept that only made sense in that era. We can't recreate the battles of the 53TT and quite frankly, it's time we recognized that.
Does that mean we should throw out all the rules and just let anarchy rule? Of course not.
Historic racing was never about recreating the periods, it is about having fun racing old bikes on a reasonably level playing field. The only reason to have capacity classes and Periods is to try to keep things equal.
That is absolutely the right objective, but I am arguing that maybe that is no longer as appropriate as it used to be.
I'm not suggesting that we throw everything out, but that we remove the existing arbitrary boundaries and redefine them slightly.
The objective remains the same - lots of racers having fun racing old bikes against other guys and gals on bikes of similar capability. Some will be faster and some will handle better and some will brake better etc, but as long as it's a level playing field, who cares about the cut off?
Of course the rules have to make some sort of sense, but maybe it's time to break the shackles of the past and start to think about better ways to modify the rules as and where required to better fit the current reality.
Any change will need discussion and good communication and what better place to start than here.
And that's why I suggested starting the discussion at the small end of the scale. I'd hate to start with 90k replicas..
Does that make any sense? |
| john feakes |
Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 10:05:59 AM
Richard, I read you loud and clear.
Unfortunately we are talking about 125s here and we are also talking about historic racing.
To me, historic racing should be representative of the era being displayed.
What we call period 3 was the time that the 125 class was dominated by 4 strokes at world level.
If we are to present racing that is supposed to represent an era it should be populated by the types of bikes that raced in that era. 4 strokes!
It is the cut off year of 1962 that precludes most 125 4 strokes from being where they belong.
If we could change the rules to something like "bikes that are visually and mechanically representative of the period" we could open it up to include most 125 4 strokes that were built in the 70s and 80s.
Year of manufacture is the great stumbling block that holds most of us back.
That it is selectively applied is evidenced by the number of new "replicas" available. Replicas that only have a visual resemblance to the real thing.
Why have I got a headache?
|
| glen20 |
Posted - 03 Dec 2009 : 10:02:30 AM
It will take more than 5 minutes to get this right, but is has a lot of potential to be the most fun class out there.
We've had 36 years so far to get this right, and it's still wrong! |
