|
Advertise with Classic Motorcycling Australia
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Feb 2003 : 10:15:34 PM
|
I am speaking personally here and I want to bring across a topic which has arisen in another topic.
"If Titanium was so expensive that very few used it in the past, why does that it make it kosher today 40 years on. Surely common usage has to be a determining factor, not some idea that because the king of England used it or there was a special one off experimental unit that bombed out anyway we can now. If the experimental useage 50 years ago was no good why would it work today, modern materials and techniques I believe is the difference. Perhaps this difference of opinion about what is fair, what is was truthfully in general use, and what people can get away with today is one reason why Historic racing is in the state that it is. Personally I think the use of Titanium generally today stinks, it is not representative of the past by your own admissions, and is only used by those who want to cheat today. Unfortunately it may be being used by those who can win on skill alone anyway. In sidecars I notice that machines have fronted with vast improvements that appeared in 1980 masqurading as post classic machines today. Perhaps most of us are too nice, we dont cheat, we dont dob and we do not protest with $70 when perhaps we should." I am curious about what others think of the use commonly today of experimental things from the past that may have been tried but because materials where no good the idea failed in that period. But today riders get the idea, apply modern materials and machineing knowledge with the claim it was used before. Disc brakes were tried in the 1920's, but they failed.I have seen post classic sidecars with linked brakes instead of separate,classic s/cs with hydraulic brakes instead of cable, shock absorbers on the rear instead of rubber blocks,floating discs from modern bikes when in the past they were made from Renault discs that weighed 5 times as much, Classic solos with modern single shocks, discs on bikes that never had discs, upside down forks where they should not be, Harley's 750cc bored to 1200cc running as 750cc, titanium valves, even the 6 speed gear boxes I beleive are poxy. I dont want to preserve the past as such but if you claim to want racing as it was, then dont use modern materials and manufacturing tecniques inappropriatley. I have heard the mantra we need to do it for safety sake. In my opinion that is a lie, people could always ride within the capabilities of the machine as they were. Next thing Manx Nortons will have either 20 inch 6 shoe drums or 12" discs and classic sidecars will have sidecar brakes for "safety Reasons" I reckon it is immoral and cheating. If people want to use trick stuff why not race moderns, as I will be with one new sidecar where I can play with modern materials and manufacturing techniques without prostituting the post classic sidecar I already run. I speak here as a rider and not as the Secretary of the club I ride with, so please dont stick it up the HMRAV, take me on.
|
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
matcho mick
Advanced Member
New South Wales
570 Posts |
Posted - 22 Feb 2003 : 11:07:01 PM
|
| G'day John,isn't this why we have copped log books?,to stop most of the bull**** over what is period,and what "they" would like to be period?,modern materials/methods are always going to be around,you just have to know where to look?,my 10c,Mick. |
 |
|
|
Former Member
deleted
79 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2003 : 12:55:04 AM
|
John. I tend to agree with you, though I would never call anyone a cheat if they were operating within the rules.
Titanium isn't new, it was used over 50 years ago for valves, barrel & head studs and of course conrods to name a few. There were two main reasons its use was never widespread, cost and its difficulty to machine and work with, only one of those reasons remain today.
If someone is rebuilding or restoring and old machine that had inherent conrod problems would it be sound practice to rebuild it with the known fault? I see nothing wrong with replacing cast flywheels with steel ones and spaghetti rods with Carillo's or even titanium ones. It makes good sense, will definately be cheaper in the long run and will keep classic bikes racing.
One of the reasons there are not as many Triumphs racing as there could be is the crankshaft, it was a poxy design and the main limiting factor on revs. If you bust one today a "new" or used one is going to be over 30 years old and be just as good as what broke. Whats wrong with using modern materials and techniques to make a new and improved one? Takes me back to my other point, keeps classic bikes racing, and if thats the reason to use modern materials and techniques then I'm all for it.
I have no time for people openly exploiting the rules, if someone fits parts that are clearly for performance and were not availble in the period depicted then it shouldn't be up to you to protest, the organisers should do it all for you. Titanium for instance shouldn't be used for exausts or general nuts & bolts, carbon fibre shouldn't be used as a replacement material for fibreglass, steel or aluminum etc.
There will always be cheats and those who will win at all costs, but they are never popular people and always lose out in the end. Classic racing isn't about fame & fortune, its about owning and maintaining old bikes and then riding them. Its called having fun, cheats don't experience that.
|
Al Kidd |
|
|
|
Allan
Site Moderator
National
599 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2003 : 07:33:05 AM
|
| well John TiT parts were around so I see no problems with that, maybe valves were not around !, AJS/ Matchless all had "home" yes home made flywheels usually made from boiler plate and the crank in my 500cc short stroke triumph was home made in 1957 (and revs to 10000rpm yes and still has orignal crankcases and flywheels) one of about 3 in aussie and a couple were in the UK. side cars have used brakes on side car wheel in the day s of classic racing even in WW2 side cars had a brake fitted to the sidecae wheel if you go your way should we ban electronic ign systems!Gear box's 5 and 6 speed were around 2 different makers 1 uk other Germany? Kneeler out fits were in aussie in as far back as 1959? check with Richard Franks he rode it at Darley. |
Allan Greening |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2003 : 08:20:04 AM
|
The rules for some international classes of classic racing (such as George Beale's InCA) actually encourage the use of modern materials. If we are ever going to compete with them, we probably need to do the same. There is probably another choice, that is the way of the New Zealand 'purists'. Trouble is there aren't so many genuine racing machines in Australia these days.
The history of racing in Australia has always had A graders who used titanium, and nitro - our Kenny for one, blew the sh*t out of his Triumph at Mallala, and brought down four other riders, using it.
Personally I feel that the bikes should look externally like something from a particular era, but internally - anything goes.
That's why the current eligibilty rules appeal to me, even though Rex has blitzed us, and stopping that's only a matter of introducing the new 750 class and changing race formats.
I really like good replicas, and even Rex's bikes resemble the AMA racers of the early seventies.
I would never protest if another rider can get a bike of the same capacity and number of cylinders going faster than I can, provided he doesn't fit four valves where the bike was originally a two valve machine.
The use of six speed gearboxes in P3 bikes is probably unfortunate, however unless we develop an Australian Formula for InCA type races, we are always going to have them around. They are a major disincentive to building a P3 bike - $6000 up front.
We've been doing historic racing for thirty years now, I really believe there is no way back to racing anything like genuine bikes. Rules such as the capacity must be dictated by the crankcases, only discourage guys like Rex and his mates, when they have to bring the capacity back from 1050cc to 750cc. At present they are a major attraction, so should we discourage them?
I believe all racing is about development, most of the fun is from getting your bike going faster and handling better. So let's set the rules as 'anything goes as long as it looks right and the capacity is legal', and 'all historic bikes must be eligible for one of the prescribed 'periods' regardless of what races it runs in'. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2003 : 08:46:41 AM
|
| My point is that sure this TIT stuff was around. But nobody used it because of the expence. Now we can afford it. So the question in part is, Should Historic Racing ultilise Titanium now because we can afford it.Where do we draw the line, magnesium castings would look the same and with modern casting and design techniques I believe significant weight,strength and reliability advantages could be gained, along with chrome moly tubing, special spokes where do you draw the line. I too want to see the machines circulating and I have no problem with remanufacturing, but where is the line drawn with regard to including 2003 technology in them. I would be happy with reliability, but not with weight savings. |
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 - 23 Feb 2003 : 09:05:15 AM
|
| My last say John crank cases can be got for Norton 750/850 triumph 650/750 pre unit Ajs/Matchless all in Magnesium now and for years before they look the same but look inside thry are heavey walled weigh the same as orignal i know of a couple of set here in Australia . I dont think this is cheating Its making the live of the motor longer so better for the sport!The triumph cases from uk take all the 750 unit parts plus all the lastest cxam lifts BUT the rules say this is ok but we cannot use 10 stud heads so just weld up the 9 stud rocker boxes and they look lik 109 stud heads o' just counter sink the other stud and run the oil line over it weld up the inlet and weld stubs on who can see the difference I have done a motor this way but cause of rules this motor sits in the lounge room a good talking point The t500 frame i have The space frame built 1970 has been protested against But was raced at Bathurst 1970 so is legal but why bother just park it, see one less bike for me to work on! my side car is legal p/c but they (who ever) say cause fairing is one piece its not legal so its also parked ! regards |
Allan Greening |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2003 : 6:51:24 PM
|
| The piont about a new crank for the Truimph is a valid point. And when I spoke of modern materials and techniques I was thinking of brakes, castings, frame etc. But I think this points out the fact that there are times perhaps when impronements are ok and when they are not. Perhaps there could be some panel that documents approved maods over the years could be established. Not a panel with cronies and seld interest but an independant one that can make essesments on individual matters and document them for all to see. Maybe its transparency we need. Anther point came up earlier today about genuine works one off bikes vs replicas. Where is the line drawn? I was asked about watercooled two and 4 strokes from the 1960,s possibly being challenged when they start racing but in this case it is the original machine. How would that be dealt with? |
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 - 24 Feb 2003 : 07:26:12 AM
|
I believe that any original machine from any particular eligibility period should be preserved and raced, providing the owner can prove authenticity. I suggest that cross usage of parts from various periods should be discouraged, however changes to engines which improve reliability such as titanium valves and conrods, and magnesium cases should be allowed for any period bike.
The use of chrome-moly tube was common for featherbed and Goldie frames, and is OK for Period 3 onwards. The use of titanium fasteners and axles was common, particularly on works machines in the 60s, and is OK for Period 4 onwards. The use of carbon fibre started in the 70s and is OK on Period 5 machines.
The only time this presents a problem is when P3,P4, and P5 bikes run together in races such as the 750 pushrod class - theoretically a P5 bike should win. It still depends who's on it. That 750 Norton from New South with Johnno on it will be hard to beat, and I don't care who uses titanium. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2003 : 09:08:15 AM
|
" He said that he made a system for the works Hondas a while back, which had an airbox around the carbies. Inside the airbox the injector nozzles were in the original carbie bell mouths. You could turn on the petrol to the carbies and the bike would run as normal, but the injection system was worth two seconds per lap.
Wal Phillips injectors were available in the fifties. I've seen them, but I'd never use one, they seem too crude, however if you combined them with one of Richard's systems, you'd have something pretty effective. Trouble is I don't know how you would stop this except by making a rule - no fuel injection on P3 and P4 bikes. This means that only petrol fuelled bikes could use it." Alan cotheral put this up elsewhere and it highlights to me the issues of how do we decide. Alan has made his views about whats in and out others have a completely different view and on the weekend I had a discussion with an old friend who seemed to be able to produce eveidence to justify anything in any period. I kid you not. The difference he admitted was that early experiments failed because of materials and manufacturing techniques. So perhaps we need to come up with a transparent system to determine whats in and out, even if at times it is a blanket reason to keep machines different. That is if my mate Jim had his way you would not tell the difference betwen a P2 and P5 because everything would be updated to the latest materials and techniques. ie Injection from areoplanes, discs, 67 speed boxes, two wheel steering and drive on sidecars, watercooling on all periodsetc the list goes on.Is it possible to document a process?
|
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
|
Former Member
deleted
![]()
12 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2003 : 9:19:13 PM
|
| I hear you John and also others,where I feel the system fails is not the rules as such,but that the onus is on the competitor to enforce the rules.It is a major thing for someone to front with not just $70 but potentially a big blight on their reputation as a competitor,to put up a protest.It should never reach that level.If a machine is obviously illegal it should not turn a wheel until it is correct.The competitors should not be put in a position of having to enforce the rules.What is "eligbility" scrutineering for? |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2003 : 11:05:01 PM
|
| I agree with you Nev. If you look at what the gokart guys do to ensure noone has a big advantage in some classes, we're a bit of a joke. Trouble is we have raced for years without any real control from promoters. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
Former Member
deleted
16 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2003 : 11:04:37 PM
|
Alan, I know this is slightly off the topic, but I was at that meeting run by the
Preston Motorcycle Club on Queen's Birthday 15 June 1959 at the Darley
Circuit. ( I was 7yo at the time).
I am looking at the program as I write this and there are some very
famous names in the program.
L.Tinker, A Osbourne, R Angel, G Curley, J Carruthers, G Huse,
J Walters, Tony Street, G Osbourne, G Laing, K Rumble, A Flood,
K Carruthers, T Pound, M Dillon, J Ahearn, O Archibald, and many others.
I also note Number 11, R Frank - A Greening ( Waratah Special 647 )
Hartwell.
It was an interesting meeting as all riders got at least 3 rides on the day.
Event 1. Bacchus Marsh Junior Road Race ( D Grade )
2. " " " " ( C Grade )
3. " " " " ( B Grade )
4. Hospital Ultra Lightweight Road Race ( one Honda 125 entered)
5. Novice Sidecar
6. Ballan Senior Road Race ( D Grade )
7. Lerderberg Light weight Road Race
8. Scratch race for racing cars up to 500cc
9. Bacchus Marsh Junior Road Race ( A Grade )
10. Scratch Race For Racing Cars up to 250cc and Austin 7s
11. One Hour Production Machine Race - Class A over 251cc
- Class B up to 250cc
12. Ballan Senior Road Race ( A Grade )
13. Racing Cars up to 500cc and Austin 7s
14. Ballan Senior Road Race ( B Grade )
15. Open Sidecars Road Race
16. Handicap Race for Austin 7s and Racing Cars up to 500cc
17. Harvey Wiltshire Memorial Road Race ( over 251cc )
18. Ballan Senior Road Race ( C Grade )
19. Darley Sidecar Handicap
It is also interesting to see the comments about the Van that Bill Pound drove.
My recollection is of seeing the van parked out the front of Embee engine
reconditioners in Coburg where I think, Bill worked. It was a Goliath van, made in Spain,
with originally a 2 stroke motor. It was a little smaller than a Volkswagon Kombi.
Bill had mid mounted a Holden V8, transmission,tail shaft and differential.
I think it had two oil coolers mounted above the cabin. He said he was considering
changing the Holden motor for a 7 litre Pontiac V8 and Auto transmission.
He must have had g-n-ds the size of the Goodyear Blimp to drive it.
I just thought I would share my recollections of the time with every one. |
|
|
|
Allan
Site Moderator
National
599 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2003 : 11:10:07 AM
|
| Well that right sidecar was named Waratah (Flower of NSW). I built for Richard Frank and Roger Corne3333 can't remember how it was spelt. It was first kneeler side car in Aussie. Built from photo's sent to me from I.O.M. by Ross Prania possibly wrong again of the O.E.Greenwood outfit. Was built in Carnegie were we in out late teens. If you look in the side cars, Wes Brown, Orrie Salter and Mr Murphy would all have been there. WE need a I remember slot for all us old farts. |
Allan Greening |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 10 Mar 2003 : 9:29:48 PM
|
Here's another 'I remember' about Darley. I was only there a couple of times, but I remember Maurie Quincey crashing, Wes Brown's outfit destroying itself, and Barry Oliver winning a race on the ex-Mussett Velo.
I believe there's something should be said about eligibilty. - If we are ever going to do this historic racing thing properly, I suggest we have to adopt two approaches - 'purist' and 'liberal'.
The 'purist' approach is to have the bikes run in 'periods' with stringent eligibility, similar to New Zealand rules. The machine improvements strictly controlled.
The 'liberal' approach is to run some events 'cross period', such as the 750 pushrod class, 650 sidecar, 500cc single four stroke classes.
I believe what we need is a balance of events at meetings, instead of two sets of 'period' events per day, as at present meetings.
I suggest we can run both types of event at meetings, and bikes which comply with the 'purist' philosophy would get twice as many rides.
I think a good place to start, would be to ban the use of all japanese parts in P2 and P3 bikes. In fact probably only P2 and P3 should really need regulating as far as improvements and development are concerned, where the trick materials are used.
The point about Barry Oliver's Velo, is that he still has it, however Bruce Kinnersley's Montesa would make it look silly, if Barry brought it out today. |
Is your machine authentic or merely eligible? |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2003 : 9:48:01 PM
|
| can we reminis on the corret site so people get to read it iwith other gr8 yarns |
John Daley Sidecar #68
' there are those who do, those who dont do and those who undo. We must lampoon the latter." |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums |
© 2000 - 2025 |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
