|
Advertise with us
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
| |
Current Topic Rating:  | Join the Forum to Rate this Topic at: Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums
|
|
|
Former Member
deleted
6 Posts |
 Posted - 14 May 2001 : 8:44:57 PM
|
I can't help but notice that the overwhelming recurring theme within most of the Forum Topics is the issue of our current racing classes and there inequity. I have read many people's opinions on the issue but would love to see these ideas in an open debate. CMC.com members are as yet only a small percentage of the Historic Racing scene in Australia but I feel those members are an excellent cross-section of our sport. We have current and ex MA commissioners, commitee members from most states and many racers who are concerned enough to log on.
It's obvious that our current 'class' system needs a rewrite....But to what?
The problem with historic racing is the fact that we are governed by not only capacity restrictions, but 'era' restrictions as well. Which opens the entire eligibility can of worms. Currently it seems the phrase 'visually compatible' is used as a blanket eligibility clause.
Is there an alternative...?
Is Forgotten Era truly 'Historic Racing', or should it be tagged onto the modern racing program ...?
Should 2 Strokes be on the same grid as 4 Strokes...?
So far the best starting point I have seen comes from John Downs' post in the "Forgotten Era" topic of the "General Comments" forum. It would be worth our while to get a copy of the UK GCR's (or equivalent) and investigate further.
Please post any opinions on any small part of the issue that you wish. I'm sure we will not all agree on things, but it would be great to get the ball rolling.
This could be truly a national discussion on a national issue.
Has MA ever called you and asked your opinion...........?
I think not.
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 15 May 2001 : 8:03:12 PM
|
How would you feel if Period 4 was extended to include Period 5, with a cut off date for four strokes of 1985, and two strokes of 1979? Only tubular steel frames and 18 inch or larger wheels permitted.
Also 350cc or larger two strokes only allowed to run in unlimited events, under 250 cc two strokes only allowed to run in up to 750cc classes.
This way there could be 350cc, 500cc, 750cc and unlimited classes which would cope with both two stroke and four stroke machines.
Just a suggestion, but it would mean that 79 model TZ350's would be competing against McIntosh Suzukis in the unlimited class, and all those overbored Hondas would suddenly become 750cc again!
Alfonso |
 |
|
|
Former Member
deleted
6 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2001 : 12:55:27 AM
|
It appears the ball is rolling… Great.
Your points are well noted and you have obviously been thinking about this issue for awhile. I have no set plan regarding the issue, as yet, but would like to throw a few things into the ring for consideration.
I really don’t think that any motorcycle of any capacity built from 1st January 1963 (the current start date for P4) should be on a race track with any motorcycle of any capacity built in 1985, or 1979 for that matter. I think as time moves on the cut off periods for all classes need to be reviewed.
I really think we need to remember the category of motorsport that we participate in …. ”Historic Racing”, or often coined “Classic Racing”.
Historic Racing, as I see it, began as a reason to bring out some old bikes and some old riders for a ‘show’. A recreation of a bygone era of racing. But the level of racing was that of GP machines (pucker racers). So therefore had to be purely ‘time’ or ‘era’ based. .
But herein lies our problem. Obviously the later the period of racing the more of a mix of machines we have wanting to race. This is purely attributed to the exponential rise of the motorcycle manufacturing industry post 60's and through the roof in the '70's.
It seems to me that the current formula for up to P3 is largely accepted with full grids (for 350 and 500 at least). But the predominant comments on CMC.com are based around P4, P5 and the ever present 2 stroke issue... as well as fitting everything on the same program.
Try this one on for size Alfonso.... If we extend our cut-off date to 1985, should we leave Period 1 and 2 completely off the program (very few entries anyway, but true historic racing none the less)…? Then, do we include capacity classes for up to 1985…? How can we call 1985 Historic Racing (or, for that matter, the current P5 date of 1980)....?
I personally own a P3 250 and a P4 125 … both 4 strokes ….. and I would like to see some parity in my classes, but as yet can’t find an answer.
I do believe we need to run many 'classes within classes' to give everyone a chance.... but is there a table in the world that will hold that many trophies....?
|
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2001 : 10:55:53 AM
|
I suggest Period 3 should be preserved in its present form which I believe is machines 1949 to 1962. The prewar classes should probably be extended to 1949 so all garden gate and rigid frame bikes are eligible. But it still depends a bit on the type of machine, I think a MK8 KTT with swinging arm and girder forks really belongs in period 3 and it would be a bit unfair to run it with the prewar machines.
I have been mainly concentrating on Period 4/5, as that is relevant to my bikes. I think any post 1962 750 racer would keep up with most 1985 converted four stroke street bike, e.g. a good 750 Norton or Triumph would give any normal 750 Katana a good run for its money. Anyone who wants to get a Katana going quicker without increasing capacity has to resort to hot cams, alcohol and separate pipes, then they have to ride it. If you ask Tony Cacciotti about the Bill Patterson Honda some time, he will tell you how nasty it was compared with Rex Wolfenden's bikes.
If we adopted the formula I outlined in the last post, I would reduce the capacity of my Norton to 750cc and run in that class, and run a TZ350 in the Unlimited class.
I really think we should cater for bikes up to 1985 (two strokes to 1979). The Post Classic Unlimited class would be frightening and very exciting, anyone with any brains wouldn't have a four stroke over 750cc. One thing we should think about is that the genuine racers can disappear. I saw a McIntosh Suzuki in the Trading Post the other day for $7000 - what would you use it for? But it's certainly worthwhile preserving. And another thing, I really want to see how good a fairly late model 750SS Ducati is.
What I have suggested is not 'modern' road racing, there would be no deltabox frames or 17 inch wheels (therefore no slicks).
Alfonso |
|
|
|
Former Member
deleted
![]()
18 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2001 : 1:37:41 PM
|
Here's my two bob's worth Steve - as a period 2, 3 and 4 rider who is very much in the 'having fun' category.
I think we need to keep an eye on what sections of the sport are growing and those that are shrinking, and slowly evolve rather than radically change. If a particular segment looks like having potential we should encourage it - maybe try and cater for it within the existing rules.
Most people who have built a bike for racing have looked at the eligibility rules and built something that will (hopefully) be competitive in one class or another. If we change the rules, I believe that this will still happen. A few machines will have a bit of a jump on the rest because of the stage of development of the model at that point in time, and that's what the serious riders will go for, so I don't believe it will improve the cross section of machinery. However, what it will do is to disadvantage people who have built bikes around the current rules. What will they do with their bikes that are now completely uncompetitive in a later era?
I'm certainly not arguing that the current rules are right. However, I believe that the instability that has already been created in the sport over change (in particular the brake issue) has shown the potential to split the sport. The result will inevitably be less entries. We can't afford this at the moment.
I think that the way historic racing is going there are now two factions - the big budget people who are out to win at all costs and are happy to chase the best riders as well as machines, and those who are just out for a bit of fun who know they will never be competitive.
What I'd like to see us achieve is a way of better catering for both groups. I think the Kiwis have done a great job with this where they have a genuine racing bike class, which is the prestige, high budget racing, a clubmans class and a modified class. They appear to be hugely successful at the moment, even though they don't allow any Japanese bikes or components (not that I'm suggesting we should do this).
As for period 2 declining, I hope you're wrong. My belief is that historic racing will be much more attractive to spectators while we are encouraging the older periods. Although I ride them on the road, I could never identify with the late 70s or 80s as being historic.
|
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 16 May 2001 : 10:00:47 PM
|
Bill, I like your attitude - it's all about having fun, but I also like to be competitive. If you exclude all Japanese machines from Post Classic etc, you would get competitive racing, but it wouldn't be representative of any era of real road racing in Australia.
I disagree that late 70's early 80's is not a historic era. If you are in touch with modern racing, you will agree that it is now a whole different game. The previous bikes are now dinosaurs compared with the new ones.
Time moves on and I suggest we should adjust our thinking so that representative examples of period racing machines are preserved and raced.
I rode in the first exhibition classic machine race at Winton in the early seventies. It was proposed then to set up a classic era (up to 1962), the bikes in the historic racing were then about fifteen years old (1985 was fifteen years ago).
Alfonso |
|
|
|
john
Forum Moderator
Victoria
3130 Posts |
Posted - 31 May 2001 : 11:45:54 PM
|
My undersatnding is that the cutoff dates relate to periods of significant change in the bikes. If you ran P4 and P5 to gether there would be no CB750 hondas, all the two cams stuff would be used
Team Dalrac Sidecar #68 |
|
|
|
acotrel
Advanced Member
Victoria
2147 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jun 2001 : 5:59:52 PM
|
There was only ever one genuine Honda 750 racer in Victoria in the early seventies. It was the Bill Patterson Daytona Honda 750, and it was fitted with four megaphones, fairing and clipons. In its day it didn't win very much, a 'green meanie' ridden by Toombs, Atlee, Sayle or Hansford would massacre it. we aren't really getting anything from post classic racing which even remotely resembles the racing in the period.
My own Triumph 500 which Allan Greening now owns would usually blitz any standard Honda 750, and an 810 would not often get away from it.
What I am saying is that Rex's (and others) bikes are really excellent, and should be raced, but let's have some realistic competition for them. I think we can never recreate the post classic era, so let's have some fun.
Another point - try to find a decent 70's TZ these days - perhaps we should cater for them before they all disappear.
When did you see a 70's Ducati win a race?
Alfonso |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Classic Motorcycling Australia Forums |
© 2000 - 2025 |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
