sidecarracer51 wrote:The reference to 1300 BMW, was because that is what would be allowed but who raced a 1300 BMW in the period?, at some point down the line, someone will throw silly amounts of money at a BMW engine and that will become the new TZ, just as all the modern incarnations of period engines have had serious developement and are not the engines that were used in period, so why all the fuss about a chassis rail, which is what the thread was about from the start.
I see your point Keith, but the 1300 limit applies to any engine, does this not level the playing field out? At any point any one could throw silly amounts of money at any engine! If this wasn’t the case imps in my mind would be the only engine at the sharp end!
I think the ideal answer is if we get enough 750s they could possibly push for there own race...? And being a true representation of classic racing.
Last edited by jkr46 on Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A true representation is up to 1300cc as it was in the 60's. but i agree that it would be great to have a separate race,we are currently building a 750 on 16"s
I was about to say i think the 1300 limit came from "the day". Yeah i see what your saying Eddy, but Matt is a good driver on a very good chassis, he doesn't get near you, yet on his 980 you used to have some very close racing. Put the same driver on the same chassis with a 750 engine then a 1000 engine i dont think the lap times would be close. Every one has different skill levels, and most people are on different levels of chassis's so you cant really compare on race results.
Bob there were very few 1300s in period and most of them only as good as the smaller engines,but the way i see it is that if we are running to the rules of the period we choose to race in lets do it without prejudice let those who choose the big engine route do so,we have chosen a 750 on 16" others have chosen 750 on 10" and 1040 on 13" the list goes on. In a lot of cases we choose our bikes for reasons other than cost,the reasons are diverse. In the classic period monocoque chassis were used,one example is Schiedeggers 64 bmw with exhausts running in chassis, also Kurth's cat was pre 67,this tells us that most things have been done in period . Even if we put other rules in place to limit cc, cost, wheel sizes, eng types, chassis types, The Winners would be the same people and the basic reason is we have levels of ability, weight,and age which are as diverse as their choice of bikes. A huge amount of these riders are happy to do their best and ride as fast as they can and know that they may never win and return after a race with a big smile because they have had a good scrap. Please don't lets get too political about our beloved sport, just enjoy
Last edited by 666 on Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
That is very true John, very few motors over 1000cc in period. Can only think of a couple offhand - there was one outfit that used to appear mainly at Oulton Park where we raced against it ridden by Arthur Brease or Breasley, it was a very large V twin JAP with chains, sprockets and countershafts all over the place!! One or two folk did try 1200cc Beetle engines without much success plus of course the double Brit twin configuration. Greenwood and his 1275cc beastie ... That's about it I think, unless anyone knows differently of course
It is true about the sidecar family - you can stop racing but you can never, ever leave!
Well said Mr 666 let's have fun. Not all of us are Chris Vincents we want to give our best everytime we go out but if you have a good battle at the front midfield or at the back that's what its about for a lot of us.
Are people scared that if some one produces a Bike that does not use all round tube, i,e round tube with four corners, that if it were to be successful we would all be crying in our soup, and being a competitive bunch the person who built the original would have a queue right around the block from his house with people putting an order in for a similar chassis, and the people at the front now would probably create uproar, as they would lose there competitiveness, and then join the queue.
I say this in complete none biased as I've not been to a classic meeting in years and really don't know who rides them still, but from a classic sidecar supporters view, I would like to see what was allowed then, Raced now, and if you're going to take the racing more seriously than the Bikes should you not Racing modern machines, and leading the charge forwards in modern Bikes, rather than leaving it up to louis and looking in the past ?
I struggle to understand why people are saying they race classic bikes when most Bikes are relatively new and a lot of engines are new, whats classic about that.
I think the look alike class some one mentioned in thread is more fitting...
Nobody is scared Ian its just that there are a set of rules in place and if they are going to be changed there has to be a good reason for it.
Mike has asked for peoples opinions on a particular point and it would have been nice to hear people opinions as if we need to vote on a rule change I would like to make an informed decision. Technical input by those that are more experienced than myself would have been most useful.
Yet again though it appears to have been used to have a dig at some of us that race classics and classic replica's (that includes me). I enjoy racing with my friends at the CRMC and will continue to do so.
The fact is that it is impossible to run 'Classic' machines using only period chassis, engines and parts. I know I've tried. Loads of money wasted for a lot of DNF's. It is simply unsustainable.
A few years ago the classic sidecar racing scene was in a very poor shape and very nearly stopped altogether. A few of us did something about it and, under the guidance of Sidecar Bloke, have turned it around by introducing a sensible approach to eligibility. You are quite right, it has turned into a class of its own rather than just genuine, original classic machines. It had to or die. I didn't want it to die.
Now can we get back to the original point? Mike's proposal would require a rule change, so my questions are:
Does the proposal offer any significant performance advantage?
sidecar bloke wrote:At this point I would like to hide behind the CRMC rule on frames which states "frames are to be of a tubular construction" as pointed out by my predecessor a few posts earlier. Personally I love to see different ideas out there - to have been around in the Classic '60s era when people had the freedom to try out all sorts of wacky ideas must have been fantastic. But sadly that was then and this is now and if we allow tin chassis in the next step would be a monocoque chassis made of aluminium and we end up with F1 - which is what happened at the time.
So, although it irks me somewhat, because I personally love to see different stuff, I feel as Eligibility Officer we must stick to our good old Reynolds or T45.
If somebody knows where Herr Kruth's original outfit is then get it back on the track.
Ian
P.S. Just a thought - if somebody did present Mr Kruth's outfit, refurbished, sparkling clean, how would I know whether it was the original or a replica? Ooops!!!!
Sorry for crashing Mike, Above is the voice of reason, Why doesn't the customer fulfill his dream with a tin chassis saab and race post classic.
