The Place

anp wrote:You could get a classic BMW thats a shaft drive that would be easier to seal or perhaps maybe an old MZ enclosed chain tin

Ha ha, that's what I said at the senior technical official seminar we had at the weekend!

anp wrote:You could get a classic BMW thats a shaft drive that would be easier to seal or perhaps maybe an old MZ enclosed chain tin

For those seriously looking for an answer to this problem which may be acceptable to the ACU....The idea came from the above by anp...The idea from john Chandler is not strong enough but that's part of it, a shield in probably steel or thicker aluminium with an inverted "U" about 4 to 6" long piece welded on to it to cover the chain as it passes through. If that was welded with the rear flush with the shield and sloping down towards the chain I think it would be pretty effective. Remember at it's lowest point it has to be above chain height on suspension depression. If this did not get clearance from the ACU then it would not be too hard to extend the inverted "U" piece forward to the gearbox sprocket and fix it there...they could not complain about that...!! That completely seals it without any stupid wiper seals.

Like others, read it all and still not really any the wiser as to how it can all be achieved sensibly, safely, effectively and cheaply !

Even the oil absorbent material can cause problems, it does state in the regs that it “should be non-flammable by design” which when new is fine, however when soaked in oil/petrol it acts as a wick so prolonging the burn.

“Closing stable door after horse has bolted” springs to mind ! if this rule had been implemented ‘back in the day’ when engines leaked like ‘The Torrey Canyon’, and stuck legs out for fun, then I could see the point, but today’s engines don’t try and cut themselves in half with anything like the frequency !!

As with most rules made up by ‘committees’ I think it’s what we used to call ‘up-north’ a “Buggers Muddle” or if really bad a “Cluster F**k” !
What next . . . lecky sidecars ..no oil !!!!!

I will be taking a look at the oil containment on my bike at the weekend and comparing what I have to the new rules. Where there is an area that doesn't conform I will make alterations where possible and where safe to do so.
I can't do any better than that and I'm ready for a fight.

Please don't forget the poor technical official didn't make the rules! Thanks to those who have emailed me so far.

Wal said..

What next . . . lecky sidecars ..no oil !!!!!

Latest news.. Mugen announce threewheeler?
http://www.steveenglish.com/index.php?o ... 1:tt-solos

Bill Lymburn wrote:

anp wrote:You could get a classic BMW thats a shaft drive that would be easier to seal or perhaps maybe an old MZ enclosed chain tin

For those seriously looking for an answer to this problem which may be acceptable to the ACU....The idea came from the above by anp...The idea from john Chandler is not strong enough but that's part of it, a shield in probably steel or thicker aluminium with an inverted "U" about 4 to 6" long piece welded on to it to cover the chain as it passes through. If that was welded with the rear flush with the shield and sloping down towards the chain I think it would be pretty effective. Remember at it's lowest point it has to be above chain height on suspension depression. If this did not get clearance from the ACU then it would not be too hard to extend the inverted "U" piece forward to the gearbox sprocket and fix it there...they could not complain about that...!! That completely seals it without any stupid wiper seals.

not sure why you think my plate isn't srong enough Bill. Its there to prevent oil spray going on the tyre, not stop a 155mm shell from a howitzer . Its 1.5mm alloy sheet, fixed at the bottom and the top. Its plenty strong enough IMHO.

the problem with something above or below the chain is the amount of chain whip when moving. For example, on the over run, the slack will be in the top run of the chain and allow it to move far higher than when the bike is static as you describe.

ive got an idea using vertical brushes like you get on the bottom of doors either side of the chain, but I don't want to fit them as i think the whole idea is bloody dangerous and we should all make a stand and not fit them.

jc

John, when I said your plate was not strong enough, I meant no offence...for your original idea of covering the tyre it was fine...I meant I didn't think it was strong enough to support my idea of an inverted "U" channel welded to it...or brushes for that matter...and remember again a brush type seal is directional..I take your point about whip...that would have to be taken into the calculation...I still think this inverted "U" channel is the best idea so far, as there is no contact with the chain....

Bill Lymburn wrote:John, when I said your plate was not strong enough, I meant no offence...for your original idea of covering the tyre it was fine...I meant I didn't think it was strong enough to support my idea of an inverted "U" channel welded to it...or brushes for that matter...and remember again a brush type seal is directional..I take your point about whip...that would have to be taken into the calculation...I still think this inverted "U" channel is the best idea so far, as there is no contact with the chain....

no offence taken Bill

not sure why you think my plate isn't strong enough Bill. Its there to prevent oil spray going on the tyre, not stop a 155mm shell from a howitzer


work in progress.my deflector isnt very high as there is a plate coming down from the seat tray.also my brake cyinders are infront of my wheel so there is somewhat of a bulkhead there.
also door draught brushes might last a lap

That's taking it seriously Brian! I don't suppose I should ask if it would stop any oil

I think they'd let you out just for effort

No it won't, but the bird is shouting at me because there's a draft under the kitchen door. I've refered her to the FSRA/ACU.
She's not talking yet !!

powerhouse wrote:The Acu are killing us.and the sport. Chain wipers, do me a favour!!!Hope they hold there hands up when it all goes wrong. God forbid
One month to go and were all none the wiser
I'm proper naffed off with them.

I'm somewhat amused by all the posts about the oil containment. There are only 2 changes to the old rules and we all complied with those, didn't we?

1 The sides of the tray have to be 50mm high and the old rule was 30mm high.
2 The chain has to pass through some sort of seal or curtain instead of just a slot or space at the side of the rear divider.

I can't see a problem with no.1 but the second one could be tricky.
The position of your rear divider could make it easier or more difficult, if your divider is close to the back of the engine there will be less whip on the chain so it will be easier to seal. If the divider is at the swinging arm pivot, as mine is, there is a hell of a lot of whip in the chain therefore I've got more of a problem.
We will all need to find some sort of seal and to be honest I think the draught brushes seem the best so far. We must all ensure that the parts fitted are secure or the scrutineers will fail them as dangerous.
Anyone who has any ideas or who has completed their containment could maybe share their job on here.

Now then as regards the ACU killing us and the sport, we had all better get all our facts right before we go shooting our mouths off.
The rule was written by the F.S.R.A. who are recognised by the ACU as the experts on all sidecar racing matters.

i think im done (he said sheepishly)

That looks like a good job to me, assuming that all the parts are fixed securely I would pass that.
I'm off to buy some draught excluders!!!