TIN CHASSIS

[bruce moore]

what i cant understand is why the reluctance to encourage more types of classic replicas,surely if its of the said period it should be allowed !

[Triplebrew2]

what i cant understand is why the reluctance to encourage more types of classic replicas,surely if its of the said period it should be allowed !

Thats how i see it aswell. If it was built in the period, then you should be able to build a copy. Surely it would be good to get some more variety of chassis types out there. After all IT WAS built in the period.

[petercaughlin]

Its always difficult with eligability,as you say if it was of the period then why not allow another,but then if someone pops up with a Renwick Wedge then we know they are`nt allowed to run,but the argument would be "if its of the period etc etc", When Sidecar Bloke packs it in he can get a job at the Vatican, being Devils Advocate on who gets to sainthood, its a bluddy site easier

[sidecarracer51]

Tube is drawn, hot or cold and is measured on the OD, pipe is usually welded ERW and measured on the nominal bore ( ID ), box section is now called SHS, structural hollow section.

I agree with some of the contributors, if it is in period, it should be allowed, I think it is stifling innovation to disallow such things.

Surely the man in his shed, would find it easier to cut and weld box section, rather than bend thin wall tube

[Bob B]

Agree with Keith that a man in his shed will find it easier to weld sheet material than to bend tubes etc etc ...

Disagree that not allowing such chassis etc is stifling innovation because, surely, in true classic racing all innovation ceased in 1972

[petercaughlin]

Disagree that not allowing such chassis etc is stifling innovation because, surely, in true classic racing all innovation ceased in 1972

Agree with that Bob,we are`nt supposed to be innovating,just racing classics,the problem is that when someone builds a replica of an innovative machine, they will start seeing things that they could now do better.

[richard]

I agree with Peter and Bob. we are racing classics and if we innovate we end up with F1,

[bruce moore]

whats wrong with that !! a replica is a replica,bloody hell the first LCR is well over 30yrs old,that makes it a classic by right !,thats also why your haveing Period racing classes
Disagree that not allowing such chassis etc is stifling innovation because, surely, in true classic racing all innovation ceased in 1972

Agree with that Bob,we are`nt supposed to be innovating,just racing classics,the problem is that when someone builds a replica of an innovative machine, they will start seeing things that they could now do better.

[Bob B]

An LCR cannot possibly be considered within true classic rules as the classic period is only until 1972. Perhaps you are confused by the sliding date of cutoff within VMCRC which is twenty five years not thirty or so I believe. Anything post 1972 is Post Classic.

[sidecarracer51]

I meant stifling the innovation of the time, if you build a faithfull replica of the original, why not?.
If you build a replica that is allowed, do you have to use the materials that were available at the time of the original, or can you use modern materials.

[gatekeeper]

more to the point does it matter ---if it looks like the early outfits does it really matter how it is built within reason ---fabricated or tube---throw away the rose tinted glasses

[anp]

These replica bikes of innovation must be restricted by the rules of the governing body of the sport or an organising club then all you need to do is amend the rules to allow them I cant think of any reason why this could not be done why would anyone wish to stop someone building one ?

[petercaughlin]

Trying to "police" them, as to whether they were totally as original would be at least be difficult if not impossible.

[realroadracer]

Well I may as well chuck my threepenn'orth in.
Obviously in any competion there has to be rules. The rules should be reasonable and reflect what you are trying to achieve. In the case of classic sidecars I assume the aim is to race machines that closely resemble those that were raced in the given periods. The point about resemblence is important because I assume we are not trying to exactly replicate what was raced; hence the permitting of primary belt-drives and electronic ignition etc. Where it makes the machines safer and more reliable it is acceptable to move away from strict replication. The machinery should bear a strong resemblance to the original. The machinery currently being raced is NOT classic machinery (for the most part). It is machinery that has been built to resemble classic machinery.
So, here is a suggestion: Let's do away with the tag 'classic' and devise a set of rules called 'Formula Classic'.
Form a committee of interested parties (ie chassis builders, competitors etc). Give that committee a remit to consult widely and formulate a set of rules within a 12 month period. Write the rules; then give a further 12 months notice of the implementation of the rules.
Where a machine is presented that may not exactly comply with existing regulations but is believed to have been raced 'in period', give that machine provisional permission to race (scoring no points) until it can be catergorically proven to have raced within the period (or not).
So you can have twelve months to consult, discuss, disagree, argue, fall out, compromise, spit dummies and eventually agree to disagree but create a set of solid rules that define the 'Formula Classic Sidecar' class.
What I'm suggesting is not a million miles away from the existing situation, as I understand it. However, I do feel that too much of a burden is placed on the shoulders of an Eligibilty Officer.
This is your sport, so make a contribution to the debate (some points you'll win, some you'll lose) and agree to support the outcome.

[Triplebrew]

I really can't see what needs to change. The CRMC sidecar class is a fantastic place to be with excellent commaraderie and atmosphere. Racing is close and fun too. Ian Johnson does a sterling job that is difficult and one that I don't think I would want to do. What I feel does need to be done is that when a machine is proposed that has something new / different to what is current is that something in writing is given so that a decision cannot be changed at a later date if / when the current eligibilty person does. Does that make sense?