kface wrote:Going back to the dimension issue does anyone know how much wider the newer oufits are compared to the period ones which were raced. Also it would be interesting to know the wheel offset.Perhaps one or two of the manufactures would like to comment on this.
It would be interesting if someone knows the where a bouts of either the Busch or Rudi Kurths outfit pictured in this thread could get some dimensions off them.
Tim,Phil Holts Original Windrick is 34" wide,as was my 1970 Windrick,apparently,thay were built so they would fit in the back of a Thames van.
You could if it is still on display in the NMC museam ,measure CVs BSA, the one with the parrolelogram swingarm.It was the British Championship winning machine for several years I believe.
Jason,I think Rudi Kurths outfit is in America,there are some pictures of it at car shows on the internet.
The "modern classics" will probably be built to comply with the 62" maximum width of an F2.
This dimension is the maximum size of outfit with fairings fitted that you can push between 2 posts set at 1575mm / 62" apart, the track maximum width is 1105mm / 43.5".
The track on my Ireson Suzuki chassis is 42" the track on my Windle Imp is 34".
This is the dim. from centre line of back wheel to centre line of sidecar wheel.
There were various schools of thought over the years as to widths and heights of outfits, eg. keeping the bike narrow to get better streamlining.
I think that keeping it narrow to fit in a Thames van is a thought too far.
I took the shell off my racing snail thinking it would make him faster.
It just made him more sluggish.
In the early 70's, when I rode for Bill Slack, my team mate was Dave Lofthouse. He was a top three finisher at most British national meetings at that time, running a Rickman Weslake. I remember him building the chassis and he purposely made it to go in his Thames van. The rear door apparture was the first measurement he made.
Dieter Busch said he chose to build his chassis narrow to achieve a smaller frontal area, therefore a greater top speed. He considered this worthwhile, even if it sacrificed any benefit in handling.
The first picture is of my outfit from 1969, a Triumph with 40" track.
The second picture (diagram) is of Rolf Steinhausen's second Konig outfit, clearly showing the very complex drum brakes which Dieter Busch used to make, they were as efficient as the discs of the period.
Drum brakes lose their efficiency when hot, Busch paid particular attention to this fact, as can be seen from the radial "finning" and open back plate construction, this coupled with careful air ducting resulted in a constant brake temperature.
tonybsa2008 wrote:Tim,Phil Holts Original Windrick is 34" wide,as was my 1970 Windrick,apparently,thay were built so they would fit in the back of a Thames van.
You could if it is still on display in the NMC museam ,measure CVs BSA, the one with the parrolelogram swingarm.It was the British Championship winning machine for several years I believe.
Jason,I think Rudi Kurths outfit is in America,there are some pictures of it at car shows on the internet.
CV's outfit with the parralelogram susp has a 36" track. I owned it for 15 yrs
Last edited by 666 on Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lang wrote:In the early 70's, when I rode for Bill Slack, my team mate was Dave Lofthouse. He was a top three finisher at most British national meetings at that time, running a Rickman Weslake. I remember him building the chassis and he purposely made it to go in his Thames van. The rear door apparture was the first measurement he made.
Dieter Busch said he chose to build his chassis narrow to achieve a smaller frontal area, therefore a greater top speed. He considered this worthwhile, even if it sacrificed any benefit in handling.
The first picture is of my outfit from 1969, a Triumph with 40" track.
The second picture (diagram) is of Rolf Steinhausen's second Konig outfit, clearly showing the very complex drum brakes which Dieter Busch used to make, they were as efficient as the discs of the period.
Drum brakes lose their efficiency when hot, Busch paid particular attention to this fact, as can be seen from the radial "finning" and open back plate construction, this coupled with careful air ducting resulted in a constant brake temperature.
In the 60's and early 70's I helped build s/car chassis,most of which had a 40" track with a 62" wheelbase.my second bike had 34"track and 60" wheelbase. I don't remember building this bike to go into my 15cwt Thames. there are several bikes in classic at the moment which are very wide which were built in the classic period. my classic outfits both have a 60" wheelbase one has a 36" track the other is 38"
Not sure ? But I was always told the sidecar builders of the 16 to 12 to 10 inch wheeled era worked on average of 60 x 36 x 12 dimensions 60in wheelbase 36in track 12in s/car to rear offset. F2 averages seem to be 63 x 42 x14. But in my opinion the main change has been in ground clearance ! 4in(100mm) to 2 1/4(60mm) not that it's measured very often.
Dick Tapken wrote:Klaus Enders used to transport his bike in a Ford Granada estate with fairing fitted ,that was not wide.
Hey up Dick, seems I may have been correct in my assumption. Imagine that as a rule "The outfit must pass freely into a Ford Grenada station wagon (1977) without the removal of the streamlining."
Isnt there a minimum ground clearance for sidecars in the ACU book?. 21/4 sounds really low,our TZ is 31/4 and at a couple of circuits we have to get off it to clear bumps in the paddock/pitlane.John,nice to see you can spell better than me.
IF YOU'VE FORGOTTEN YOUR LOGIN EMAIL ME, WE ARE GOING BACK TO BEING LOGGED IN TO READ. steve@steveenglish.com subject:login and whatever details you remember
