Klaus Enders Busch Chassis

[Eddy Wright]

Did Enders bike have ride height adjusters ?

[dick tapken]

not on all the photo's iv'e seen of it.just afantastic bit of kit.

[mr.mrs.floppy]

Tappo you have seen this bike ridden,it is a copy of George Rosges who used to parade in Belgium.Sadly Dieter restricted him to 8000rpm due to lack of rennsport spares, but a good colour scheme is all you need to get noticed.

[mervnoble]

Tappo you have seen this bike ridden,it is a copy of George Rosges who used to parade in Belgium.Sadly Dieter restricted him to 8000rpm due to lack of rennsport spares, but a good colour scheme is all you need to get noticed.

I bumped into Georges at Spa in 2013, he pitted up next to me, a perfect gent!

[dick tapken]

totally agree ian,i run in the same colours ,and i get noticed or heard!! lol

[Kieran Clarke]

Hello Jason, what makes you think everyone will want to have a chassis like the one dieter built? There is a lot more material put into it compared to a tubular chassis so they will be much heavier. From all the pictures, videos etc i have seen from before 1972 all the outfits on the gird look completely different and they are all unique. We are now in 2015 and a good percentage of the outfits on the grid are built by mike richards and the majority of them look the same or if not identical. I am not saying mike is taking over the grid but i do think that most of the classic outfits look the very similar except the likes of john perkins right hand chair chassis. It would look better if there was a different type of 'classic' sidecar on the CRMC grid and if the majority of the people who own a tubular Windle or MRE chassis wanted a sheet steel one they would usually sell their current outfit and someone else would then ride it so it will still be out there on the grid. I wonder who decides on these rules for the sidecars and where they get the information from to decide on what happened where and when because as far as i am concerned, if you wasn't there in 1972 you shouldn't decide?

Mogli

[RARING TO GO]

Kieran,, well observed young man, well observed, alas I fear your words will fall on selectively deaf ears.

[kface]

I would say the answer to one of your questions Kieran is that the decisions are made behind very securely closed doors and a personnal choice of just one or two people!. You also say that the grid would look better with a different type of classic on the grid.As you say "Unique", something different for the fans to look at. Many people including myself agree with this, so it's time some younger people like yourself were given the chance to be involded. As they say "A Bit of fresh blood in the old system".
I am now going to put my flak jacket on and sit back lol

[666]

I've never actually done the contact patch test, did you do it with a complete outfit so it has the right preload weight and at a true tyre pressure 15-16psi?

The problem is people always want clear black and white rules understandably, the easiest way to do this and police it is to use the manufacturers sizing and going by this the Yoko is too wide.

I have a 13" outfit so would benefit from the yoko's being allowed in, but i agree with them not being allowed in they don't look in keeping with a classic outfit even the avon's are pushing it in my eyes.

If you take a relaxed approach to eligibility the genuine classic outfits will disappear even quicker and lets face it the CRMC was set up specifically for these bikes.

Jason, This discussion about tyre suitability for classics should be sorted using facts. Yoko do not give a contact patch dimension! they only give an overall dim which is 175mm or 6.895" The Avon give both overall and contact patch 182mm or 7.2" and a contact of 5.5". I have both of these tyres on rims and a classic weslake to put the wheels into and soon will be inviting any interested people to come to my workshop and settle this debate.Is anybody interested please contact. The CRMC rule for contact patch is 5.5". To do this test in with a few people concerned with this problem i hope would stop those doubters who posted their misgivings the last time the tyre debate was aired. Mike of MRE did a fine job but his efforts were doubted by some. We run a 16" BMW so whatever the outcome it will not affect us .

[tonybsa2008]

Keiren,I think you will find a sheet steel chassis is lighter than a tube chassis,and also probably stiffer.
That is why Colin Chapman(LOTUS)designed the Lotus 25 as a sheet steel chassis,and the customer 24 in tube frame in the same year.
I suspect the rule on tubular chassis construction was made around 1980,when the newest elligible outfits were 8 years old,by people who were around at the time.
Classic racing is supposed to represent a period in time upto 1972,therefore the majority of club,and national level outfits would have been tubular construction.
Only innovaters,such as Busch,and Kurth etc would have built sheet steel chassis,they did this as they thought that they would be superior to the tubular chassis.
IF,this type of construction was eligible,and IF there was a clear performance advantage,then everyone on the grid would want one.
Then you would be in the same situation as you are now,a gridfull of similar bikes,and everyone has spent a fortune trying to gain a competitive advantage.
Why do you think there is now so many BMWs on the classic grid?and very few Triumph and BSA twins?Which were the mainstay of sidecar racing in the period the club is supposed to represent?
When I first started,I briefly raced with the CRMC,and on the grid at most meetings you had BMWs,BSAs,Triumphs twin and triples,Welakes(Nourishs),Nortons,Yamaha XSs, the SAAB and of course IMPs.
From a machinery perspective they were all reasonably competitive,and obviously provided great variety for the spectator.
The triples were the thing to have,then the Weslake took over,then Imps now BMWs.
When one type of machine/engine starts winning everybody want one,the same as modern racing.
So for Classic racing,a line has to be drawn somewhere,and for chassis it was drawn at tubular,and personally I think that its a good rule.

[Kieran Clarke]

Now then Tony
The surface area of the material in a sheet steel chassis is greater than a tubular chassis and the wall thickness is near enough the same depending on the chassis builders design/idea so this would make the sheet steel one heavier. The sheet steel construction from the head would not have the ability to flex as much as the tubular chassis so the sheet steel one wont handle quite as well. People may say they will buy one if they have an advantage but you will find the majority of the people who race sidecars as a hobby may not be able to buy one, but if they do buy one, their old bike will still be raced by the person who buy's it? Then you have to ask who is going to start making them? What if they make them incorrectly? Would you buy one? You will also find in the CRMC there are a lot of BMW's however the IMP's are still winning and breaking lap records so why doesn't everyone have an IMP engine? If a construction of a chassis from the period cannot be used, how come you can use ride height adjusters on a 'Classic'? That is a perfect example of a modern advantage but only Mike uses them on his classis chassis so you cannot say everyone will use the same competitive advantage. Yes only certain superior people built sheet steel chassis up to 1972 but because they had fantastic ideas and creation that were still in the period. There will be no advantage building a chassis out of sheet steel other than it will look a lot nicer and it will add something different to the grid.

What do you think to the tyre situation Tony? Do you think the Yoko's should be allowed or do you disagree?

Mogli

[tonybsa2008]

So if they are heavier,than the inovators,and Colin Chapman were wrong then?Good luck on that one.
As for tyres I wont be drawn in.
Ride height adjusters should be banned in the Classic club,as should a lot of other stuff!!And not just in the sidecars.
Any Weslakes win last year?Anything other than an Imp or BMW win a race outright?Any race winning BMW 750cc or under?(not class winner)Any race winning Imp 1000cc or under?As in period?
When all these people bought new classics,where are thier old ones?Who is racing them?I suspect they have been put away because they are now not competitive.

[steve-e]

well done keeping it civil gents

[steve-e]

notaclassic.jpg (47.61 KiB) Viewed 6191 times

[Kieran Clarke]

Colin Chapman went bust a while ago. Also this is a sidecar racing forum.

Weslake? Yes, Alister Lewis. Other engines Yes, Moto Guzzi and Norton. Why would a 750 BMW finish in front of a 1000 BMW in the same race, although John Perkins finished second on his 16" 750. Kevin Hunt wins plenty of times on his 998 IMP which is an original period chassis with distributor ignition set up and he won the 2014 CRMC championship. Our bike which Neil passengered on was an original 1969 Windrick IMP chassis and that went very well as you know and set many lap records and finished second in two championships and now Stuart Applegate has it. John Perkins sold his bike and Damien Perilleux races it and was winning in CRMC last year. Nick Houghton sold his Weslake to a chap who currently races it. Chris Latham sold his Windle BMW and Paul Owen races it. Geoff and Ruth hands had a 998 Windle IMP and that still has the lap record at the Pre TT even though Vince Biggs has raced there on Busch BMW, Nick Houghton on Windle BMW and Eddy on his IMP and BMW also many others such as Wally Saunders, Colin Lewis, Stuart Digby? Damien bought Geoff's 998 IMP and still managed to beat BMW's, so did Eddy on his imp, and now Kevin Hunt can easily beat a BMW on his 998 IMP and so can Clint Faulkner on his 1200 Imp. Has that answered your questions? You do get to know this information when you are a member of the CRMC and race in the club.

How come you have an opinion on chassis and engines in the CRMC but you don't want to give your opinion on tyres?

Mogli